planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:41 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules






Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9273
Full Genisys trailer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJJBZHkcALE

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4208
I thought I'd start this by saying I'm not always a gigantic grumpy *inaudible* as I might appear in this thread and many others.

In a surprise twist, I actually think the new Terminator film looks pretty good. I'm not sure the story will make sense, and then you have the issue of how Terminator does time travel and if that can ever make sense etc. I'm fairly positive that will be a better film than T3 or Salvation at least.


Didn't like the bridge scene with the bus flipping. Feeling like that came back into vogue about the time of the Dark Knight and has been used a fair few times since.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7472
Not very good at reviews but The Imitation Game is brilliant.

Definitely worth leaving the house and braving the cold for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4208
So a few years ago, the Wayans brothers released a film called "White chicks". From what I've seen on youtube it's crap, unfunny and all the rest.

But more amusing, can you imagine two white guys had gone all blackface and done the race reversed version? Just seems like a comical double standard to me.

I don't really have anything else to say about this. I just happened to catch a clip of it on YT and thought it was a hilarious doubel standard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 3796
mac_d wrote:
So a few years ago, the Wayans brothers released a film called "White chicks". From what I've seen on youtube it's crap, unfunny and all the rest.

But more amusing, can you imagine two white guys had gone all blackface and done the race reversed version? Just seems like a comical double standard to me.

I don't really have anything else to say about this. I just happened to catch a clip of it on YT and thought it was a hilarious doubel standard.

I always thought that was the point of the movie, criticizing blackface acts. Or maybe I'm reading too much in to it, because it's a dreadful film.

_________________
IV
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 3796
A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas.

It's now come to the time of year when I stop caring about the quality of a film and just enjoy it for it's face value, and a Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas is a great example of that, because it's not a Hitchcock or Kubrick, it doesn't stand with The Godfather as a great film that will go down in history, it's a movie about two mates getting stoned and trying to steal a Christmas tree, with Neil Patrick Harris masturbating on a woman's back. And if that's not what Christmas is all about, I don't know what is.

6/10, best watched in 2D, because then the 3D effects look even more stupidly hilarious. I'd watch the other two Harold And Kumar films before watching their Christmas Sequel.

_________________
IV
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:06 am
Posts: 2901
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Saw this movie a couple of nights ago, it was ok... So what we have is a vampire movie with historical figures, the way the movie incorporated key moments of American history with vampire fiction was quite clever. The Vampire fight scenes were ok (just) as shaky cam and quick cuts come in think and fast and you are all too aware of my love for that. The civil war fights on the other hand I quite enjoyed even though there was only a small amount of that in the film, but seeing vampires charge through open fields towards unsuspecting Union troops was quite original and it gets points for that.
My biggest problem with this film was it's pacing, scenes just jump around without any warning and you have no idea if they have jumped 5 minuets into the timeline or 5 years. It's very confusing especially when all you have to go on as to how much time has passed is how far developed Lincoln's beard is.

I feel this movie would have been better if they called it Civil War: Vampire Hunter as that was the only real part that was interesting, the rest ranged between meh to ok. If you like fast paced CGI action fests then I would say give it a go, but if you are more interested in History and good story telling I would say leave it and read the book instead (even though I haven't read it).

_________________
Danger is real, fear is choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco '12 & '15, Silverstone '14, Austria '15, Mexico '15, China '16)
Podiums: 11
2018 Championship Standing: oh jeez...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
Watched the Hobbit.

Just felt so bad, so badly done, as if the money ran out and the CGI were done by amateurs. The fantastic LOTR seems so distant now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
SchumieRules wrote:
Watched the Hobbit.

Just felt so bad, so badly done, as if the money ran out and the CGI were done by amateurs. The fantastic LOTR seems so distant now

Their main mistakes with the Hobbit was to flesh it out, add storylines along the same timeline from other books, make up the main protagonist (other than Smaug) and try to use it as a prequel to LOTR's trilogy to make more money of the franchise instead of making it as a stand alone story.

I've not seen the final film yet and I won't lie and say that I didn't enjoy the first 2, but there was as much wrong with them as there was right! Unlike LOTR where they altered bits, missed bits out and simplified it to make it work as a film, with the Hobbit they added bits and changed the story to the extent that I don't think it is as good a film as it could be it they stuck to the original book more.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6446
minchy wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Watched the Hobbit.

Just felt so bad, so badly done, as if the money ran out and the CGI were done by amateurs. The fantastic LOTR seems so distant now

Their main mistakes with the Hobbit was to flesh it out, add storylines along the same timeline from other books, make up the main protagonist (other than Smaug) and try to use it as a prequel to LOTR's trilogy to make more money of the franchise instead of making it as a stand alone story.

I've not seen the final film yet and I won't lie and say that I didn't enjoy the first 2, but there was as much wrong with them as there was right! Unlike LOTR where they altered bits, missed bits out and simplified it to make it work as a film, with the Hobbit they added bits and changed the story to the extent that I don't think it is as good a film as it could be it they stuck to the original book more.


I don't know about the story line, as I have never read the books. Purely as a movie, the CGI I found horrible at parts. Maybe the theatre I watched it at was not good, I don't know, I just didn't enjoy it.

Funnily enough, I liked the second one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4208
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit films. I decided when they announced they were turning it into a trilogy that this was a money grab too fair. I've stuck to my guns about it so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
mac_d wrote:
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit films. I decided when they announced they were turning it into a trilogy that this was a money grab too fair. I've stuck to my guns about it so far.

If you've got Netflix you may as well watch them as you're paying for them regardless if you want to or not! And although I don't like them as they are, they're not bad films - just not really true to the what I know of the book (which was the first 'proper' book I ever read when I was 8 ) so I hold it dear and that probably clouds my judgement.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4208
minchy wrote:
mac_d wrote:
I haven't seen any of the Hobbit films. I decided when they announced they were turning it into a trilogy that this was a money grab too fair. I've stuck to my guns about it so far.

If you've got Netflix you may as well watch them as you're paying for them regardless if you want to or not! And although I don't like them as they are, they're not bad films - just not really true to the what I know of the book (which was the first 'proper' book I ever read when I was 8 ) so I hold it dear and that probably clouds my judgement.


Watching on Netflix still lets them know I watched it. While it may not be a real effect in any way, I feel like if I watch it on a subscription service, part of my monthly fee goes to them. I know it does anyway but I like to feel like it doesn't. And the actual number of views might make them pay more/again for the rights.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 627
minchy wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
Watched the Hobbit.

Just felt so bad, so badly done, as if the money ran out and the CGI were done by amateurs. The fantastic LOTR seems so distant now

Their main mistakes with the Hobbit was to flesh it out, add storylines along the same timeline from other books, make up the main protagonist (other than Smaug) and try to use it as a prequel to LOTR's trilogy to make more money of the franchise instead of making it as a stand alone story.

I've not seen the final film yet and I won't lie and say that I didn't enjoy the first 2, but there was as much wrong with them as there was right! Unlike LOTR where they altered bits, missed bits out and simplified it to make it work as a film, with the Hobbit they added bits and changed the story to the extent that I don't think it is as good a film as it could be it they stuck to the original book more.


I got to agree with this. I'm all for adapting a book to make it work better as a film, but with 'The Hobbit' it looks like they adapted the book just so they could make 3 films out of it rather than 1 long one (or 2 shorter ones), which is absurd because the book's narrative pace is really spot-on, alternating extremely tense situations with moments of respite. In the film they've just added new adversaries just to make it balls-to-the-wall all the time, which really screws up the narrative.

[DISCLAIMER] - this is just from what I've seen in the first 2 films, but I have no doubt the 3rd will continue in this vein, especially as in the book it builds up to a giant battle at the end


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4208
Me and my pals watched Terminator 2 tonight.

We did stop when the characters got to Mexico as someone mentioned it was Mexico and we decided to go grab some mexican take out from round the corner. (

Then we resumed.


I consider T2 to be one of the finest action films ever made. The effects generally still stand up surprisingly well too. Stunt doubles are quite obvious in a fair few scenes on the bikes but the action sequences tend to be brilliant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1207
Watched the final Hobbit installment in 3D yesterday. Suffice to say whoever didn't like the first two won't really fall in love with this one. Good fun though, end to end action with some good CGI, esp. Smaug's bits and some fight sequences.

I have a thumb rule about books and movie adaptations. I'll either read the book or watch the film, never BOTH as what I did first always interferes in my enjoyment of the other. What makes it worse is filmmakers twisting the book's plot to idiotic levels, sometimes changing significant bits altogether. Given a choice, I'd any day read the book and use my own imagination rather than watch someone else's (often awful and twisted) interpretation of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
chetan_rao wrote:
Watched the final Hobbit installment in 3D yesterday. Suffice to say whoever didn't like the first two won't really fall in love with this one. Good fun though, end to end action with some good CGI, esp. Smaug's bits and some fight sequences.

I have a thumb rule about books and movie adaptations. I'll either read the book or watch the film, never BOTH as what I did first always interferes in my enjoyment of the other. What makes it worse is filmmakers twisting the book's plot to idiotic levels, sometimes changing significant bits altogether. Given a choice, I'd any day read the book and use my own imagination rather than watch someone else's (often awful and twisted) interpretation of it.

War of the worlds anyone?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1207
minchy wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
Watched the final Hobbit installment in 3D yesterday. Suffice to say whoever didn't like the first two won't really fall in love with this one. Good fun though, end to end action with some good CGI, esp. Smaug's bits and some fight sequences.

I have a thumb rule about books and movie adaptations. I'll either read the book or watch the film, never BOTH as what I did first always interferes in my enjoyment of the other. What makes it worse is filmmakers twisting the book's plot to idiotic levels, sometimes changing significant bits altogether. Given a choice, I'd any day read the book and use my own imagination rather than watch someone else's (often awful and twisted) interpretation of it.

War of the worlds anyone?


Spielberg must be smoking something really exotic when he made that one. Absolute shambles. He isn't alone. I remember both Dan Brown adaptations (Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons) departing from the book's storyline, the second movie to the point of being ridiculous and disjointed. 'The Count of Monte Cristo' is another example, absolute slaughter of a storyline.

I'm sure there are plenty more. I understand a film can't capture all finer nuances of a book due to time and medium-specific restrictions, but changing facts so the film no longer makes sense to someone who has read the book? Horrible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
I've just seen last Hobbit movie. In my opinion 2 movies would be enough and they should've been based purely on book, not on some Tolkien draft of Hobbit more serious second edition that was never published (probably because it wasn't good and necessary). The book is just a bit silly fairy tale, probably enough story for 2 movies. The movies have some fantastic moments. The very beginning of first movie is superb. The second part has some good scenes too and it's probably the best movie as a whole. Third part is the worst, probably because there is really nothing going on after dwarfs go into the mountain, byond some battle. Tolkien and/or his publisher realized that prequel of LoTR isn't good idea. Peter Jackson didn't. :(

PS
One of few things I liked in 3rd movie were scenes with Garadiela, that she is a bit like a powerful and weird witch.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
To be fair, the added bits were published, just after his death with some editing from his son.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
I stand corrected. I didn't read it, but I guess this probably something you read after reading Hobbit and LoTR. You do it just to read more Middle Earth stories, not because it's anything good. I read some book like that, forgot title. I didn't like it. It's shame, because original book alone is excellent material for movie (or 2 movies). Still I really liked 2nd movie, so the trilogy isn't that bad. Just some scenes in 1st and 2nd movie were too long and unnecessary. The final movie on the other hand is 80% unnecessary and boring.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
I've watched the last Hobbit film now and I actually think that apart from the whole scene with the white council at Dol Guldur (we know that Gandalf was imprisoned in Dol Guldur and that the white council banished the Necromancer from there, but the way in which they did it was a lot of artistic licence and guess work) it actually followed the book a lot closer than the second film did.

"my thoughts for anyone who has already seen the film" (click to show)
Anyway, overall they were a decent 3 films that I did enjoy watching. They could have been better for those who have already read the Hobbit (which I'm guessing is quite a lot of people), but for those who haven't, the changes won't make any difference to their enjoyment (of lack of) when watching.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1836
chetan_rao wrote:
I have a thumb rule about books and movie adaptations. I'll either read the book or watch the film, never BOTH as what I did first always interferes in my enjoyment of the other. What makes it worse is filmmakers twisting the book's plot to idiotic levels, sometimes changing significant bits altogether. Given a choice, I'd any day read the book and use my own imagination rather than watch someone else's (often awful and twisted) interpretation of it.


This is a real problem for me, especially with Game of Thrones. I watched the first two episodes, then read the first 3 books before continuing, and got really annoyed by the changes they made for TV in later series for purely aesthetic reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
huggybear wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
I have a thumb rule about books and movie adaptations. I'll either read the book or watch the film, never BOTH as what I did first always interferes in my enjoyment of the other. What makes it worse is filmmakers twisting the book's plot to idiotic levels, sometimes changing significant bits altogether. Given a choice, I'd any day read the book and use my own imagination rather than watch someone else's (often awful and twisted) interpretation of it.


This is a real problem for me, especially with Game of Thrones. I watched the first two episodes, then read the first 3 books before continuing, and got really annoyed by the changes they made for TV in later series for purely aesthetic reasons.

I'm loving the tv version of Game Of Thrones! But I haven't read ant of the books yet, so maybe chetan_rao is onto something?

I think the only film series of books that I haven't minded the changes in was LOTR and the changes/omissions that they did make were not major and made sense from a screenplays perspective. The Harry Potter films weren't too bad either, the first 3 were pretty close to the books, and the ones after were simplified enough to fit into a film but at the same time they seemed to work well with the books so that you get a better understanding of the stories by reading but didn't really notice the omission in the films, in fact a lot of things in the film only made sense after reading the books (the only exception for me was the overly actioned up final fight between Voldemort and Harry compared to the books).

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am
Posts: 2195
Just watching Snow White and the Huntsman on TV and it is fundamentally flawed. We are supposed to root for Kristen Stewart, one of the most miserable looking, personality devoid actress's in Holywood. Meanwhile the main baddie is Charlize Theron, one of the most beautiful women on the planet.

_________________
I remember when this website was all fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 3796
Banana Man wrote:
Just watching Snow White and the Huntsman on TV and it is fundamentally flawed. We are supposed to root for Kristen Stewart, one of the most miserable looking, personality devoid actress's in Holywood. Meanwhile the main baddie is Charlize Theron, one of the most beautiful women on the planet.

If that's your biggest issue with that film you're doing well.

_________________
IV
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 6:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 2078
specdecible wrote:
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Saw this movie a couple of nights ago, it was ok... So what we have is a vampire movie with historical figures, the way the movie incorporated key moments of American history with vampire fiction was quite clever. The Vampire fight scenes were ok (just) as shaky cam and quick cuts come in think and fast and you are all too aware of my love for that. The civil war fights on the other hand I quite enjoyed even though there was only a small amount of that in the film, but seeing vampires charge through open fields towards unsuspecting Union troops was quite original and it gets points for that.
My biggest problem with this film was it's pacing, scenes just jump around without any warning and you have no idea if they have jumped 5 minuets into the timeline or 5 years. It's very confusing especially when all you have to go on as to how much time has passed is how far developed Lincoln's beard is.

I feel this movie would have been better if they called it Civil War: Vampire Hunter as that was the only real part that was interesting, the rest ranged between meh to ok. If you like fast paced CGI action fests then I would say give it a go, but if you are more interested in History and good story telling I would say leave it and read the book instead (even though I haven't read it).


I have always wanted to see this movie. Reading this, I think I'll suggest we wait for it to come on cable. I didn't expect the CGI - but that makes sense.

______________

IMITATION GAME

9/10 - really interesting good movie. While it is not wholly accurate, it was well done, entertaining and included the biggest historical moments. Cumberbatch did a great job in the movie as did Keira Knightley (who for some reason always reminds me of Winona Ryder). It is a pretty prop intense movie and they did a great job with that. I liked it much more than I expected to as I am more of a fantasy, adventure, sci-fi movie goer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1207
minchy wrote:
huggybear wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
I have a thumb rule about books and movie adaptations. I'll either read the book or watch the film, never BOTH as what I did first always interferes in my enjoyment of the other. What makes it worse is filmmakers twisting the book's plot to idiotic levels, sometimes changing significant bits altogether. Given a choice, I'd any day read the book and use my own imagination rather than watch someone else's (often awful and twisted) interpretation of it.


This is a real problem for me, especially with Game of Thrones. I watched the first two episodes, then read the first 3 books before continuing, and got really annoyed by the changes they made for TV in later series for purely aesthetic reasons.

I'm loving the tv version of Game Of Thrones! But I haven't read ant of the books yet, so maybe chetan_rao is onto something?

I think the only film series of books that I haven't minded the changes in was LOTR and the changes/omissions that they did make were not major and made sense from a screenplays perspective. The Harry Potter films weren't too bad either, the first 3 were pretty close to the books, and the ones after were simplified enough to fit into a film but at the same time they seemed to work well with the books so that you get a better understanding of the stories by reading but didn't really notice the omission in the films, in fact a lot of things in the film only made sense after reading the books (the only exception for me was the overly actioned up final fight between Voldemort and Harry compared to the books).


I've debated this topic numerous times with my wife who dabbles in screenwriting, and the real challenges with adaptations are ONE, there are some aspects to storytelling that go well only with a certain media type (book or film) and TWO, it's impossible to fit a book's level of detail into 2 hours (or thereabouts) of a feature film without leaving out significant bits, which again mandates twisting the story-line so the left-out bits don't lead to a broken sequence nobody understands. That's just limitations one has to work around, so the filmmakers do have my sympathy even if I'm disappointed in the end product. I personally think book adaptations make more sense in a mini-series format, which provides a much longer timeline and wriggle room to do justice to a book's plot. Also, it's much easier to explain a boring but important episode in a mini-series as a plot building exercise, while the same audience probably won't take kindly to a boring film in (say) a trilogy with a promise of delivering in the sequel.

All that being said, no guarantee they still won't make a hash of everything and even if they do their best, I may still be disappointed because it doesn't fit with my imagination of how the story unfolded :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
chetan_rao wrote:
I may still be disappointed because it doesn't fit with my imagination of how the story unfolded :-P
That was actually one of the reasons I really liked LOTR as films, whether it was because the production team and conceptual artists have the same imagination of me or because the book is so descriptive, I really found the films mimicked almost exactly what I imagined when reading the books when I was a kid. (The Hobbit not so much though!)

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1207
minchy wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
I may still be disappointed because it doesn't fit with my imagination of how the story unfolded :-P
That was actually one of the reasons I really liked LOTR as films, whether it was because the production team and conceptual artists have the same imagination of me or because the book is so descriptive, I really found the films mimicked almost exactly what I imagined when reading the books when I was a kid. (The Hobbit not so much though!)


And that's exactly why I enjoy reading so much more than watching films. A mind is such an endless canvas and imagination such a potent projector, we can imagine so much that technology can't even begin to visualize, forget do justice to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
chetan_rao wrote:
minchy wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
I may still be disappointed because it doesn't fit with my imagination of how the story unfolded :-P
That was actually one of the reasons I really liked LOTR as films, whether it was because the production team and conceptual artists have the same imagination of me or because the book is so descriptive, I really found the films mimicked almost exactly what I imagined when reading the books when I was a kid. (The Hobbit not so much though!)


And that's exactly why I enjoy reading so much more than watching films. A mind is such an endless canvas and imagination such a potent projector, we can imagine so much that technology can't even begin to visualize, forget do justice to.

It does sometimes work the other way round as well though. I do much reading any more, so don't have much comparison for most adaptations, but sometimes the adaptations I've seen of books I have read show a much better interpretation than I imagined. And it's those films that make it worthwhile putting the story on screens. After all, in a good adaptation, the dialogue will stay pretty much the same, it's the characters appearance and emotion and the settings that our imagination makes up which the film makers show us their interpretation of.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:39 am
Posts: 1207
minchy wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
minchy wrote:
chetan_rao wrote:
I may still be disappointed because it doesn't fit with my imagination of how the story unfolded :-P
That was actually one of the reasons I really liked LOTR as films, whether it was because the production team and conceptual artists have the same imagination of me or because the book is so descriptive, I really found the films mimicked almost exactly what I imagined when reading the books when I was a kid. (The Hobbit not so much though!)


And that's exactly why I enjoy reading so much more than watching films. A mind is such an endless canvas and imagination such a potent projector, we can imagine so much that technology can't even begin to visualize, forget do justice to.

It does sometimes work the other way round as well though. I do much reading any more, so don't have much comparison for most adaptations, but sometimes the adaptations I've seen of books I have read show a much better interpretation than I imagined. And it's those films that make it worthwhile putting the story on screens. After all, in a good adaptation, the dialogue will stay pretty much the same, it's the characters appearance and emotion and the settings that our imagination makes up which the film makers show us their interpretation of.


I don't disagree. Despite my obvious bias for the written form, I still enjoy film adaptations (except times when I don't :-P ), and chalk up any disappointment to limitations of the medium involved or difference of opinion/imagination/interpretation. There may be some really good adaptations out there, and I try to watch new ones with an open mind. It's never late to change your mind or be proven wrong (or just that I'm too bloody finicky about details). :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5221
:) I know what you mean about being finicky about things!

It's probably why I'm a bit disappointed with The Hobbit - My relationship with that book goes right back to when my mum first read it to me when I was 7 and was also in a stage play of it, and I've reread it so many times in the 30 years since then that I know it so well.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:36 pm
Posts: 1390
Godzilla. Great fun, straight to the point Entertainment!!
Best enjoyed with some beers and nibbles :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
I imagined both Hobbit and LoTR differently when I read them, although I didn't understand them well that time. I was like 12. When I saw movies, I still liked them. The world shown in both trilogies while different from what I imagined it's still fine. Actually when I saw the first Hobbit it was 10 years since last time I read that book. I forgot many things. After I read Hobbit for the third time, I liked the 1st movie a bit more. With fresh knowledge I enjoyed second part. Third is simply bad movie.

For me books and adaptations in general are complementary. Sometimes movie allows me to understand book better.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7472
Saw Birdman today, not sure what to make of it.

From a technical point of view it's incredible, the entire film is one continuous shot. Well it's not, but it's edited to look like it, and it's pretty much flawless. The scoring is interesting, with the use of nothing but drums for the most part, but I liked it.

The acting from pretty much everyone is spot on, certainly no weak link that I could see, while some e.g. Micheal Keaton, give performances which are above and beyond.

The only part which I'm not sure on is the plot, I won't go into too much detail (As I don't know how to use spoilers) but the story is based around a Broadway Show, but in the opening scene (and throughout) you are teased with a sub-plot which never really goes anywhere.

There is a reason for that but the film is structured so you don't realise that until near the end. By which time you can't help but feel a little disappointed.

I don't want to score it yet, as I think it's a very well made film, I'm just not sure about the plot yet. Though I get the feeling that it may just be me being slow to pick up on it :lol: . With that in mind it may be one of those films which is better the second time of watching.

Still I'd recommend anyone who likes films which are interesting & unusual to go see it and make up their own mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4208
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Saw Birdman today, not sure what to make of it.


My main issue with the films advertising is that I have seen a few adverts for it and I do not even know what kind of film it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:06 am
Posts: 2901
Saw The Imitation Game the other day.

Good movie, not sure how historically accurate it is as I have only heard bits and pieces regarding the enigma code and those who tried to break it. The ending seems to just sort of end which kind of threw me a bit, but the acting was good and story entertaining so I would recommend it.

On a separate note the pre movie ads lasted for 30 minuets and only two of those ads were trailers for other movies. Not sure what it is like where you guys live but usually the ads run for 15 minuets with the majority of them being trailers so.... yeah...

_________________
Danger is real, fear is choice.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco '12 & '15, Silverstone '14, Austria '15, Mexico '15, China '16)
Podiums: 11
2018 Championship Standing: oh jeez...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 6:58 pm
Posts: 3796
Might have been a technical difficulty, so they kept the ads rolling.

_________________
IV
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7472
At both of my local cineworlds (other cinemas are available) there are 15 mins of adverts followed by about 10 mins of trailers, then the same Kevin Bacon EE ad right before the film. Every. F***ing. time.

So the film comes on half an hour after the listed start time here.


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