GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Silur
The one thing that really irritated me was that in order to heighten the pace of the movie, they altered the motivators of the characters. Sam, for instance, is compelled to stay with Frodo regardless of Gandalfs orders. Merry and Pippin don't end up going along by chance, they've been spying (through Sam) on Frodo for years expecting him to leave. Pippin btw comes through as a complete moron, which misses its aim as comic relief as well as disrupting the picture of hobbits as "unwilling but courageous heroes". Frodo seems to have gone through a personality change as well, since he's running away from everything. Aragorn seems to be unwilling to shoulder his heritage, something very different from his original character who is waiting for some prophesy to be fulfilled.

That was another thing, the comic relief, was anything but

They really didn't have to put such an enormous "black hat" on Saruman. It's obvious he's a traitor, but we don't need a sign the size of a small continent to say so. Besides, they dropped a good oportunity to explore this wrestling with evil and finally giving in to it. Just because Tolkien polarised good and evil "quite a bit" doesnt mean you have to surpass him. Considering the amount of time they spent on showing Galadriels struggle, it would only have been fair.

He is Christopher Lee as well, that more than anything stated he was a traitor

Originally posted by Silur
Oh, and I forgot *rant, rant*

I didn't at all like the rewrite of the end. More specifically "LETS HUNT SOME ORC" (pardon my screaming) really blew the illusion to quadrillion pieces...

Thats Hollywood for ya.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Would such fight scenes have added or detracted from Fellowship of the Ring? In my opinion, the fighting in FotR was secondary to the story and it was not necessary to show gratuitious dismemberments and eviscerations. Plus by getting a PG-13 rating from the MPAA, FotR was able to reach the younger audience both the book and movie were aimed at.

On top of which, realistic fight scenes, like gore, would have gone against the spirit of the books. Tolkien's works don't show the vaguest idea how medieval battles took place, and there's no gore, not even in Sauron's realm. LOTR is an escape from reality, not into an alternate one. His MiddleEarth is a place where epic figures suffer "grievous wounds" and die nobly. There are no screams of pain from the rank-and-file dying on the fields, no smells of evacuation from thousands of fresh corpses, no carrion taking their own spoils after disspoilers have made with valuables.

Originally posted by Tamerlane


Thats Hollywood for ya.

It is interesting to note that this movie would have made huge takings at the Box Office regardless of what they did with it, this surely means that they didn't have to do it "Hollywood" they could have been more independant, avoiding the laclustre dialog and nonesense CG

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


It is interesting to note that this movie would have made huge takings at the Box Office regardless of what they did with it, this surely means that they didn't have to do it "Hollywood" they could have been more independant, avoiding the laclustre dialog and nonesense CG

Yes, but you need to consider the directors resumé. He doesn't wan't to miss out on any huge budget "Standard script 2A" hollywood blockbuster, would he? According to Borges, there are only two basic stories - in Hollywood, they only make one version of them

Originally posted by Silur


Yes, but you need to consider the directors resumé. He doesn't wan't to miss out on any huge budget "Standard script 2A" hollywood blockbuster, would he? According to Borges, there are only two basic stories - in Hollywood, they only make one version of them

Yeah again, it is me being an idealist i suppose. In the end it comes down to what makes the largest grossing film.

What worries me is that they have already shot all the Second movie, and they are working on the CG for the rest of the year

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Yeah again, it is me being an idealist i suppose. In the end it comes down to what makes the most entertaining film.

Yes, but according to whom? I really abhor the idea that making a movie the "democratic" (ie liked by the majority) way will result in the most entertaining film... It's this mainstream mentality that gives way to """actors""" like Jim Carey.

I can watch most movies and find some enjoyment out of them, but the amount of enjoyment is diminishing. These days, most of the new ideas are CG-based and the story, acting, etc aren't being the least bit innovative, even on scene by scene scale. So, these days I look at good special effects, but that will run thin as well. What will be the next filler?

Originally posted by Silur


Yes, but according to whom? I really abhor the idea that making a movie the "democratic" (ie liked by the majority) way will result in the most entertaining film... It's this mainstream mentality that gives way to """actors""" like Jim Carey.

I can watch most movies and find some enjoyment out of them, but the amount of enjoyment is diminishing. These days, most of the new ideas are CG-based and the story, acting, etc aren't being the least bit innovative, even on scene by scene scale. So, these days I look at good special effects, but that will run thin as well. What will be the next filler?

True, but loo kat it this way, if you make it cutesy and with more generally happy moments it will be more entertaining, whereas if you attempted to challenge the viewer they would become uncomfortable.

Watch the Coen Brothers "The Man Who Wasn't There" the best film of 2002 and one of my favourite films ever, it is truly amazing Babylon 5 did a good job of mixing CG, they created scenes with just CG and scenes on the ship, it was a lot more authentic than the nonesense of integration. Shame it was only effective in the series.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


True, but loo kat it this way, if you make it cutesy and with more generally happy moments it will be more entertaining, whereas if you attempted to challenge the viewer they would become uncomfortable.

What's wrong with uncomfortable? I like uncomfortable. I hate having stories packaged and served much like a TV dinner. 99% of all Hollywood movies have endings that explain Everything(tm). They tie up all loose ends and a couple that weren't loose to begin with. Even films based on books with elusive endings that (god forbid) makes you think for yourself get tidied up and packaged with a possible standard Cliffhanger(tm) for a sequel.

This is just a theory, but could it be illegal to make movies where the bad guy gets away? Or where they don't get each other in the end? I bet they would have remade the ending of Romeo and Juliette if the tragedy hadn't been so well known.

That said, there is that 1% where some of them actually are quite good. Being aggravated as I am after LoTR, I just cant think of any

Originally posted by Silur
This is just a theory, but could it be illegal to make movies where the bad guy gets away? Or where they don't get each other in the end? I bet they would have remade the ending of Romeo and Juliette if the tragedy hadn't been so well known.

See Moulin Rouge

Oh, and I forgot *rant, rant*

I didn't at all like the rewrite of the end. More specifically "LETS HUNT SOME ORC" (pardon my screaming) really blew the illusion to quadrillion pieces...

Heh. I think we're going to get along well

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Watch the Coen Brothers "The Man Who Wasn't There" the best film of 2002

*cough*2001*cough*

Originally posted by Silur


What's wrong with uncomfortable? I like uncomfortable. I hate having stories packaged and served much like a TV dinner. 99% of all Hollywood movies have endings that explain Everything(tm). They tie up all loose ends and a couple that weren't loose to begin with. Even films based on books with elusive endings that (god forbid) makes you think for yourself get tidied up and packaged with a possible standard Cliffhanger(tm) for a sequel.

This is just a theory, but could it be illegal to make movies where the bad guy gets away? Or where they don't get each other in the end? I bet they would have remade the ending of Romeo and Juliette if the tragedy hadn't been so well known.

That said, there is that 1% where some of them actually are quite good. Being aggravated as I am after LoTR, I just cant think of any

I completely agree, there has been little of note recently, last year was one of the worst years for films ever, the best movie i watched was probably Tomb Raider (j/k ) The problem is of course that one has to spend time with a film like that, nuture it, put some creative effort into a concerted plot line.

It comes down to profit over time spent and work done i suppose. It is depressing to think that creativity has become quite so industrialised

Well the one i mentioned earlier is brilliant. So is Momento. Definately worth the time

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


I completely agree, there has been little of note recently, last year was one of the worst years for films ever, the best movie i watched was probably Tomb Raider (j/k ) The problem is of course that one has to spend time with a film like that, nuture it, put some creative effort into a concerted plot line.

It comes down to profit over time spent and work done i suppose. It is depressing to think that creativity has become quite so industrialised

Well the one i mentioned earlier is brilliant. So is Momento. Definately worth the time

Hardly saw any movies 2001. The only one besides LoTR that I considered was X-men, and thats purely for nostalgic reasons Didn't see it though, but it's coming up on cable sometime soon.

Considering the budgets on recent Hollywood productions, if they'd just put 0.5% of that into producing a proper script it would most likely tenfold the quality of the movie - given of course they get actors that can remember lines longer than four words...

Industrialized isn't nescessarily what's bad, focus is. There seems to be no limit to the amount of Silicon Graphics/Sun machines you can throw at a movie, while the most prominent writer they seem to afford/attract is John Grisham.

Actually, I'm starting to think that the real issue is the same as the one that made me lose motivation for my work - the word is "safe". The concept of "playing it safe" has proliferated society, and it's boring. In my work, nobody gets fired for buying M$ (which they should!) or Cisco, or whoever else is the "industry norm". In films, it's remakes of films that were blockbusters last time, or scripts that are close, but not entirely the same as the competitors (see "antz" vs "a bugs life", etc).

My, I'd better watch out or I might turn into a cynic

Hollywood may not be churning out many good movies, but other places are. I just recently watched a French film (can't remember the name) which actually *gasp* got me away from the computer.

Is it Amelie? Because I heard from relatives in France of a french movie which was winning acclaim over Europe and abroad. When it came out here, naturally I went to see it. Anyway enough of my ramblings, just to say that it's a great film.

Originally posted by Silur
Hardly saw any movies 2001. The only one besides LoTR that I considered was X-men, and thats purely for nostalgic reasons Didn't see it though, but it's coming up on cable sometime soon.

Well X-Men wasn't too bad, it was entertaining, but it's story was a little limp, they also relied on special effects (surprise, surprise )

Considering the budgets on recent Hollywood productions, if they'd just put 0.5% of that into producing a proper script it would most likely tenfold the quality of the movie - given of course they get actors that can remember lines longer than four words...

It is well established that Hollywood thinks the least important person is the writer, if you compare the money they get for a script to the money the director gets, it is astounding. Actors are getting more and more money and writers are being payed pittence, something about that doesn't make any sense ;-/

My, I'd better watch out or I might turn into a cynic

Originally posted by Sojourner
Hollywood may not be churning out many good movies, but other places are. I just recently watched a French film (can't remember the name) which actually *gasp* got me away from the computer.

I agree, I used to be a member of a cinema club where only "alternative" movies where shown, often smaller productions, sometimes also documentaries.

Now, I unfortunately seldom have time to watch movies.

Originally posted by Sojourner
Hollywood may not be churning out many good movies, but other places are. I just recently watched a French film (can't remember the name) which actually *gasp* got me away from the computer.

Amelie, by any chance? My wife and I saw it a couple of months ago: damn fine film, delightfully "unrealistic" in its style, yet sufficiently clear in its actions to please even obsessive American audiences. Wildly funny, somber, and meditative. Great flick. @VD, you there? This is something you'd enjoy, too.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

Well X-Men wasn't too bad, it was entertaining, but it's story was a little limp, they also relied on special effects (surprise, surprise )

It is well established that Hollywood thinks the least important person is the writer, if you compare the money they get for a script to the money the director gets, it is astounding. Actors are getting more and more money and writers are being payed pittence, something about that doesn't make any sense ;-/

X-men tomorrow then. My wife looks immensely bored already

You get what you pay for - true for the script writer, not nescessarily so for directors and actors. (Not a very good saying that, since it generally applies when something is cheap, but the reverse is not nescessarily true... aw, never mind) At some point this must come back in their face, it must, it must!

Originally posted by Silur


X-men tomorrow then. My wife looks immensely bored already

You get what you pay for - true for the script writer, not nescessarily so for directors and actors. (Not a very good saying that, since it generally applies when something is cheap, but the reverse is not nescessarily true... aw, never mind) At some point this must come back in their face, it must, it must!

Apologise to her from me, i didn't mean to cause her any torment They put this bit in that film with a superfast motorbike, i swear i just LMAO in the Cinema, it was so crap

Oceans Eleven is a good example, apparently they all took pay cuts to work with Steven Soderbergh, why couldn't they do it for free, it's not like they are on the breadline.

They really didn't have to put such an enormous "black hat" on Saruman. It's obvious he's a traitor, but we don't need a sign the size of a small continent to say so. Besides, they dropped a good oportunity to explore this wrestling with evil and finally giving in to it. Just because Tolkien polarised good and evil "quite a bit" doesnt mean you have to surpass him. Considering the amount of time they spent on showing Galadriels struggle, it would only have been fair.

I was beginning to waver on my idea of avoiding this film, but these comments have firmed that opinion up. One of the few less than moralistically polarized things in Tolkien was the way he showed (or implied) various people wrestling with their own personal darkness, and either subcumbing or winning out: Frodo (of course), Denethor, Saruman, Wormtongue, Boromir. If this is removed, I have one less reason to consider the film.