Originally posted by Vetinari
Because most LOTR fans are sycophantic loser arseh*les.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Saw it last night, first 15-20 minutes are a little slow, the rest of the film will blow you away. First time (I can think of) that the audience applauded at the end, at a normal showing.
Just as a note to anyone thinking of bringing young (under 10) kids to this. Don't. A guy sitting in front of me had 2 young girls, and left after about an hour, and this was before Shelob was in the film.
Completely agree,the first was great stuff.The final battle between arnie and the predator is unrivaled in any film.Predator in the city was pants.Originally posted by NigeSausagepump
Why, oh, why did they have to make Predator 2?
'There's something out there,and it ain't no man'
Terminator 2 is one of the few films where the second is better than the first.I liked the first but the second is a forever classic.It is a tribute to the film that you can feel sad when a machine is self destructing(I actually felt like crying when I saw it first!!Luckily I manage to hold back the tears in the presence of my adolecent peers,until I had safely departed the cinema).Haven't seen the third one cos I fear it will ruin the entire seris.Even from the trailers it looks as though it could be difficult viewing.
<insert witty remark>
Don't watch part 3 of terminater,whatever you do.
Originally posted by DolansWaistcoat
Don't watch part 3 of terminater,whatever you do.
i liked it!
The first 2 terminator films are 100 times better than the third.If ya never saw the first 2 then watch part 3 then the standard set by the first ones isn't in your head and the expectation isn't so high.
I wouldn't say they were 100 times better than part 3. Part one was sh!T, (sorry It was) part two was class but the third one was pretty good. I know it was almost a varbon ccopy of T2, but still, good entertainment
Whatever it was I am sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman around here?
Just to bring things back in line with the initial topic...Originally posted by UCD_4_Life
Ha! Yeah, right.
They ruined LOTR. Ruined it.
the extended version DVD of the Two Towers is far better than the cinematic version. The extra bits of footage (~42 mins) really help to recapture some of the essence of the book.
Ya most sequels are crap.The second and third matrix films are terrible when compared with the first which is a classic.
I can't believe in a discussion about multiple part films the Police Academy series has been left out. Especially towards the end of the set they rise to the level of "so bad they're actually good". Citizens on Patrol and Mission to Moscow are just so appallingly cheeseball that they've become classics in my (admittedly uncultured) opinion.
Maybe you should put her on a leash, agent-man.
IMO thats the problem - too mant people are obcessed with having a movie that matches the book.Originally posted by liamon
The extra bits of footage (~42 mins) really help to recapture some of the essence of the book.
I don't care about the book - a movie has to stand on its own!
Terminator 3 was fairly bad. 1 & 2 good for different reasons.
IMO Once Apon a Time In America is possibly better than Godfather 2. Once Apon a Time in the West best (spaghetti) Western too.
If you don't want the movie to match the book, then why bother trying to turn a book into a movie?
Having said that, it's not really possible to capture the essence of many books in a couple of hours in a cinema. But I think the film makers gave it a good shot in the case of the LOTR. Lots of detail went into each shot and it shows.
I thought the two towers was a decent action film, worth a watch. The DVD turns it into a far superior piece of work.
I didn't turn a book into a movie, a Mr. Jackson did. A book is just the precursor to a screen play. Thats why they have adapted & original screenplays. Probably half the major movies started off as books...Originally posted by liamon
If you don't want the movie to match the book, then why bother trying to turn a book into a movie?
Bullocks with an 'O' pete.Originally posted by pete
A book is just the precursor to a screen play.
The vast majority of authors don't write with a view to Hollywood, (although they rarely so No to the cash afterwards).
Most Film Adaptations are of successful books, studios buy into the fact that if one million people bought the book, then ten million people will watch a movie based on that story.
A book is a collection of words that convey a story.
a film is a collection of images and words that convey a story.
What makes a successful adaptation is capturing 'the essence of the story', the reason people bothered to buy the book in the first place.
'Bonfire of the Vanities' and 'Captain Corellis mandolin' were brilliant books and crap films because they lost the sense of what made the book great.
the first two books of the 'LOTR' are essentially character driven works, the third is an action story. that's why the extras on the Two Towers DVD probably added to the essence of the film, because greater emphasis was placed on character development.
I (re)watched T1 and T2 a couple of nights before I saw T3.Originally posted by pete
Terminator 3 was fairly bad. 1 & 2 good for different reasons.
T1 sucked compaired to what I remembered. The effects are truely woeful, and while it's a good film, I feel that it really doesn't deserve the reputation it has.
T2 on the other hand, is a classic, despite the almost painful influence of the John Conner charactor. It barely dates at all, even thirteen years on.
T3 is an enjoyable action film, with some decent one-liners, and fine special effects. Anyone who thinks it's **** should be foreced to watch T1 and T3 one after another for a week straight.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Me typeth too quick. Meant to say that when a book made into a movie the book is really just a precursor to a screen play then i.e. its really the screen play thats being made into a movie then...Originally posted by tiktok
Bullocks with an 'O' pete.
The vast majority of authors don't write with a view to Hollywood, (although they rarely so No to the cash afterwards)..
Most films never live up to the books because the directer can't get across the auther's vision of the atmosphere of the book.Peter Jackson though has made a great effort to get Tolkien's vision of the lotr onto the big screen.
T1 is way better than T3 imo.Ok the effects are a bit sh!te in the first alright but it was 20 odd years ago and they prob had a fraction of the mega bucks that went into T3.
I'm goin to see the final lotr today or tomorrow,i've heard nothing but great things about it.
Originally posted by pete
Me typeth too quick. Meant to say that when a book made into a movie the book is really just a precursor to a screen play then i.e. its really the screen play thats being made into a movie then...
yeah, that is true...
there have been loads of authors who hand over the novel and then disassociate themselves from the resulting screenplay. I think why LOTR works though is that jackson at least knew the book well, the problems arise when studies approach a trusted screenwriter with a novel he/she doesn't know...
which brings me to another nomination for film of the year
'Adaptation', only brilliant.
Finally saw lotr last night,great show.The lads with me fell asleep,not cause the film was sh!te though,probably all the pints before hand.
.....................................
Going to see it tonight ..... cant wait.
Has anyone seen "Le Haine" .... brilliant film !!
The SFAI are the governing body for grassroots football in Ireland, not the FAI. Its success or the lack of is all down to them.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks