[Just your average movie goer]

I think this thread is fairly self-explanatory. However, here's a brief run down just for the hell of it. I don't intend this to be a source of great debate, but that's probably inevitable given the way most of us here are like. If it happens, it happens - but the basic premise of the thread is to discuss movies we once thought were brilliant and have subsequently changed our minds about, and of course what made us change our minds.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

For a time, I thought these movies were it. I thought they were the next Star Wars. I bought all the DVDs, then I bought all the extended editions. I watched all the various extras and tidbits that came with them - and while my intention for a trip to New Zealand was just to see the beautiful sights that little country has to offer, I have to admit I got excited when I recognised a bit of landscape that was used in the movies.

Recently, I realised they just didn't do it for me anymore. They felt flat, the running time which before had felt luxurious just felt tedious - and I knew that I was in trouble when at the end as when Frodo was holding the ring over the cracks of doom and Sam asked "What are you waiting for?", I thought to myself. "Yes, what are you waiting for?" and fast forwarded the scene.

Afterwards, I put on my analysing cap and tried to work out just why these films that I had loved so much didn't hold up anymore, and I think in the end, I just realised that there's not a lot of substance to them. Sauron's forces are never a real threat. The ring, as much as they go on about it, is a little trinket, and the idea that throwing a piece of jewellery into a fire could save the world is simply preposterous. In addition to that, the films take themselves too seriously (in their defense the book does too - although the book doesn't do anything for me either). They're heavy, laden with long speeches, but in the end they all add up to nothing.

They're still absolutely gorgeous to look at, no doubt about that. The scenery, the sets, the costumes. There is no denying that they are magnificent in terms of bringing an imaginary world to life down to every last detail. The people who brought these things to life deserve every accolade they are given. This was a truly monumentous task, and I think every audience member who saw these films, down to the youngest child, would know that and appreciate that for the incredibly painstaking effort it was.

Unfortunately though at the end of the day, all of this immense effort was undertaken to bring a trilogy of films to life that unfortunately never had that much life to begin with. Then factor in the excessive running times, the fact that there were extraneous sub-plots thrown in simply for the sake of padding the films out (particularly in The Two Towers when Peter Jackson opted to hold back events from Frodo and Sam's journey until the third movie) and you've got an exhausting empty movie experience on your hands. Beautiful to look at, sure, but the loud parts wake you after you've dozed off.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 25 April 2011 - 08:20 AM

[Zatoichi]

I've actually got nothing for this one. Well, nothing I've changed my mind on, but plenty stuff to say . The only thing that even comes close is that I might rewatch Star Wars (OT only) every few years or so. I've watched the three films of the Original Trilogy over 100 times each, and the number is possibly closer to 300 times each. After so many times having seen them, well honestly they're kind of boring. Don't get me wrong I still love them and they more than surpass pretty much all of today's films. But I'm never going to get anything new out of them. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is nearly in the same boat. I love the films, and I'll rewatch them every couple of years. I've not seen them nearly as many times as the OT, but I'm not going to get much new out of them. My dad would read me the books when I was a kid. I've read the books time and again, since then. So I already knew what was coming with the films. Its all stuff I've already experienced many, many times.

JYAMG - I'm just curious, but don't most non-Earth universe creations take themselves seriously? Or really, any decent work of fiction? Isn't that what makes them believable? I'm just saying is all. But an empty movie experience, really? That's just kind of wow to me, because if LOTR is an empty experience, then about 80-90% of anything I've ever experienced has been empty also. And I'm picky enough already about the stuff I like.

For me, I've never really stopped liking the films I liked in the first place. I mean to me, most movies aren't worth watching, period. Most of the ones I'll even watch aren't worth owning. Out of the movies I've watched, generally I've only seen them once. There is a fair portion I've seen 2-3 times. There's maybe 20 films I've watched more than 5 times without fastforwarding or skipping to the action, and I can probably name at least half of them. Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers, Return of the King, Jurassic Park 1, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 1, Aliens 2, Terminator 2, True Lies (I blame this one because we own it and its on all the time), Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, Hook, Dragon Heart ... I'm not sure on this one, Rear Window ... this is another maybe. All of these films have their faults and whatnot, but I just really enjoy watching them.

I have enjoyed most of the films I've ever seen. I like movies. And being picky about what I'll watch in the first place makes it so I hardly ever watch a film that I won't enjoy. Hell, the first Land Before Time movie is a good movie. I don't care if I first saw it as a child and it is a film aimed at children. It isn't nostogia talking when I say that I would have no problem watching it again today. It helps a little that I probably haven't watched it in about 8+ years, so I can't say I've gotten bored of it.

Actually, Hook is one. If I ever see it, it is purely to rewatch the good parts. I skip straight to those. Its still a good movie, but I've seen it more than enough times, and there's so many parts of it that I no longer find worth sitting through to get the gems.

[Zatoichi]

ah, crap, I waited too long to edit.

There is plenty of good fiction out there that doesn't take itself seriously at all, and one of the usual main points of comedies is not being serious. Its just that I never saw a fictional work taking itself seriously as a bad thing that subtracted from its enjoyableness.

I remembered a few movies where I thought they were great and that feeling died for me at the 3 quarter mark.

The Lost Boys - While a bit odd, I found it to be a believable premise, and enjoyed most of it. The last quarter of it was so completely ridiculous and stupid that I can't believe it even managed to become a cult classic.

Pandorum - A more recent film, its a sci-fi survival horror. Its probably one of the few survival horror type films that I will ever really like because for the most part the characters weren't utter morons. In fact only one character did some stupid things, and even then you could understand why (The only thing he actually cared about was his own survival). One part did take a flamethrower to my suspension of disbelief though. The "good guys" are in a 3 against 1 vs one of the "monsters". They seriously wound it enough to kill a human being 5-7 times over and it is still kicking their asses. It took a "sword" through half of its freaking head and did not go down. While it didn't kill the movie for me, my esteem for it certainly took a hit.

[Just your average movie goer]

Hey, Zatoichi. Yes, I know what you mean regarding stories taking themselves seriously, but there's such a thing as pushing things too far. The Lord of the Rings is absolutely filled to the brim with lengthy - and leaden - speeches and forced melodrama to the point where these things are like anchors weighing the movies down. Watch it again and you'll see. Movies can take themselves perfectly seriously without the heavy speeches and heavy handed direction. Look at the original Hellboy for instance. That's actually a fairly serious movie, despite appearances. There's a lot at stake there, but soliloquies are kept to a minimum. Or compare Batman Begins, which has a bit of this to The Dark Knight - which sometimes comes across more like a philosophy class than an actual movie. Or look at Zulu, which is based on extraordinary and not-too-happy real events. Very little in the way of big speeches. Very little in the way of emotionally manipulative music to force the audience into viewing events in certain ways. The movie doesn't have to tell the audience that this needless battle was terrible for all the people involved, both on the British side and on the Zulu's. However, this is nevertheless successfully conveyed.

The thing I'm driving at here is pretentiousness. Taking your story seriously is one thing. Bashing the audience's heads in with how serious everything is is an entirely different matter.

All right. New movie. The 1989 Batman movie. So what happened, really? This one's a little more simple. Batman Begins happened. Suddenly, I saw what a Batman movie could be and this film that I loved as a kid just didn't do it for me any more. I also discovered that while Tim Burton's Batman movies are very pretty to look at, they're lacking in substance. They are also very episodic. There is no real narrative force behind much of what happens in Batman. You have a few key events - Jack Napier becoming the Joker, the Joker trying to kill everyone in Gotham and Batman killing the Joker and the rest is pretty much filler, including the Vicky Vale plot. Sure, she works out who he is and acts as an audience surrogate to get under Batman's cape, but if you took her out of the proceedings, would it make much difference? Not really. It's also a bit flat and lifeless. Also, Gotham doesn't seem inhabited. Yes, there are people but they just seem to show up when the plot requires it. There's nothing going on in the background of this city. People aren't walking in and out of shops. They aren't going about their lives. They just gather to witness things (usually on the same sound stages each time) and then they disappear. Also, after seeing how interesting Alfred and Commissioner Gordon (and others) could be, it feels like we're really missing out with Burton's film.

Now, don't get me wrong. I still like this movie. Jack Nicholson is still entertaining. It's visually imaginative and some of the set pieces are quite fun - along with those insane toy-selling vehicles. You know, despite it's impracticality in an urban environment, I still get a kick out of seeing the Batwing too (and its targeting systems don't even work!). However, now that we've had a better offering for this character, it's a little hard to go back to the original as much. Often people seem to latch onto newer versions of stories and criticise their earlier incarnations - and generally, I think this is a strange kind of mentality. We liked the originals for a reason, yes? However, with the Batman movies, I have to admit that I can see where they're coming from.

[Mr Pye]

The only ones I can think of right now are Terminator and Terminator 2. Back in the 90:s before the big CGI revolution I thought that Terminator 2 with the cool morph effects was a great improvement on the first Terminator which has some dodgy stop motion once the Terminator is down to its bare bones so to speak. And it was fun to see Arnold reprise his role.

Today I find the first Terminator a much tighter and more focused thriller and with the CGI overload of our times the technical merits of effects no longer matters as much as long as they fill their artistic purpose which the first Terminator effects does.

I don't know if this is something that has come from hanging on message boards exactly, but there has been a change. Whatever first got me hooked on the first Terminator is still there, while Terminator 2 once you look beyond the surface is not very original.

That's not to say Terminator 2 is a bad movie. It still beats the majority of action and sci-fi movies the last ten years, but if I where to choose a Terminator to watch today it would be number one.

This post has been edited by Mr Pye: 01 May 2011 - 05:02 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

Does me good to see another person who's come around on the whole The Terminator/Terminator 2 matter. The second one really is just a bigger, louder rehash of the first - but without the tension. The first is a tight thriller, and let's be honest here - it's actually pretty scary the first time around, and it's brutal. And when you think about it, a story about a machine that's sole programming objective is to kill somebody, brutal really is how the movie should be.

I can't say I changed my mind on Terminator 2 - because I never got what all the fuss was to begin with. The CGI effects that everyone went on about just made things look that much less real, and therefore that much less threatening. I laughed every time the T-1000's head got blown into that CGI ring. It looked like a goddamn doughnut. I'm not sure if comedy was what James Cameron was going for with that - but if it was, then he succeeded.

Also, the kid was so goddamn annoying. Even people who like the film say this. And having the kid use his terminator buddy to beat up people he didn't like was really silly. It was like those small kids in schools everywhere who irritate other students and then, when it looks like they're going to get their just desserts, they run behind their bigger friend in the grade above. It's the same concept. Only ten year olds would find such an idea 'cool' - and this unfortunately seems to the demographic that James Cameron was going for. This is a pity for a number of reasons. Firstly, while kids do enjoying watch stupid things in movies, they also enjoy good things too. There is no need to dumb things down for them - and in the interest of discouraging a love of stupidity and the brain-deadening effects an infatuation with idiocy has on young children, there is every reason not to dumb things down. Also, kids don't need child surrogates in movies for them to appeal to them. Yes, kids like them when they're there, but they'd never notice if they weren't. And what's more, as they grow up, the movies will be more appealing to them because of this omission. Imagine for instance how much more re-watchable Jurassic Park would be if it weren't for those goddamn kids.

Now, I'm getting carried away here but the point of all this is that Terminator 2 seemed very much like a kid's film to me, and this is something I noticed the first time I saw it - when, incidentally, I was a kid myself. I didn't appreciate it. I felt cheated. I was able to appreciate the terse thriller that The Terminator was, so why couldn't I have an equally compelling movie to watch the second time around? No, I was not a happy camper at all - and to this day, I have no idea why so many millions of viewers around the world loved this thing. It's a total mystery.

Another thing I really missed watching Terminator 2 was the romance of the first movie - because that was there too. The Terminator is a thriller, also a bit of a horror movie too actually. It's an action movie - but it's also a love story as well. If that sounds sentimental, well I don't give a damn. I like love stories just fine, as long as they're saddled with something else - like action or adventure. Now, with Reese being dead and all at the end of The Terminator, it's kind of hard to put romance in the second one. That's fine. However, I really feel for Reese when a cyborg - built to the exact same specifications of the one that killed him - becomes a surrogate father to his son, and we see this machine and the Conners as a happy little family before the movie's running time is up. Now, that's not to say I'm against the good terminator. I'm not. Although, if the terminators are supposed to be infiltration units, then why the hell would any two of them have the same external appearance? Anyway... I'm not against the good terminator, but he shouldn't be a father figure. Nor should he be the big brother or friend that bails that annoying kid out of trouble when he goes around bothering other people.

Next, there's also the fact that The Terminator left no room for a sequel such as the one it got. The humans had won the war when the first terminator had gone through the time machine. Reese went after it and then his buddies blew the machine up. That was it. No more time travel. Oh, also, only human tissue could go through it, so time machine or no time machine, liquid metal guy wouldn't have been able to go back in time anyway.

Finally, it's just a retread. A machine goes back in time to kill someone who will lead to the downfall of its kind and someone goes back to stop it. It's basically a big budget remake.

Now, a little word on the special effects of the original. No, some of the stop motion doesn't hold up that well - but seriously, that's not a big deal. It's a shame that people get hung up on that stuff. The ED-209 stop motion in Robocop looks a little dated as well, but that doesn't detract from the movie. People should just use their imagination a little more. However, before someone accuses me of being hypocritical, yes, I do make judgments against Terminator 2 for its effects but that's because it had a huge budget just for them and the producers boasted about how wonderful they were. If movie makers neglect story to pour millions into effects and then go on about how wonderful they are, then they can expect audiences to watch them with critical eyes. The effects in The Terminator and Robocop however were made with very little money and a lot of ingenuity. If anything, they should be praised for looking as good as they do.

And now, one last word on The Terminator. If there's anything that doesn't hold up well, it's not the effects. It's the goddamn music score. Now, I don't mean the "Heartbeat of the Machine" theme. That's great. Nor do I mean the eighties songs. They suit the scenes and it was the eighties. No, I mean that horrible screeching keyboard stuff that comes towards the end.

Well, I'd better stop before this turns into a Terminator thread.




By the way, this is not a Terminator thread.

[Zatoichi]

This is officially a Terminator thread
Its kind of funny for me but when it comes to the first Terminator, I never got to experience it when I was young enough to appreciate it more. My parents never let me watch it because of the sex scene in it (which was totally awesome [what, I'm a guy]). Though I value substance over style, the movie was pretty old in comparison to the films of the day when I finally got to see it. I still liked it, but I never really got to love it.

I actually appreciate the two films together, especially in the change of Linda Hamilton's character, Sarah Connor. Maybe it was just because they wanted a big-budget action movie but she went from practically useless (that might be a little harsh, but I haven't seen it in a while) till the end of the first movie to taking several levels in crazy and badass. But it was a believable change too. I like it when characters grow and change instead of remaining the same.

I'm with you on the Batman stuff. I won't stop liking Batman and Batman Returns (in the other movies the only worthwhile performances were those of the villians, and even then ...). But in many areas the newer flicks just do it better. I mean come on, how can you lose with Liam Neeson or Morgan Freeman in your cast? Or how about Gary Oldman? I'm not generally one who falls victim to watching a film for its "star" power, but I feel they generally did an awesome job casting it.

I only have a few strikes against them. I didn't like the character of Rachel Dawes ... at all. Its hard to say exaclty what it was about her that I found so unlikeable. I liked her even less in the second movie simply because the actress was replaced and I hate whenever it gets done between films. I don't even like it when they switch out for an actor/actress that's even better. Simply seeing different people is a nagging reminder that what you're watching isn't real when you're trying to suspend disbelief. I was quite happy to see her killed off. If I, as an audience member, was supposed to feel something besides the happyness that came from knowing she couldn't possibly get brought back from the brink of death or some crap, then they failed.

In the second movie there was bundles of little things, but I guess the biggest was that Two-Face is already dead. For me its just that there were some great places he could've gone as a villian, but it can't be done now.

Here's one: Dungeons & Dragons. I loved it when I saw it because its all about a game I've loved playing for years. Honestly though, its not a good movie. I'd go into detail, but I haven't seen it in so long and the details are rather hazy.

[Just your average movie goer]

By the numbers:

Yeah, I can get how The Terminator might not be that appealing if you hadn't grown up with it. On a recent viewing, I was actually struck by something I hadn't really noticed too much before - it's also a visually bleak movie. I don't know what Los Angeles is like. I've never been there. However, the parts they filmed for the movie are really drab and depressing, and the whole movie has a bleak nihilistic feel to it.

In terms of actual problems though, if there's anything that really wrong with the story, it's that there's no plausibility in the fact that the characters can't just hide from the terminator. Given a neighbourhood, I think it'd be pretty damn easy to hide. Given a city, I think they'd never have to worry about the terminator again. The way they get caught again and again is a little lame. Also, they don't really think about how to avoid the thing. Take the car chases. All they had to was ditch their car and dash into a shopping mall or something. They'd instantly lose that cyborg. Then, if they really wanted to be thorough, they could get a cab to an intercity bus terminal and take a ride out of town. Also, when the terminator's outer shell is burned off and the machine is limping slightly, then rather than running into a factory so they can be trapped or cornered, they could just go up the street and get a cab out of there. I doubt they'd have to worry about the terminator much after that - as it'd be fairly safe to assume that the authorities would latch onto the fact that there's a robot running around town with glowing red eyes and a metallic death skull head. So it'd probably be contained and then taken apart by curious scientists. Anyway, the point is that if Sarah and Reese wanted to get away from the terminator, they could do so easily.

Now, as for Sarah being helpless in the first movie, that seems fine to me. Besides, she develops over the course of it anyway and when it gets down to the final minutes, she takes matters into her own hands and it's done so in a believable manner.

Note to self - This is not a Terminator thread.

Quote

I won't stop liking Batman and Batman Returns

Me neither. Actually, Batman Returns is a movie I changed my mind about but in a positive way. I first saw it when I was a kid and I really couldn't handle it. It wasn't like its predecessor and I didn't know what to make of it. However, watching it again as an adult, I was struck by its somewhat offbeat awesomeness. I don't know if it's a great Batman movie per se, but it's a cool movie. It'd have been a far better movie if they had cut down on the penguin's screen time and increased Selina Kyle/Catwoman's screen time instead... but it's a good ride. Still though, despite the change of perspective, I still see why it horrified me when I was younger.

Anyway, I still like these movies too. Actually, I also like parts of Batman Forever as well. It has its aggravating silly moments but I think it's completely unfair that it so often gets lumped in with Batman and Robin. The circus scene was by no means a lightweight scene and the older Dick Grayson concept was good. It actually worked (the modification on the Robin suit helped as well). Also, the fun stuff - particularly the interplay with Val Kilmer, Jim Carey and Nicole Kidman - was actually fun. No, it wasn't a dark descent into madness, but on the whole it worked for what it was.

That said though, the newer movies are just so much more fleshed out. There's far more going on. They've got the great ensemble casts, as you said. I don't go for star power either - but they've got solid actors in almost all the parts. Take Tom Wilkinson, playing Falcone in Batman Begins. It's not the biggest role in the movie, not by a long shot. However, that was nonetheless one impressive performance (actually, Falcone was far more intimidating than any of the mobsters in The Dark Knight to be honest - they weren't scary at all).

But, yes, good point... Rachel. Yeah.

Quote

Its hard to say exactly what it was about her that I found so unlikeable.

She has this obnoxious more-righteous-than-thou attitude that comes across in her dealings with every poor soul who encounters her. She lectures Bruce Wayne, she lectures the D.A. Hell, she even lectures Bruce Wayne on her first meeting with the guy in over seven years. You remember that part about her saying "What choice do I have [in changing the world on my own] when you're too busy swimming?" I mean, how annoying is that? What, the guy can't have fun for one night? And if that's the case, then what was she doing at that hotel?

Also, Katie Holmes performance always bothers me - not because of her acting. Her acting might well be fine. The problem however was that she was playing lamb dressed as mutton. She seemed like a high school kid pretending to be a grown up. I kept expecting people to call her out on this. You know, instead of "Lady, we're about to raise these bridges," I expected something more along the lines of "Little girl. You can't come in here. It's dangerous."

That said, I agree that changing the actress was jarring. I like your way of putting it too. It does take you out of the sense that what you're watching is real and reminds you that this is very much make-believe - and I hate that in movies. Incidentally, it's one of the reasons why I hate extreme violence in a movie. When I react strongly to extreme violence (for instance, 'that' scene in Casino Royale), people tell me that it's just a movie - and yes, it is just a movie but when I'm watching it, I don't want to think that way. Unfortunately though, extreme violence forces me to think that way because if I do not, then it's just too disturbing. Anyway, the point is things that drag the audience out of the sense that what they're watching is real are things to be avoided - and actor changeovers are one of them.

Quote

In the second movie there was bundles of little things, but I guess the biggest was that Two-Face is already dead. For me its just that there were some great places he could've gone as a villian, but it can't be done now.

Thank you! I thought so too but unfortunately, we're a small minority on the internet. Still though, it's good to see that there are others out there who realise that The Dark Knight is less than perfect.

As for Dungeons and Dragons, I can't say I ever saw it. I did see the previews though... and I have to say, it looked pretty bad.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 02 May 2011 - 08:02 AM

[Zatoichi]

Oh I hear you there, on everything really.

The bit about them getting away in Terminator is just another instance in a long list of things that seem to happen all over the place. It kills me when in all kinds of media (TV shows, movies, books, videogames, etc) when the characters arbitrarily do the wrong things in order to extend the action.

First of all, I know that all characters are people and that people, do in fact, make mistakes and whatnot. In dangerous situations, they're even more likely to screw up. I've been in a few dangerous situations in my life, and a lot of situations that could've gone from bad to much worse. Keeping your cool, thinking straight, not buckling under pressure, and not freezing in the face of immenent violence are all things that are very difficult. Most of the time I've managed to do it, but not all of the time. Back in January of this year I was in a car accident. It was somewhere around midnight when I was driving up the (actually clear) highway at around 75mph when one of my tires burst and sent me carreening off the road. There was no control, there was no thinking clearly, there was only abject terror (and a sense of "Oh God, why me" + "Dear Lord I'm not ready to die yet"). Being in an out of control vehicle is definitely among the least favorite things that has ever happened to me.

What I'm getting at though is for example, when the entire movie could be finished or an entire season in a television show negated when all two of the characters had to do was sit down and talk for five minutes. And the worst part, is that when you think about it, its what the characters would actually do. Its almost always a problem between friends, and a lot of times these people are actually mature enough to sit down and hash things out. Its what I do with most of my friends. We talk stuff out, because we're not a bunch of teenagers anymore. On the other hand, it is still difficult for me to be frank with my familly a lot of times and especially with my father (it doesn't help that I am not Frank, I'm AJ *ba-da-dum-psh*). But I know in my mind, there's reasoning behind it. I'm afraid of the outcomes and whatnot. What a person is thinking is generally difficult to portray in moving pictures. But if they're going to have plots like they do, they can't just assume that the audience is full of mind readers (which is a really stupid assumption in the first place, because there is no mind for them to even read). Even hints that could possibly give little insights into the character's mental state at the time might be helpful enough, but how often is that done?

Of course its also when a character or characters could obviously do something else that would easily overcome the entire situation. Or that someone has to do something so mind-numbingly stupid to get them in the situation in the first place. As a writer, I would think that if these items keep cropping up, you should either be rewriting things or coming up with legitimate explanations for why they're happening and maybe have the characters hint as to why they can't do things a different way. Something, anything really. Show character faults as to why they might screw this up, or not get that right. Audience members should not have to pull explanations out of their collective buns to try and figure out why a character just did such a thing (Unless you come across an instance where the story was supposed to make people think, I guess).

I could also get into a rant about how I hate when movies in general disregard things like physics and the other odds and ends that govern how reality works. I make exception for when things like magic, superpowers, psuedo-science, etc. come into play. But if a person has the power to fly, then they still ought to be governed by physics and such. For now I'll just stick with the beef I have with most fight scenes, specifically ones where weapons are involved. Now I really do love combat scenes, I'm thrilled by them. They are usually a lot of fun to watch. The problem is that I've been doing things such as fencing for years now. Most of the whirly-twirly stuff you see in fights with weapons would get you killed in about 3-10 seconds by a 14-year-old who's been getting weekly lessons for the last two years.

I mean, come on, I myself could probably defeat at least half of the movie character opponents in single combat and I would only call myself a mid-level opponent at best. And yet these guys wade through mooks like there's no tommorrow (which is actually a lot closer to impossible. 2 vs 1 is difficult enough, 3+ vs 1, forget about it). Some actual good examples of realistic sword fights though are the OT of Star Wars, Hook in the fights between Captain Hook and Rufio then Pan (though Hook so would've stomped Pan), and Seventh Samurai.

Alright, back to specific films. Totally nail on the head for why I disliked the character of Rachel Dawes. In The Dark Knight, I guess I'll throw out my other little things. 1: The backdrop of Chicago was a poor move, and I knew the difference when I was watching the movie. It made me step out of watching it and "know" that the location had changed. Gotham has always been the DC universe representation of New York City. You don't freaking change that! Its embedded in pretty much every other movie, comic, videogame, TV show, or anything else that deals with Gotham in the DC universe (I can't remember if at some point DC actually seperated the fictional city from the real one, but its the established connection). 2: Throwing in the Scare Crow the way they did was dumb. It was only done as a simple ploy to remind the audience that the two films were already related. We're not stupid, we know we're watching the sequel of the previous film. I don't have a good answer for how it might've gone, but the villian ought to have been thrown in in a meaningfulish way, or just left out. 3: The Joker on two counts. Except for the "magic" trick, he wasn't funny. The Joker has always been able to make me laugh for a bit, what happened to that? And then all of his schemes seemed to be extremely well thought out and methodically planned. The guy is a pychopath. Insanely good planning (see what I did there?) is not his forte. 4: As I already mentioned, Two-Face's apparent death (I inherently distrust all story telling mediums these days, and no one is permanently dead until they so totally got killed or the story stops). 5: As I also said before, the changing of the actress that played Rachel Dawes ... and the character of Rachel Dawes in the first place.

There's other things with The Dark Knight but this should be enough. I still really enjoyed the film, but it certainly did not achieve perfection.

Actually there was a specific thing I really appreciated about the movie Kick-Ass. The main character was supposed to be a terrible combatant, and it showed. He took wild swings all over the place and generally hit nothing but air.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 02 May 2011 - 12:10 PM

[Mr Pye]

Zatoichi, on 02 May 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Being in an out of control vehicle is definitely among the least favorite things that has ever happened to me.

Seconded!

In my case it was black ice. I wasn't even going particularly fast and the car just lost all grip slided off the road to the right, down a small steep slope onto a plowed field, rolled around once and landed on its wheels again. All I can remeber thinking was 'Oh shit! not good, not good.' and even if I could have kept my cool there wasn't much I could have done. I am very grateful I wore my seatbelts and that there was nothing but a plowed field in my path. Getting away with a slight shock, some dents and dirt on the car I consider myself very lucky. I was even able to start up and drive back onto the road after I had calmed down a little.

But as you say, beeing in an out of control vehicle is no picknick.




Sorry for going off topic there.

Don't have much to add on the movies. I never saw Dungeons and Dragons, though I have seen Nostalgia Critics review of it. Jeremy Irons seemed to ham it up with relish.

[Just your average movie goer]

The closest I've been to being in an out of control vehicle was when I hit a patch of gravel after braking and the car slid sideways. It was on a small countryside road. There was a drop off to the side of the road but it wasn't too bad. However, that was quite enough for me. I don't envy either of you two.

I enjoyed your post, Zatoichi, about characters doing stupid things in order to advance the story. I liked your point about characters not talking. That's a frequent one, isn't it? All these terrible things in movies happen because one character can't be bothered mentioning a vital piece of information or two people can't just sit down and talk. There was a fantastic parody of this on the How It Should Have Ended site when they take off the scene in Spiderman 3 where Harry's butler tells him that Spiderman didn't kill his father. In the parody, Harry looks at the butler and says. "You are so fired. You've known this all this time and you picked now to tell me? I took a grenade to the face, dude!" Fantastic stuff. How It Should Have Ended: It's on the second page.

Actually, one example of movie character stupidity that unbelievably bad was in that War of the Worlds movie from a few years back. All these people were running, running, running and running to get away from the tripods and they were all running together in a huge giant moving target crowd. Then when tripods appeared in front of them, they broke down with no idea what to do about their predicament, mourning that they couldn't get onto a ferry and they couldn't go back - completely forgetting the amazing alternative escape routes they could take by going left or right. Just left or right! They couldn't work out that these were valid options.

Also liked the stuff about the swordplay too. I'm no expert on any of that, but I find it something of a stretch to imagine that these movie characters could fight off so many people at once. Maybe they survive through blind stupid luck.

Finally, it's nice to see that people are open to criticising The Dark Knight. I tried this when it first came out and everyone here just jumped on me like a pack of rabid... fan boys. It was awful. I had to go back and say that I liked it more than I did to appease them. However, since sufficient time has passed for people to calm down and consider things more objectively, maybe it's finally safe to post the article I wrote on it a while back.

Review: The Dark Knight

[Just your average movie goer]

Today, I thought I might do a post in two parts. In the first part, my plan is to discuss another movie that doesn't hold up any more in my opinion. In the second, I'll try to explain my thoughts on The Lord of the Rings a little more, since I'm not entirely satisfied with my earlier attempt myself.

Part I

The Neverending Story. I saw this movie recently, a couple of years ago in fact and I have to say, I was puzzled as to why it had been such a beloved family classic in the eighties. Yes, we all love Falkor the giant flying puppy dog Luck Dragon and while limited to moving heads and blinking eyelids, a lot of the creature special effects hold up reasonably well. The Rock Biter is impressive, as is the giant turtle in the swamps and Falkor and Gmorth are both fairly well-realised within the scope of the obvious budget limitations.

So... what hasn't held up so well? The kid who plays Atreyu, I couldn't help notice, was for the most part atrocious - and since he has to carry half the movie, that's not a good thing. Also, while the concept of the greatest warrior being a tiny kid might sound cool when a viewer is a tiny kid, it looks progressively more and more stupid as one gets older. For starters, when did he rack up the required experience? When he was six?

Also, for a land of boundless imagination, I've gotta say Fantasia is a pretty dreary and empty place. The movie uses some brief montages to give us an idea of how wonderful this place is and they're just snippets of poorly colour graded stock footage of a few mountains and some desert. Talk about dull. The Nothing seems more alive than this place - and when something called 'The Nothing' seems more interesting than the world it's destroying, that says something.

Finally... talk about bleak! There is absolutely no light in this movie. No matter how dark or heavy things get, good stories should always have a bit of light and shade. Even the damn supposedly happy ending feels bleak. We don't even get a close up shot of Artax to see that he's been brought back and is now alive and well. Although to be honest, that's a damn sight better than the book where he doesn't come back at all. And speaking of Artax... THAT scene has got to be one of the most traumatising things ever put into a movie. Actually, going off topic a bit... what is it with so many kid's movies being so depressing? I recently saw Toy Story 3 and that wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs either. However, the list is endless. Bambi anyone?

Anyway, if you remember this movie fondly, great - but my advice would be to just keep it as a memory. Also, its eighties synth soundtrack is awful. Truly awful.


Part II

In this part, I will go back to trying to work out why The Lord of the Rings doesn't impress me much any more. Why does it feel flat to me? A good question. I think that the filmmakers tried to cram too many characters and stories into the trilogy for one thing and that didn't help matters. With so many concurrent plots running, there wasn't enough time to spend on any of them. For example, take Faramir and Eowyn. They put a lot of effort into showing the struggles of these characters but then near the end of the third movie, they're forgotten about. There's a half-hearted attempt at redressing that in the extended editions but that's next to useless. However, if the filmmakers don't care enough about these characters to properly wrap up their story arcs, then why should the audience give a damn about them? Ditto for Saruman, who was just dropped by the wayside.

The filmmakers also neglect the main characters too much and waste a lot of time on the doings of secondary characters. Also, for so called fans of the book, they royally messed that up. I've made no secret of the fact that I pretty much hate the book (wordy, poorly written thing with stilted dialogue, stupid songs and wooden characters) but even I recognised that the hobbits are the core main characters - and that Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are no more main characters than Faramir or Eowyn. However, the filmmakers waste enormous amounts of time on these people. We get long dull speeches and soliloquies from them and have to sit through copious numbers of useless subplots invented solely for the purpose of giving them things to do. Take bloody Helm's Deep. That was supposed to be a short skirmish. Oh, and then there's all that rubbish with Arwen. Every one of her scenes is a pace killer, dragging the movie down like an anchor.

Then there's the messed up story-telling techniques. The biggest one that comes to mind is introducing characters in Rohan before the characters from the first movie have met them yet. It breaks up the flow of the story when they cut away from the three hunters pursuing the Urak-hai to show people moping around the Golden Hall and being dreadfully dull.

Thinking about it, there were so many damn anchors dragging behind this trilogy, it's a wonder it even managed to get out of its harbour.

Also, there's the matter of tension - or more precisely, the lack of it. I want to say a few positive things for a moment... and then proceed to hammering the hell out of these movies. There was fantastic tension in The Fellowship of the Ring. The scenes in Moria and the attack by the Urak-hai at the end were amazing, and these still stand up and stand up well. Unfortunately, the filmmakers outdid themselves here because after that, things never feel tense again. The main culprit for this would have to be the battle of Helm's Deep. With King Theodas performing comical jinxes that get people killed, Aragorn leaping into hordes of Urak-hai, and somehow avoiding getting skewered on one of the several hundred pikes, Legolas skateboarding, Gimli being a git and elves performing their "now you see them, now you don't" tricks, the whole thing descends into farce. The sense that there is any real danger disappears and it never returns. That earlier battle with the CGI monsters and Aragorn's pointless fake death didn't help matters either. The battles in Return of the King aren't much better. The opening scenes of the battle of Minas Tirith are impressive, but it drags on too long and deteriorates into silliness as well with the green ghost army (wiping away orcs like some kind of dishwashing detergent) and Legolas and the elephant thing. Damn... it... all. However, even in the first movie, there are problems. The Nazgul actually don't hold up too well either. Their movements are so stilted and artificial, it's hard to convince yourself that they're a legitimate threat. They don't feel real - and I don't mean this in a complimentary way, as if to suggest that they seem ethereal and other worldly. I mean, I don't think evil sorcerer kings or whatever the hell they're supposed to be would just stand around the guy they're after and spend three minutes slowly reaching for something in their hands.

Finally, there's the way in which all the elves speak so slowly. I guess that was supposed to ethereal as well. However, it just came off as annoying. Ditto for those long scenes where they show Frodo grappling with the ring's power. There were far too many of these moments throughout the trilogy and they dragged on far too long. The throbbing eerie sound effects employed in these scenes were also incredibly cheesy.

Well, that was interesting to tell you the truth. It seems that the more I think about these movies now, the less I like them. I will say this about them however. They've shown that fantasy films can be made that look spectacular and feel alive. They've opened up interesting doorways for filmmakers and I think it'd be great if a few more filmmakers went through them. Guillermo Del Toro did for instance, using a few Lord of the Rings type concepts in Hellboy II: The Golden Army and that was an awesome movie. So, it's not as though the trilogy was a total write off. However, I doubt many people will be watching it in another decade or so.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 06 May 2011 - 09:33 AM

[Mr Pye]

Quote

Anyway, if you remember this movie fondly, great - but my advice would be to just keep it as a memory. Also, its eighties synth soundtrack is awful. Truly awful.

And I was going to say that the intro song by Limahl is the only thing I actually remember from the movie. (I think it was Limahl. Might have been Alphaville though. One of those two for certain.)


It might be ungraceful of me, but I'm glad that the Lord of the rings movies are beginning to grow stale on people. I never liked them much in the first place. Unlike you I am a long time fan of those books and my ideas of how it would best be dramatized were as different from Peter Jacksons as a butterfly from a hippopotamus. (Ha! Finally got a chance to use the word hippopotamus.)

Many, if not all of the problems you have highlighted stuck out to me already on first viewing. The books actually offer a fair amount of possibilities to create tension. Not the least in the form of the otherworldly ringwraiths (black riders) who could have been used to great effect with light and shadows and some suggestive music. Instead I was given solid metal-geared stooges that thunder around decapitating a hobbit and riding down the Bree gates accompanied by bombastic music. But when the moment comes at Weathertop they are suddenly strangely inefficient and highly combustible. I think that was the moment I realized that whatever these movies were going to be, it wouldn't be Lord of the rings as I knew it.

There are missed opportunities like this in all three movies. The very evocative Siege of Gondor chapter in book three was warped beyond recognition and nothing beyond 'see how awesome our sets look' was made from moments like the passing of the Argonath or the silent watchers at Kirith Ungol. The books are probably too spacious to include everything in an adaptation but clearly my greatest hits and the directors were not the same ones.

Having said that it is perhaps irony that the last time I did look at them they weren't as bad as I recalled. Not that I have changed my mind about them, I can't bring them up in this thread, I still find them grating, but through all the over the top moments and inappropriate humour there still stands out a few sublime moments that hints somewhere under the surface of it all is a great movie waiting to be brought out. Many of the actors infact does a good job with the material they are given, unfortunately that material doesn't quite hold up. The movies also look quite good (if not always right.) It is probably on account of beeing fond of the books that I find the movies work best when they stick close to the source material though.

Better stop here. Don't want to turn this into a Lord of the rings thread.

[Just your average movie goer]

Oh, we can go off on the odd tangent here and there. Actually, although we feel differently about the books, I would agree with you almost all the way that a lot of the problems in the movies were created by straying too far from the books. I think there was a lot of stuff from the books that was rightfully omitted and some stuff was rightfully altered - for instance, the anticlimactic way in which Saruman was dealt with. However, some of the stuff that was altered wasn't altered very well - again, the way Saruman was dealt with.

However, if they had followed the book in some regards, they could have avoided a lot of problems. The two biggest examples for me are as follows:

In The Two Towers, they should have kept to the idea of things moving quickly. Gandalf and pals rock up at the Golden Hall, tell King Theoden to snap out of it, he does, and then they race off to Helm's Deep straight away - and most of the Rohirrim army are already there as the borders of Rohan are under heavy attack. If the movie had followed this path, then there would have been far less dead space and the pace would have been far more exciting.

In The Return of the King, they shouldn't have had Gollum separate the two hobbits. Firstly, the crumbs on the jacket scene may well be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in a movie. Secondly, it wasted lots of time, adding in many more minutes to an already bloated movie. Thirdly, it was pointless. If Gollum didn't like Sam, you'd think he'd be perfectly happy to lead him into Shelob's lair. I suppose the filmmakers just thought it'd be more dramatic to put a rift between Frodo and Sam but it was a dumb decision. It felt it also harmed Frodo's character - almost fatally. I really felt quite unsympathetic to his plight in the scenes immediately after he sent Sam away, which undercut the tension of the Shelob scene for me. However, that scene was also undercut by the fact that Shelob was just a big spider and nothing more. Where was the oozing body sack? Where were the horns? I rather got the impression that she was supposed to spider-like, not a spider and I think there's a big difference between the two things.

You could make good movies out of the books, I'm sure, just as people managed to make good movies out of Ian Fleming's godawful James Bond books. The characters would have to change so that they are human rather than cardboard. The elitism would have to be removed (e.g. all that tall and lordly rubbish for one thing - what, people of average height aren't important?) and people would have to talk like people as opposed to textbooks. For example, when they reach Lothlorien, they should be grieving after losing Gandalf, yet the book has Legolas go into tour guide mode, telling his companions all about the wonderful facts of this new land. Also, all the singing and cooking should be cut out.

It's a pity actually that they didn't get it right this time. They had all the elements in place - amazing sets and locations, really authentic costumes and armoury, and a fantastic cast of actors who really seemed to suit their roles. The only actor who didn't really work was Orlando Bloom. They should have had an actor in their late thirties as Legolas should appear older but still youthful.

So, yes, I didn't like the books either. However, I have now come around to appreciating the position that the fans of the books held from the outset - that the films didn't work.


Now on another topic, after reflecting on The Neverending Story, I've come to the realisation that a lot of eighties kids movies don't hold up any more. I thought about Labyrinth recently as well - and yes, David Bowie's cool, but it's a fairly directionless mess. The plot about Sarah finding her baby brother is really all there is holding this thing together and that's it. The goblin king takes the baby - this marks the beginning. Sarah rescues the baby - this marks the end... and everything else in between is just a series of unconnected events. Some of the muppets look great. Some don't (the firehead sequence looks terrible - and the whole scene just feels like an interruption). I don't know if kids today would like it or not. However, one thing is certain - it doesn't grow with you as you get older. I will give it credit however for launching Jennifer Connelly's career. She was a bit young then for people to be gawking at her (and far too young for David Bowie's goblin king to be romancing her as he did in the film) but she's a fine looking lady, even today.

Anyway, in closing, Labyrinth may be a great movie to put on for the kids. However, I doubt you'd want to sit down and watch it with them.


EDIT: I should also add that the scene in The Lord of the Rings where Gollum splits up Frodo and Sam harms his character as well, undoing all the hard work the filmmakers did in the previous movie towards making him sympathetic. It also weakens the ending of the trilogy as Gollum's end would have had more emotional impact if that sympathy had been retained. In the book, he was basically sacrificed because Frodo stumbled at the last hurdle. In the movie, he was just a villain meeting his demise. I know which one of these options I would have found more affecting.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 07 May 2011 - 09:36 PM

[Mr Pye]

Jennifer Connelly was quite hot in Rocketeer I remember. There's a movie I haven't seen in a while. Decent soundtrack too.


Another ridiculous effect of changing The Two Towers is King Theodens magically dissapearing beard after Gandalf sets him free. That they added a direct magical control by Saruman I could have let pass, but why wouldn't his long beard be his own?

Your comments about Shelob remind me of a thought I had concerning the adaptation some years ago. Jackson understands well who everyone is and what they are doing, but often won't grasp what everyone is and how they are doing it.

This post has been edited by Mr Pye: 08 May 2011 - 05:30 AM