Movies reviews by yourself

fantastica wrote:JK rowling negotiated her rights to influence the movie including casting and other stuff. tolkien didn't do that when the sold the adaptation rights to TLOR and Hobbit. His estate holds the right to all other work and they are unlikely to sell them anytime soon.

When did he sell the rights? I thought his relatives were the ones who negotiated that.

he sold the rights in the 40s i believe. that was long time ago. i mean, he's been dead long time ago.

there is the second half of the lord of the rings cartoon series. it's called "return of the king"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_%281980_film%29

i've red the books, and while they are magical, they are written in the "description porn" style. the descriptions of mordor and scenes before they meet that huge spider are endless. that also happenes at the end of "two towers" not "the return of the king". they are very time consuming, kind of like game of thrones which is why i can't seam to find the time to start that series. harry potter on the other hand is written with such a fluid style *you may say simple, but that isn't really true and it kind of diminishes it's value) that you are just devouring the pages. i didn't have that feeling with Tolkien either with The Hobbit, LOTR or Silmarilion. then again, Tolkien was a scholar and a linguist so it's no wonder.

tanita_mors wrote:there is the second half of the lord of the rings cartoon series. it's called "return of the king"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_%281980_film%29

thanks for finding this out. however this is a musical cartoon and is totally different from the original TLOR cartoon. only the content follows the previous one. TLOR cartoon by Ralph Bakshi was a very unique and dark animation. there was no song and dance. the orcs were made to look like a cross between vikings and nazis and they were presented more or less as shadows. i really loved the animation style. the music was spooky too.

i didnt' properly read the game of throne books. i cheated. i read only the chapters about the characters that i am interested. i also skipped most of the chapters i have already watched on TV. so i pretty much spoiled myself and i am not sure if i can still fully enjoy the TV. hopefully i will forget what i have read by the time the next season comes out.

HP was VERY well done. it was easy to read for kids as well foreign born folks like me who struggle w/ fancy English by some authors (I found Tolkien's TLOR really hard to read). JK Rowling really is a master of storytelling. her books have great pacing, interesting and relateable characters, and gripping and often emotionally charged plotlines. It was really magical. I am not a big book reader. I have started in many books and gave up after 10-20 pages. this series kept me going and made me feel a bit disappointed when it all ended - because i didn't want it to end!

'description porn' lol that's funny Tanita. I don't know if this concept fits to what you said, but there's something called 'exposition' and refers to all the information the writer gives to the reader, like the 'back-up story', and it makes the readers wonder "When the real action starts?". Personally I appreciate how these writers describe everything so in detail,because allows you to imagine more carefully what's going on. And you don't miss every single detail of it, but by other side if the story isn't appealing enough to me, I find it kinda boring.

f you have never read the hobbit book, and just judge the movie based on its own merit, you may more likely to appreciate its storytelling. for example, if you didn't know the book was so "simple", you wouldn't think the movie is "bloated".  again that's exactly my point - that your preconception will likely taint the viewing experience of a derivative work, because you have already set in your mind how it's supposed to be. at least that's what happens to me all the time. there's really no right or wrong here.

Let me put it this way; if i saw a version of "Pride and Prejudice" where Darcy knocks up  Lizzie and she has to keep their baby a secret, it could be entertaining, but my cognitive dissonance that it's not true to the spirit of the book nor the plot would distract me.

If you're not going to use your souce material, why even buy the rights?

I understand no movie has to be completely faithful to a book but sometimes the overspill of creative license is just too much for my taste.

To note and clarify, I thought "The Hobbit" was overbloated irrespective of how faithful or not it was to the book, the battles and escape scenes seemed tedious and drawn out....so it was overbloated also in the execution of what it did; .  In addition to not being faithful to the spirit of the book which is actually quite light and playful.

it will be the violation of copyright if you use the characters and/or plotlines, even if you make significant changes in them. PJ did use the source material - most of it. there's not enough source material maybe, so he used a bit of his own imagination. for example, if tolkien describe a "battle" in a mere few sentences, in more general terms, is it so wrong for PJ to elaborate the battle scene in a visual manner? it's the film maker's job to expand what the book does not/need not say. of course there are times where the book falls slightly behind the logic and the film maker just want to make characters act more logically. for example, the orc/warg chase on the plain - wasn't in the book but in order to get the company to go to Rivendell, PJ made it appear that the orcs "chased" them into Rivendell, because Thorin would not want to go there willingly. If you really were to analyze the book like we analyzed glee you will find quite some "holes". sometimes a film maker want to plug these holes to make the story more convincing on the screen. as you know we all interpret a body of work differently. we have differing views regarding glee, even amongst us kurt fans. sometimes a scene bothers some of us but not teh others. it's the same when it comes to our interpretation of a novel. every book can be criticized by somebody, even if they are generally very well love and very popular. when you adapt the book, you can inject your own ideas as you see fit, and "fix" wherever that you don't like. that way if you have 10 different adapations from the same book, you can see 10 different variations, even w/ the same characters and basic storylines, there can still be significant difference in their approaches. Just look at how many Jane Ere movies/mini series they have made? are they all the same? should they (not counting different actors of course)?

derivative work is itself a copyright protected art form. it's not about copying the original. it's about reinventing it. and yes, the adapter still has to pay for the original right holders, but he/she also holds the rights to the new derivative work, which is separate from the original rights.

"spirit of the book" - i am not sure exactly what it should mean, but what you descibe (light and playful) sounds more like ts tone, and is typical for children's books. The Hobbit has some tonal issue of its own, precisely because in some parts it tries to keep itself lighter (w/ more comical lines and cheerful songs and bright color palete). in my opinion it should be more consistently dark.

"bloated battle scenes" - well what do you expect? the movie is of action genre and if you don't like extended action sequences in an action movie you are watching the wrong thing.   it's like complaining that a romance movie is too boring because it's all about 2 people talking. it appears that you do not expect the movie to be an action movie. if that's the case, then you were right to be disappointed. also, whether someone likes action movie is a matter of personal preference. i know a lot of ladies don't like to watch battle scenes or war movies. i generally hate them too, but in my opinion the action part of the movie went very fast and the only area where it seems drawn on is in the Goblin town. but then you are only talking about a couple of minutes at most. i do understand your feelings though. i feel exactly the same when i watch those DC comics movies. i dont care how much they are loved by the critics and how big a box office hits they are - i just hate them, especially the action sequences. they give me headaches and go on forever. i also dislike super heros intensely - they always win! as someone who usually roots for underdogs i really can't stand it. you see, i cannot force myself to like what i viscerally do not like. so, i am not saying you are wrong. we just have differing views, and there's no right or wrong view, because it's all a matter of personal preferences.

p.s. there's nothing in copyright that says the adaptive work must follow the "spirit of the original work", because it's impossible to definte exactly what this so called "spirit" is. back on TORN which is perhaps the oldest and largest world wide Tolkien fan site, there are plenty of discussion of exactly this topic, and the opinions are all over the map. it's an abstract notion and not black and white. of course, the original right holder can negotiate the contracts as to assert the level of control he/she can have in the derivative work, or requiring the derivative work to follow specific guidelines. the terms must be specific or else there will only be more disputes later on.

if PJ or someone else decide to do a complete parody of the Hobbit book, say satirical comedy skit or whatever, just to make fun of the book, then that's not a derivative work. it will fall under the "fair use" doctrine and thus no need to pay the original right holder anything.

I love good action movies, and a well executed 15 minute action sequence that fits is not too long, another sequence of the same length could be tedious and overbloated.

I don't dislike action sequences per se if that is what you seem to be implying.

To note; I love 'Casablanca' as a love story movie, I loathed "Bridges of Madison county" . It does not follow I do not like all love story type movies.

You seem to have issues with the fact I was not impressed by 'The Hobbit'. I thought it was an overbloated movie ; of course you are free to disagree but I would appreciate if you wouldn't imply I didn't like it because I don't understand or like the genre ( action movie) that it falls under.

Not upset but just clarifying. 

^Same here. I agree 100% with both your previous posts.

Buenos wrote:I love good action movies, and a well executed 15 minute  action sequence that fits is not too long, another sequence of the same length could be tedious and overbloated.

I don't dislike action sequences per se if that is what you seem to be implying.

To note; I love 'Casablanca' as a love story movie, I loathed "Bridges of Madison county" .  It does not follow I do not like all love story type movies.

You seem to have issues with the fact I was not impressed by 'The Hobbit'.  I thought it was an overbloated movie ; of course you are free to disagree but I would appreciate if you wouldn't imply I didn't like it because I don't understand or like the genre ( action movie) that it falls under.

Not upset but just clarifying. 

honestly, so did i. i kept looking at my phone to see how much time had passed. honestly, the movie was 30-45 if not more minutes longer then it should have been. it was good, but not as gripping as the "fellowship of the ring" was for LotR. i did like all those little callbacks to the LotR trilogy though. i found the dwarfs to be rather tiring expect the lead dwarf (Richard Armitage - he has quite the screen presence and charisma).

as for my previous opinion on "description porn", i didn't mean exposition but actual 20-pages or so descriptions of places or shit that happened thousands of years ago that have no barring on the current or future plots of the books. a little back-story is always welcome,but i i felt tolkien overdid it for me. they are still unbelievable books though. no doubt about that.

"bloated" is probably a signature of PJ movies. he said himself he didn't know how to make short movies. that said, if i were to make/edit the Hobbit movie, i would have cut out the dish-throwing song at BagsEnd. I would not bother to show Frodo. i know it's to connect to TLOR but he doesn' have to be there. I don't like the brown dwarf. i love his house in the woods but don't like his character or his bambi rabbits. i am also disappointed somewhat by the score. Aside from the Mysty Mountain song theme and the chasing music I find the rest quite "bleh". The second half of the movie paced quite well although I don't like the design of the Goblin King. It's probably the worst creature design of all the PJ tolkien films.

W/ TLOR i love the first movie the most and watched it the most times. the third movie the second. the middle one the least. I wish they can just drop the middle movie completely. i don't even remember what's in there except the walking talking trees. the pace of TLOR is no faster or slower than the hobbit. they are about as "bloated" as King Kong.

my whole argument is about EXPECTATIONS. i think this "debate" pretty much proved my point. If you are expecting Hobbit to be a light hearted children's movie, instead of an epic action advanture, you will likely be dissapointed. If you are tolkien "purist", you will be pissed whenever PJ deviates from the book (such as adding new characters and new scenes). if you have absolutely no expectations, you may likely enjoy it w/ the exception of feeling parts of it a bit too long (you will likely feel the same about all of PJ"s movies though). Interestingly, the parts that i like the least about the film is the parts that are the most faithful to the book - mainly the songs (except the Mysty Mountain song, which i thought was very appropriate). There are 2 extra songs in the extended edition. i am glad they didnt' make into the theatrical release. it would have made the lower part even more unbearable.  

p.s. i never saw the theatrical version of hte hobbit. i am still beating myself hard for this. there's no tolkien fans in my household so nobody cared to go watch the movie. I also had a very bad opinion of this book based on my early attempted reading experience. so i missed hte opportunity to see in imax 3d hfx. this time i am determined to watch it in theater as soon as it's released. i have budgeted myself 100 bucks to see if for as many times as the budget allows. I have to admit that i am very biased - most of the repeated viewings are probably for Richard Armitage alone.   

oh my god, i just saw this:



someone PLEASE make this? i willl buy it no matter the cost. in fact, i may end up using it for myself.  

@fantastica: I only now realised that it's Richard Armitage in your avatar right? Because for a long time I thought it was Ray Stevenson/Volstagg from the Thor movies and I thought you and Tanita had some sort of secret avatar pack going on.  

my whole argument is about EXPECTATIONS. i think this "debate" pretty much proved my point. If you are expecting Hobbit to be a light hearted children's movie, instead of an epic action advanture, you will likely be dissapointed. If you are tolkien "purist", you will be pissed whenever PJ deviates from the book (such as adding new characters and new scenes). if you have absolutely no expectations, you may likely enjoy it w/ the exception of feeling parts of it a bit too long (you will likely feel the same about all of PJ"s movies though)

Once again, I just think that is a very broad generalization and I don't feel the need to be pigeonholed as to whether I will like/dislike *a* particular movie.

If I thought "The Hobbit" was a well made" epic action adventure ", I would have fessed up.  Pacing was bad in that movie, I thought for all the action the movie actually lagged at time.  

Compare with a movie like "The Seven Samurai" where the action is almost like a long sensuous dance...It's like action porn... 

As to being a purist , I thought the movie "Atonement" took some liberties with the novel it was based on, and yet the combination of everything: script, actors, sets, in tandem led me to enjoy the movie.  I've like very Looon movies and short movies.

So, no while I thought "The Hobbit" wasn't faithful to the book , I stressed that because quite frankly I didn't like what I saw on screen.   A better made movie might have persuaded me , yet I think it's like a piece of clothing, shoes, or anything in life where you subjective taste, you take what have from your experience to form your opinion.  

Once again, I don't see how I have to  be stereotyped with a "purist" who can't enjoy a movie unless it slavishly follows every detail of a book, that isn't what I consider the "spirit of a book" but I'm not going to split hairs at this point.  

As to whether PJ makes "bloated films" I enjoyed Heavenly Creatures, I enjoyed part of "The Lovely bones" (I love the book) but I thought he missed the mark a bit with King Kong, and yes, I did think that film a bit bloated and overlong.    TLOR I did enjoy the trilogy as a whole,  though I had some issues with some things.

I find it silly to say that reading a novel and then seeing a film you have different expectations, of course you do.  If I've had more than one Peruvian dish my expectations are different, If  I've seem more than one musical, my expectations are different.  Expectations are a very fluid thing shaped by our personal life experiences.   Sometimes being surprised by a movie is good, sometimes it's bad.  It depends on the particular movie with me.

I will end with this, ANY movie with the glorious Richard Armitage can't be all bad, and I will confess I saw the film in part due to see that cinematic God, and, he met my expectations.  

And yes, we are going around in circles so I better exit now...

valkeakuulas wrote:@fantastica: I only now realised that it's Richard Armitage in your avatar right? Because for a long time I thought it was Ray Stevenson/Volstagg from the Thor movies and I thought you and Tanita had some sort of secret avatar pack going on.  

yes my dear.  although my avatar is not exactly Richard Armitage but the character Thorin he plays. When i first watched the hobbit i didn't recognize him at all. i though he looked a bit familiar. the prosthetics and beard covered him up well, and his baritone voice went even deeper. so it was a big surprise that i discovered it was him. When i first saw the hobbit i didn't bother to check the cast list. i didn't think i would like the movie as much and didn't care who else was in it except McKellen and Freeman.

p.s. talking about long hair in the other thread, ain't thorin's long locks marvelous? now here's an example of guys who actually look handsome and majestic w/ long hair (and pretty much everyone else in TLOR/Hobbit movies w/ long wigs looked great too).

p.s.2: I noticed that Ivana had her Hiddleton/Loki avatar on the day after i put my armitage/thorin avatar on. So yes i think she has a secret purpose there...

@Buenos: i know generalization is a dangerous thing, but then, i am not writing a university thesis so i am not afraid to be criticized.  

i don't think i said the hobbit was a great movie per se. i said i found it very entertaining and i very much enjoy watching it (yes partially because the glorious Armitage). its visuals and production values are absolutely first rate, and PJ never fails w/ casting either. whatever flaws i find in this movie i can definitely live with. but not even Armitage can save me from really bad productions. robin hood is one series I cannot stomach. i watched his scenes only and luckily his character is the only interesting one in the show. thank god to netlfix streaming i went through all 3 seasons in no time, skipping as much "crap" as possible. i figure if i have to watch that show live on tv i would have bitched about it as much as i do w/ glee now. i wish i become a chris fan only after glee is completely done so i can just go on netlfix and skip all the non-kurt scenes. no need to bitch about every dreadful spoilers and develop such enmity toward blaine.

i love The Seven Samurai. i love kurosawa's movies in general. most of them are extremely long and slow, but the pacing is rather consistent. he often spend a lot of time developing the characters and then gradually build up to emotional climax later on. one of my fav of his is Ikiru. It's so well done I was a crying mess at the end. few movies can make me cry. i have only wetted my eyes a little bit once when watching Grilled Cheesus. Ikiru is not for the modern text while driving and eating at the same time kind of people. it takes a very calm mind and lots of patience to wait for the story to unfold. half way through i remember i got quite bored, but when i reached the end all i could say was "wow, it's brilliant!". all the waiting in the first 2 hours were totally worth it!

Just a little note on this once more and then I'll stop (because we are indeed going around in circles).

No, Kim, it's not about expectations, and like Buenos I don't like to be pigeonholed or my opinion dismissed because of a (false) accusation and generalisation.

People can dislike a movie for many reasons, and the Hobbit is not immune to or too precious (see what I did there?) to not deserve criticism, just because it didn't live up to alleged expectations of people who actually read the book.
I would have disliked and criticized this movie for some of its flaws even if I hadn't read the damn book.


And the "brown dwarf" is not a dwarf at all, but Radagast the Brown, a Wizard, who is one of the high order of Gandalf.

yes i miss typed. i didn't mean "brown dwarf", but "brown wizard". there's no such a thing as colored dwarf. lol. i was too lazy to proof read what i wrote. like i said. it's not a university thesis. i just wrote down what's on my mind at the moment. dont' take it personally.

and i don't mean to piss off any tolkian fans.  i love the fact that his work inspired a lot of artistic creations.

and i really want that hobbit hole for my kitty.

fantastica wrote:p.s. talking about long hair in the other thread, ain't thorin's long locks marvelous? now here's an example of guys who actually look handsome and majestic w/ long hair (and pretty much everyone else in TLOR/Hobbit movies w/ long wigs looked great too).

p.s.2: I noticed that Ivana had her Hiddleton/Loki avatar on the day after i put my armitage/thorin avatar on. So yes i think she has a secret purpose there...

Yes I do get the facination about men with long hair, but in fantasy movie they all have these big flowing, almost puffy, long hair....when in reality very long hair in a mans head (not all, some) seems like this flattened rug on their head that runs down their neck and back because they are too lazy to take care of it. For example for me Chords hair looks dirty and flat everytime I see it, tease it man!

I too have liked the men with somewhat long hair, I very much liked JGL's semi-long hair, but his hair curls so it doesn't just lie flat against the scalp. (After bashing long haired men I just presented a double standard for me.) Same reason I found Loki's hair distracting in this recent movie. It was curls but not the kind I like. Oh, I'll just say it I do like Hiddleston with that shoulder lenght rat tail. And I'm not just sucking up to Tanita, since she'll find out we talked behind her back!

yeah, hiddelstone looks great with that loki hair style. i won't contest. i have found that i like him and cumberbatch a lot more with dark black hair, then their natural ginger.

for me, it depends on the guy. some look great with long hair, some don't. just like women.

fantasy movies can make long haired guys look great because they are wigs, and they can made with any color, texture, length, volumne, styling they can to best match the actor's face. real hair is different. it's limited by genetics and the most you can do is coloring, length, and styling. besides many guys hardly have any hair left by the time they reach middle age.  

Ivana, what's Cumberbatch's fandom called? i mean, a lot of fandoms have nicknames. our kurt fandom is called "kurtsies". armitage's fandom is called "armitage army". i have seen the word "cumberbitches" floating around. is that cb's fandom name? that name is too harsh though. i wouldn't want to be a member of that. and what about hiddleton's fandom?