The shame of actually treating a friend to the cinema, as she was alone and wanted to go out on Saturday night. And we went to...
Gaaaaah, can't say it without even vomiting a bit in my mouth. The vampire series conclusion thing (it was not a movie for sure, can't list it as one). The one with all the teenage girls and a few guys in the cinema dragged by their other halves, gagging and looking sad.
Kill it with fire and then bury it deep, as I never ever want to watch something like this again.
I use to make fun of twilight, calling it rubbish etc, until a mate of mine got into an arguement with me saying, you can't say its rubbish unless you've seen it
I saw it, its rubbish!
the second one (i know why on earth did i watch more then one!) was the worse film i had ever seen, until i watched catwoman.
The shame of actually treating a friend to the cinema, as she was alone and wanted to go out on Saturday night. And we went to...
Gaaaaah, can't say it without even vomiting a bit in my mouth. The vampire series conclusion thing (it was not a movie for sure, can't list it as one). The one with all the teenage girls and a few guys in the cinema dragged by their other halves, gagging and looking sad.
Kill it with fire and then bury it deep, as I never ever want to watch something like this again.
I use to make fun of twilight, calling it rubbish etc, until a mate of mine got into an arguement with me saying, you can't say its rubbish unless you've seen it
I saw it, its rubbish!
the second one (i know why on earth did i watch more then one!) was the worse film i had ever seen, until i watched catwoman.
Been watching the DC Animated Universe Justice LEague Films.
So New Frontier, Crisis on Two Earths and Doom make up the Trilogy.
I've enjoyed them. I'm a little gutted they look like they will introduce Black Canary at the end of the second film then don't in the third. But otherwise they do a good job of Lantern, Batman, Superman and especially Flash. However, I really hate Wonderwoman.But otherwise I recommend them to any comic book geeks.
I also watched NEDS, a Scottish film about.. neds. This may not translate well into other cultures. It's an odd film. I enjoyed it and will watch it again but it was different than I expected.
My second film today as I'm off work and catching up with some recorded TV. Denzel Washington and John Trvoltas characters are very good but the film is a slightly hackneyed action film without much substance. Good Monday afternoon entertainment but ultimately a slightly tired remake of the original.
MrMuttley wrote:Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.
9/10 Classic SciFi
Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.
I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. I think it was made in the 70's though.
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti
MrMuttley wrote:Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.
9/10 Classic SciFi
Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.
I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. I think it was made in the 70's though.
Westworld.
Michael Crichton directed, and the first ever use of CGI in a film.
MrMuttley wrote:Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.
9/10 Classic SciFi
Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.
I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. I think it was made in the 70's though.
Westworld.
Michael Crichton directed, and the first ever use of CGI in a film.
You're welcome
Yeah!!!! Thank you!!!!
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti
MrMuttley wrote:Just re-watched Blade Runner. It still works with a few minor problems like CRT screens and that its set in 2019.
9/10 Classic SciFi
Watch some 70s stuff set in the future. Unless reel to reel tape recorders come back into fashion, they are well off.
I want to get my hands on a movie about robots set in a Western-themed thrill park, but I don't know the name of it. I think it was made in the 70's though.
Westworld.
Michael Crichton directed, and the first ever use of CGI in a film.
You're welcome
Yeah!!!! Thank you!!!!
Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time. Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man
Denorth wrote:Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time. Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.
Correct, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Westworld digitally altered the film image during processing, Futureworld used original CGI effects. Semantics as far as I'm concerned, but correct nonetheless.
Denorth wrote:Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time. Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.
Correct, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Westworld digitally altered the film image during processing, Futureworld used original CGI effects. Semantics as far as I'm concerned, but correct nonetheless.
Being completely honest - it was all WOW! even though I read later about them being first in those areas. And I have to say - I saw them at the end of 80s, something 10-15 years after they were filmed (but before Terminator 2)
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man
Denorth wrote:Yul Brynner is cyborg there and there was a second part 'Futureworld', which I watched first. I can be wrong, but I think it was Futureworld that used CGI for the first time, Westworld used something else for the first time. Evil sheriff appears in the second film as well.
Correct, my memory was a bit fuzzy. Westworld digitally altered the film image during processing, Futureworld used original CGI effects. Semantics as far as I'm concerned, but correct nonetheless.
Being completely honest - it was all WOW! even though I read later about them being first in those areas. And I have to say - I saw them at the end of 80s, something 10-15 years after they were filmed (but before Terminator 2)
I just looked at his wiki page, I think that he was the first director to do/use something else, I can't remember what, but I can't find out without re-reading his semi-autobiographical book - Travels. Wiki says that Westworld is the first use of 2D CGI, and Futureworld first use of 3D CGI.
Finally watched Puss in Boots - only if you have some free time and Lockout - complete waste of time
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man
If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.
If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.
I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."
If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.
I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!
the rumours are (i might be wrong) but they've included bits from the simirillion in it, give more info on the history of middle earth etc, but i could be wrong
i was under the same assumption on how on earth they could make 3 movies from an inherently smaller story
If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.
I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!
the rumours are (i might be wrong) but they've included bits from the simirillion in it, give more info on the history of middle earth etc, but i could be wrong
i was under the same assumption on how on earth they could make 3 movies from an inherently smaller story
There are ways.
Take the ending of LOTR3 for example. Took about 20 minutes to finish, they dragged it on and on and on.
If a volume of LotR can be turned into a movie of 3 hours, then the Hobbit could have too. When it turned to 2 films, I was very dubious. As a trilogy, I'm not going anywhere near it as a "protest" as such. It'll still make them millions but I won't be giving any part of it over.
I don't get how they've made 3 films, each at least 2 hours long... the Hobbit was half the size of just one LOTR book. From reviews I've seen, there's a lot of filler and backstory, but I'll still give it a watch. If I trusted film critic reviews, I wouldn't have liked half the films I actually like! I'm easily pleased, afterall I liked SW Episode 1!
the rumours are (i might be wrong) but they've included bits from the simirillion in it, give more info on the history of middle earth etc, but i could be wrong
i was under the same assumption on how on earth they could make 3 movies from an inherently smaller story
There are ways.
Take the ending of LOTR3 for example. Took about 20 minutes to finish, they dragged it on and on and on.
Would make sense them adding bits from the Simirillion (I hate that word, I've never been able to say/spell it properly) as there's simply not enough substance in the Hobbit to make 7-8 hours worth of movie across 3 films. But you're right SchumieRules, there are ways. They really dragged out ROTK's ending, every time it faded out I was like "aaaaand scene." then they had another scene. I thought I'd become stuck in a real never ending story movie. It's still epic though, completely and utterly.
I find it amusing that they had to cut out so much from the LOTR trilogy of books to fit into a trilogy of long films, but they have to add an awful lot of content from other books to pad out the Hobbit films! They should've just made two films for the Hobbit I think.
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."
jammin78 wrote:Would make sense them adding bits from the Simirillion (I hate that word, I've never been able to say/spell it properly) as there's simply not enough substance in the Hobbit to make 7-8 hours worth of movie across 3 films. But you're right SchumieRules, there are ways. They really dragged out ROTK's ending, every time it faded out I was like "aaaaand scene." then they had another scene. I thought I'd become stuck in a real never ending story movie. It's still epic though, completely and utterly.
I find it amusing that they had to cut out so much from the LOTR trilogy of books to fit into a trilogy of long films, but they have to add an awful lot of content from other books to pad out the Hobbit films! They should've just made two films for the Hobbit I think.
I have read the Hobbit many times but it's so long ago that I can't remember the majority of it so I can't tell you how much is added or not (especially cause I've never read the Silmarillion). It really worked for me though! Gonna wait to watch the other 2 before I decide whether it could've been just the 2 films though. I was annoyed with LOTR that they spent so long over the ending (something I'm finding more and more with films atm. The Avengers should've ended when they're all stood round Loki if you ask me!) and didn't include Tom Bombadil! Still Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins - pure genius.
jammin78 wrote:Would make sense them adding bits from the Simirillion (I hate that word, I've never been able to say/spell it properly) as there's simply not enough substance in the Hobbit to make 7-8 hours worth of movie across 3 films. But you're right SchumieRules, there are ways. They really dragged out ROTK's ending, every time it faded out I was like "aaaaand scene." then they had another scene. I thought I'd become stuck in a real never ending story movie. It's still epic though, completely and utterly.
I find it amusing that they had to cut out so much from the LOTR trilogy of books to fit into a trilogy of long films, but they have to add an awful lot of content from other books to pad out the Hobbit films! They should've just made two films for the Hobbit I think.
I have read the Hobbit many times but it's so long ago that I can't remember the majority of it so I can't tell you how much is added or not (especially cause I've never read the Silmarillion). It really worked for me though! Gonna wait to watch the other 2 before I decide whether it could've been just the 2 films though. I was annoyed with LOTR that they spent so long over the ending (something I'm finding more and more with films atm. The Avengers should've ended when they're all stood round Loki if you ask me!) and didn't include Tom Bombadil! Still Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins - pure genius.
Tom Bombadil, his exclusion is my biggest gripe as well! Martin Freeman looks good in the role too, looks really well cast. Will let y'all know what I think when I see it!
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."
One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc. To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.
bbobeckyj wrote:One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc. To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.
I haven't read any of the books. But I read a review saying that a difference is that the LOTR splits into 2-3 substories, while the Hobbit follows them from the start of the journey.
bbobeckyj wrote:One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc. To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.
I haven't read any of the books. But I read a review saying that a difference is that the LOTR splits into 2-3 substories, while the Hobbit follows them from the start of the journey.
The Hobbit is one book and LOTR is three volumes so I can see where they're coming from with that.
bbobeckyj wrote:One important difference between the books is that there is more detail and a slower pace on LOTR. The Hobbit may be a smaller book, but a lot happens in it. The makers have also expanded the story. If you compare the plot of Fellowship: Gandalf sends them to elves, more join the group, start walking to Mordor, have a fight in a big cave, have a fight in the countryside, tbc. To the beginning of the Hobbit: gandalf sends dwarves to Bilbo, then sends them all on their way, trouble with trolls, fight in cave, fight in countryside... and still we have bears, giant spiders, elves etc before they even get to the location of the final third of the story.
I haven't read any of the books. But I read a review saying that a difference is that the LOTR splits into 2-3 substories, while the Hobbit follows them from the start of the journey.
The Hobbit is one book and LOTR is three volumes so I can see where they're coming from with that.
OR - to add more to this debate about the length of the film...
...each of the three LOTR volumes contain 2 books. IE The Fellowship of the Ring Volume contains Book 1 and Book 2 of the LOTR series.
The Hobbit is 1 book. OR (and this is where you can see the film studio cashing in) in written form, The Hobbit is 1/6th of LOTR.
I can see why they decided to split the book up into three movies.
The Lord of the Rings has a very very plodding pace and lots of pages of complex exposition, songs, outlandish descriptions and some straight up boring scenes of people walking around or the hobbits having breakfast. The Hobbit is written very differently, everything is from Bilbo's perspective and the book moves at a very fast pace indeed. While I do not think alone there is enough material for three films I think the addition of the story of the Necromancer will be enough to allow them to expand and keep the films at a solid pace without them becoming bloated.
I saw The Hobbit today and while I enjoyed it thoroughly being a big fan of the books and I think some moments were slightly irksome, mostly in the fast half of the film were things became fragmented or unessential, too much of stupid scenes where The Company was getting chased across open plains and the scenes with Radagast the Brown I think could have been shortened. Also being knowledgable about Tolkien's geography probably my biggest nitpick in the film was Radagast riding all the way from Mirkwood to see Gandalf, to me that just seemed pointless and I would have prefered that scene and the revelation of the Morgual Blade to occur at the White Council meeting in Rivendell, providing that scene with more purpose instead of just Sauraman ranting for abit, Cate Blanchett getting some screen time and then the reassertion of what we already know, the nine are awakening. Also I did not like the addition of Azog to the story, I felt it did not really add much, the dwarves are already in enough peril in having to cross Middle Earth on foot without being pursued by some big bad antagonist, also his design was horrendous.
But still despite a few sill moments and bits that left me cringing due to awkward execution I still thoroughly enjoyed it.
Jenson Button
Kimi Raikkonen
Romain Grosjean
Nico Hulkenburg
finally managed to watch The Dark Knight Rises. Great movie, liked it a lot. Dark characters and question of human behaviour...
I have to say I had a very strange feeling watching it after all recent shootings... One thing that I noticed in the movie and in those events - there are no heroes in public. those shooters in real life are never shot by the public bearing guns for defence... similar atmosphere was depicted in the movie...
... need to watch Ted now.
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man
Okay, with the possible exception of the Hobbit to be inserted here, the top 10 grossing films of 2012 are as follows (according to wikipedia):
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross 1 The Avengers Marvel Studios / Disney $1,511,757,910 2 The Dark Knight Rises Warner Bros. / Legendary Pictures $1,081,041,287 3 Skyfall MGM / Columbia $951,066,000 4 Ice Age: Continental Drift Fox / Blue Sky Studios $874,992,418 5 Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt 2 Lionsgate / Summit Entertainment $778,265,000 6 The Amazing Spider-Man Columbia / Marvel Studios $752,216,557 7 Madagascar 3 Paramount / DreamWorks $742,110,251 8 The Hunger Games Lionsgate $686,533,290 9 Men in Black 3 Columbia $624,026,776 10 Brave Disney / Pixar $535,272,145
Avengers - basically a sequel. DKR - Sequel Skyfall - possible considered a sequel? Set in the same universe at least as previous films Ice Age - Sequel Twilight - Sequel Spider Man - Reboot Madagascar 3 - sequel Hunger Games - new adaptation Men in Black 3 - sequel Brave - new
And if the Hobbit jumps in there, it is in a similar place to Skyfall. Given the story is closely related to LotR.
So here is the question, does it bother you that movies seem to be very sequel orientated these days?
I think it bothers me, but in saying that I saw 4 of the sequels in the top 10 (and bought the Blu-Rays for Avengers and DKR). I also saw Expendables 2 and American Pie Reunion. I started off the year with Mission Impossible 4. I don't think I saw a film at the cinema this year that wasn't either a direct sequel type or a Skyfall/Avengers continuation of the same characters type. So, it can't be too much of a bother to me. I just worry that we are creating an atmosphere that stifles something new and exciting in place of either continuing the same thing or rebooting a film series that is not even that long since stagnated (Spiderman!). We also have another 2 X-Men films (A first class era one and another Wolverine one). All the Avenger's characters sequels and the like. I just worry that while the going is good, we are going to force Hollywood into a situation where they only want to make sequels etc and then when the sequels all turn to crap, we are left with nothing.
I want to respond further tomorrow. But I have two things to say briefly. 1 you're focusing on the big business studio films, the top ten grossing films are not a fair representation of the hundreds released each year. If anything they're simply the most expensive and most promoted. 2 it's an increasingly common criticism that most films are either budgeted at £5m or £200m with few in between. And no, it doesn't bother me. For example, the success of Nolan's Batman films has given the studio the confidence to allow him to make The Prestige and Inception. Both of which are original IPs and I think better than the Batman films.
'I love you Philip Morris' - just brilliant. 'Must watch' movie
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man
Denorth wrote:'I love you Philip Morris' - just brilliant. 'Must watch' movie
I recorded this on tv but missed the first unknown amount of minutes of credits, I've not yet watched it. Will I miss anything?
I missed about 5-10 min in the beginning too, so we both won't know
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man
Excellent: Killing Them Softly, Lawless, Avengers, The Cabin in the Woods. Good: Skyfall, Ted, Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter Average: Looper, MIB3, The Campaign Disappointing: Prometheus, The Dictator, Taken 2, The Amazing Spider-Man.
I think it was made in the 70's though.
