planetf1.com

SchumieRules wrote:

Saz wrote:Seen the new Mad Max film and it was great fun. Not the most cerebral of films, but very engaging and entertaining. Like Mincy said, not the most complex of plots and mostly just an excuse for the vechilar action.

But one of the really great things about that film was the character of Furiosa. Finally Hollywood has managed the almost impossible - made a strong female character without making her a "guy with boobs". For years women in action films have been either the "guy with boobs" or "the mother". So it was great to see a woman finally cast who is strong minded and willed, but also having flaws and still having a feminine streak (like her motivations). For me she was the standout character. I hope to see more women in action films portaried like this, it was great to see.

Well said. Watched it last night, my girlfriend even liked it, the guy with the guitar was outstanding for her! Reminded me a lot of Thunderdome, the whole concept. It was just brilliant. I would like Max to be more engaging, the whole story is about Max (well, it's in the title anyway), but Furiosa steals the show I think. Great great film

There's a great fan theory where "Max" is actually the feral kid from Road Warrior.

I agree with Saz that Furiosa was portrayed well - a bit Ripley-esque.

Covalent wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:

Saz wrote:Seen the new Mad Max film and it was great fun. Not the most cerebral of films, but very engaging and entertaining. Like Mincy said, not the most complex of plots and mostly just an excuse for the vechilar action.

But one of the really great things about that film was the character of Furiosa. Finally Hollywood has managed the almost impossible - made a strong female character without making her a "guy with boobs". For years women in action films have been either the "guy with boobs" or "the mother". So it was great to see a woman finally cast who is strong minded and willed, but also having flaws and still having a feminine streak (like her motivations). For me she was the standout character. I hope to see more women in action films portaried like this, it was great to see.

Well said. Watched it last night, my girlfriend even liked it, the guy with the guitar was outstanding for her! Reminded me a lot of Thunderdome, the whole concept. It was just brilliant. I would like Max to be more engaging, the whole story is about Max (well, it's in the title anyway), but Furiosa steals the show I think. Great great film

There's a great fan theory where "Max" is actually the feral kid from Road Warrior.

I agree with Saz that Furiosa was portrayed well - a bit Ripley-esque.

I have heard about it, what's the theory behind it though?

SchumieRules wrote:

Covalent wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:

Saz wrote:Seen the new Mad Max film and it was great fun. Not the most cerebral of films, but very engaging and entertaining. Like Mincy said, not the most complex of plots and mostly just an excuse for the vechilar action.

But one of the really great things about that film was the character of Furiosa. Finally Hollywood has managed the almost impossible - made a strong female character without making her a "guy with boobs". For years women in action films have been either the "guy with boobs" or "the mother". So it was great to see a woman finally cast who is strong minded and willed, but also having flaws and still having a feminine streak (like her motivations). For me she was the standout character. I hope to see more women in action films portaried like this, it was great to see.

Well said. Watched it last night, my girlfriend even liked it, the guy with the guitar was outstanding for her! Reminded me a lot of Thunderdome, the whole concept. It was just brilliant. I would like Max to be more engaging, the whole story is about Max (well, it's in the title anyway), but Furiosa steals the show I think. Great great film

There's a great fan theory where "Max" is actually the feral kid from Road Warrior.

I agree with Saz that Furiosa was portrayed well - a bit Ripley-esque.

I have heard about it, what's the theory behind it though?

http://nerdist.com/mad-max-fan-theory-w ... oad-again/

There’s a fun fan theory making its way around the interwebs that proposes that Hardy is Max in moniker only. As if Gibson’s Max passed the torch along with his jacket and his V8 Interceptor on to a new Road Warrior…but if this is true, then who is this mysterious man hesitatingly calling himself Max in Fury Road?

Maybe someone not so mysterious after all, someone we were already introduced to long ago, though he was only a boy then…a growling, grunting, boomerang-throwing boy. None other than ‘The Feral Kid’ from Road Warrior (played then by Emil Minty)!



When Max Rockatansky happened upon Pappagallo’s tribe, The Feral Kid became enamored with The Road Warrior — who gave him a small wind-up music box. A music box similar to the one that we see Hardy’s Max have in his possessions, found by one of the wives in the War Rig. And that’s the first major clue at what could be one of the coolest subtle plot points in the Millerverse.

Ah, ok, thank you. I don't remember the music box being found by the wives, and I find it difficult as Hardy was still a prisoner when he came to the War Rig. How would he be able to have the music box on him? Anyway, it would make it a cool subplot

Have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed Jurassic World. Despite it's ludicrous plot and typical cliques of evil & stupid military types/rich guy trying to be responsible and failing/invisible corporate overlords concerned for their shareholders and profits/irresponsible science guy etc etc - it was simply good, fun entertainment. Loads of hints to the previous films in the franchise, some good comedy moments and of course loads of cool Dino effects (realistic or otherwise).

I heard Jurassic World did great world wide. I assumed it would be a bit cliche with the plot and dialogue, but I've been really getting the impression that no matter what Chris Pratt is going to star in that it will do fantastic at this point. Audiences have really been gravitating toward him as a leading man. I personally love the guy on screen so can't blame them!

I saw Jurassic World last night and I think minchy's comments sum up pretty much how I felt. Yes the whole 'training the velociraptors' plot was ludicrous but for a film such as this does it matter?

coulthards chin wrote:Yes the whole 'training the velociraptors' plot was ludicrous but for a film such as this does it matter?

Not at all, IMO! It's essentially a fantasy film that tries to build that fantasy on our everyday reality. So I'm OK with it. You have to allow for some new ideas and concepts or everything would be even more stale than just the typical rehashed storylines. Besides, if the velociraptors are as smart as what they theorize, then it might still be somewhat possible anyhow if it were indeed real life.

I liked it too, best of the sequels by far.

Watched "Spy" last night. Quite entertaining, very funny at times. Statham was great!

Watched Jurrasic World at the weekend. I really enjoyed the film! Like everyone said, the plot was stupid but at the same time it also made for some great scenes. The trained Veloceraptors were hilarious.

My favourite part was the ending 10mins or so though.

Saw Terminator Genisys yesterday, as a fan of the first two I have to say this one was the best of the rest.

Covalent wrote:Saw Terminator Genisys yesterday, as a fan of the first two I have to say this one was the best of the rest.

Damning with faint praise?

bbobeckyj wrote:

Covalent wrote:Saw Terminator Genisys yesterday, as a fan of the first two I have to say this one was the best of the rest.

Damning with faint praise?

Something like that! No I did enjoy it but of course it wasn't as good as the first two - but what is?

Covalent wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

Covalent wrote:Saw Terminator Genisys yesterday, as a fan of the first two I have to say this one was the best of the rest.

Damning with faint praise?

Something like that! No I did enjoy it but of course it wasn't as good as the first two - but what is?

I like Terminator, but T2 is one of the best action films ever made (at least that I've seen). The effects still hold up well, which is really a testament to them given it's over 20 years old. It has the comedy factor also. But most of all, the action kicks into high gear after they hit Mexico to get the guns, then they go to Dyson's house, Cyberdyne, car chase and steel works and that who bit is all near perfect in pacing and excitement. I really would have to say T2 is one of my favourite action films.

I fancy Genisys (rare for me to actually want to see a film in the cinema other than superhero stuff) and think I might actually see it. The newspaper I read at the weekend reviewed it rather poorly.

T3 was okay bit not great, Salvation much the same. I'd definitely have T2 > T >> T3/Salvation in my current hierarchy.

My wife and I took her stepbrother and stepsister to Jurassic World this weekend. We all loved it! I can't truly pick out something from the film I despised, so that's always a winner in my book! Felt the pacing, editing, acting, etc. were all great. But maybe I just love Chris Pratt now. :p

T2:JD > TT > T:Salvation > T3:RotM

In my book at least! Terminator 2 is a staple of my childhood along with Predator. Loved my A'nold movies as a kid. T2 has to be in the running for best sequel of all time. Hard to choose between that, Aliens, or The Godfather II. Not sure if I'll bother going to go see Genysis or not.

Honda Quick wrote:My wife and I took her stepbrother and stepsister to Jurassic World this weekend. We all loved it! I can't truly pick out something from the film I despised, so that's always a winner in my book! Felt the pacing, editing, acting, etc. were all great. But maybe I just love Chris Pratt now. :p

T2:JD > TT > T:Salvation > T3:RotM

In my book at least! Terminator 2 is a staple of my childhood along with Predator. Loved my A'nold movies as a kid. T2 has to be in the running for best sequel of all time. Hard to choose between that, Aliens, or The Godfather II. Not sure if I'll bother going to go see Genysis or not.

Not to spoil it too much, if you are a true fan of of the first two, there are a few treats for you in Genisys.

I've just heard about this film "Lauda : The untold Story" which I've booked to go and see tonight. Don't know whether there'll actually be anything new but it'll be good to hear him talk about the Nurburgring accident and his recovery. Probably be better than "Rush".

Just got back from Jurassic World, and have to disagree with the ludicrous plot. It's largely the same plot as the Dodgson/Nedry plan from the first two, but if it had actually worked (up until it didn't). I mean it's still a silly plot, but not moreso than the originals.
I do have to say though, the velociraptors (actually more Deinonychus, but that's splitting hairs) look weird. Maybe it's because they messed up the visual effects in the first one, and that's what I use as a reference of what that dinosaur looks like, but all the size scaling of the new ones looks off.

Supremely entertaining film though, especially on a big screen. Well worth seeing if you are a fan of the original.

Watched "The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2113681/) on Sat night, as I discovered that my Amazon Prime has quite a few good movies available to me!

I did enjoy it a lot, a few funny moments (like Herbert Einstein). But too much of a "Forest Gump" wannabe, if anyone has seen it you'll recognise the pattern. Still, a thoroughly enjoyable movie!

7/10

Watched "Inside Out" last night, quite a nice animation. Although I don't think it was meant just for kids, it was quite deep some times, sad, happy, everything. I enjoyed it, my colleague's children were confused

I watched Terminator Genisys last night. It's such an odd film. Story wise, it's not that bad if you consider the plots of the rest of the Terminator Franchise (not that it's particularly good mind you, just relative to Terminators it doesn't suck).
Most of the film is alright, in the way generic action films these days are. That weird blue/orange filter everyone uses now, some pretty good stunt bits, etc.
The biggest issue with it is the cast, especially relative to the other films. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't picked for his acting talent originally, he was picked because he was built like a mountain and could pass for a T-800's multi-ton frame. He was too old to convincingly play an indestructible robot back in 2003 for Rise of the Machines, and they should have replaced him. They even makes jokes about his age during the film. Ironically Jai Courtney could have been a realistic replacement as a Terminator.
Which is the second issue. Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese is hilariously bad casting. He just plays 'generic action hero', not the damaged, battle weary saviour of humanity that he is supposed to be. If you photoshopped Emilia Clarke and Arnold Schwarzenegger over Bruce Willis and Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Die Hard: This one's in Russia, you wouldn't be able to tell from the scenes Courtney is in which film you were watching.
The real, huge issue though is the new 'badass' Sarah Connor. We are told that she isn't the naive young thing from Terminator anymore, and that she's been badass T2 Sarah Connor for a long time. Except between Emilia Clarke and the screenplay, they mess it up. Badly. The screenplay has her whining about everything, and disagreeing with plans devised by people with a lot more knowledge.
Emilia Clarke apparently decided to phone in her 'kinda Dany Stormborn' performance. It's no worse than Jai or Arnold (or Jason Clarke, or Dr Who), but compared to Linda Hamilton she's poor. Compared to her Game of Thrones co-star Lena Headey, who had the role just before getting her Game of Thrones gig, she is even worse.

More specifically with the plot of the film: Despite all that, I enjoyed it. I mean I won't watch it again, and you couldn't pay me to get a dvd/bluray copy, but it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, and I made it to the end without turning off.

huggybear wrote:I watched Terminator Genisys last night. It's such an odd film. Story wise, it's not that bad if you consider the plots of the rest of the Terminator Franchise (not that it's particularly good mind you, just relative to Terminators it doesn't suck).
Most of the film is alright, in the way generic action films these days are. That weird blue/orange filter everyone uses now, some pretty good stunt bits, etc.
The biggest issue with it is the cast, especially relative to the other films. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't picked for his acting talent originally, he was picked because he was built like a mountain and could pass for a T-800's multi-ton frame. He was too old to convincingly play an indestructible robot back in 2003 for Rise of the Machines, and they should have replaced him. They even makes jokes about his age during the film. Ironically Jai Courtney could have been a realistic replacement as a Terminator.
Which is the second issue. Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese is hilariously bad casting. He just plays 'generic action hero', not the damaged, battle weary saviour of humanity that he is supposed to be. If you photoshopped Emilia Clarke and Arnold Schwarzenegger over Bruce Willis and Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Die Hard: This one's in Russia, you wouldn't be able to tell from the scenes Courtney is in which film you were watching.
The real, huge issue though is the new 'badass' Sarah Connor. We are told that she isn't the naive young thing from Terminator anymore, and that she's been badass T2 Sarah Connor for a long time. Except between Emilia Clarke and the screenplay, they mess it up. Badly. The screenplay has her whining about everything, and disagreeing with plans devised by people with a lot more knowledge.
Emilia Clarke apparently decided to phone in her 'kinda Dany Stormborn' performance. It's no worse than Jai or Arnold (or Jason Clarke, or Dr Who), but compared to Linda Hamilton she's poor. Compared to her Game of Thrones co-star Lena Headey, who had the role just before getting her Game of Thrones gig, she is even worse.

More specifically with the plot of the film:

Spoiler (click to show)

Why do they do they not kill Kyle Reese? His sole role is to protect Sarah Connor and get her pregnant, both of which are redundant plot points now that the T-800 is protecting her, and John Connor is a bad guy. Literally as soon as he reveals this, put a bullet in Reese's face. They don't owe him anything. Kyle Reese dies, Sarah Connor is safe, Reese doesn't mess up the future timeline by trying to steer it back on course. T2/T3 has already established that you can't alter the future, you just delay it if you change stuff. Knowing this, they aren't stopping the human resistance, just removing John Connor from it, and changing up the gameplan (in the process, making it harder for Skynet to beat the humans).
If they truly think they can change the future, why in the bejesus with their programmable time machine have they not gone back in time to the 1950s and straight up murdered Miles Dyson as a kid? That stops Cyberdyne being a thing, which stops Skynet being a thing, which stops the war.

Oh and the whole 'we can only send back biological matter through time' thing is ridiculous. They wrap the T-800 in skin to fool it, but they send back a T-1000 liquid metal thing, and a T-3000 nanobot thing that's completely metal too with no issues. Except when they want to kill the T-3000 and apparently it's now deadly to metal again. What's up with that?

Despite all that, I enjoyed it. I mean I won't watch it again, and you couldn't pay me to get a dvd/bluray copy, but it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen, and I made it to the end without turning off.

I watched it last night and I agree with everything.

I had no idea who was in it, Emilia Clarke! She was so annoying though, for some reason really annoyed me. Can't even point to what. Maybe I was used to Linda Hamilton, who was awesome in her role in both her films. Jai Courtney, he was horrible. Never clicked, never made an impression. Frankly, the only one who I loved in the role was Arnie. And J. K. Simmons of course.

As for your spoiler and Miles Dyson, I think you just gave them an idea for a whole new franchise!!!!!!!!

SchumieRules wrote: I watched it last night and I agree with everything.

I had no idea who was in it, Emilia Clarke! She was so annoying though, for some reason really annoyed me. Can't even point to what. Maybe I was used to Linda Hamilton, who was awesome in her role in both her films. Jai Courtney, he was horrible. Never clicked, never made an impression. Frankly, the only one who I loved in the role was Arnie. And J. K. Simmons of course.

As for your spoiler and Miles Dyson, I think you just gave them an idea for a whole new franchise!!!!!!!!

I rewatched Terminator 2 this weekend on Bluray, and I kinda think I know what the problem is. In Terminator, Sarah Connor is 19. Badass Sarah Connor from T2 is 29, and the TSCC version is 33. Because they set the film in 1984, they needed an actress that could pass for 19, but they based the character off the T2 version, and forgot that the later version is a grown woman who's actually given birth to John Connor and is protecting her child instead of the 'John Connor is important' ideology. There's a couple of times Pops logically goes against the script and is chastised because it's not what is 'supposed' to happen.
I think also a big part of Jai Courtney being so wrong for that role is that Kyle Reese is such an average looking person. He doesn't look like a Marine because the fight against the machines isn't about being strong. None of the Resistance is full of strapping dudes, not even John Connor.

huggybear wrote:

SchumieRules wrote: I watched it last night and I agree with everything.

I had no idea who was in it, Emilia Clarke! She was so annoying though, for some reason really annoyed me. Can't even point to what. Maybe I was used to Linda Hamilton, who was awesome in her role in both her films. Jai Courtney, he was horrible. Never clicked, never made an impression. Frankly, the only one who I loved in the role was Arnie. And J. K. Simmons of course.

As for your spoiler and Miles Dyson, I think you just gave them an idea for a whole new franchise!!!!!!!!

I rewatched Terminator 2 this weekend on Bluray, and I kinda think I know what the problem is. In Terminator, Sarah Connor is 19. Badass Sarah Connor from T2 is 29, and the TSCC version is 33. Because they set the film in 1984, they needed an actress that could pass for 19, but they based the character off the T2 version, and forgot that the later version is a grown woman who's actually given birth to John Connor and is protecting her child instead of the 'John Connor is important' ideology. There's a couple of times Pops logically goes against the script and is chastised because it's not what is 'supposed' to happen.
I think also a big part of Jai Courtney being so wrong for that role is that Kyle Reese is such an average looking person. He doesn't look like a Marine because the fight against the machines isn't about being strong. None of the Resistance is full of strapping dudes, not even John Connor.

You are probably right about Sarah. She's a 19 year old looking girl but with the training and mentality of the one in T2. Pops could be the reason for that though, he trained her all these years. So she was tough. Plus, I really liked Pops, he made the film for me.

As for Kyle Reese, he just looked wrong... I don't know how to explain it, his expression was just off. I can't tell if it was the actor or the role, but it was just annoying. He didn't look like a fighter like in T1, he was always nagging, looking miffed and generally a pain in the donkey for Sarah. I probably liked Michael Biehn more, that's why.

I also didn't get:

SchumieRules wrote:

Spoiler (click to show)

how does John Connor knows that Kyle is his dad. How? He is his friend that he found/saved on the sewers, then he sends him back to protect his mom. How does he know then that he is his dad?

Three ways, depending on which part of the timeline/universe you are looking at. Either Or: Or: I think it changes depending on the film/series you watch. It's not the best at being continuity beyond Sarah and John being important to the Resistance. Genisys does raise the question If they get round to making a sequel to Genisys, I'd like them to go forward with the story of TSCC because of the events in Genisys. Specifically the proposed season 3 that never happened where

God, food for thought there!!!

I haven't watched (fortunately or not!) the TSCC, so I don't get some of the spoilers you got there. But I get the gist. The first spoiler must be weird, as if it clicked, then would he be sending his best friend to play "hide the sausage" with his own mom? A bit far fetched, I can't imagine anyone who'd do it.

The one about T2 make the most sense I think, even if it didn't happen on screen.

SchumieRules wrote:God, food for thought there!!!

I haven't watched (fortunately or not!) the TSCC, so I don't get some of the spoilers you got there. But I get the gist. The first spoiler must be weird, as if it clicked, then would he be sending his best friend to play "hide the sausage" with his own mom? A bit far fetched, I can't imagine anyone who'd do it.

The one about T2 make the most sense I think, even if it didn't happen on screen.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is so so good. It's the best Terminator show/film of all in a lot of ways. The first season can be picked up for 63p on Amazon used, and it's well worth it for that price.

huggybear wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:God, food for thought there!!!

I haven't watched (fortunately or not!) the TSCC, so I don't get some of the spoilers you got there. But I get the gist. The first spoiler must be weird, as if it clicked, then would he be sending his best friend to play "hide the sausage" with his own mom? A bit far fetched, I can't imagine anyone who'd do it.

The one about T2 make the most sense I think, even if it didn't happen on screen.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is so so good. It's the best Terminator show/film of all in a lot of ways. The first season can be picked up for 63p on Amazon used, and it's well worth it for that price.

I may try it. If I ever get time!

Thanks for the heads up

Looking at the list of new releases there isn't a single movie I want to see until Star Wars, depending on the reviews of Spectre.

I am wetting my pants in anticipation of Spectre. Love Craig's Bond movies and this one will have my favorite actor, Christoph Waltz, in it.

I can wait for Star Wars. I love the whole Star Wars universe, but I'm truly not super excited for it yet. I do like Domhnall Gleeson as a castmember though.

Just re-watched (for probably the 15th time) the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I did it this time since I'm halfway through the novel now and just comparing how the novel and the movie work. Overall, I think Jackson did a wonderful job as director and the production teams kept a lot of the slower, less key portions out and played up a few key relationships. But, I'm a bit disappointed in some character traits they leave from Aragorn and how Aragorn and Gandalf butt heads in their decision making at times.

Honda Quick wrote:I am wetting my pants in anticipation of Spectre. Love Craig's Bond movies and this one will have my favorite actor, Christoph Waltz, in it.

I can wait for Star Wars. I love the whole Star Wars universe, but I'm truly not super excited for it yet. I do like Domhnall Gleeson as a castmember though.

Just re-watched (for probably the 15th time) the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I did it this time since I'm halfway through the novel now and just comparing how the novel and the movie work. Overall, I think Jackson did a wonderful job as director and the production teams kept a lot of the slower, less key portions out and played up a few key relationships. But, I'm a bit disappointed in some character traits they leave from Aragorn and how Aragorn and Gandalf butt heads in their decision making at times.

That's interesting. I haven't read the books, so can you help with the Aragorn character traits?

AngusWolfe wrote:Looking at the list of new releases there isn't a single movie I want to see until Star Wars, depending on the reviews of Spectre.

I'm not sure if it's actually true, or I'm just looking at the past with rose tints, but newer films just leave me underwhelmed. In the last 4 years, I think only RUSH, Kingsman and Ex Machina have actually impressed me as films, and I would spend money to see again (although having said that, I've had my RUSH steelbook sitting on a shelf for 18 months looking pretty and little else).

Honda Quick wrote:Just re-watched (for probably the 15th time) the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I did it this time since I'm halfway through the novel now and just comparing how the novel and the movie work. Overall, I think Jackson did a wonderful job as director and the production teams kept a lot of the slower, less key portions out and played up a few key relationships. But, I'm a bit disappointed in some character traits they leave from Aragorn and how Aragorn and Gandalf butt heads in their decision making at times.

I wish they had included Tom Bombadil
I love LOTR - in both book and movie format, but the way Jackson ruined the Hobbit in his movie adaptation was an absolute crime.

Covalent wrote:

Honda Quick wrote:Just re-watched (for probably the 15th time) the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I did it this time since I'm halfway through the novel now and just comparing how the novel and the movie work. Overall, I think Jackson did a wonderful job as director and the production teams kept a lot of the slower, less key portions out and played up a few key relationships. But, I'm a bit disappointed in some character traits they leave from Aragorn and how Aragorn and Gandalf butt heads in their decision making at times.

I wish they had included Tom Bombadil
I love LOTR - in both book and movie format, but the way Jackson ruined the Hobbit in his movie adaptation was an absolute crime.

I'm fully with you on how bad the Hobbit films were. They may be a good trilogy to those who haven't read the book, but there were so many deviation's and differences to what I always thought of as being important parts of the book, it just spoilt it for me a bit.

Regarding Tom Bombadil, if you watch the making of featurette on the DVD/Blueray, Philips Boyens explains why they fully left him out in the films. It's basically a case of they don't say that the hobbits didn't see him, they just don't ever mention that they did! And also because they were trying to portray the ring as this evil object that corrupts anyone who holds it and Tom kind of shrugs it off. I didn't mind them not seeing Bombadil, but I was a bit upset they missed out the entire Barrow Downs part, I thought they'd include that as it was where the hobbits got their first swords, as opposed to having them randomly given by Aragorn a bit later on.

SchumieRules wrote:That's interesting. I haven't read the books, so can you help with the Aragorn character traits?

Aragorn is without a doubt my favorite character, so I admit my opinion is just opinion and can be subjective to how I wish things to turn out. But, Aragorn in the novel is a bit more stubborn and cautious than portrayed in the films. He and Gandalf have brief quarrels and disagreements in the novel more than the films. It's possible Jackson and company played Aragorn's stubborness down to accentuate Gandalf's own stubborness and quick temper. Which is fine. I don't want to spoil anything of the novel, but one specific example is that Aragorn is gifted his sword much earlier on than in the films, and when arriving at Rohan, absolutely refuses to leave the weapon at the door for another man to touch (it also results in a funny quip Aragorn directs back to Gandalf that is left out of the film). There are times, even though he is reluctant to take up his destiny of king, he definitely has a pride about having that option that he doesn't appear to want others to have - should he choose not to take it. To me, that makes him more human and adds to it for me, but it's lacking from the film some IMO. But I understand and agree with a lot of the choices Jackson made for LOTR. He did make for a great viewing experience and kept the characters very contrasted to each other by doing so.

I think the films do better jobs of building the kinship both Sam and Frodo and Aragorn and Frodo have for each other than the novel does - that was always a great part of the films for me.

But LOTR doesn't disappoint for me in either media.

Covalent wrote:I wish they had included Tom Bombadil
I love LOTR - in both book and movie format, but the way Jackson ruined the Hobbit in his movie adaptation was an absolute crime.

Haha! As I was reading the book and came upon that chapter, I was completely caught off guard and had to look up what the hell Tom was in the lore of the Tolkien universe. Honestly, I can see why they left it out of the movies, and also agree with them doing so. I did see there is a fan theory that Tom is actually the Witch-king of Angmar, but I don't think it's a strong theory in the least.

I will read The Hobbit once I finish LOTR.

minchy wrote:I'm fully with you on how bad the Hobbit films were. They may be a good trilogy to those who haven't read the book, but there were so many deviation's and differences to what I always thought of as being important parts of the book, it just spoilt it for me a bit.

Regarding Tom Bombadil, if you watch the making of featurette on the DVD/Blueray, Philips Boyens explains why they fully left him out in the films. It's basically a case of they don't say that the hobbits didn't see him, they just don't ever mention that they did! And also because they were trying to portray the ring as this evil object that corrupts anyone who holds it and Tom kind of shrugs it off. I didn't mind them not seeing Bombadil, but I was a bit upset they missed out the entire Barrow Downs part, I thought they'd include that as it was where the hobbits got their first swords, as opposed to having them randomly given by Aragorn a bit later on.

Completely makes sense to me. Novels don't work the same way visual cinema does, and I feel that's why they left Aragorn's sword broken until Return of the King: to enhance the drama. And it works.

I enjoyed The Hobbit movies a lot, but I'm also hearing how different they are from the novels which is sort of sad. From my understanding, Tauriel is completely fabricated to essentially create a love story, and Radagast does not have that significant a part in any of the novels?

The Barrow Downs were certainly excluded from The Fellowship of the Ring, but I think they played a bit of homage to the old willow tree Bombadil finds them at in a scene with Treebeard in The Two Towers.

Tauriel is included just to make a love story that doesn't exist! I think they thought the cross-species love story in LOTR was good, they'd try it again in the Hobbit.

Radaghast doesn't even have a mention in the Hobbit, but a lot of his story in the movies was taken from other books and put into the story at the correct timeline. He was the one who first discovered the Necromancer was more than just a mortal and told Gandalf. And also that Saruman had little time for him and thought hr was a bit of a wierdo! The only part in the films that was not written in any books before regarding Rhadagast was that he distracted the orcs that were chasing the dwarves (but the orcs themselves were added into the story anyway!).

huggybear wrote:

AngusWolfe wrote:Looking at the list of new releases there isn't a single movie I want to see until Star Wars, depending on the reviews of Spectre.

I'm not sure if it's actually true, or I'm just looking at the past with rose tints, but newer films just leave me underwhelmed. In the last 4 years, I think only RUSH, Kingsman and Ex Machina have actually impressed me as films, and I would spend money to see again (although having said that, I've had my RUSH steelbook sitting on a shelf for 18 months looking pretty and little else).

Whiplash was awesome, and I loved Birdman, although I understand why people might not. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was the last four years, right? The last Coen brothers was pretty good too. Kingsman was a laugh but I wouldn't have paid to see it more than once. I quite liked Paddington? And I actually paid to see Star Trek into Darkness three times, so I suppose I have to include that.

With the Hollywood declining, I think studios are taking less risks, and putting out what they know will sell, which is superhero films and sequels. I sometimes wonder if The Godfather or even something like Fight Club would be made now, without super famous and hot talent behind it.

minchy wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Honda Quick wrote:Just re-watched (for probably the 15th time) the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I did it this time since I'm halfway through the novel now and just comparing how the novel and the movie work. Overall, I think Jackson did a wonderful job as director and the production teams kept a lot of the slower, less key portions out and played up a few key relationships. But, I'm a bit disappointed in some character traits they leave from Aragorn and how Aragorn and Gandalf butt heads in their decision making at times.

I wish they had included Tom Bombadil
I love LOTR - in both book and movie format, but the way Jackson ruined the Hobbit in his movie adaptation was an absolute crime.

I'm fully with you on how bad the Hobbit films were. They may be a good trilogy to those who haven't read the book, but there were so many deviation's and differences to what I always thought of as being important parts of the book, it just spoilt it for me a bit.

Regarding Tom Bombadil, if you watch the making of featurette on the DVD/Blueray, Philips Boyens explains why they fully left him out in the films. It's basically a case of they don't say that the hobbits didn't see him, they just don't ever mention that they did! And also because they were trying to portray the ring as this evil object that corrupts anyone who holds it and Tom kind of shrugs it off. I didn't mind them not seeing Bombadil, but I was a bit upset they missed out the entire Barrow Downs part, I thought they'd include that as it was where the hobbits got their first swords, as opposed to having them randomly given by Aragorn a bit later on.

Ah yes Barrow Downs was so intense in the book! Good thoughts on Bombadil too. But as I said I love the films too and they could hardly have made them any longer than they already were (especially the extended editions) and I rather they skipped some parts altogether instead of compromising the general feel by trying to include everything.

I have greatly differing views about LotR to some. Dislike the books for being... so.... damned.... slow... Liked the movies, though much preferred the extended editions.

And I am so glad they got rid of Tom Bombadil. That was some goofy sh*t even in a book about wizards and midgets fighting orcs and goblins.