planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:45 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1273
SchumieRules wrote:
I will admit the shame.

The shame of actually treating a friend to the cinema, as she was alone and wanted to go out on Saturday night. And we went to...

Gaaaaah, can't say it without even vomiting a bit in my mouth. The vampire series conclusion thing (it was not a movie for sure, can't list it as one). The one with all the teenage girls and a few guys in the cinema dragged by their other halves, gagging and looking sad.


Kill it with fire and then bury it deep, as I never ever want to watch something like this again.



I use to make fun of twilight, calling it rubbish etc, until a mate of mine got into an arguement with me saying, you can't say its rubbish unless you've seen it

I saw it, its rubbish!

the second one (i know why on earth did i watch more then one!) was the worse film i had ever seen, until i watched catwoman.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
vikz22 wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
I will admit the shame.

The shame of actually treating a friend to the cinema, as she was alone and wanted to go out on Saturday night. And we went to...

Gaaaaah, can't say it without even vomiting a bit in my mouth. The vampire series conclusion thing (it was not a movie for sure, can't list it as one). The one with all the teenage girls and a few guys in the cinema dragged by their other halves, gagging and looking sad.


Kill it with fire and then bury it deep, as I never ever want to watch something like this again.



I use to make fun of twilight, calling it rubbish etc, until a mate of mine got into an arguement with me saying, you can't say its rubbish unless you've seen it

I saw it, its rubbish!

the second one (i know why on earth did i watch more then one!) was the worse film i had ever seen, until i watched catwoman.


Catwoman had Halle in a tight leather suit.

At least it compensated somewhat

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2124
Location: Perth, Australia
I'm not really one to go into deep detail for a review, so this is my two cents:

The Perks of Being a Wallflower - Really, really good. Would definitely recommend.

_________________
Image
I also have one of these.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 2671
Been watching the DC Animated Universe Justice LEague Films.

So New Frontier, Crisis on Two Earths and Doom make up the Trilogy.

I've enjoyed them. I'm a little gutted they look like they will introduce Black Canary at the end of the second film then don't in the third. But otherwise they do a good job of Lantern, Batman, Superman and especially Flash. However, I really hate Wonderwoman.But otherwise I recommend them to any comic book geeks.



I also watched NEDS, a Scottish film about.. neds. This may not translate well into other cultures. It's an odd film. I enjoyed it and will watch it again but it was different than I expected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 575
The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

My second film today as I'm off work and catching up with some recorded TV. Denzel Washington and John Trvoltas characters are very good but the film is a slightly hackneyed action film without much substance. Good Monday afternoon entertainment but ultimately a slightly tired remake of the original.

6/10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 893
Location: Los Angeles, California
mac_d wrote:
MrMuttley wrote:
Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.

9/10 Classic SciFi


Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.



I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. :( I think it was made in the 70's though.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1260
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
MrMuttley wrote:
Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.

9/10 Classic SciFi


Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.



I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. :( I think it was made in the 70's though.

Westworld.

Michael Crichton directed, and the first ever use of CGI in a film.

You're welcome ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 893
Location: Los Angeles, California
bbobeckyj wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
MrMuttley wrote:
Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.

9/10 Classic SciFi


Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.



I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. :( I think it was made in the 70's though.

Westworld.

Michael Crichton directed, and the first ever use of CGI in a film.

You're welcome ;)


Yeah!!!! Thank you!!!! :thumbup:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1053
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
bbobeckyj wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
MrMuttley wrote:
Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.

9/10 Classic SciFi


Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.



I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. :( I think it was made in the 70's though.

Westworld.

Michael Crichton directed, and the first ever use of CGI in a film.

You're welcome ;)


Yeah!!!! Thank you!!!! :thumbup:


Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time.
Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1260
Denorth wrote:
Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time.
Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.

Correct, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Westworld digitally altered the film image during processing, Futureworld used original CGI effects.
Semantics as far as I'm concerned, but correct nonetheless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1053
bbobeckyj wrote:
Denorth wrote:
Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time.
Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.

Correct, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Westworld digitally altered the film image during processing, Futureworld used original CGI effects.
Semantics as far as I'm concerned, but correct nonetheless.



Being completely honest - it was all WOW! even though I read later about them being first in those areas. And I have to say - I saw them at the end of 80s, something 10-15 years after they were filmed (but before Terminator 2)

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1260
Denorth wrote:
bbobeckyj wrote:
Denorth wrote:
Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time.
Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.

Correct, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Westworld digitally altered the film image during processing, Futureworld used original CGI effects.
Semantics as far as I'm concerned, but correct nonetheless.



Being completely honest - it was all WOW! even though I read later about them being first in those areas. And I have to say - I saw them at the end of 80s, something 10-15 years after they were filmed (but before Terminator 2)

I just looked at his wiki page, I think that he was the first director to do/use something else, I can't remember what, but I can't find out without re-reading his semi-autobiographical book - Travels.
Wiki says that Westworld is the first use of 2D CGI, and Futureworld first use of 3D CGI.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:54 pm
Posts: 610
Just seen The Hobbit. Wow.

_________________
http://rachie-d18.deviantart.com/ - Where I do drawings and such.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1273
Rachie_D wrote:
Just seen The Hobbit. Wow.



super jealous!!! :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1053
Finally watched Puss in Boots - only if you have some free time
and Lockout - complete waste of time

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 pm
Posts: 1958
Rachie_D wrote:
Just seen The Hobbit. Wow.


If I didn't enjoy LOTR movies, is there any chance I'll enjoy The Hobbit?

_________________
Image
Signature created by Adaemus


Last edited by Mr-E on Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 2671
My issue with the Hobbit -

Clear and ridiculous Money Grab!


If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
mac_d wrote:
My issue with the Hobbit -

Clear and ridiculous Money Grab!


If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.

I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1273
jammin78 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
My issue with the Hobbit -

Clear and ridiculous Money Grab!


If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.

I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!



the rumours are (i might be wrong) but they've included bits from the simirillion in it, give more info on the history of middle earth etc, but i could be wrong

i was under the same assumption on how on earth they could make 3 movies from an inherently smaller story


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:54 pm
Posts: 610
Mr-E wrote:
Rachie_D wrote:
Just seen The Hobbit. Wow.


If I didn't enjoy LOTR movies, is there any chance I'll enjoy The Hobbit?


I wouldn't pay if you didn't like LOTR xD

_________________
http://rachie-d18.deviantart.com/ - Where I do drawings and such.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
vikz22 wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
My issue with the Hobbit -

Clear and ridiculous Money Grab!


If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.

I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!



the rumours are (i might be wrong) but they've included bits from the simirillion in it, give more info on the history of middle earth etc, but i could be wrong

i was under the same assumption on how on earth they could make 3 movies from an inherently smaller story


There are ways.

Take the ending of LOTR3 for example. Took about 20 minutes to finish, they dragged it on and on and on.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
SchumieRules wrote:
vikz22 wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
mac_d wrote:
My issue with the Hobbit -

Clear and ridiculous Money Grab!


If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.

I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!



the rumours are (i might be wrong) but they've included bits from the simirillion in it, give more info on the history of middle earth etc, but i could be wrong

i was under the same assumption on how on earth they could make 3 movies from an inherently smaller story


There are ways.

Take the ending of LOTR3 for example. Took about 20 minutes to finish, they dragged it on and on and on.


Would make sense them adding bits from the Simirillion (I hate that word, I've never been able to say/spell it properly) as there's simply not enough substance in the Hobbit to make 7-8 hours worth of movie across 3 films. But you're right SchumieRules, there are ways. They really dragged out ROTK's ending, every time it faded out I was like "aaaaand scene." then they had another scene. I thought I'd become stuck in a real never ending story movie. It's still epic though, completely and utterly.

I find it amusing that they had to cut out so much from the LOTR trilogy of books to fit into a trilogy of long films, but they have to add an awful lot of content from other books to pad out the Hobbit films! They should've just made two films for the Hobbit I think.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:54 pm
Posts: 610
jammin78 wrote:
Would make sense them adding bits from the Simirillion (I hate that word, I've never been able to say/spell it properly) as there's simply not enough substance in the Hobbit to make 7-8 hours worth of movie across 3 films. But you're right SchumieRules, there are ways. They really dragged out ROTK's ending, every time it faded out I was like "aaaaand scene." then they had another scene. I thought I'd become stuck in a real never ending story movie. It's still epic though, completely and utterly.

I find it amusing that they had to cut out so much from the LOTR trilogy of books to fit into a trilogy of long films, but they have to add an awful lot of content from other books to pad out the Hobbit films! They should've just made two films for the Hobbit I think.


I have read the Hobbit many times but it's so long ago that I can't remember the majority of it so I can't tell you how much is added or not (especially cause I've never read the Silmarillion). It really worked for me though! Gonna wait to watch the other 2 before I decide whether it could've been just the 2 films though.
I was annoyed with LOTR that they spent so long over the ending (something I'm finding more and more with films atm. The Avengers should've ended when they're all stood round Loki if you ask me!) and didn't include Tom Bombadil!
Still Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins - pure genius.

_________________
http://rachie-d18.deviantart.com/ - Where I do drawings and such.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1362
Location: Wrexham, UK
Rachie_D wrote:
jammin78 wrote:
Would make sense them adding bits from the Simirillion (I hate that word, I've never been able to say/spell it properly) as there's simply not enough substance in the Hobbit to make 7-8 hours worth of movie across 3 films. But you're right SchumieRules, there are ways. They really dragged out ROTK's ending, every time it faded out I was like "aaaaand scene." then they had another scene. I thought I'd become stuck in a real never ending story movie. It's still epic though, completely and utterly.

I find it amusing that they had to cut out so much from the LOTR trilogy of books to fit into a trilogy of long films, but they have to add an awful lot of content from other books to pad out the Hobbit films! They should've just made two films for the Hobbit I think.


I have read the Hobbit many times but it's so long ago that I can't remember the majority of it so I can't tell you how much is added or not (especially cause I've never read the Silmarillion). It really worked for me though! Gonna wait to watch the other 2 before I decide whether it could've been just the 2 films though.
I was annoyed with LOTR that they spent so long over the ending (something I'm finding more and more with films atm. The Avengers should've ended when they're all stood round Loki if you ask me!) and didn't include Tom Bombadil!
Still Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins - pure genius
.


Tom Bombadil, his exclusion is my biggest gripe as well! Martin Freeman looks good in the role too, looks really well cast. Will let y'all know what I think when I see it!

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1260
One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc.
To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
bbobeckyj wrote:
One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc.
To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.


I haven't read any of the books. But I read a review saying that a difference is that the LOTR splits into 2-3 substories, while the Hobbit follows them from the start of the journey.

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:54 pm
Posts: 610
SchumieRules wrote:
bbobeckyj wrote:
One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc.
To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.


I haven't read any of the books. But I read a review saying that a difference is that the LOTR splits into 2-3 substories, while the Hobbit follows them from the start of the journey.


The Hobbit is one book and LOTR is three volumes so I can see where they're coming from with that.

_________________
http://rachie-d18.deviantart.com/ - Where I do drawings and such.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:01 am
Posts: 940
Rachie_D wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
bbobeckyj wrote:
One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc.
To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.


I haven't read any of the books. But I read a review saying that a difference is that the LOTR splits into 2-3 substories, while the Hobbit follows them from the start of the journey.


The Hobbit is one book and LOTR is three volumes so I can see where they're coming from with that.


OR - to add more to this debate about the length of the film...

...each of the three LOTR volumes contain 2 books. IE The Fellowship of the Ring Volume contains Book 1 and Book 2 of the LOTR series.

The Hobbit is 1 book. OR (and this is where you can see the film studio cashing in) in written form, The Hobbit is 1/6th of LOTR.

8O 8O 8O


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 1101
Saw Ted earlier... Not as crude or lewd as I thought it could be, being Seth McFarlane...but it's fun.

_________________
the loon previously known as dr lee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:14 am
Posts: 551
I can see why they decided to split the book up into three movies.

The Lord of the Rings has a very very plodding pace and lots of pages of complex exposition, songs, outlandish descriptions and some straight up boring scenes of people walking around or the hobbits having breakfast. The Hobbit is written very differently, everything is from Bilbo's perspective and the book moves at a very fast pace indeed. While I do not think alone there is enough material for three films I think the addition of the story of the Necromancer will be enough to allow them to expand and keep the films at a solid pace without them becoming bloated.

I saw The Hobbit today and while I enjoyed it thoroughly being a big fan of the books and I think some moments were slightly irksome, mostly in the fast half of the film were things became fragmented or unessential, too much of stupid scenes where The Company was getting chased across open plains and the scenes with Radagast the Brown I think could have been shortened. Also being knowledgable about Tolkien's geography probably my biggest nitpick in the film was Radagast riding all the way from Mirkwood to see Gandalf, to me that just seemed pointless and I would have prefered that scene and the revelation of the Morgual Blade to occur at the White Council meeting in Rivendell, providing that scene with more purpose instead of just Sauraman ranting for abit, Cate Blanchett getting some screen time and then the reassertion of what we already know, the nine are awakening. Also I did not like the addition of Azog to the story, I felt it did not really add much, the dwarves are already in enough peril in having to cross Middle Earth on foot without being pursued by some big bad antagonist, also his design was horrendous.

But still despite a few sill moments and bits that left me cringing due to awkward execution I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

_________________
Jenson Button
Kimi Raikkonen
Romain Grosjean
Nico Hulkenburg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3930
Watched it on Friday, late show. It was good, many resemblances with the LOTR.

I enjoyed it, even if it was very slow at times

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1053
finally managed to watch The Dark Knight Rises. Great movie, liked it a lot. Dark characters and question of human behaviour...

I have to say I had a very strange feeling watching it after all recent shootings...
One thing that I noticed in the movie and in those events - there are no heroes in public. those shooters in real life are never shot by the public bearing guns for defence... similar atmosphere was depicted in the movie...

... need to watch Ted now. :)

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 2671
Okay, with the possible exception of the Hobbit to be inserted here, the top 10 grossing films of 2012 are as follows (according to wikipedia):

Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 The Avengers Marvel Studios / Disney $1,511,757,910
2 The Dark Knight Rises Warner Bros. / Legendary Pictures $1,081,041,287
3 Skyfall MGM / Columbia $951,066,000
4 Ice Age: Continental Drift Fox / Blue Sky Studios $874,992,418
5 Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt 2 Lionsgate / Summit Entertainment $778,265,000
6 The Amazing Spider-Man Columbia / Marvel Studios $752,216,557
7 Madagascar 3 Paramount / DreamWorks $742,110,251
8 The Hunger Games Lionsgate $686,533,290
9 Men in Black 3 Columbia $624,026,776
10 Brave Disney / Pixar $535,272,145

Avengers - basically a sequel.
DKR - Sequel
Skyfall - possible considered a sequel? Set in the same universe at least as previous films
Ice Age - Sequel
Twilight - Sequel
Spider Man - Reboot
Madagascar 3 - sequel
Hunger Games - new adaptation
Men in Black 3 - sequel
Brave - new

And if the Hobbit jumps in there, it is in a similar place to Skyfall. Given the story is closely related to LotR.

So here is the question, does it bother you that movies seem to be very sequel orientated these days?

I think it bothers me, but in saying that I saw 4 of the sequels in the top 10 (and bought the Blu-Rays for Avengers and DKR). I also saw Expendables 2 and American Pie Reunion. I started off the year with Mission Impossible 4. I don't think I saw a film at the cinema this year that wasn't either a direct sequel type or a Skyfall/Avengers continuation of the same characters type. So, it can't be too much of a bother to me. I just worry that we are creating an atmosphere that stifles something new and exciting in place of either continuing the same thing or rebooting a film series that is not even that long since stagnated (Spiderman!). We also have another 2 X-Men films (A first class era one and another Wolverine one). All the Avenger's characters sequels and the like. I just worry that while the going is good, we are going to force Hollywood into a situation where they only want to make sequels etc and then when the sequels all turn to crap, we are left with nothing.

But maybe that won't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1260
I want to respond further tomorrow. But I have two things to say briefly.
1 you're focusing on the big business studio films, the top ten grossing films are not a fair representation of the hundreds released each year. If anything they're simply the most expensive and most promoted.
2 it's an increasingly common criticism that most films are either budgeted at £5m or £200m with few in between.
And no, it doesn't bother me. For example, the success of Nolan's Batman films has given the studio the confidence to allow him to make The Prestige and Inception. Both of which are original IPs and I think better than the Batman films.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1053
'I love you Philip Morris' - just brilliant. 'Must watch' movie

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1260
Denorth wrote:
'I love you Philip Morris' - just brilliant. 'Must watch' movie

I recorded this on tv but missed the first unknown amount of minutes of credits, I've not yet watched it. Will I miss anything?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 708
Saw Inglorious Basterds for the first time at the weekend... Straight into my top 10 films.

Tarantino doesn't make bad films! Looking forward to Django Unchained in January

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th Place
Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy and Mystic Eddie Jordan's Crystal Ball


Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013
3rd Place: China 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1053
bbobeckyj wrote:
Denorth wrote:
'I love you Philip Morris' - just brilliant. 'Must watch' movie

I recorded this on tv but missed the first unknown amount of minutes of credits, I've not yet watched it. Will I miss anything?



I missed about 5-10 min in the beginning too, so we both won't know :)

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 pm
Posts: 1958
2 movies this year that really made an impact on me were:
"End Of Watch"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1855199/

"Savages"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615065/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

2 great movies imo.

_________________
Image
Signature created by Adaemus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 708
New films I've seen this year.

Excellent: Killing Them Softly, Lawless, Avengers, The Cabin in the Woods.
Good: Skyfall, Ted, Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter
Average: Looper, MIB3, The Campaign
Disappointing: Prometheus, The Dictator, Taken 2, The Amazing Spider-Man.

_________________
Pick 10 Competition:
2013 - 10th Place
Winner of the Nico Hulkenberg Trophy and Mystic Eddie Jordan's Crystal Ball


Pick 10 Podiums:
1st Place: USA 2012, Japan 2013
3rd Place: China 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.150s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]