|
|
|
|
Otis P Jivefunk
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Originally posted by Ballisticvole:
Most remakes aren't wort seeing. I mostly agree, although the first exception which sprung to mind was King Kong... Don't see... Hellboy Swordfish ...eer, I can't think of much because if I don't think I'll like it I won't give it a chance so I won't watch it. Consequentally I haven't seen many movies which I'd say to avoid...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackadder11
Starship Captain
|
|
Originally posted by newhook_1:I have no idea how someone can call the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies to avoid. I know that it's a subjective opinion, but it smacks of someone subscribing to the idea that everything popular sucks. I call it, "A lot of people like these movies, so I'm going to tell everyone that they suck just to be difficult because I'm an elitist prick," syndrom. Offense intended, Blackaddler. Lots of it. With poop on top. I have nothing against popular entertainment as a concept, and I think some of the finest action movies ever made were made for the masses (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, The Terminator, The Killer), but I found the LOTR movies boring. I didn't care about a single character, the jokes were all horrible, Legolas skateboards, and Peter Jackson constantly tries to throw his heart wrenching sentimentality in our faces (as though we haven't come to see epic action film, but a thought provoking masterpiece from this great auteur). If I want a powerful drama, I'll watch Scorsese or Kubrick, not this stupid hack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nurdbot
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Any disaster movie that sounds really silly. Like the one with the plane in space. And the killer bee movies.
Oh! And the 3rd and 4th Superman movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackadder11
Starship Captain
|
|
 |
« Reply #49 on: 10-04-2006 18:11 »
« Last Edit on: 10-04-2006 18:11 »
|
|
Originally posted by ~FazeShift~:
Wrong. A stupid hack couldn't have done the Charge of the Rohirrim. That blew my mind, and that scene alone was worth the wait for Return of The King.
Jackson did a damn good job with the source material which would have sucked if done scene for scene. Why does everyone feel threatened by my hatred of LOTR? I haven't attacked anyone else's choice in this thread. Anyway, I, personally thought the charge of the Rohirrim (if you're talking about the ghost soldiers, I don't recollect it too clearly) was lame. But who cares? Yes, a stupid hack can do action, as mindless sadistic thrill rides are the kinds of movies associated with hacks. William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) didn't make movies of any real value other than their blatant display of brutality and their willingness to show things that weren't commonly shown in movies at that time. His films weren't smart and didn't have any insightful or original ideas to present, but they were very exciting, and that's why he was popular. But Jackson's films aren't even exciting because they aspire to be about more than action, they aspire to be about characters and ideas; and more than anything else they aspire to be emotional rollercoasters. There's no point in the movies trying to be about characters, since nobody comes to any real epiphanies in the books (other than the trite "there are times when fighting is necessary".) and nobody changes, with exception to Faramir's inexplicable and quite stupid change in The Two Towers that wasn't in the book, and Frodo due to the exterior force of the ring, the effect of which dissipates once it's destroyed anyway. It can't be about ideas, simply because there aren't any noteworthy ones, unless you consider the hippie platitude "technology's so bad, and nature's so cool; we're the only animal that adapts our environment to us, instead of adapting to our envrionment!" (Who's ever heard of beavers? Or birds? Or ants? Surely such animals don't count for some reason!) to be interesting or especially intelligent. Which takes us to what all films are that try to be dramatic without having anything to be about: sentimental trash. The action I won't argue with. I didn't care for it, but I certainly won't argue with it. What I'm arguing with (as I said in my previous post) is Peter Jackson's notion that his films are significant as anything other than a fantastical diversion from everyday life. He has nothing of substance with which to bring about any emotion other than visceral excitement or wonder, so he'll suddenly go into slow motion, play sad music, show sad faces, and we by association are supposed to be sad. It's bluntly manipulative, not at all entertaining, and a pretentious tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
~FazeShift~
Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
|
|
Yes I'm sure you go about threatening lots of people by saying "I hate the LOTR movies!" but not me I'm afraid. The Rohirrim were the guys on the horses. Ok, you found them boring, that's fine, I knew the ending before I saw the films, but I still went to see them, and it wasn't boring for me, and I think not for lots of other people too. And the films were about characters and ideas, as well as a lot of other stuff, because it was at least a decent adaption of the books, and that was about characters and ideas. Nobody changes, except for Faramir AND Frodo?! There are no ideas except the one you mentioned anyway?!  The hippe thing was a noteworthy idea in Tolkiens time (as well you know, hippies came later!  ), I doubt Jackson would have been stupid enough to change the whole plot to make it about modern ideas. "Peter Jackson's notion that his films are significant as anything other than a fantastical diversion from everyday life." I don't know which bit of the film you got this from... did anyone else here leave the cinema and think, "That was MORE than just a film!" I sure didn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
Blackadder11
Starship Captain
|
|
Originally posted by ~FazeShift~:
Yes I'm sure you go about threatening lots of people by saying "I hate the LOTR movies!" but not me I'm afraid.
The Rohirrim were the guys on the horses.
Ok, you found them boring, that's fine, I knew the ending before I saw the films, but I still went to see them, and it wasn't boring for me, and I think not for lots of other people too.
And the films were about characters and ideas, as well as a lot of other stuff, because it was at least a decent adaption of the books, and that was about characters and ideas.
Nobody changes, except for Faramir AND Frodo?!
There are no ideas except the one you mentioned anyway?!
The hippe thing was a noteworthy idea in Tolkiens time (as well you know, hippies came later! ), I doubt Jackson would have been stupid enough to change the whole plot to make it about modern ideas.
"Peter Jackson's notion that his films are significant as anything other than a fantastical diversion from everyday life."
I don't know which bit of the film you got this from... did anyone else here leave the cinema and think, "That was MORE than just a film!"
I sure didn't. My choice of LOTR as bad films must be threatening to some degree or people wouldn't keep attacking it, is my point. Anyway, this is kind of senseless, isn't it? I've already defended my position in an articulate fashion, I see no reason to do it again, and I realize it's a popular movie lots of people loved. I hated it, that's why I posted it, my opinion isn't changing yours, yours isn't changing mine, so what's the point in this banter? Subjective things are kind of dumb to argue about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
newhook_1
Urban Legend
|
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 10-04-2006 23:01 »
« Last Edit on: 10-04-2006 23:01 »
|
|
Aragorn goes from a ranger that sleeps in the mud to a noble king. Sam gradually goes from a frightend little hobbit to a hero. 2 sworn enemies, Legolas and Gimli, become good friends. Gollum almost beats his addiction to the ring, but fails because of his weaknesses. This is all character development.
Anyway, in my view the problem isn't the fact that you personally don't like the movies. Some of my best friends don't like LOTR. If it's not your thing I have no beef with that, but the films are based on a novel that entire university classes are based around, and has sold more copies than any other book in the 1900s except for the bible, despite the notable handicap of not being released until halfway through century, a film version was once deemed "impossible" by Stanley Kubrick himself, and the final film of the trilogy won 11 oscars. The point I'm getting at is the fact that even if you don't personally like the movies, a lot of people obviously see something special here, so I really think that alone makes them worth checking out at least once. You didn't merely classify them as films that you don't like, you essentially said that people shouldn't see them at all.
And as for the shots at the book, if you really want to get into some of the academic dicussions I've had about LOTR in 3rd year university english classes feel free to bump the LOTR thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farnsworth38
Professor
|
|
Damnation Alley: Despite a fantastic piece of tech - the Landmaster all-terrain vehicle - this was a total failure with dire special effects and, fortunately, it has vanished without a trace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transgender nerd under canada
DOOP Ubersecretary
|
|
Originally posted by Blackadder11:
Subjective things are kind of dumb to argue about. Then why bother with the bashing which you must have known was going to kick off an argument? Unless you were just looking for an excuse to call people dumb, which would make all your posts in this thread unashamed flames. If it's "dumb" to argue about it, then surely the guy who started the argument is "dumber" than most? Either you can handle the ramifications of your own statements and are prepared to accpet the critiques of others, or you should not be posting them. Take responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackadder11
Starship Captain
|
|
Originally posted by DrZoidberg112:
The Sound Of Music.
Bye Bye Birdie.
Any other musicals! Muscials can be pretty awesome if they're done right. Examples: The Blues Brothers South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut Canibal! the Musical Monty Python's the Meaning of Life
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gopher
Fallback Guy
Space Pope
|
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 10-28-2006 15:16 »
« Last Edit on: 10-28-2006 15:16 »
|
|
Ok, it's normally a good movie but stay the hell away from TNT's commercial-edited version of the Matrix. Dear lord, I couldn't believe some of the things they cut. I could go on for 10,000 words but I'll limit myself to 2 examples. first: When Smith is giving the treatment to Morpheus, they cut out several bits, causing the dialog to make no sense whatsoever. Here's an example, I've struck-through what they cut out of this line. Agent Smith
Have you ever stood and stared at it, marveled at it's beauty, it's genius? Billions of people just living out their lives, oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world. Where none suffered. Where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this, the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization which is of course what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time. Yes, just that. It couldn't have shaved more than a second off. I replayed it three times to convince myself that my ears weren't playing tricks on me. The other thing is much more simple: They cut out the f!@#ing spoon! The editor who thought the two girls levitating blocks was more important to the story than the bit with the spoon should be sacked, and never allowed to touch film again for the rest of his life. |
|
|
|
|
|
Nurdbot
DOOP Secretary
|
|
Originally posted by MrBlonde:
Men in White? Is that like a straight to dvd sequel to Men In Black? More of a a cheap parody spoof of it. With some really rarely funny bits too. Made by National Lampoon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
futurefreak
salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
|
|
The Perfect Score
Sense & Sensibility
Not Another Teen Movie
|
|
|
|
|
|
btyrie
Bending Unit
|
|
Titanic (1997)  Pearl Harbour (2001) Carnosaur 1 King Kong (2005) The Core (the ultimate crapfest) Originally posted by Venus:
I'd rather jab a spork into my eye then rewatch Fight Club and Blair Witch I'll second that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transgender nerd under canada
DOOP Ubersecretary
|
|
Originally posted by btyrie:
The Core (the ultimate crapfest)
Personally, I like it because it's a bag of shite. It's a very funny film when you're drujnk off your ass, and can't possibly take anything seriously. So. Very. Funny. It's almost as if they meant for it to be a complete pile of wank, so that it would end up being embraced for comedy value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author
