What I've Been Watching: The Catch-All Film Thread

Great!
That movie isn't in our theaters yet and I didn't watch Inglorious Bastards so I'm looking forward to Django remake which won't be 10/10 without Nero in the title role but could still be good.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I've skipped the hobbit and wait for the video. I can't bring myself to sit three hours and another six for the other two for a story that wasn't meant to be epic, or even part of canon. Now, if it were a mini series it could have been broken out in to chunks.

I haven't watched the WB animation either but I assume it was about as good as their Return of the King which was pretty good.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,209
Location
The Uncanny Valley
I enjoyed the Hobbit. More childish than LotR, and the action scenes were too over the top, but it still was very entertaining.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
…it was that move that sent the movie from 'theater' to 'digital rental' for me …
Too bad, it's clearly a movie to be seen and appreciated on the big screen. Sure there's material straying from the book but as someone said, it blends nicely into the movie. One must go and see it for what it is, namely an action adventure piece set up in the Middle Earth atmosphere. In short, an excellent interpretation with epic moments and breathless sceneries. Definitely something to see. I've already seen it three times (1 2D, 1 3D (both French version) and 1 in original version).
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
499
Location
Chapelle Guillaume
How can people judge and criticize something they haven't even seen ? That sounds ridiculous to me. Go watch the crap, then come back to tell.

We know the source ... And whether hobbit is meant to be as lint as the combined LotR trilogy isn't even a matter open for debate.

As for seeing it in theaters, quite frankly WHY?

- You pay 3x more for a single ticket than a HD rental ... Which will be out in a few months.

- you deal with mediocre cleaning, mediocre upkeep, and the general hassle of the crowd

- but worst of all you deal with the entitled twenty-something's who feel it is their right to chat and text the whole time and get offended when you roerly tell them to STFU.

- home theaters rival the experience in terms of video and audio
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,911
The Hobbit:

I re-read the book right before watching the movie and I loved the movie a lot more than the book. I only found one change annoying: the Goblin King. He was too well-spoken compared to the book and felt as gratuitous as well.

People who think that the movie is childish might want to re-read as well. The book start as childish (representing Bilbo's innocence). The first half reads like a kid book really, but it get gradually darker.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
How can people judge and criticize something they haven't even seen ? That sounds ridiculous to me. Go watch the crap, then come back to tell.

Let me add to it…
I've been burned once already with Jackson's LotR and there is no chance I'm gonna watch another work by him. I got disgusted once. Do I need more of it in my life from the same person? No.

Not only that, I don't need to watch more of his movies to know that he despises Auckland and shoots landscapes only in Wellington. His choice, yes. But my choice is to despise his choice and not to watch more of it.

There is a possibility Hobbit turns out to be a masterpiece. But even if that happens, I'll still skip it and continue to enjoy only the book. And will patiently wait for another director to bring justice to LotR, another who is aware that you simply can't cut out the weapon needed to kill Nazgul and fabricate "I'm a woman and that's the point" idiocy I puked over - when you change something in a story, don't change key stuff. In case you're wondering what in the name of the lord I'm bitching about, use google and find millions of articles about a certain weapon removed from the movie, like for example this one:
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Barrow-blades
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Nice read. In regard to The Hobbit, I can understand why Christopher and the Tolkien Estate feel that the industry has taken a lot of things out of their hands and why they feel Peter Jackson has "eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25".

Two points, though:
1. They are movies. The books, i.e. the original work, remain untouched. *)
2. The movies were very popular. Because of it, many people read the books who probably wouldn't have otherwise.

Isn't that good enough?

*) You could argue that the movies and all the media that surrounds them, by virtue of being a very visual medium, superimpose their images on the books when you read them afterwards and thereby undercut the books' purity. But come on ...
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
3,486
Nice read. In regard to The Hobbit, I can understand why Christopher and the Tolkien Estate feel that the industry has taken a lot of things out of their hands and why they feel Peter Jackson has "eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25".

Two points, though:
1. They are movies. The books, i.e. the original work, remain untouched. *)
2. The movies were very popular. Because of it, many people read the books who probably wouldn't have otherwise.

Isn't that good enough?

*) You could argue that the movies and all the media that surrounds them, by virtue of being a very visual medium, superimpose their images on the books when you read them afterwards and thereby undercut the books' purity. But come on …

Good enough for what?

I don't have a personal problem with subpar movies - or movies that don't do justice to their source material. But I think it makes sense to speak your mind about it - and to give reasons for your opinions.

I think The Hobbit is crap in terms of being a movie based on Tolkien - and I think it's a very crass and juvenile treatment compared to what Jackson did with Fellowship of the Ring, which was a fantastic treatment.

I always think about these things in terms of potential - and in terms of what the result is when a movie is not a good one. It means the potential of a great Hobbit movie is ruined for a very long time.

Is it a blight on humanity? No, not really. Is it a big deal? I don't think so. But since we spend so much of our time on entertainment - and since entertainment reaches so many millions of people, I'd feel a stronger obligation as an artist to stay true to the original source material.

Probably because I respect and admire Tolkien a lot, and I think it's really sad when something of such a high quality is exploited for money.
 
2. The movies were very popular. Because of it, many people read the books who probably wouldn't have otherwise.
I'm not one of those many.
In fact, and I'm serious now, if I didn't read the book trilogy before, after seeing Jackson's LotR I'd never read any LotR book - I'd think it's just another 5cent novel crap.
The only movie I've seen before reading the book, that impressed me enough to actually go read the book was "The name of the rose" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091605/).

Then again… If it's true that many ppl just need to watch a movie to buy a book later, then Jackson should win millions worth prize from book publishers.
But I don't believe in that. I believe that Tolkien's books are in fact good enough and don't need some cheaptrick Hollywood moviecommercials to sell. I believe that Jackson's movies are there just for milking cash by dumbing down someone else's legacy.


[EDIT]
Just spotted this, am I seeing this right?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/
If they don't do what Jackson did, this could be an instant classic!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
What I truly fear - being a purist in favour of the books - is, that people might come and say :

"Why aren't Radagast's Rabbits in the book ? Has Tolkien left them out ? Has Tolkien just forgotten to write them ?"

What I truly fear is the people might see the movies as being "more authentic" then the books.

People who think that the movie is childish might want to re-read as well. The book start as childish (representing Bilbo's innocence). The first half reads like a kid book really, but it get gradually darker.

I read it as a eenager. I wrote a review for it in our school's newspaper, or how these things are called, then.

I found it great. Sure, it becomes gradually darker, but it is still a great adventure. It is in fact so much full of adventure that i thought : "this is the best book ! Foreign country, all of the time there is something going on, adventures galore ! There is almost no point in the book where it becomes boring ! Very well written !" - That was my opinion as a teenager - one who didn't read great literature at that time and who found novels & drama we used to read at school (as part of the curriculum) rather boring, even when explained. They didn't contain any Adventure !

Plus, The Hobbit had a truly - although bitter in some facets - Happy Ending.
It's something Talkien calls in his writing "Dragons and their Critics" an "Eucatastrophe". "Eu", being the Greek word for "good" or at least for something positive, if I remember correctly. The exact opposite of what usually happens in Real Life, I'd add. Superman isn't rescueing people from mass shootings in Real Life. Plus, be has become darker and darker in recent incarnations as well, as far as I understood it.

You all know that I'm against this "dark & gritty" thing, against "Dark Fantasy", simply becaue I hold the opinion that I don't want Real Life elemnts in what I want for good Escapism FROM Real Life.
Real Life is "dark & gritty" enough, I don't want to invade this "darkness" my personal places of recuperation - like books like The Hobbit.

But people seem to want it so. I see a current trend growing over the last decade of people wanting everything to be darker, more futile, more in vain, more reflecting Real Life. Superman becomes … darker, the Dark Knight becomes … even more darker … It feels to m as if people had a real hate against Happy Endings.

An this is why I defend The Hobbit as a book so much : It remains one of my few plces I can withdraw to from Real Life affairs. I don't want any hints of the Syria Conflictt to be in my favourite fanzasy stories. I don't want any poliics in my fantasy stories (that' why I won't read the "Game Of Thrones" ever).

People are going to spoil all that is Light, Love and Happiness. Cynism takes over, darkness takes over, and people - fulelled by newspaper headlines ! - cease to see the positives in life, the blossoms of the flowers, the colourfullness of nature landscapes … And this is why I withdraw and tend to defend what I believe is a Last Bastion of my personal Escapism Against The Darkness - to put it rather cynically.

And this is exactly why I don't like the way Mr. Jackson reworked The Hobbit.
In my "inner teenager's" opinion he is making the book much, much darker than it really was.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-...arillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.UO_a2azhJ8H

An interesting bit of background about Tolkien and his son Christopher - including some insight into the process of selling the rights and some comments on the movies - most relevant being The Hobbit.

I'm with Christopher there :

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

This is very much how I feel as well.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
As for seeing it in theaters, quite frankly WHY?

- but worst of all you deal with the entitled twenty-something's who feel it is their right to chat and text the whole time and get offended when you roerly tell them to STFU.

And if it only was only twenty somethings. I've seen plenty of middle aged business guys, old grannies etc using their mobiles in a fucking cinema. I hate it. I absolutely detest such behaviour. I've called out such selfish behaviour countless of times. It seems very few bother to do anything to these selfless pricks. Movie theatre staff very rarely does anything remarkable spontaneusly. Once I almost got in the fight in the cinema because I raised my voice to some business guy who apparently was having an important business call. Imagine that.

I don't get why is it so fucking difficult to keep the mobile closed for few hours? I can imagine how dimwit people tweet and update their facebook profiles from a fucking movie theatre. The worst offenders are those who make calls or answer to calls…

Jeez, just thinking about this raises my blood pressure. I need to take a deep breath.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
I'd assume that small cinemas wouzldn't be tht bad - if they hadn't already been driven into extinction by the big huge ones.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
I'd assume that small cinemas wouzldn't be tht bad - if they hadn't already been driven into extinction by the big huge ones.

You're right Alrik. Small cinemas are much better than those large entertaiment centers. :)

Sadly fewer small cinemas nowdays. Few independent movie theatres remain and I try to support them as much as possible.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
Doing classic sci-fi right now.

Watched the original Star Wars the other night, borrowing a boxed set w/ all 3 original films. It's pretty funny how much of it we didnt remember, that said we were probably 9 when we first saw it. I think it holds up well, it's a good flick.

Watched the original pilot for Star Trek, w/ a captain Pike - not the Shat, not all that good. Then watched 2 episodes w/ the original cast, and while better - still not all that good because they all have a surprising lack of plot diversity. I mean come on here, counting the one w/ Pike they all basically have a central plot of an alien intelligence playing powerful mindgames, luring the crew into seeing what they want to see, basically powerful psykers. 3 episodes of that and I was snoozing.
I'm going to keep on tho, I know it gets better, way better. Or maybe not, i was like 9 when i last watched it = \
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
Back
Top Bottom