Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II
Scroll to see replies
Original post by lukejoshjedi
I can vouch for that, he was amazing in Lost
***
Estimates for The Green Lanterns opening box office gross are dissapointing - $52 million or so... it's being regarded a flop by some people online already, bad reviews for it did kinda flood in but won't put me off going to watch it
***
Estimates for The Green Lanterns opening box office gross are dissapointing - $52 million or so... it's being regarded a flop by some people online already, bad reviews for it did kinda flood in but won't put me off going to watch it
Man, I couldn't even buy a pint of milk with $52 million.
And it won't matter too much to Warner. The last Harry Potter film is out next month and god knows how much that will bring in.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by sheep_go_baa
As did I.
I like it at that.
Spoiler
I like it at that.
It all got fairly ridiculous after the first two, really.
I just liked the concept of the "game" with Jigsaw in the first film; the idea that people who take their lives for granted have to fight for them.
Evangeline Lilly has joined the cast of The Hobbit and will be playing a new character called Tauriel who is 'The Woodland Elf'...
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
Original post by sheep_go_baa
Evangeline Lilly has joined the cast of The Hobbit and will be playing a new character called Tauriel who is 'The Woodland Elf'...
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
I'm kinda worried that they are ****ing with it a little bit to fit it into 2 movies.
Even the links with the new trilogy (such as having Ian Holm playing 'old Bilbo') etc. are bothering me slightly. Not to mention having Saruman in it - presumably to fill in the blanks in Gandalf's story.
Just tell the story like it is in the book. Can be done in one film. This whole foreshadow to LOTR bothers me. It was supposed to be Bilbo's adventure, and he just happened to pick up the ring along the way. It's quaint and has character like that.
Much better than making it into some grand prequel.
Original post by pinkpenguin
Original post by pinkpenguin
I'm kinda worried that they are ****ing with it a little bit to fit it into 2 movies.
Even the links with the new trilogy (such as having Ian Holm playing 'old Bilbo') etc. are bothering me slightly. Not to mention having Saruman in it - presumably to fill in the blanks in Gandalf's story.
Just tell the story like it is in the book. Can be done in one film. This whole foreshadow to LOTR bothers me. It was supposed to be Bilbo's adventure, and he just happened to pick up the ring along the way. It's quaint and has character like that.
Much better than making it into some grand prequel.
Even the links with the new trilogy (such as having Ian Holm playing 'old Bilbo') etc. are bothering me slightly. Not to mention having Saruman in it - presumably to fill in the blanks in Gandalf's story.
Just tell the story like it is in the book. Can be done in one film. This whole foreshadow to LOTR bothers me. It was supposed to be Bilbo's adventure, and he just happened to pick up the ring along the way. It's quaint and has character like that.
Much better than making it into some grand prequel.
To be honest, I think that Jackson and co. have done enough already to earn everyone's faith.
Original post by pinkpenguin
I'm kinda worried that they are ****ing with it a little bit to fit it into 2 movies.
Even the links with the new trilogy (such as having Ian Holm playing 'old Bilbo') etc. are bothering me slightly. Not to mention having Saruman in it - presumably to fill in the blanks in Gandalf's story.
Just tell the story like it is in the book. Can be done in one film. This whole foreshadow to LOTR bothers me. It was supposed to be Bilbo's adventure, and he just happened to pick up the ring along the way. It's quaint and has character like that.
Much better than making it into some grand prequel.
Even the links with the new trilogy (such as having Ian Holm playing 'old Bilbo') etc. are bothering me slightly. Not to mention having Saruman in it - presumably to fill in the blanks in Gandalf's story.
Just tell the story like it is in the book. Can be done in one film. This whole foreshadow to LOTR bothers me. It was supposed to be Bilbo's adventure, and he just happened to pick up the ring along the way. It's quaint and has character like that.
Much better than making it into some grand prequel.
I don't think they are. Tolkien's world is so expansive that even the small references within the Hobbit have a huge and sprawling backstory. Jackson is simply expanding upon those references.
Tolkien may not have been a particularly great writer or storyteller, but he's the best world-builder literature has ever known. You could make several films, and still not have done enough. I think Jackson is probably only going to include material that is utterly relevant to the narrative, and I have enough trust in that man to pull it off. Everything I have heard so far concerning additions and justifications for having a two part story have been perfectly good. Some of the stuff they are adding makes a lot of sense and ought to tie up everything rather nicely.
It's certainly not going to be the horrific decision there was in splitting Breaking Dawn into two films.
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
but he's the best world-builder literature has ever known.
Pfft, you clearly haven't read enough Pratchett. Or Pullman, for that matter.
Does anyone know of any good film collection/list sites like GoodReads is for books?
PS. Loving the image in the spoiler in your sig, pinkpenguin.
They don't come close.
Original post by Phalanges
Pfft, you clearly haven't read enough Pratchett. Or Pullman, for that matter.
They don't come close.
Original post by punctuation
Heh, I was watching this with some friends and it amused me how 'scientific' their archaeology skills were... :P They were handling ancient artifacts like nothing, touching them with their bare hands and everything! I know nothing about archaeology, but at least I know you don't just hold a priceless artifact like that. XD
They handled the Declaration pretty carefully (at times) in the first film. But meh, can't handle ancient artefacts carefully when it turns into a race against time with bad guys with guns chasing you.
Where were they thousands of years ago?
Original post by Madjackismad
I think Infinite Jest may be the best book I've read so far and that says a lot since I've read a lot. 
That's certainly saying a lot. If you're praising it so highly, I need to jump into it as well. According to some reviews, the footnotes are really, really good and funny. Had a look at the formatted version for the Kindle. Footnotes are not visible unless you manually click on the number.
Seems like I'll have to order an actual book. What. Move over Revelation Space and The Stand.
Original post by sheep_go_baa
Evangeline Lilly has joined the cast of The Hobbit and will be playing a new character called Tauriel who is 'The Woodland Elf'...
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
To be honest, I always thought she looked a bit like an Elf.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Phalanges
Pfft, you clearly haven't read enough Pratchett. Or Pullman, for that matter.
Does anyone know of any good film collection/list sites like GoodReads is for books?
Does anyone know of any good film collection/list sites like GoodReads is for books?
Library Thing is really good I think. But after 200 books they ask you to pay $10 for a yearly membership and $25 for a life membership.
Original post by sheep_go_baa
Evangeline Lilly has joined the cast of The Hobbit and will be playing a new character called Tauriel who is 'The Woodland Elf'...
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31277
I thought it was a joke that she'd been added to the cast but it's good news tbh, I can see her as en Elf
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
They handled the Declaration pretty carefully (at times) in the first film. But meh, can't handle ancient artefacts carefully when it turns into a race against time with bad guys with guns chasing you.
Where were they thousands of years ago?
That's certainly saying a lot. If you're praising it so highly, I need to jump into it as well. According to some reviews, the footnotes are really, really good and funny. Had a look at the formatted version for the Kindle. Footnotes are not visible unless you manually click on the number.
Seems like I'll have to order an actual book. What. Move over Revelation Space and The Stand.
To be honest, I always thought she looked a bit like an Elf.
Where were they thousands of years ago?
That's certainly saying a lot. If you're praising it so highly, I need to jump into it as well. According to some reviews, the footnotes are really, really good and funny. Had a look at the formatted version for the Kindle. Footnotes are not visible unless you manually click on the number.
Seems like I'll have to order an actual book. What. Move over Revelation Space and The Stand.
To be honest, I always thought she looked a bit like an Elf.
No, the footnotes are at the end, so they're really endnotes.
Plus, the Kindle version is better since you have the dictionary (which is definitely needed at parts) and it takes you straight to the footnotes.The Hangover 2 wasn't too bad. I think I unfairly slated it. It's not terrible for what it is, but neither is it something that I'll remember or would watch again or would ever recommend spending money on. Completely forgettable and without the humour (if you found any) of the first film. I think the only people that will really enjoy it are those who love the actors or loved the first film.
I'm now up to date with most major releases with the exception of Green Lantern. Think I'll give that a pass.
Did Jace Falco report back with how he found it?
I've seen a lot of people ask that question before, strangely enough. The only one I've found which is used widely enough and is easily accessible is IMDB. There are thousands of lists there, and you can create your own with relative ease (as well as submit reviews). Not as good as GoodReads is for books though.
Ah, okay. Kindle version it is then. Starting the book tonight, expecting good things.
I'm now up to date with most major releases with the exception of Green Lantern. Think I'll give that a pass.
Did Jace Falco report back with how he found it?
Original post by Phalanges
Does anyone know of any good film collection/list sites like GoodReads is for books?
Does anyone know of any good film collection/list sites like GoodReads is for books?
I've seen a lot of people ask that question before, strangely enough. The only one I've found which is used widely enough and is easily accessible is IMDB. There are thousands of lists there, and you can create your own with relative ease (as well as submit reviews). Not as good as GoodReads is for books though.
Original post by Madjackismad
No, the footnotes are at the end, so they're really endnotes. Plus, the Kindle version is better since you have the dictionary (which is definitely needed at parts) and it takes you straight to the footnotes.
Plus, the Kindle version is better since you have the dictionary (which is definitely needed at parts) and it takes you straight to the footnotes.Ah, okay. Kindle version it is then. Starting the book tonight, expecting good things.
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
The Hangover 2 wasn't too bad. I think I unfairly slated it. It's not terrible for what it is, but neither is it something that I'll remember or would watch again or would ever recommend spending money on. Completely forgettable and without the humour (if you found any) of the first film. I think the only people that will really enjoy it are those who love the actors or loved the first film.
I'm now up to date with most major releases with the exception of Green Lantern. Think I'll give that a pass.
Did Jace Falco report back with how he found it?
I've seen a lot of people ask that question before, strangely enough. The only one I've found which is used widely enough and is easily accessible is IMDB. There are thousands of lists there, and you can create your own with relative ease (as well as submit reviews). Not as good as GoodReads is for books though.
Ah, okay. Kindle version it is then. Starting the book tonight, expecting good things.
I'm now up to date with most major releases with the exception of Green Lantern. Think I'll give that a pass.
Did Jace Falco report back with how he found it?
I've seen a lot of people ask that question before, strangely enough. The only one I've found which is used widely enough and is easily accessible is IMDB. There are thousands of lists there, and you can create your own with relative ease (as well as submit reviews). Not as good as GoodReads is for books though.
Ah, okay. Kindle version it is then. Starting the book tonight, expecting good things.
Oh, and don't expect any of it to start making sense straight away. It's not a book you can read casually as well.
(But it at least it doesn't have a myriad of allusions like Gravity's Rainbow or Ulysses. Foster Wallace is too smart for that.)
Original post by Phalanges
Pfft, you clearly haven't read enough Pratchett. Or Pullman, for that matter.
C.S. Lewis and Lewis Carroll trump Pratchett.
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
They don't come close.
Pullman is at least an equal.
I have a confession to make...
...I don't, especially, like either Comedies or Horrors.
That's not to say that there aren't a slew of comedies that I like: Porky's, the virtual entirety of the Apatow films and Undercover Brother, to name the most prominent in my mind. Not to mention a liking of several horror films, albeit a handful (Scream, Saw, Don't Look Now, Deliverance and Silence of the Lambs, should you care).
The problem I have with both is that they're always such a letdown, because they're so hit-and-miss. Well, comedies are hit-and-miss, horrors are generally putrid pish. I've seen almost every horror or comedy because I've gone to watch it in the cinema with mates, or a girl, or rented/streamed it. For the overwhelming majority of these incidences, I haven't been impressed. Horrors, especially, annoy me. Their awful roster of actors, tired storyboard of inevitable ridiculousness and failure to scare me means that they become eye-wateringly dull after a very short while, for me. Expect, of course, horrors such as the Grudge II - so awful that they're actually funnier, indeed funnier than many comedies.
My issue with comedies is this: much like horrors, but even more so, everyone is obsessed with rushing out to see the latest comedy film. And, then, quoting it incessantly. A film such as The Hangover, which was decidedly average, imo, was only made worse by the constant references to wolfpacks, tigers in bathrooms and arse-clenchingly unfunny racist stereotyping. The news of a second didn't exactly send shivers of excitement down my spine. It's almost always the case with comedies though; they're never so bad that I want to leave the cinema or turn the film off, as in the case of many horrors, but I'm always reserved about watching the latest comedic offering because, time after time, it disappoints me. Austin Powers disappointed me, The Invention of Lying was a waste of the £6 admission fee and No Strings Attached was a real letdown, to name but a few. It annoys me because everyone else seems so keen on watching them, and always seems fairly satisfied by the "big" comedy titles, while I tend to be left wanting.
Clearly I'm becoming a grumpy old bastard.
...I don't, especially, like either Comedies or Horrors.
That's not to say that there aren't a slew of comedies that I like: Porky's, the virtual entirety of the Apatow films and Undercover Brother, to name the most prominent in my mind. Not to mention a liking of several horror films, albeit a handful (Scream, Saw, Don't Look Now, Deliverance and Silence of the Lambs, should you care).
The problem I have with both is that they're always such a letdown, because they're so hit-and-miss. Well, comedies are hit-and-miss, horrors are generally putrid pish. I've seen almost every horror or comedy because I've gone to watch it in the cinema with mates, or a girl, or rented/streamed it. For the overwhelming majority of these incidences, I haven't been impressed. Horrors, especially, annoy me. Their awful roster of actors, tired storyboard of inevitable ridiculousness and failure to scare me means that they become eye-wateringly dull after a very short while, for me. Expect, of course, horrors such as the Grudge II - so awful that they're actually funnier, indeed funnier than many comedies.
My issue with comedies is this: much like horrors, but even more so, everyone is obsessed with rushing out to see the latest comedy film. And, then, quoting it incessantly. A film such as The Hangover, which was decidedly average, imo, was only made worse by the constant references to wolfpacks, tigers in bathrooms and arse-clenchingly unfunny racist stereotyping. The news of a second didn't exactly send shivers of excitement down my spine. It's almost always the case with comedies though; they're never so bad that I want to leave the cinema or turn the film off, as in the case of many horrors, but I'm always reserved about watching the latest comedic offering because, time after time, it disappoints me. Austin Powers disappointed me, The Invention of Lying was a waste of the £6 admission fee and No Strings Attached was a real letdown, to name but a few. It annoys me because everyone else seems so keen on watching them, and always seems fairly satisfied by the "big" comedy titles, while I tend to be left wanting.
Clearly I'm becoming a grumpy old bastard.
On the comedy front, while I do enjoy them I also find myself not really counting them as "proper" films. All you can really say about them is that they make you laugh or that they didn't; with the exception of Judd Apatow films there are pretty much no mainstream comedies that make any attempt at saying anything at any kind of level deeper than that.
I really am a fan of the horror genre, I think if they're done well they elicit a primal reaction unlike no other from their audience. The problem is that so few are actually good; the industry built around them is the most horrifically formulaic monster that whenever it spots something good rips it off fifty different ways until everyone gets bored of it, waits for the next big things, and then rinses and repeats. But there is a lot of bloody good horrors out there. I'm always surprised when people say they don't like horrors except Scream though; if you're not a fan of horror films in general, I would have thought that the majority of jokes and references would fly right by you (I imagine this isn't so much the case for you, zjs, but it's not the firs ttime I've heard it said).
I really am a fan of the horror genre, I think if they're done well they elicit a primal reaction unlike no other from their audience. The problem is that so few are actually good; the industry built around them is the most horrifically formulaic monster that whenever it spots something good rips it off fifty different ways until everyone gets bored of it, waits for the next big things, and then rinses and repeats. But there is a lot of bloody good horrors out there. I'm always surprised when people say they don't like horrors except Scream though; if you're not a fan of horror films in general, I would have thought that the majority of jokes and references would fly right by you (I imagine this isn't so much the case for you, zjs, but it's not the firs ttime I've heard it said).
Just watched Sucker Punch. Thought it was ok. The action and CGI was good the plot seemed to be something it wasn't. Still going to wait till the directors cut to make a final judgment as they cut out 18 minutes.
That and I just saw the documentary senna. Which despite me not being interested in F1 was really good.
That and I just saw the documentary senna. Which despite me not being interested in F1 was really good.
Original post by Aj12
Original post by Aj12
Just watched Sucker Punch. Thought it was ok. The action and CGI was good the plot seemed to be something it wasn't. Still going to wait till the directors cut to make a final judgment as they cut out 18 minutes.
Really? The action scenes of Sucker Punch were pretty much the most bored I've been in the cinema this year. I've seen at least two films since that with far superior action sequences.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Worcester College Oxford Offer Holders 2024
- Name a film without the letter 'E' in the title
- Edexcel A-level Statistics Paper 2 (9ST0 02) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Best movies
- Name a film title using the last letter of the film posted.
- Favourite nature documentary
- Official Richmond American University London Applicant Thread for 2024
- Official UEA Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Official University of South Wales 2023 Applicant Thread
- Official University of Roehampton Applicant Thread for 2024
- What do you enjoy about life?
- Economic duress moot help
- Fitzwilliam College Cambridge 2024 offer-holders
- Official Edinburgh Napier University Applicant Thread for 2024
- Film and visual culture Aberdeen University
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- Which movies can make you cry or at least teary-eyed?
- A-level German Study Group 2022-2023
- Make it More Soup-ey !!
- edexcel a level french essays
