General Movie thread

2

Comments

  • "It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens

    On the other hand, I found some of the visuals interesting. Tolkien's prose never specified that Erebor was anything more than some stone halls, while the movie gives it grandiose architecture that looked like World of Warcraft. If that's what his prose produced in some readers' mind's eyes, it goes to show where the whole fantasy genre came from. Rivendell looked even better than I remember from the Fellowship movie. And there's an elf king who rides an elk, looking like something off a Magic card.

  • edited 2012-12-18 00:37:08
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I know. I'm just commenting on elves in general because I have no sense of context for anything and am stupid.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • "It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
    I could never make sense of the "orcs are corrupted elves" thing. Why would Sauron turn his seven-foot immortal followers into short-lived midgets who die in 10-to-1 or worse ratios in battle with other races? I get that, in Platonism and Christianity, Being is Good, so evil would decline into lesser beings, but any mechanism for such in the setting is extremely vague at best.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited 2012-12-18 00:58:09
    imagei will watch the heck outta this pumpkin patch
    Didn't he change his mind regarding the orcs' backstory at one point?

    Something about being concerned about the moral/spiritual implications of their being simply an entirely villainous race, IIRC.

    Edit: extensive list of possible origins here.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    He did realized he fucked up with "hobgoblins" in that they're actually smaller and NICER than regular goblins, so he renamed them to "Uruk Hai".

    But the damage was already done and D&D now uses hobgoblins as extra large, evil goblins.
  • "It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens

    Yep. "Hob" means a fireplace shelf, and a synecdoche for "homely things." So he was on the right track when he named half-size homebodies "hobbits."

    Beholder and I discussed this once, and came to the conclusion that if regular goblins live in mines and caves and hobgoblins are smaller, nicer ones who live in our houses, hobbits are what hobgoblins become when there aren't any humans in their houses.

  • speaking of peter jackson i just saw Heavenly Creatures and wow fuck this world

    i mean it was a good film. very good

    but dont watch it expecting rainbows and happiness

  • edited 2013-05-18 00:18:34
    READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    I'm watching ParaNormam.

    ...it's pretty...I dunno... uninspiring? I'm not sure if it's on-purpose or not, but the animation isn't very fluid either.

    I think I have a tendency to not like things in which the movie spends a lot of time establishing the main character is unpopular and picked on. It comes off as a disingenuous attempt to get the audience to sympathize and relate to the character. 
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    A thought occurs that I have Little Witch Academia downloaded and ready to watch...

    So...fuck this movie, I guess.
  • "It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens

    Leigh and I just got back from seeing The Great Gatsby

    There was some controversy over using of rap on the soundtrack, but there were zero anachronisms in visuals or dialogue, and the actors were good.

  • “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    A friend of mine was genuinely infuriated by the film, but the particulars of why never came up given that the subject quickly switched to Tyler Perry of all people...

    I'm not sure if this came up, but I haven't seen a full-length movie in a while. The last, I think, was Wes Anderson's first, Bottle Rocket, which I really liked.
  • "It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens

    Aaand today we saw Star Trek Into Dumbness with Justice.

    It would have taken way more than casting an Indian as Khan to save it. A better script, for a start.

  • Was there lens flare?
  • Sorry to dig this back up, but one of my biggest problems with the Hobbit was the climax where Bilbo stabs the white goblin chief. Bilbo's whole thing is that he's useful despite not being a warrior. He doesn't succeed by embracing the unfamiliar; he succeeds by using his natural skills in a way that suits him. You might as well end Wreck-it Ralph with Ralph becoming the hero of his videogame.
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    ^This is an excellent point. 

    The Hobbit could have used far less tinkering in general. They have more than enough budget to cover the book, there's no need to pad it.

    And yes, Star Trek could have been better. It basically degenerated into a semi-mindless sci-fi action towards the end with giant, gaping plot holes.
  • edited 2013-05-19 01:19:28
    Yarrun said:

    Sorry to dig this back up, but one of my biggest problems with the Hobbit was the climax where Bilbo stabs the white goblin chief. Bilbo's whole thing is that he's useful despite not being a warrior. He doesn't succeed by embracing the unfamiliar; he succeeds by using his natural skills in a way that suits him. You might as well end Wreck-it Ralph with Ralph becoming the hero of his videogame.

    It really contrasted with how he decided to spare Gollum earlier in the film, so it was inconsistent even within the film itself.

    Given the opportunity, Bilbo will always choose nonviolence over violence.
  • Mr. Darcy said:

    He  still thinks "OMG! Lord of the Rings elves! So awesome" He doesn't seem to have any use for the way the elves of Rivendell are depicted in The Hobbit, as merry nature spirits who sing songs with lyrics like "tra la la lally", closer to the diminutive folk of Shakespeare and the Victorians than what he made them 20 years later.

    To be fair, he spent an entire trilogy establishing that Tolkien elves were...well, Tolkien elves. It'd be jarring for most viewers to go against that portrayal.
  • Naney said:

    Was there lens flare?



    A.O. Scott, while praising the cast including Quinto and Cumberbatch, dismissed the film in the New York Times,
    writing, "It's uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue
    lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement."[103]
  • I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
    I liked ParaNorman a great deal...

    I saw Star Trek Into Darkness a few days ago, and I enjoyed it. I feel bad about doing so with the waves of complaints coming in...
  • So, just watched Jack Reacher as part of a social event.

    Wow, that movie has the best problems with motivations. We spent a good half of the movie wondering what was up with the black guy and why he was doing the things that he did. I feel like we have a better understanding of the title character than anyone else, and he's supposed to be the inscrutable loner that nobody understands.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I'm perfectly okay with Radagast and his Rustabell Rabbits. 

    I'm not okay with Azog or the Council or any of that other stuff. It's mostly handled poorly, and some of the other ideas could be integrated with a little more grace.
  • Anonus said:

    I liked ParaNorman a great deal...


    I saw Star Trek Into Darkness a few days ago, and I enjoyed it. I feel bad about doing so with the waves of complaints coming in...
    I enjoyed it too. It was a fun but flawed movie, like Oblivion.
  • edited 2013-05-19 13:15:55
    OK, I just want to put this out there: Django is not a good guy.

    Django is a nod to spaghetti western protagonists, who had motivations like money or revenge. In Django's case, it is revenge against those who oppressed him and treated him like an animal. 

    The people he opposes are bad, definitely. But being victimized by evil people does not automatically make you a good guy. It is revenge, not justice (there is a difference), that motivates Django. And that works well, because honestly:


    Watch this and tell me this isn't satisfying. Tell me that a man who denies other men mercy being denied the same is not enjoyable. Revenge doesn't make people admirable: it makes them relatable. We're supposed to live vicariously through Django, not hold him up as a paragon of goodness.
  • TreTre
    edited 2013-05-19 09:30:57
    image
    Agreed.

    Tarantino actually explored similar territory with the Bride from Kill Bill, really. Granted, the circumstances of what she needed to get her revenge for does make her slightly sympathetic but we're shown that she's not entirely a paragon of virtue either. She's the lesser of two not-quite-evils, in a way, considering how brutal she and the rest of the Deadly Vipers were.
  • I'm perfectly okay with Radagast and his Rustabell Rabbits. 


    I'm not okay with Azog or the Council or any of that other stuff. It's mostly handled poorly, and some of the other ideas could be integrated with a little more grace.
    Radagast's portrayal was pretty decent, I'll admit that. But I would have introduced him in a less intrusive way. The way that Jackson does it, he's just sort of shoved in there after a short introduction. There's no reason for him to be in the movie when he appears, that's what I'm saying.
  • edited 2013-05-19 13:25:57
    What's wrong with the Council? I found their portrayal pretty good. It fleshed out Sauron/Necromancer, a detail which went mostly ignored in the original.

    Azog...well yeah, I agree. What made the Hobbit so fun, in my opinion, was that until Smaug there was no big overarching antagonist. There was no constant pressure being put on the characters, which allowed for a lot of fun and wacky antics. It was kids' fun at its purest.

    Part of the problem here, I think, is that the producers are trying to reconcile LoTR and The Hobbit. And that just doesn't blend well with me. Big fate-of-the-world wars are fine, but turning something that isn't meant to be that just cheapens both.
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    If by "the Council" do we mean, Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel?

    I had no problem with their portrial, but the fact that Saruman and Galadriel are just sort of hanging out in Rivendale seemed a little too convenient..bad fan-fic convenient.

    On a side note, Saruman's comment about Radagast and mushrooms amused me because he mentioned something similar to Gandalf about Hobbit's pipe-weed in Fellowship. 

    Maybe Saruman should start a drug awareness campaign. 
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    Friday and I attempted to watch Skyfall, we bailed about 30 minutes before the end. This is on the heals of watching Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace.

    Yeah...we've decided we probably don't like Bond films, at least the more recent ones. Casino Royal and Skyfall are too goddamn long. Quantum of Solace is fine, but it's also a half an hour shorter than either.

    Honestly, if the Bond films just kept things to a reasonable, if high length for an action film. They'd be OK, but around an 1 hour and 45 minutes in, one starts to wonder when Bond will  FINALLY win and return statusquo to normal.

    Also, they had something of an interesting plot going with the first two movies that is abandoned by the third. :/
  • Living tissue over endoskeleton.
    I disliked Quantum of Solace to the point that I was completely fine with dumping that plot, honestly. Much as I like the Evil Cabal of Bad Guys archetype, I couldn't make heads or tails of what was supposed to be going on in that movie other than 'oil, villains.'
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    Well "oil villains" who where basically rich members of society potentially involved with acts of terrorism or directly supporting groups who where involved with acts of terrorism.

    Kinda annoying to have loose ends like that, especially when M6 actually identified several of them. 
  • Living tissue over endoskeleton.
    I did like that QOS was a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and I would like to see the series continue in that direction. We've had 50 years of standalone Bond stories, so it would be cool to get some more continuity.

    I feel like Skyfall did a good job of setting up potential for that, since it re-established some new/old characters and made it clear that Bond is part of a team.
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    If it weren't for a couple of scenes or lines, World War Z might be one of my favorite movies ever. Still pretty good, though.

    Man of Steel made good use of its special effects budget and had a great fight/action scene towards the end of the movie. However, the writing and acting was atrociously bad and despite the effects, this was a worse superman movie than the last one.
  • THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS
    I wonder why it is that Warner Bros. can't seem to make a decent Superman movie. 
  • edited 2013-07-03 01:50:11
    READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    Superman 1 was pretty good, a bit deus ex machina, but the movie hinted pretty heavily that Superman was basically Jesus. So I'm OK if he used his powers to resurrect indirectly.

    Need to watch #2, still.

    Another problem with Man of Steel is there's a scene where they're not even being subtle about Superman = Jesus. 

    Like...Superman is contemplating surrendering himself to Zod and there's a freakin' stained glass window of Jesus behind him.
  • that sounds supremely awful


    i watched Helvetica the other day. It was nice.
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    Johnathan Kent is horribly written. Just the worse ever.
  • edited 2013-07-03 02:38:27
    Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    "Watch this and tell me this isn't satisfying. Tell me that a man who denies other men mercy being denied the same is not enjoyable. Revenge doesn't make people admirable: it makes them relatable. We're supposed to live vicariously through Django, not hold him up as a paragon of goodness."

    Weren't we just arguing about this a while ago?
  • I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
    Justice42 said:

    Superman 1 was pretty good, a bit deus ex machina, but the movie hinted pretty heavily that Superman was basically Jesus. So I'm OK if he used his powers to resurrect indirectly.


    Need to watch #2, still.

    Another problem with Man of Steel is there's a scene where they're not even being subtle about Superman = Jesus. 

    Like...Superman is contemplating surrendering himself to Zod and there's a freakin' stained glass window of Jesus behind him.
    Also a scene where he falls out of a plane while striking a pose that makes him look like Jesus on the cross.
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    Superman as Jesus is weird, given that he was created by Jewish men.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    Well, they have a messiah too. Or will. I'm not sure.
  • "Watch this and tell me this isn't satisfying. Tell me that a man who denies other men mercy being denied the same is not enjoyable. Revenge doesn't make people admirable: it makes them relatable. We're supposed to live vicariously through Django, not hold him up as a paragon of goodness."

    Weren't we just arguing about this a while ago?




    ick
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    Someone once mentioned Superman as Moses and it's an interesting image.

    "ZOD! LET MY PEOPLE GO!"
  • Tbh I have not seen either of tarantino's recent films due to that whole vicarious revenge vehicle angle
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    Anonus said:

    Justice42 said:

    Superman 1 was pretty good, a bit deus ex machina, but the movie hinted pretty heavily that Superman was basically Jesus. So I'm OK if he used his powers to resurrect indirectly.


    Need to watch #2, still.

    Another problem with Man of Steel is there's a scene where they're not even being subtle about Superman = Jesus. 

    Like...Superman is contemplating surrendering himself to Zod and there's a freakin' stained glass window of Jesus behind him.
    Also a scene where he falls out of a plane while striking a pose that makes him look like Jesus on the cross.
    I noticed this to. Not TOO subtle, but I within the realm of Hollywood Christ allusions. Though, it didn't help after the stained glass window.
  • I mean, his shtick has always been taking lowbrow cinematic ideas and making them into something more in a manner that does not dilute the appeal of the basic formula he's building on, but this sort of thing he's been mining here leaves a very bad taste in my mouth
  • READ MY CROSS SHIPPING-FANFICTION, DAMMIT!

    i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
    Zod was pretty poorly written and the actor was bad as well. There's a great (in that it's absurd) scene where Zod is having something of a psychic conversation with Superman using drugs and the ship they are on where Zod talks about changing earth's atmosphere to be like Krypton's. When asked "What will happen to the people of earth?" Zod presents an ocean of skulls that Superman promptly drowns in.

    I THINK Zod was attempting to show that Superman can either join him or die, but it's just sort off "They'll be dead, this is what it might look like if we collected all the bones and dumped them by the house you grew up in! Neat, huh?"

    Seriously, when Russel Crowe is the best actor of the film, you're in some serious trouble.
Sign In or Register to comment.