logo Sign In

Rebel Scumb

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Mar-2003
Last activity
18-Dec-2005
Posts
618

Post History

Post
#28870
Topic
Top Ten of 2003.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28870/action/topic#28870
Time
damn bossky you're getting me all hot and bothered!

I've had a thing for SJ for a couple years now, its nice that she's finally getting recognition.

I really liked About Schmidt but have yet to see Somethings gotta give, though I've seen many parts including the ending while I've been at work.

I think I'm gonna check that out tonight if we don't go see Peter Pan which I'm still curious about.
Post
#28857
Topic
Worst Movies of 2003
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28857/action/topic#28857
Time
1.Hulk - Long. Boring. Bad FX. Pretentious beyond all recognition. The sort of movie that annoying people say they like so they can look smart. Its not deep, its just pseudo-deep. And it makes a mountain out of a molehill. This should of been a 90minute Michael Bay film, lots of action, a bit of subtext and a ton of fun. There is somethign wrong when you have a Hulk movie and he never says "hulk smash".

2.Daredevil - Terrible casting for every character, bad directing, bad music, incoherent action, a terrible injustice to a good comic book, but also just an all aroundbad film

3.Lara Croft Tomb Raider: the cradle of life - terrible. I can't believe I even watched it

4.Paycheck - nothing worse then a good idea gone bad. I knew this movie was in trouble in the first scene where Ben Affleck invents the new breakthrough technology of holographic computer monitors, yet 30seconds earlier, he used a holographic computer monitor that was much more sophisiticated (and clearly an rip off of minority report, which in and of it self was a bad movie) to design said monitor. Also on the list of terrible logic in this film: breaking into the badguys base to destroy his evil machine, only to find that it is already broken. So what does Ben do? He fixes it for no real reason, then tries to destroy it in an overly complicated way.

5. Badboys2 - I kind of liked the first film, but part2 had to be the most immoral movie I've ever seen. And not particularly good at that. Dead girls tits, bodies stuffed with XTC pills being thrown out of (and then run over by trucks), the heros threating a 12 year old with guns just for kicks, blood every where, etc etc. Terrible stuff. This film also contains the best cheezy line of all time: "phase 3, we deploy the cats and iguanas to screw with their motion sensors"
Post
#28855
Topic
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28855/action/topic#28855
Time
definitly Gundark. I don't think LOTR could be done much better, baring a few changes which are strickly due to my taste and have nothing to do with how the movie would be excepted by a larger audience (for example I liked the original idea of not having the prologue in Fellowship that NewLine made them add in. The prologue is cool but I would rather it was revealed throughout as flash backs, and I wish they didn't show sauron)

But like I said these are minor things, and as a whole the trilogy works in a spectacular fashion.

Quote
But, Jackson redid a lot of the story to allow for a female-appeal love triangle with Arwen, Eowyn, and Aragorn and it helped immensely to bring in women.


I think this is a really valid point, because what I think is ultimately the key to the trilogies success is the female appeal. The books have none, there is no real female presence at all. Its very male, and in many ways very homoerotic (see also the wonderful Master and Commander) But something I didn't count on was that women would swoon over Aragorn and Legolas the way they have. Infact its been my observation that in many instances the female fans now outnumber the male ones.

But I think more importantly on this note, what really helped the films was that 2 of the three writers were women. Smart women. and it gives this whole undercurrent of emotion and feminity to the films and not in a bad way. Opening the first film with Cate Blanchetts voice pretty much sets the tone throughout. And in all the DVD materials I'm always impressed with Phillpa Boyens who seems the very model of a smart artistic women with a stong understanding of filmmaking and good story telling.

Quote
" A multinational cast of epic proportions. Brought in people of all cultures because they want to see some of their fellow kinsmen. Unlike the Harry Potter films whose only non-UKer was Verne Troyer (Mini ME in a cameo), these have the appeal of having people from around the world cast in it.


true however its still pretty brit oriented, there are a few americans, and the rest are Aussies and New Zealanders. I think actually the main problem (and this could not really be helped while remaining true to the source material) is that there are no characters of colour or any real diverse ethnicity. There isn't much appeal for black audiences, its a very white story filled with very white characters. Though I'm glad the at PJ managed to keep in the Easterlings and Southerns while managing to move far enough away from the Asian and Arab stereotypes which they obviously are meant to be in the books.
Post
#28846
Topic
Top Ten of 2003.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28846/action/topic#28846
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Okay folks... saw Lost in Translation last night. Excellent film. If you like Bill Murray a la Ed Wood, Rushmore, and The Royal Tenenbaums, you'll love this.



Not to mention that Scarlett Johansen is hotter then a sex sandwich. I really wanted to see this movie but lost my chance. I guess I'll have to wait for it on dvd.

Quote
"The movie is not without flaws. The first movie states only living tissue can go through time. The T-1000 and the T-X are not living tissue. I always assumed that the T-1000 was first in living tissue and broke out of it after going through time since his arrival isn't shown. The T-Xs arrival was shown and doesn't make sense how she went through time though it did give some awsome visual benefit. "


Not to mention the continuity error when Arnold gets in the truck and knows where to look for the keys instead of just ripping off the stearing wheel. This was something that John taught the T2 Terminator and there is no way by my logic that T3 terminator could have figured this out.

Still I agree the ending was great, it worked both as a satisfactory ending to a trilogy if there are no more parts, and at the same time made me really want there to be a T4. I think it would be cool to see the start of the resistence, with the rubber skinned T-600s that Reese talked about in T1, and having John and Kathryn recruiting their team including a young Kyle Reese. Supposedly Arnold can't do the movie because of his new gig, but he recommended the Rock to be the new terminator.

Quote
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (this one really got no respect-- a great little film)


I wanted to see this movie and nobody would go with me.
Post
#28835
Topic
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: Return of the King (spoilers)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28835/action/topic#28835
Time
Quote
They had it in the extended edition, and it worked just fine. all i am talking about is just the one 2 sec part where you see the orc run into the woods and then see the woods shake.


No I know, but because of that, the quick moment of Aragorn and Eowyn gets displaced and has differnet music behind it, and doesn't work as well IMHO. Its not a big deal, its a cool scene, all I'm saying is I can see why it was cut.

In fact having seen ROTK now, I actually agree with cutting the saruman scene, I think it works well without it and the pacing would be a bit off with it in. I like elements of the EEs but I agree with PJ that the theatrical cuts are superior. One day I'm gonna do a blend of the two.
Post
#28834
Topic
EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28834/action/topic#28834
Time
I heard Jackson saying that he wasn't sure who would play Bilbo because Ian Holm was too old, which makes no sense to me, because Gandalf says in Fellowship that Bilbo hasn't aged a day. I don;t think anyone would be mad if they just had a dark haired Ian Holm in it, and anyone else would not seem right.

LOTR returning cast/cameos that could be worked in:

-John Rhys Davis as Gloin (Gimli's dad)
-Gollum
-Gandalf
-Elrond
-Arwen
-Legolas (in a cameo in the mirkwood sequence)

I also think Patrick stewart would be cool as Thorin the head dwarf.
Post
#28832
Topic
Top Ten of 2003.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28832/action/topic#28832
Time
yeah, T3 reset the balance of the paradox that was undone by T2. The TX was hot indeed. and the humour, though over the top, was better played then T2 because Arnold played as the straightman and remained in character, unlike his "I need a vacation" stupid lines in T2.

What did work in T2 was camerons directing, the SFX and the transformation of Sarah Conner into psycho commando lady. Ulitmately if elements from T2 and T3 had been combined we would have a better sequel then either, but as I said before T1 would have best been left a standalone film. A simple parable about a dark future told through suspense and a tragic love story.
Post
#28830
Topic
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28830/action/topic#28830
Time
this is a tough question to answer.

I love the Lotr movies and books, though I think the books are rife with problematic elements. Tolkien didn't really understand anything about structure or emphasis or pacing or foreshadowing, but for whatever reason the story works nonetheless. All things considered I think Jackson has done about as good a job imaginable with the material (TTT aside) and shaped together a truly awesome series of movies.

That said, I'm surprised that audiences have connected with these movies so much, I figured it would just be fans of the books who would like them, and even then I figured many of the purest would be turned away.

However i don;'t see how you can say that the FX tell the story, these films are brilliantly acted and the dialogue is superb for the most part, I would say most of my favorite moments are not FX moments, and my favorite battle remains the AMon Her battle at the end of fellowship, which has no FX.

But I do agree that LOTR is not for everyone, and I'm puzzled on how it has done so well as it doesn;t seem like the sort of thing most people would like.
Post
#28816
Topic
Top Ten of 2003.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28816/action/topic#28816
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
I loved Pirates of the Carribean. You have to give the creaters of that movie some credit. All they had was the ride in Disney land to base off of. The creaters of Return of the King had a popular novel. Pirates of the Carribean has everything. Comedy, action, great Special Effects and Keira Knightly. There is little not to love about that movie.


well I never said it was bad, but it just felt kind of average to me. Sure they did a good job and all, it just didn't blow me away. Depp was good, but then he's always good, and he's been better IMHO. And all the other characters save Rush were pretty flat. Not bad, just not outstanding. Anyways as long as you guys loved it thats what counts.

And yeah T1 is way better then T2, it works much better as a stand alone film, and even though I like T3, I could do without it. What I love about T1 is that its all a paradox, if the terminator had never gone back to kill John(through Sarah) then Kyle Reese would never have gone back to save him(and her) which means that John would never be concieved, and Sarah would never be prepared for Judgement day, so in trying to kill John Conner, the machines created him. I love that stuff.
Post
#28783
Topic
EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28783/action/topic#28783
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
VERY INTERESTING POINT, RRS. HOLLYWOOD TRYING TO SNATCH UP AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN ON A SUCCESSFUL FILM FRANCHISE. HAS ANYBODY HEARD THE RUMORS THAT PETER JACKSON HAS FINALLY AGREED TO MAKE THE HOBBIT ??? THERE WERE SEVERAL NEWS STATIONS THAT ADDED FUEL TO THAT FIRE, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OFFICIAL WORD YET.



he wants to do it, but New Line doesn't own the rights and the property is in legal limbo. So PJ can't do anything until that is cleared up.

Quote
Besides, a lot (and I mean a WHOLE LOT) of Goblet of Fire was exposition and rehashing of what had gone on in the previous 3 books. I think a filmmaker who knows what he's doing can easily turn in a Goblet of Fire film with a running time of under 3 hours.


definitly, 35min for the quidtich torny, 15-20min for each triwizard event, 30min for the dance and everything leading up to it, 15min for the final confrontation. That still leaves 30-45min for all the inbetweens. It could be done.
Post
#28727
Topic
Top Ten of 2003.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28727/action/topic#28727
Time
you guys seriously thought PotC was the best film of the year??????? Your entitled to your opinions, and that movie was okay, but I'm really shocked to see it on a top ten list, much less as number 1

Quote
Terminator 3 Rise of the Machines = Not as good as the original but a few steps better then Terminator 2


glad someone agrees


here's my list as best I can dicern

Lord of the Rings:return of the king
Finding Nemo
X-men2
Kill Bill Volume.1
Normal
Master and Commander:the far side of the world


Still waiting to see:

-Lost in translation
-Last Samuria
-Big fish
-Whale rider

Still not sure how i feel about Matrix Reloaded+Matrix Revolutions


Post
#28726
Topic
EVERYTHING HARRY POTTER
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28726/action/topic#28726
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Dayv, he was censoring himself based on what I said. In other words, he was gonna trash HP a bit.

I will agree that they are already starting to look too old and I don't think it will work well to replace the kids. Just can't happen. So they'll probably have to cut the series short. Hell, you gotta remember that they're still talking about making The Goblet of Fire into two movies. What's that going to do to the kids and their aging with relation to the roles?


I think they look fine, they're the same age as the characters, I don't want them to change the cast. Even if GoF gets cut in half (which is a terrible idea because there is no cliffhanger in the middle) they are still shooting it as one film so it won't be a problem. Strictly speaking I don't see any reason why film 4 has to be any longer then the others. When I finished the book I liked it, yet I don't recall it feeling like more happened then the others. The main plot points are the opening with voldermort, the big quiditch torunament which sets everything up, the tri wiizard torunament which has 3 events, the dance and the scenes leading up to it, and the resolution. That can easily be condensed into a 2.5 hour movie.

Book 5 on the other hand, I have no idea how they are going to adapt that with its 2000 subplots.

The real problem is that its likely the movies will soon catch up with the books and books 6 & 7 are going to end up being novelizations of their respective films

Aren't there rumours that JK Rowling isn't even going to finish the series?

On another note, what did everyone feel about the Ron/Hermione romance in book5 or lack there of? That was one fo the things I really liked in book 4, and was really excited about seeing expanded in book5 yet it was completely absent. Very strange.
Post
#28497
Topic
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: Return of the King (spoilers)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28497/action/topic#28497
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
i am sorry to say that my opinion of the TTT EE was exactly opposite yours for one think i loved the deathenor scene, you may nto know this but the reason he became corrupted was because he had a palentir, so he would have known the power of the ring. i also felt that the movie flowed alot better with all of the extra footage. and i a still scratching my head on the reason they did put the trees into the TE, it was like 30 extra fottage and it showed how sarumans army was really distroyed.( i am takng about the forest that creeps up on the battle at helms deep. that forest is full of bad trees, its these tree which the ents heard, and they are the ones that kill the orcs.)



I've read the book and I know all about that stuff. As much as I was looking forwrd to the tree scene, it did kind of disrupt the ending and hte pacing, I can see why it was cut.

Post
#28435
Topic
Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow!!! Seen the Trailer?!?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28435/action/topic#28435
Time
this is how I think the PT should of been. My logic is that ANH was made in 1975, and TPM takes place 30 years earlier so all the technology/hairstyles/art design should be molded off of sci-fi from 1945 era.

But then I'm one of those weird people who thinks they should of tried to make the FX looked dated to complete the illusion. the movie 'CQ' did that wonderfully
Post
#28414
Topic
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: Return of the King (spoilers)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/28414/action/topic#28414
Time
I'm not sure which LOTR thread to post this in, so this one is as good as any,

so we opened our christmas presents a bit early since my wife and I will be working and running around a lot over the holiday and I finally got to see the TTT:EE.

I think its kind of hit and miss, which is how I see the TE of TTT as well. The added Merry/Pippin/treebeard stuff is great for the most part, as is most of the frodo stuff. The last thing this movie needed was more aragorn/Eowyn, infact most of the scenes with them in the middle of the movie should have been cut IMHo and left for the EE.

The boromir flashback is alright, though parts of it seem a bit contrived that Denethor would actually mention how the ring corrupts weaker men, it just seemed like they were trying to be too ironic knowing what happens, I like the Gondor men better when they are ignorant of the Ring's real power. Still the scene for the most part is good. I like most of the scenes in the first hour of the movie, alot of the others I can see why they were cut. The new ending is okay, but it kind of feels choppy, where as TTT:TE was the one film of the trilogy with a really good efficient too the point ending, I feel that is kind of lost now.

Oh well, still neat to see, and I love the special features. Tonight I'm going to have to sit down with some rubbing alcohol and use my wife's hair dryer to try and remove the annoying back label from the box without ripping the case.