The Student Room Group

Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II

Scroll to see replies

I hate how everything that is sort of successful nowadays gets announced as/turned into a trilogy...getting a bit tedious.

Its like some all powerful executive in Hollywood has major OCD and NEEDS movies to be made into sets of three!
He says he's drawing upon lots of material from the Lord of the Rings appendices, which probably means he's taking a few lines here and there and making a huge story out of it. Since the Tolkien Estate holds the rights to Tolkien's other works like The Simillarion, Peter Jackson's best way of making more films set in that universe is to squeeze as much juice as he can from the appendices - which they have the rights to. So it's a workaround/loophole of sorts to getting at material which isn't restricted to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit without having the actual rights to the proper, arguably better, stories. The Hobbit, which should really just be one self-contained film, is caught up in the middle of this. We'll end up with a continuous dragged out Hobbit story with scenes constantly cutting to a larger story involving the Neuromancer and Battle of Dol Guldur. If he didn't want to add all this extra material to the extended editions of the two Hobbit films, he could have just made the Hobbit film and then made follow up films which took place in that world, 'Tales from the LOTR appendices set in Middle Earth' or whatever. Either a rights issue with not being allowed to make a film that isn't called either 'Lord of the Rings' or 'The Hobbit' or they decided The Hobbit trilogy will allow for a stronger brand, coherency and continuity (or as Colonel. would put it, '$$$').

Still, I have faith. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and if Peter Jackson retains that level of quality, then I'm sure I'll enjoy the films.
It would be quicker to read the book ffs.

Jackson cannot self-edit and he has a lot of unneeded fluff. Check out King Kong to see what I'm talking about.
Reply 7243
Original post by Colonel.
It would be quicker to read the book ffs.

Jackson cannot self-edit and he has a lot of unneeded fluff. Check out King Kong to see what I'm talking about.


That's true, it might have worked for Lord of the Rings but not sure I'd be able to sit through three Hobbits :\
Reply 7244
They just released the trailer for Skyfall. It looks amazing! :biggrin:
[video="youtube;vgr2syY_OU4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vgr2syY_OU4[/video]
Interesting.. I wasn't a massive fan of the Teaser but that looks pretty cool. Happy to hear the actual Bond theme in there..

Reserving judgement!
Reply 7246
Don't think I can take Bardem's character seriously with hair colour like that. :mmm:

Promising trailer though, has spiked my interest.
Reply 7247
The trailer does look promising. :smile: I'm very interested into see what Same Mendes can do with a Bond film.
As Cloud Atlas, it does look promising too. I really hope it's going to be good, I love the book and I don't want it too be a disaster.
Oh and I am also happy that the Coen Bros are still making films. :biggrin: http://www.slashfilm.com/inside-llewyn-davis-lead-oscar-isaac/
Reply 7248
Original post by Ruin.
Don't think I can take Bardem's character seriously with hair colour like that. :mmm:

Promising trailer though, has spiked my interest.


Although, that is what we said about No Country for Old Men, and he pulled that off spectacularly. :holmes:

I have to say, though, I liked the teaser better than the trailer. Less certain about this now.
Reply 7249
Just watched Ted.

Hilarious, go and see it!
Reply 7250
Just saw Ted aswell, it was actually quite good!

Having seen the Cloud Atlas trailer, I have no idea what's going on but I really want to watch it now. So I guess the trailer worked!
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 7251
Is Ted actually decent, then? I was completely uninterested when I saw the trailer, but the reviews seem to suggest that it isn't rubbish. :holmes:
I was really disappointed when I learnt The Hobbit was being made into a trilogy, but if this is true http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit-++-with-proof?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow it might not be so bad. I still think it's wholly unnecessary but if they fill in all the backstories and battles...:dontknow:
Last three films watched:

Amarcord - 7.5/10

Delightful little comedy/political commentary by Fellini, quite different from his work in the 1950s, though not without the same charm.

Zero Focus - 8/10

Solid Japanese mystery film from the 1960s. Very little known, as the IMdB boards illustrate, though I imagine this is down to lack of a good English DVD. Criterion really need to get on Nomura's case, and put this out on disc.

La boulangère de Monceau - 8.5/10

A short from Eric Rohmer, this didn't fail to deliver. By chance, I happened upon a very curious film-making technique in this film, which I haven't seen in any other. I'll elaborate for those who have seen it/are going to see it.
Original post by philistine
La boulangère de Monceau - 8.5/10

A short from Eric Rohmer, this didn't fail to deliver. By chance, I happened upon a very curious film-making technique in this film, which I haven't seen in any other. I'll elaborate for those who have seen it/are going to see it.


I'm very intrigued now. I've been meaning to start watching some of Rohmer's films for quite some time. Perhaps I'll have to start soon.
Original post by TheMagicRat
I'm very intrigued now. I've been meaning to start watching some of Rohmer's films for quite some time. Perhaps I'll have to start soon.


I went quite a while before seeing some of his films. Not by choice, mind- I just didn't see much of his stuff. I started with Die Marquise von O, though in my opinion, it's not representative of the bulk of his work (plus I came away from that with only a middling opinion).

You can't go wrong with his Six Moral Tales.
I find Rohmer and Truffaut a tad too conservative in style. When I think of the New Wave, I think of radicals like Godard, Rivette, and (the finest of all) Resnais.
Anyone catch this recent Sight & Sound top 50? Vertigo is apparently the greatest film of all time:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time


Vertigo's brilliant, but I don't know that I'd even call it Hitchcock's best film. I also have a big problem with the fact that Chinatown, The Conversation and The Third Man are nowhere to be found.

Seems to be a huge art-film bias here (which is to be expected from a poll of critics, professors and whatnot, I guess), which I find irritating. I mean there's value in those films, but there's also value in films that are just...fun, and this list seems to singularly miss that point. I mean, I'd have Raiders of the Lost Ark (or any number of other Spielberg films) over La Jetee, which is, you know, a wonderful film, a stylistic triumph and a haunting affirmation of the inevitability of fate, but singularly lacks a man in a sweet hat outrunning a massive rock.

I mean, this anti-mainstream bias even extends to films with considerable artistic merit that are a) made by a major studio and b) lack a so-called 'visionary' director. Like, no Casablanca, no Deer Hunter, no 12 Angry Men, Network (or any other Lumet film). It's...strange.
Reply 7258
Original post by Christien
Anyone catch this recent Sight & Sound top 50? Vertigo is apparently the greatest film of all time:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time


Vertigo's brilliant, but I don't know that I'd even call it Hitchcock's best film. I also have a big problem with the fact that Chinatown, The Conversation and The Third Man are nowhere to be found.

Seems to be a huge art-film bias here (which is to be expected from a poll of critics, professors and whatnot, I guess), which I find irritating. I mean there's value in those films, but there's also value in films that are just...fun, and this list seems to singularly miss that point. I mean, I'd have Raiders of the Lost Ark (or any number of other Spielberg films) over La Jetee, which is, you know, a wonderful film, a stylistic triumph and a haunting affirmation of the inevitability of fate, but singularly lacks a man in a sweet hat outrunning a massive rock.

I mean, this anti-mainstream bias even extends to films with considerable artistic merit that are a) made by a major studio and b) lack a so-called 'visionary' director. Like, no Casablanca, no Deer Hunter, no 12 Angry Men, Network (or any other Lumet film). It's...strange.


It's up?! I thought it was next month! :eek:

I'll have to have a look through before commenting. :creep:
Original post by Christien
Anyone catch this recent Sight & Sound top 50? Vertigo is apparently the greatest film of all time:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time


Vertigo's brilliant, but I don't know that I'd even call it Hitchcock's best film. I also have a big problem with the fact that Chinatown, The Conversation and The Third Man are nowhere to be found.

Seems to be a huge art-film bias here (which is to be expected from a poll of critics, professors and whatnot, I guess), which I find irritating. I mean there's value in those films, but there's also value in films that are just...fun, and this list seems to singularly miss that point. I mean, I'd have Raiders of the Lost Ark (or any number of other Spielberg films) over La Jetee, which is, you know, a wonderful film, a stylistic triumph and a haunting affirmation of the inevitability of fate, but singularly lacks a man in a sweet hat outrunning a massive rock.

I mean, this anti-mainstream bias even extends to films with considerable artistic merit that are a) made by a major studio and b) lack a so-called 'visionary' director. Like, no Casablanca, no Deer Hunter, no 12 Angry Men, Network (or any other Lumet film). It's...strange.


I agree. I don't think it's Hitchcok's best film and it may not even be in my top three Hitchcock films. Vertigo only comes joint 7th in the director's poll.

I'm kind of glad Citizen Kane has finally been knocked off the top spot. Don't get me wrong, I like the film and I appreciate it's place in the history of film but I really don't think it has aged well.

Quick Reply