Perhaps that is the reason for leaving out the names (and I admit that it is my own conjecture that arrived at my conclusion), but to me it seems they could have easily simply not even tried to allude to their names ("...and then there are the two blue wizards.") or could have easily secured the rights to use just those names.
Hey, your conjecture is certainly plausible. :) I haven't actually looked into why Gandalf has his little memory lapse; perhaps it'll be discussed on the behind-the-scenes features on the eventual DVD release.
As for securing the rights to use just those names, however, I'd suggest you do a little light reading on the sordid history of Christopher Tolkien's (who heads up the Tolkien estate) relationship with Jackson's team. "Hostile" is an understatement; IIRC, he even cut all ties with one of his sons for daring to attend the premier of Fellowship! (Incidentally, while Christopher Tolkien has done us all a great service in editing and publishing many of his father's manuscripts, he really strikes me as a cruel and mean-spirited man. Quite a shame.)
I'll also admit that my Tolkein knowledge is rather limited, as I only read the trilogy for the first time in the past year (and the Hobbit for the first time in more than a decade last October). Anything beyond that stems from my reading the LOTR wiki. You seem much more knowledgeable in all things Tolkeinesque, and maybe you should start a Middle Earth thread. I know I'd enjoy it, but I feel unworthy to start it ;)
You're too kind, sir. Perhaps I will!
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
darth_ender said:
My italicized "obviously" in the above quote was intended to convey sarcasm. Not sure that it worked now :(
For my part, I took your sarcasm well, but I did first think you wrote Hobbit when you meant Star Wars. Then I realized you had already changed subjects to Tolkien somewhat stealthily midsentence. It amused me, so I reposted it. :)
darth_ender said:
I encourage you to read the books, xhonzi. You might enjoy the differences and the resulting approaches Jackson and Co. took to the different films.
I don't know when I gave off the impression that I had not read the books. I have read them. I have read the 4 'standard works' as it was, and read some of the Silmarillion and Christopher's works. I've read the Hobbit the most since I read it at 8 or 9 and 3 or 4 times since. I read the first 30 pages of Fellowship almost as many times, but as a kid it never hooked me the way that Hobbit did. I've read LotR as an adult, when the movies reminded me that I needed to go back and do just that.
As I said before, Hobbit holds a special place in my childhood that LotR doesn't, but as the adult that I am today, I would rather sit through a version of The Hobbit that is "the version that happened" rather than "the way ol' liar Bilbo told it".
I think Jackson & Co. made some great edits in LotR (some not so great, as well). I think Tolkien was a very fallible story teller and didn't always have the reader's best interest in mind. PJ & Co. went so far in their adaptation of The Hobbit, and for my money I wish they had gone further.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Ah, my bad. Sounds like you really do understand the stories pretty well. I would ask you what edits you like and dislike, but I think maybe this discussion should be moved to its own thread. And since Akwat has had a full 30 minutes to start that thread and hasn't done so (slacker! ;) ), I guess I'll do it to keep the conversation going.
Oh, and I see what you did there ;)
I'm working on it as we speak, dude.
Edit: Done.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Hope you know I was teasing :) Glad to see the thread.
xhonzi said:
CP3S said:
...the universe of the LOTR films by feeling in the blanks...
Eh?
Dah, this is why you proof read your post, C3PX!
Placed my further replies to the discussion on the subject of Tolkien in Akwat's new thread.
I saw the hobbit today. Thought it was Ok.
The film took forever to start, the stuff in the shire really bogs things down and by the time the film started to properly building up some steam it ended!
A fan-edit is definitely in order. The stuff that they added in to lengthen the plot just seamed to slow the film down to a crawl (And yes I understand that they used supplemental material that Tolkien wrote to lengthen the story, but really hinders the story of 'The Hobbit')
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
CP3S said:
xhonzi said:
CP3S said:
...the universe of the LOTR films by feeling in the blanks...
Eh?
Dah, this is why you proof read your post, C3PX!
ALLOL, I missed this the first two times.
Zero Dark Thirty
I'm not surprised this is the most hyped, overly exalted film of the year. The reasons are plentiful and don't really belong in this thread. Even without those considerations, this movie was not good. The script was bland and the character development was nonexistent. It wasn't really fiction, it wasn't really a documentary. It just felt like a disjointed collection of conference room meetings.
I wasn't expecting a Michael Bay type movie, obviously, but this film simply didn't engage me at all. Emotionally, dramatically, etc. I did my best to go in with an open mind, but within the first 5 minutes I began to realize my prior notions and impressions of the film's advertising were more or less spot on.
Can't really say more without going into all sorts of tangent discussions. Again, judging purely based on the merits of the story and its execution, Zero Dark Thirty was not a good movie (in my probably stupid opinion).
ZDT reminds me of The Amazing Spider-Man - empty and devoid of any emotion or engaging drama. But if one considers that the source material for ZDT demands emotional detachment, then that brings me to my other point. Both films felt unnecessary. One because the origin tale had been told too recently, and the other for reasons I can't really explain succinctly. But again, without digressing it's not hard to figure out why this movie was made. And while Bigelow was working on and researching an OBL movie before May 2011, the reason for making the movie is largely the same.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
Crime Zone (1988)
A low budget David Carradine film produced by Roger Corman. Blade Runner meets The Terminator meets 1984. Hilariously bad. Highly recommended with friends and drinks. At one point a woman kicked open a door with a machine gun, back-lighted with blue light while wearing leather with synth score, and shouted "show me your dick!!" and the VCR actually broke. We were watching it on a VHS. But we burst out laughing so much that it took us almost 15 minutes to retrieve the VHS tape with knives and pens and repair the mangled tape. It will probably never play right again. But man was it worth it.
Ip Man (2008)
Me and my friend tried to watch Enter the Dragon after the masterpiece of Crime Zone, but it was a cantonese dub. Mildly dismayed, we checked out Netflix. No Enter the Dragon right now, surprisingly. But they did have a semi-biographical film about Bruce Lee's master. I said, "meh." My friend replied it starred a guy named Donnie Yen. That immediately had my attention and I informed him that we better watch this thing. It was incredible. Great fights, but a really interesting story, and Donnie Yen gives a great performance as usual. If you want a good kung fu film that isn't too over the top but just exagerated enough, this is for you. A really surprisingly good movie. It's more of a period film than a martial arts film, but however you classify it it's pretty well made. A very interesting story about how a humble chinese guy in the 1940s invented his own martial arts school without really meaning to.
The Hobbit -
Not entirely sure how I feel about this one. I did like a lot of the extra padding but in the end that's all it was - there are many scenes the did nothing for the story.
It's also hard to judge given that it's just a part of the story and some of my favourite characters haven't shown up yet.
I feel that they did a very poor job of identifiying the various Dwarves to the audience - at least half of them were reduced to pure background status.
Most disappointing was Thorin. He was well played but I just didn't recognise the character.
right now i'd say 2.5 balls pending a second viewing. I'll be more forgiving if the Necromancer stuff pays off later.
Django Unchained - [the D is silent ;)]
Now this was a fun movie, and you can tell they had fun making it. They characters are great and the scenery is amazing.
in short, it's about a slave turned bounty hunter on a quest to rescue his wife from slavers. It's a Western in the South in 1858.
The film is peppered with Tarantino's trademark brutality so not for the faint of heart but I had a great time watching this film.
Bonus points for Quentin Tarantino cameo.
4 balls.
Red State.
I was expecting a horror movie. It 'twasn't, at least by typical horror standards. But it was a pretty interesting movie, especially given the director. And some good performances too.
Four out of five trumpets.
darth_ender said:
Willow. This may be the first film I remember seeing in the theater. I was 6 at the time, and remember being surprised that Skeletor made an appearance. Even now I still love this movie, and it's surprising how it's not rated higher on IMDB. Sure, it rips off Star Wars with parallels for Luke, Han, the Emperor, Vader, the Force, the Empire, the Rebels, theme, etc. Nevertheless, it still is very enjoyable to me, and George Lucas came up with the story, so I'm not surprised that he reused his own ideas. Plus, while I enjoy James Horner's compositions, this may be my favorite of his soundtracks.
Not sure where the best place to put this is, as it's actually an upcoming film I'm looking forward to seeing again, but I don't think it merits a thread just for it.
It will include deleted scenes, many of which I've known about for years but have never seen.
Remember how the Nelwyn wizard gives Willow three acorns that turn things to stone? He drops one and the second has a meager effect on Bavmorda, so ultimately they were useless. Well, if you've read the novel (which I did in 1999), you might know that Willow actually battled some large fish creature after rescuing Fin Raziel from the island. He defeats it with an acorn!
I know this movie isn't everyone's favorite, but it has a special place in my heart and I'm glad that we'll finally see these deleted scenes.
With Hobbit mania at a new high, it's a no brainer they release Willow now to cash in. ;)
Where were you in '77?
Is the news of the blu-ray still just barely getting out there? The trailer has been out for almost a month now. Guess I should have made a thread or something. =P
Just this past weekend I finally got a blu-ray player so I'll definitely be checking it out.
The Last Starfighter (1984)
So to break in my new blu-ray player I finally got to dust off my first blu-ray. Which was given to me probably two Christmases ago. I've been streaming HD films from Netflix and Vudu for a while now but they really don't compare to blu-ray. Love the picture quality. Oddly, some of the special effects in this film actually look better in HD than their DVD counterpart. Still a fun film. What I don't get is why in the world Explorers isn't on blu-ray yet!
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
My trek through Trek continues. Ah, my favorite Trek film. It's odd, I remembered this coming out around '98. This was a weird time for the franchise. Bashir had just had an adventure as James Bond and Voyager was continuing with rather bland generic Trek episodes. I have to say now that I'm actually following everything that what was going on I enjoyed seeing the Defiant and the Doctor's quick cameo. Neelix's human holographic counterpart I could have done without however. Also, what is with the all new uniforms AGAIN, we just went through a uniform change not that long ago!
While I was away.
Trick R Treat (2008), really fun, non-scary, irreverent anthology horror flick. The sort of film Creepshow 9 or Halloween 14 would be in a better universe. 4 Pumpkins.
Drag Me To Hell (2009), lots of old Raimi riffs played over a rather racist and flimsy script. 2 Dead Kittens.
Dredd (2012) Best Judge Dredd film yet made. A day in the life of THE LAW. If any film of last year deserves a sequel it's this one. Five Cubed Perps.
Cigarette Burns (2005) Remember when John Carpenter seemed to know what he was doing? This pile of vile rubbish (with one unintentional ALLOL moment) almost made me forget. There is one sequence which is utterly unforgivable. "Made for TV" is no excuse for this sort of sloppiness, the worst episodes of Season Two The Walking Dead were more watchable than this. It says something when even Udo Kier doesn't give it his all. Not even worth watching for the one big laugh. Minus All Balls.
Miracle Mile (1988) fun eighties romantic comedy fantasy with a big surprise. One of the best films I saw last year. A Trillion Diamonds.
Two I haven't seen in ages:
The Terminator
Nice LD with the original punchy mono mix. An extremely taut storyline is the biggest positive combined with an increasing and unrelenting sense of tension. An extremely good film that overcomes it's low budget and remains Cameron's single best effort to date.
3.5 balls out of 4.
Terminator 2
Finally seeing the SE Director's cut helps considerably as all the footage added is bridging material and adds more character depth. But I still have major reservations with the storyline as overall I am left unsatisfied by the film in the end. The effects are outstanding, with the CGI adhering to the necessary rule of enhancing sequences instead of dominating them. The sound is stunning with probably the best quality I've ever heard in Dolby Stereo Surround. It is an interesting hook to see Arnold as the good Temrinator the second time around, but because the script only occasionally touches this it is to me nowhere near as effective as the relentless terror caused by the original. Even the liquid metal T-1000 doesn't have that much menace. I also enjoy how despite a huge budget that they managed to keep this looking rough to match the look of the original film.
3 balls out of 4. A must-own LD.
With both what really surprised me was the standout performances of the lesser characters, namely Reese in the first film and the young John Connor in T2. That and the sheer amount of scripted and shot alternative material. At least the unused ironic twist ending from the first film answers my biggest question with T2: "how in the heck did they get the arm and processor in the first place?"
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
I love Michael Biehn, and I forget how much I enjoy his Kyle Reese. Everytime I watch The Termintator, I am floored by his performance.
And I agree that Young John Connor does stand out. But probably not the way you meant it. He's too shrill for my tastes.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Once Were Warriors (1994)
Interesting New Zealand movie starring our very own Temuera Morrison. He shows some acting chops here as a volatile, scary man. Makes you wonder if he was underutilized in AOTC.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
georgec said:
Makes you wonder if he was underutilized in AOTC.
Wasn't everyone?
Tobar said:
georgec said:
Makes you wonder if he was underutilized in AOTC.
Wasn't everyone?
Even Dexter Jettster.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
K-Horror night here at the Chateau.
First up was Phone (2002), Ghostly revenge/guilt story involving an astonishingly well acted child character in extreme peril. 3 hair balls.
The came Cello (2005) Ghostly revenge/guilt story involving astonishingly well acted child characters in extreme peril. 5 fingers.
Cello is by far and a way the best of the pair
It's really well made and a serious mind-funk but Phone was well worth a watch (the pre-title idents are fun, there is a Disney logo in Korean followed by a corporate animation for Toilet Pictures).
Johnny Ringo said:
right now i'd say 2.5 balls pending a second viewing. I'll be more forgiving if the Necromancer stuff pays off later.
I agree about the poor job identifying the dwarves, but I feel like that was an issue left over from the source material. Even in the book, most of the dwarves are background with only a few standing out and being notable.
As for the Necromancer stuff, it is a pretty major plot line, should end up being pretty cool in the end, and will tightly connect the two trilogies together. Plus he is played by Benedict Cumberbatch, which should be cool.
Ultimately, the story of The Hobbit is not very exciting and is a very low stakes adventure. I am more excited about the Necromancer and the stuff connected to that plot line than anything else in this trilogy.
Cumberbatch is a fantastic name...for a disease.
The Lady Vanishes (1938) 8.5/10 - Thrilling film made of a rather simple story as only Hitchcock could do. Quite funny too.
Night Train to Munich (1940) 8/10 - Thrilling film made of a rather simple story as only Hitch- oh this is actually Carol Reed. Well, the two films are rather similar, which, let me be clear, is a good thing.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) 10/10 - Outstanding picture. Great performances from Stewart and Wayne. Not a typical John Ford film, in a good way.
Death Rides a Horse (1967) 7/10 - A straight-foward plot made awesome by Lee Van Cleef, Ennio Morricone, and the "West." Have to love a good sphagetti western. John Phillip Law is absolutely horrendous, though.
The Warriors (1979) 9/10 - Easily one of the coolest films I've ever seen. Don't know what more needs be said, other than: I can dig it.
The Hurt Locker (2009) 10/10 - Still amazing on second watch. Really, very great.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012) 10/10 - Also very great. Seriously, this film is amazing. Go see it now. Incredibly well done. Everything is top-notch. It's not my favorite film of the year, but it might be the best.
Looper (2012) 9.5/10 - Finally saw this. Great film. Great filmmaking. There are some minor nitpicks that made me almost give it a 9, but I'm giving it that extra half a point due to it's originality, which can't be understated. One thing that SPOILERS took me for a loop was that the JGL and BW's character arcs are resolved through just JGL's character. I guess it's okay because they're the same guy, but I did not expect that to happen. END SPOILERS