The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Silver Screen => Topic started by: Littlefoot1616 on January 18, 2005, 07:46:43 AM
-
Hey gang!
Looks like a few topics have been removed coz I was going to put this up in the "15 fav movies" topic but I noticed it wasnt there anymore! :huh: LOL So in light of this, I made a new topic about new movie releases. Anyone been to the big screen recently?
A went to see Team America: World Police with my housemates on Saturday. Boy oh boy was it funny as!!! :lol I'd never laughed so hard! The puppets in it were great! Kinda Thunderbirds style but just so much funnier. Wouldn't mind going to see it again. :DD
-
Actually it's still there.....topics that haven't been replied to in a month will disappear but there's a thing at the bottom where you can view messages "from the beginning" rather than the "past 30 days". ;)
Nope....I'm not a theater person....I wait to rent. It's cheaper to do that. ;) As of late there's been nothing good out there worth watching. -_-
-
I plan to see a "series of Unfortunate Events". I've been meaning to, but work keeps getting in the way.
Nick
-
Went to see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy last night. Great stuff! Some of the most random stuff in that film. Like a towel being the most essential thing to take when travelling to another galaxy. :rolleyes: PMSL The best character was Marvin the depressed robot. He's so funny in that even when he's being heroic he's still pessimistic about everything. A good comedy I'd advise going to see :yes
-
"Kindgom of Heaven" for me, mates. That and "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" later this year.
-
The last movie I saw at the theater was Shrek 2, so I haven't been to many movies in a long while.
-
I'm sorry to say my last was Miss Congeniality 2 because I didn't like it when all was said and done. -_-
-
I Hope to see Star Wars , War of the Worlds and The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Nick
-
You know, I'm not surprised that "Miss Congeniality 2" wasn't good. It didn't have Benjamin Bratt. His personality bouncing off of Sandra Bolluck's really helped the previous one.
-
I noticed that....why did they take out one of the stars of the first one is beyond me. :blink: I might've liked it more if those two worked with each other again like it was in the first one.
-
Probably the biggest movie I'm waiting for has to be Square Enix's Final Fantasy 7 movie "Advent Children". I've seen teaser trailers (in Japanese) and the CGI looks incredible!!! I'd expect nothing less from Square Enix but Europe's got a loooonnnngggg wait ahead of 'em :( Think the last trailer announced the release dates and it's planned for US release in mid-Sept time (around the 17th if I remember rightly)
If anyone's interested, here's a link to a game page that shows the trailer...
GameTrailers...Advent Children Vid (http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1669)
if you're not interested in it from the plot or gaming POV, just check out the animation....it is top-notch stuff!!! :yes
-
I'll get to Madagascar.....probably when it hits video stores. <_< I don't think I'll be able to get to it in theaters.
-
I Saw Batman Begins yesterday, and it was awesome! I highly recommend it!
-
There are actually quite a few movies I wanna get out and see. Batman Begins being one of them. I also wanna see Madagascar and the new Fantastic 4 flick! I'm not a massive, die-hard fan of Marvel but I saw the trailers for it and it looks top-notch! ;)
-
I've seen "Fantastic Four" it was fantasically good! So was "Batman Begins". Both of the most recent super hero flicks were exactly what they were supposed to be.
-
Good good! All the more reason for my wanting to see it. I'm also waiting on X-men 3 which is due to hit around summer next year! They've got Gambit, Beast and the Phoenix appearing in this installment...can't wait! ;)
-
i saw 'charlie and the Chocolate Factory" this week. I loved the 1971 version, but this was very good too. But Wonka and the Oompa Loomopas looked quite creepy, Deep looked like he was pretending to be Micheal Jackson, and I got queasy when i saw the dozens of OLs with the same head :blink:
Nick
-
I was disappointed, big time, by this new adaptations. It was supposed to be closer to the book, and it was in many ways, but Burton proved what a hypocrite he is by changing a bit too much, just like the '71 version, which was far superior. Wilder definitely brought out the appealing side of Wonka more.
-
I did go and see this as well, and it too was quite good. It's been ages since I've read the book, but from what I can recall, it wasn't as friendly as the 1971 version, but yet I also don't think it was as queer as Burton's take on it. Also, I don't remember Wonka being pure gold in the book either. Both films have their pluses and minuses respectively.
-
I know the book by heart and Wonka isn't all nice and chummy, he has a touch a menace to him. While this was more faithful to the book in terms of dialougue the 1971 version was closer in terms of whimsy.
-
I never said that Wonka was all chum and all that. But Wilder's Wonka is much closer to the Wonka I remember from the book. Depp's just reminds me of a certain rock star who was on trial recently.
-
I Got the exact same feeling. deep's Wonka is not a person you want kids alone with.
-
Well, GRandpa Bucket never left him alone with Wonka. :lol
-
I'm afraid to go see it based on what reviewers have said, but has anyone seen Valiant? I'm thinking its rental material but maybe its not as bad as I think it is.
-
I actually planned to see that sometime...if I didn't have all my classes in the afternoon and night. <_<
-
Has anyone seen the Island? The one with Ewan McGreggor in it? To be honest, I was a little thrown by the adverts and previews I saw of it but it has a much more complicated storyline than what the title may let you think. I wont give the plot away for those who may want to see it but if you're into edge-of-your-seat action, then the Island may just float your boat ;) I recommend it
-
Yeah, you're right. It wasn't as bad as the previews made it out to be. It was worse, as far as I was concerned. I've seen the horrid film it was a remake of. GRanted, "THe Island" had a better star and gal for it, but it was typical Michael Bay fare. Avoid at all costs.
-
I've considered Corpse Bride, but its not very long, so I'm wondering if the film is somewhat rushed to keep younger viewer's attention.
-
I've heard its very good, macarbe but burton's made a career out that stuff. See Edward Scissorhands or the Nightmare Before Christmas. i 've heard that Corpse is similar to Nightmare, almost as if it were a sequel.
-
Ah yes, I almost forgot as well that Wallace and Gromit are coming out shortly. :D Now that looks cool...I admired how Dreamworks did Chicken Run. So far, early speculation at imdb.com and rottentomatoes.com classify it as a winner.
-
I saw it last weekend. It is very funny. They did a good job on both the main feature and the featurette with the Madagascar penguins.
-
Chicken Little is coming out. I saw some previews when I saw Chocolate Factory, and they were hilarious! :lol:
-
Wallace and Gromit was awesome. :) Ever since Chicken Run came out, that claymation style has been unique...and it worked well--especially showing Gromit's expression since he can't talk. It's all in the eyes.
Perhaps I'll never think about rabbits the same way again. :lol: :lol: Beyond that, the adult humor was obvious, coming from Katz and co. Good thing the kids didn't pick up on that.
Chicken Little on the other hand, I'm not sure I'm going to want to see. There was a preview for that film as well before W&G (naturally) and I think its based on really weak one liners. Usually previews don't tell the whole story, so maybe I'll be surprised.
-
Wallace and Gromit looks awesome! I'm gonna go see it! Also, Tim Burton's Corpse Bride look like a bit of a lark! (That's a good thing btw).
Just a shout out to the Americans, have you guys had Advent Children announced for cinema release yet?! The first trailer said that it was supposed to be Sept 20th (or there abouts) but I heard it's now around early-mid November time. THe pain is that us Brits are due to get it a good few months afterwards and to put it bluntly...I'M FED UP OF WAITING!!! :angry: :bang aarrrggghhh!!! :mad :cry2
-
No I haven't heard littlefoot... :unsure:
-
I would advise NOT seeing Doom.
It was basically just a play-out of the video game.
-
Yeah, video games into movies haven't done too well. <_< I think most would rather take charge in the game, not see a "demo" of someone else's play.
-
Some game-to-movie translations aren't too bad. Resident Evil: Apocalypse what nicely modelled on the Resi games but I have to agree with the majority. Street Fighter: The movie was abismally poor but the Manga was much better! What else have we got to look forward to? Nothing's really jumped at me recently besides Wallace and Gromit and Corpse Bride. <_<
-
Well, the Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe is coming out in December and Harry Potter 4 is coming out next month. those will be 2 I'm looking forward to seeing.
-
Harry Potter 4 is due out in the UK either this week or next week as far as I know. I never go outta my way to see Harry Potter but once they're out on DVD/video, I dont mind watching it if someone else has got it
-
You might want to see Flightplan.
It has a very good story and a good score by James Horner (lbt 1).
-
has Anyone seeen Good Night, and Good Luck?
-
Cant say I've really heard of it Nick. Flightplan has not to long been annouced over here. Think it's out on general release as of this coming Friday. Some film starring Jodie Foster isnt it? Havent heard much about the plot though
-
The film I'm talking about is about Edward R Murrow, a very famous reporter who spoke out aggainst McCarthy during the hysteria of the early 50's.
-
I saw Goblet of Fire yesterday. It was very good, but very dark. You all should see it, if you get the chance.
-
I'm going to watch it along with my Mum, two cousins of mine and their parents. However, it is difficult to find a date that suits all of them. We may have to go on separate days after all. I expect HP 4 to be gloomy (that's what the book was) and the next ones are likely to be gloomier. Sadly the movies have so far come very short of the books (in my opinion).
-
Not to mention that "Goblet of Fire" also has the most numerous changes to it compared to the others in the series.
Skip this one, Malte, it was directed by a child-hating director. This is what he said, almost word for word: "Children are little bastards. Basically, just adults in waiting." You're going to see a film directed by a man who said that? DOn't bother. I only went because I was dragged in, kicking and screaming the entire way, and again, a HP film did not not fail to disappoint.
-
You might want to stay away from Zathura.
Aside from good special effects, if you've seen Jumanji, you've basically seen this movie.
-
You might want to stay away from Zathura.
Aside from good special effects, if you've seen Jumanji, you've basically seen this movie.
That is exactly what I was thinking seeing the previews for it: just a really expensive Jumanji remake without Williams. The only thing I *might* go see once this semester is done is Rent. My 13 year old sister gave that glamourous remarks so it might be worthwhile...or not :P: since our tastes vary.
-
I saw Harry Potter, and it was pretty good. it's definitely getting darker, no question. It 's turned away from the familiar surrooundings and foocises more on Harry hermoine and Ron. It's more of a thriller than a children's book.
-
I saw Harry Potter and the Goblat of Fire also. They left too much out but it was still good.
-
I saw it too on friday. I like this movie better than the previous HP movies, but it definitely doesn't come close to the books. They cut things more carefully this time.
For example they left out Winky and the whole "house elve liberation" business of Hermione. Those are interesting elements in the books, but they don't really contribute anything of importance to the story.
They left out Ludo Bagman and Harry's donation to the Weasley twins. Regretable, but still things they could leave out without hurting the story too much.
However, they will have to ignore the fate of Barty Crouch (being kissed by a Dementor and thus stripped of his soul and memory) in the next movie. It may be a bit tricky to explain ministry's refusal to believe Harry and Dumbledore without this element. Also they didn't tell how Barty Crouch jr. escaped from Azcaban which may seem like a plothole to all those who have seen the movie but not read the book (after all there was such a fuss about Black's escape) while it is not even explained in the movie that Barty Crouch jr's escape was never noticed due to his mothers sacrifice... His mother's sacrifice, reminds of Harry, doesn't it?
Anyway one thing that sort of annoys me about the movies is that for spectacularity's sake they change some important points about the story. For example the dragon apparently doesn't survive the "fight" with Harry while in the book Krum is marked down for hurting the dragon so it tramples over it's eggs. They seem to have more respect for life in the books. Also in the movies the candidates are send into peril like gladiators while in the books there are security wizzards all around the dragon to prevent it from killing anyone (in the movie it almost slaughters the whole staff of Hogwarts) and the people in the lake would not have been able to drown anyone either.
Still, this movie seemed better to me than the previous Harry Potter movies.
-
Yeah but it was Dobbie who gave Harry the giliweed, not Nevel. Did I spell his name right? They could have at least have had Dobbie for that but I guess they wouldn't want to hire an actor just for that two second scene. I hope they add stuff for the DVD release. I am glad to finaly see how Voldamort looked. Wicked!
-
they cut out a lot of stuff, but they had to, the book is over 700 pages and it would be 6 hours long if they tried to put in everything.
-
Narnia was cool, if a bit dark.
You should all try to see it.
-
Enough about Potter, let's talk about Narnia. I just saw it on Saturday. Wonderful movie. The last time I was wowed by a film so much was watching "The Fellowship of the Ring" for the first time. They stuck to the book, almost completely, aside from a few additions, but they cut nothing and did not water any of the material down.
-
Would you believe I've never read this book at all, so I'm really not familiar with the film at all. Sure, technically it looks amazing, but I just don't know what the story is about. Anyone want to fill me in on the plot of Narnia since it will help me decide if I bother to go see it or just wait for rentals.
-
I've read the book The Lion, the Witch and the wardrobe but that was years and years ago! I can't actually remember any of it coz I read it at school when I was a kid. Think it was back in year 4 when I first read it!. It was that long ago!
The film doesnt look too bad actually. I'm not a fan of LOTRs (another movie rebel there next to not liking Star Wars LOL) but this one I think I cna relate to a little more. Might be worth a bucthers! :)
-
I've read all 7 seven books and the LW&W is actually the second book in the series (The Magician Nephew is the first) I'm really looking forward to seeing it. And Another Film I'm going to see is KIng Kong. The critic's reviews have been stellar, and its directed by Peter Jackson(from LOTR).
-
King Kong does look good! Hopefully it will be a little more impressive than Gozilla's re-release back in the 90s. It looks cool! I'll be going to see it...when I get the chance
-
No, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe' is actually the first book. It's that a dumb publishing company rereleased the books in a new order so that the chronologically first "Magician's Nephew" would be first. Everyone who knows anything about Narnia knows that.
Anyway, the plot for the film isn't something that you can type up in a summery. You'll just have to see it, Littlefoot.
-
I saw the Chronicles of Narnia and thought it was great! I haven't read the book but the movie was so good, I may go see it again. It was great. Had a lot of Biblical stuff in it. Go see it if you haven't already. :yes :wave
-
I plan to see it, but I don't want to go on my own. Until I get someone to come along I'll have to wait.
-
I saw the Chronicles of Narnia and thought it was great! I haven't read the book but the movie was so good, I may go see it again. It was great. Had a lot of Biblical stuff in it. Go see it if you haven't already. :yes :wave
Interesting you bring that up since CNN gave a report how a lot of churches want their patrons to see this because its religious in some way. That won't stop me from seeing it, but I don't think everyone assumes that these books were written with a religious message.
-
Some of the stuff was probably religious stuff. Our church was advertising it. C.S. Lewis, the author was a Christion and that reflectid in many of his works.
-
J.R.R. Tolkien (a good friend of Lewis) was a very devoted Christian too. Maybe that is why I never heard about the kind of radicals who think they do God's bidding by burning Harry Potter books <_< burn the Lord of the Rings or the chronicles of Narnia. Anyway there is one funny thing about Tolkien and Lewis. Tolkien created the Ent treebeard in "The lord of the rings" as a parody of his friend and colleague Lewis. Treebeard shows similar habbits in talking and acting as Lewis did :lol:
-
I sometimes wonder how Lewis felt about that. :lol:
Liews: *blinking* Uh...gee, thanks.
(*snicker*)
Yeah, expect some religous allogory, because the filmmakers do not exclude any of it. Nor do they sugar-coat the story. The movie, itself, is a bit nitty-gritty, and the witch IS nasty! I know the book is not that dark, but when a filmmaker is striving to represent this particular story, properly, it's going to get a bit dark, and it does.
-
Having a truly evil villian makes the film that much better.. It sets a large contrast between the forces of good and evil...
-
I for my part find it much more fascinating when the villain is not just a dark gloomy person while the heroes are the noble utopian characters. Villains like Darth Vader are certainly impressive, very impressive indeed.
But how about villains who seem to be alright, who seem to be even admirable, villains whom the heroes trust and who rarely grant any glimpse at something that allows the reader of a story or watcher of a movie to suspect that something is not alright at all. If such a character finally drops the mask one can really feel with those who are affected by the consequences.
I also find grey characters very interesting. Characters in whose case it is difficult to decide whether they are to be counted as "goodies" or "badies".
-
Indeed, most villians in the greay area, they seem to be decent, and they may even earn the hero's trust, but in the end they reveal themselvves. Take Gollum in LOTR for example.He earned frodo's trust, yet turned on him in an attempt to gt the Ring back...
-
Yet gollum was sort of on the dark gray end. In the book it was not exactly a surprise when he lured Frodo and Sam into Shelob's lare. In the movie he came across somewhat kinder. The are better examples for the "unexpected villain", though I confess I cannot think of one right now.
-
A few unexpected villains that I can think of.
That guy inpersonating Madeye Moody in "The Goblet of Fire" is one.
The witch in the film "Sleepy Hollow".
-
There are other examples from Harry Potter. Professor Quirrel in the first book. And also Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail). I wonder how a book about James Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew would read. Most likely Pettigrew would be the cute little fool that had to be protected from harm while he seemed to mean harm to nobody.
-
Yes that is my impression as well. the comic relief who didn't reach the talent level of his friends.
-
Today I watched "The Chronicles of Narnia". I like the movie in general and enjoyed watching it.
The religious, Christian paralels are very distinct indeed. Too distinct to be overlooked. There are some points about the movie about which I am in a split mind. Though they frequently say that war is bad (something I consider a kind of eternal truth) they don't really show what is bad about it. No matter how grievously characters are wounded there is hardly any blood in the entire movie (a tiny trickle of blood on Edmund's lip being one of the very few exceptions). We see very few of the cruel results of war except for those which are relativised by the fact that the "goodies" are being revived (and who cares about the "badies" anyway). Even if the failing to show the realities of war may be founded by the fact that the movie is made for a younger audience as well, I think it may send across some wrong messages very much depending on who is watching the movie.
As many (not all) fantasy stories there is this black and white sceme of characters either being good or bad with hardly anything in between (Edmund is good but just being "misled").
As I said I like the movie and I consider several of the negateive critiques I read exaggerated. The same goes however for some of the positive critiques which ignore some points which at least deserve to be not just ignored.
-
I thought Narnia was very good considering it had very strong rivaling competition from Harry Potter to win people's attention. I'd say Narnia is a little slower (in terms of plot development) than Harry Potter but that's not saying that it's boring. I liked the tactics used in the war scene and the way it was constructed. As for the biblical side, there isnt a massive amount. A few references but nothing that you have to attend Sunday school to recall LOL. I'd recommend seeing it :)
I also saw King Kong. That's a good one too but it's probably moreso for those who are into serious in-your-face action. The battle sequences are big, bold and gruelling (and somewhat gruesome in some cases). I was a bit wary of the film before I went to actually see it coz it sounded a bit dodgy about a woman loving a 50ft gorilla monster LOL but it's not sappy or sickeningly love-dovey. It's also quite funny in places too. :lol
-
Alright, Malte, I'm going to be blunt in saying that I think you're being too picky with Narnia.
The religious, Christian paralels are very distinct indeed. Too distinct to be overlooked. There are some points about the movie about which I am in a split mind. Though they frequently say that war is bad (something I consider a kind of eternal truth) they don't really show what is bad about it.
It's a PG rated kid's movie. Were you expecting body parts and gore? The point of the story wasn't the hell of war, thus, there was no need to go over it in detail.
No matter how grievously characters are wounded there is hardly any blood in the entire movie (a tiny trickle of blood on Edmund's lip being one of the very few exceptions). We see very few of the cruel results of war except for those which are relativised by the fact that the "goodies" are being revived (and who cares about the "badies" anyway). Even if the failing to show the realities of war may be founded by the fact that the movie is made for a younger audience as well, I think it may send across some wrong messages very much depending on who is watching the movie.
I think you're overthinking this and putting too much on the shoulders of this film. Oh, and why would you want blood in this film? There was no need for blood to be shown, and I consider the claim that blood=a good war movie to be utterly moronic. No offense, Malte, but that's the truth. And how do you know that the 'baddies' weren't revived? They showed Aslan getting reinforcements, Edmund getting revived, and then Lucy running to the nearest to help him. So, apparently, if it wasn't shown, it didn't happen, eh? And the reality of war is that you're going to help your side revive, first. "The baddies" can wait until your comrades are healed. That's how it works. And the only people this movie will be sending the wrong message across to are naive morons.
Forgive a kid's movie for not going over all the issues you apparently wanted it to. They had 2 hours and 20 minutes to tell the story. That's pushing it.
As many (not all) fantasy stories there is this black and white sceme of characters either being good or bad with hardly anything in between (Edmund is good but just being "misled").
May I ask where a middle line could possibly have gone? On one side: you have the White Witch and those who chose to follow her, and on the other, you have Aslan (the rightful ruler) and those who stayed loyal to him. It's melodrama. You don't want to over-complicate a child's story.
As I said I like the movie and I consider several of the negateive critiques I read exaggerated. The same goes however for some of the positive critiques which ignore some points which at least deserve to be not just ignored.
What points would those be?
Forgive any offenseive things I said, but I very strongly disagree with every one of the negative critiques concerning this movie, and I consider most of the positive ones spot on.
-
Nothing like honest bluntness Weird Raptor. There is nothing offensive in disagreeing or criticizing :)
I must stress once again that I like the movie so don't you take offense in my critique of the movie. We tend to praise a good movie to heaven forgetting about negative aspects, so I meant to point them out too. It is with movies just like it is with characters, they are hardly ever just black and white.
I think you're overthinking this and putting too much on the shoulders of this film. Oh, and why would you want blood in this film? There was no need for blood to be shown, and I consider the claim that blood=a good war movie to be utterly moronic. No offense, Malte, but that's the truth. And how do you know that the 'baddies' weren't revived? They showed Aslan getting reinforcements, Edmund getting revived, and then Lucy running to the nearest to help him. So, apparently, if it wasn't shown, it didn't happen, eh? And the reality of war is that you're going to help your side revive, first. "The baddies" can wait until your comrades are healed. That's how it works. And the only people this movie will be sending the wrong message across to are naive morons.
Maybe I am overthinking it. Probably I do, as this is difficult to bring accross to children anyway. But keep in mind that there ARE quite a few morons (be they kids or grownups) out there who will unconsciously draw exactly the conclusions from the movie I named. I'm not being paranoid if I say that the influence of the medias, and medias of entertainment perhaps even more than news reports (which many a moron doesn't bother to watch anyway) can hardly be underestimated. They strongly influence our thinking in particular about thingse we've never seen in real life.
As for the revival of the badies I can just turn around the tables. Why would you think that there was such a revival when there was not a single winterly or ugly character to be seen after the battle? And as for the reality it would not have hurt if there had been just a single character whom the audience loves who died "beyond repair". A parting like the one of Littlefoot and his mother after her being killed by the sharptooth might have given a glimpse at the pain war causes.
May I ask where a middle line could possibly have gone? On one side: you have the White Witch and those who chose to follow her, and on the other, you have Aslan (the rightful ruler) and those who stayed loyal to him. It's melodrama. You don't want to over-complicate a child's story.
Just a character who just wants to be left alone and doesn't really care about whether it is summer or winter or if a Witch or a Lion is sitting on the throne. If a character doesn't care too much about cold weather and is not interested in politics that character won't be too interested in who is succeeding to a throne (preferably a throne far away) either. That would probably not be a character we would like (though he might be hospitable and friendly to anyone who doesn't mean to drag him along into a war that is not his own) neither would it be someone to dislike (not a supporter of the bad side either and clearly a peace-loving nature). It would be a grey-zone character.
What points would those be?
Most of them the very same I listed though I kept out some which I suppose would only be provoking.
-
Maybe I am overthinking it. Probably I do, as this is difficult to bring accross to children anyway. But keep in mind that there ARE quite a few morons (be they kids or grownups) out there who will unconsciously draw exactly the conclusions from the movie I named. I'm not being paranoid if I say that the influence of the medias, and medias of entertainment perhaps even more than news reports (which many a moron doesn't bother to watch anyway) can hardly be underestimated. They strongly influence our thinking in particular about thingse we've never seen in real life.
As for the revival of the badies I can just turn around the tables. Why would you think that there was such a revival when there was not a single winterly or ugly character to be seen after the battle? And as for the reality it would not have hurt if there had been just a single character whom the audience loves who died "beyond repair". A parting like the one of Littlefoot and his mother after her being killed by the sharptooth might have given a glimpse at the pain war causes.
Well, they did have the centar general, the fox, and Mr. Tumnus, although they were all repaired, it did make for a very clear point that anyone who got involved was in deep trouble if they were caught, and it was only by the miracle of Aslan that they were revived, which is what it would take to bring those ones back, so I can see how the hell of war is personified there.
I think for anyone to get the wrong message from this film: you'd seriously either have to have very incompetent parents, or you have serious observational, deductive, and logical problems, yourself. Any film can send the wrong message if it is taken the wrong way, but films, itself, cannot be blamed for people's actions.
As for no winterly or ugly creatures seen after battle, well...they really didn't show us much of what happened after the battle, actually. Just a ceremony and the kids, some years down the line, chasing a stag.
Just a character who just wants to be left alone and doesn't really care about whether it is summer or winter or if a Witch or a Lion is sitting on the throne. If a character doesn't care too much about cold weather and is not interested in politics that character won't be too interested in who is succeeding to a throne (preferably a throne far away) either. That would probably not be a character we would like (though he might be hospitable and friendly to anyone who doesn't mean to drag him along into a war that is not his own) neither would it be someone to dislike (not a supporter of the bad side either and clearly a peace-loving nature). It would be a grey-zone character.
A character like that would seriously have to have a large degree of indifference towards Narnia, his fellow Narnians, and how his country is run in order to be even be like that. How would this character have a peace-loving nature if he/she did nothing about it. Every day this character would hear about more and more Narnians dying, getting turned to stone, being tortured, etc. for doing nothing more than not accepting the witch as queen, when it's their right to do so, because she is clearly not the queen of Narnia. No, if you cared about Narnia at all, you sided either with Aslan, or with Jadis, because this was everyone's war. Just like WWII.
-
Well, they did have the centar general, the fox, and Mr. Tumnus, although they were all repaired, it did make for a very clear point that anyone who got involved was in deep trouble if they were caught, and it was only by the miracle of Aslan that they were revived, which is what it would take to bring those ones back, so I can see how the hell of war is personified there.
The damage of war is spotlessly cleaned away there. However much I like the movie I can't help seriously questioning that message. I suppose that this is simply a point we're disaggreeing on. We'll get over it I suppose. The same goes for the question of the "baddies". I don't believe they were taken care off without anything indicating they were; you believe they were taken of taking the mere absence in the few post war scenes we saw as no indication of the contrary.
A character like that would seriously have to have a large degree of indifference towards Narnia, his fellow Narnians, and how his country is run in order to be even be like that. How would this character have a peace-loving nature if he/she did nothing about it. Every day this character would hear about more and more Narnians dying, getting turned to stone, being tortured, etc. for doing nothing more than not accepting the witch as queen, when it's their right to do so, because she is clearly not the queen of Narnia. No, if you cared about Narnia at all, you sided either with Aslan, or with Jadis, because this was everyone's war. Just like WWII.
I never said we had to like such a character. In real life with almost no war being fought only for selfless reasons such gray zone people of differentiated mind may come accross kinder. The character would be peace-loving as he wouldn't want himself to be dragged into a war. Again this appears more indifferent in a black and white story such as Narnia than it does in real life.
There were countries not involved in WW2. Many countries were dragged into the war by being attacked when they would have prefered to stay neutral. Others managed to remain neutral to the end. Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland have been seriously critizised for their "indifference" in WW2. There is no "true" judgement about this as there were people in these countries who profited from the Holocaust. On the other hand these countries were a last save harbor to many jewish refugees. Had either country declared war on Germany they would have most likely been overrun and suffered from the nazi terror themselves. How harsh can we judge them?
Or what about Finnland that actually fought alongside the Germans against the Soviet Union who had occupied large Finnish territories before and later fought alongside the Soviets against the Germans in Lapland. Finnland did not allow its democracy to be destroyed by the Germans. Each of these examples could fill many books and threads, but I'm coming of from the topic.
What about the followers of the Witch. Do you really think they are all just evil? Or may it be that quite a few of them are too are scared of the Witch aware that they will be killed the moment they don't follow the Witch's command? There is a scene indicating something like this on the DvD version of "The two towers". Such a scene would have been quite appropriate in "Narnia" I think.
-
The damage of war is spotlessly cleaned away there. However much I like the movie I can't help seriously questioning that message. I suppose that this is simply a point we're disaggreeing on. We'll get over it I suppose. The same goes for the question of the "baddies". I don't believe they were taken care off without anything indicating they were; you believe they were taken of taking the mere absence in the few post war scenes we saw as no indication of the contrary.
You really don't get that Narnia is a fairy tale that's supposed to have a happy ending, do you? Also, it was a PG rated kid's movie. When is that going to sink in? Anyway, I don't really care if the baddies were taken care of or not. If you want to revive a minotaur, be my suicidal guest. Oh, and when was this movie supposed to mirror real life? Let's see: talking animals, magic, kids suddenly becoming warriors with little training, people turning to stone, yep, this was supposed to be SO realistic! Please... You are just over-thinking that. When there are actually children believing that war will have a clean sweep, I will believe that that little happening in the film has done any damage, you picky man.
If you wanted the film to show the corpses, to push the idea that the battle was horrible, thus pushing the rating up a few notches: Fine, but Aslan is the Christ figure, and he has the power to heal and to sweep away the damage of war (which he did, and which I believe Jesus will do someday, as well), just like that. That was part of the point of Aslan's character. It's a Christian allogory, with a purely happy ending in mind. Live with it. At the worse (for you atheists), this will give the idea that someone out there has to power to heal wounds, and God forbid someone should believe that, eh!
I never said we had to like such a character. In real life with almost no war being fought only for selfless reasons such gray zone people of differentiated mind may come accross kinder. The character would be peace-loving as he wouldn't want himself to be dragged into a war. Again this appears more indifferent in a black and white story such as Narnia than it does in real life.
Again, where in watching this film did you think it mirrored real life? It's a frikkin fairy tale!
There were countries not involved in WW2. Many countries were dragged into the war by being attacked when they would have prefered to stay neutral. Others managed to remain neutral to the end. Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland have been seriously critizised for their "indifference" in WW2. There is no "true" judgement about this as there were people in these countries who profited from the Holocaust. On the other hand these countries were a last save harbor to many jewish refugees. Had either country declared war on Germany they would have most likely been overrun and suffered from the nazi terror themselves. How harsh can we judge them?
Well, since they didn't join, I do know that it was just much harder to bring down Hitler.
Or what about Finnland that actually fought alongside the Germans against the Soviet Union who had occupied large Finnish territories before and later fought alongside the Soviets against the Germans in Lapland. Finnland did not allow its democracy to be destroyed by the Germans. Each of these examples could fill many books and threads, but I'm coming of from the topic.
Whatever.
What about the followers of the Witch. Do you really think they are all just evil? Or may it be that quite a few of them are too are scared of the Witch aware that they will be killed the moment they don't follow the Witch's command? There is a scene indicating something like this on the DvD version of "The two towers". Such a scene would have been quite appropriate in "Narnia" I think.
"There is a scene indicating something like this on the DvD version of "The two towers". Such a scene would have been quite appropriate for "Narnia" I think" Over my dead body! That was not the point of the story, and thus, there was no need for such a stupid and uncalled for little scene! Anyway, I don't care what the followers of the witch were thinking. To me, it was obvious that she hired mercenaries, traitors, and the like. No way would anyone truly loyal to the true ruler of Narnia join her. And I don't care if it's more complex in real life. It's a flippin' movie. Rated PG, only 2 hours and 20 minutes long, for kids, about as complex as they could get it without it getting bogged down with a lot of stuff! I'm glad they left the story alone, as it was when Lewis wrote it, other than a few additions here and there. None of the stuff you want is allowed, because Lewis didn't write it that way (and his stepson was deeply involved in the film), and if you were going to question how this movie gives an innaccurate idea of war: you should have been questioning the book, which it is based on, months ago. You also should have known that no such scenes would be added.
-
It doesn't take a huge amount of sensitivity to realize I'm pissing you off. Honestly mate I don't mean to :rolleyes:
Please don't forget about what I repeatedly wrote. I like the movie. You do too. We are basically "on the same side". Only difference is that despite liking it I'm still pointing out where I think I see faults. You don't see that faults or consider them as such and that's that.
In a way this is terrifying for me for, believe it or not, I have had a very similar argument with one of my profs. The subject in this case was Robert Louis Stevenson's book "Treasure Island" which he said was unfit to be called "literature" as it had no deeper sense, no message other than being an adventure story. I disagreed with that point of view arguing that the sheer pleasure one can take from reading such exciting a book as "Treasure Island" should qualify it to be named literature. What I would name "entertainment value" is in my opinion underrated in our literature sciences. In a way I was taking your stand on Narnia on a different work.
Anyway back to the topic. You are sort of contradicting yourself when on the one hand you say: Oh, and when was this movie supposed to mirror real life? Let's see: talking animals, magic, kids suddenly becoming warriors with little training, people turning to stone, yep, this was supposed to be SO realistic!
and
Again, where in watching this film did you think it mirrored real life? It's a frikkin fairy tale!
While on the other hand you write:It's a Christian allogory, with a purely happy ending in mind. Live with it. At the worse (for you atheists), this will give the idea that someone out there has to power to heal wounds, and God forbid someone should believe that, eh!
The majority of stories involving talking animals (fables) are not mere ferry tales but are meant to transfer a message. According to my prof's mind they would certainly be better qualified to be named literature. When you name it a Christian allegory you admit that in fact it has a very strong tie to reality. For no matter how we think about it ourselves religion definitely does affect our every daily lifes. I for my part am not an atheist (too much utterly unexplainable by science to consider non existence of a god a fact), nor am I a theist (too much about just believing and being obediant without questions in most religions of the world). I am an agnostic not claiming to know with certainty whether or not there is a good, but living a life as good as I can.
It is probably pointless to continue talking too much about the content of the movie. I'm of a different mind and opinion than you are and I can live with that quite well while I read between the lines of your last message that you apparently can't. That is not meant to be an offense, but all I did is stating my opinion. I never asked you to share it and I never meant to discredit your opinion with my own. You need not be angry at me.
As for the matter of history:
Well, since they didn't join, I do know that it was just much harder to bring down Hitler.
Suppose yourself in the position of a leader of Sveden in 1941. Locked between Nazi Germany and the Soviet union and unwilling to be controlled by either. With an army that doesn't stand the chance to resist for more than a month at best if Nazis or Soviets are going to invade your country. You have many people in your country who would suffer horrible persecution (known as Holocaust) if your country was occupied and you are aware that to that day your country is one of the very few safe harbors left to those fleeing from the Holocaust. You also can't hope to get any help from the British or the Americans as you are surrounded by enemies territory.
Would you indeed decide to impose the horrible suffering of the Holocaust onto your people for years to come and accept that hundreds of thousands of innocents would be killed just to be able to say later that you made a one month stand (at best)? Would you really do that considering that no matter how the war ends your country might be under Nazi or Soviet rule for decades or even centuries to come?
I doubt a leader who decided against that option ought to be judged to harshly.
-
All right, no offense taken, but I had to speak my mind. I shouldn't have gotten so miffed, but I still think you're way of doing the story would have been horrible, and would only have made it watchable by the LotR audience, but it's younger, intended audience.
All right, I'll lay off the neutral WWII guys, although it sounds like it was still their war to me.
The connections of Narnia to reality only go as far as the it's moral. Everything else was utter fantasy. And how would you have shown the results of the battle without making it rated PG-13 or R, eh? How could we have possibly sympathized with a neutral character? Such a character would have served no purpose, other than to waste the audience's time.
-
All right, I'll lay off the neutral WWII guys, although it sounds like it was still their war to me.
From what moment on do people loose their right to stay out of a war that would destroy their land and kill hundreds of thousands of them? What makes a war the war of a given people?
And how would you have shown the results of the battle without making it rated PG-13 or R, eh?
I probably couldn't as war is simply not meant for kids or anyone else either. But at least I would avoid making it too utopic. One might wonder for example what happened to that gryphon that was not only petrified but also smashed to pieces on the rocks. I would have shown at least some kind of loss.
How could we have possibly sympathized with a neutral character? Such a character would have served no purpose, other than to waste the audience's time.
It would be interesting though what would be the reaction to such a character. I think you edited a part of you message (before I finished this response) to which my question would have applied even better.
Would Aslan say to such a character something like:
"Who is not for me is against me!" threatening to kill him if he didn't follow his command? I am sure Aslan would not. It would put him on the same low level as the Witch. But what would he do? What would he say?
Of course the movie should not vary from the book. But I think such a chapter in the book would have been everything but a waste of time. It would have been a chance for Aslan to show his greatness.
-
probably couldn't as war is simply not meant for kids or anyone else either. But at least I would avoid making it too utopic. One might wonder for example what happened to that gryphon that was not only petrified but also smashed to pieces on the rocks. I would have shown at least some kind of loss.
They were at a castle in a land now healed of it's hundred year winter sleep. Trust me, it was going to be utopic. To the Narnians, whether or not this was just after a recent war, this was a very pleasant relief and utter bliss to everyone who had been dreaming of warm whether for a hundred years.
It would be interesting though what would be the reaction to such a character. I think you edited a part of you message (before I finished this response) to which my question would have applied even better.
Would Aslan say to such a character something like:
"Who is not for me is against me!" threatening to kill him if he didn't follow his command? I am sure Aslan would not. It would put him on the same low level as the Witch. But what would he do? What would he say?
I think that character would be taking the book away from it's point and would only waste our time with Aslan's reaction. Come on! We see so many characters like thqat in movies and such, it's a nice break to get away from the crap once in a while! And you do know that even if Lewis had included such a character, he would have had this character eventually fight for Aslan's side, right?
Of course the movie should not vary from the book. But I think such a chapter in the book would have been everything but a waste of time. It would have been a chance for Aslan to show his greatness.
How? Aslan would never have come into contact with this character, because througout all the book, he's too busy with the witch to bother with lazy bums who won't even fight for a cause. So, such a character would have been a major waste of time, because they would have gotten no help out of him. And by the time they meet Aslan, he already has their army together and any contact he and this neutral character might have had would have already happened, and I doubt that neutral would have anything good to say about Aslan.
-
Hey guys!
Has anyone seen Aeon Flux? It's not too long hit the shores here and it looks pretty cool to me. I think it's based on a manga comic (the name rings an anime bell for some reason) but I was intrigued by it. Anyone actually bin out to see it? A lot of reviewers on his side of the pond have degraded it quite royally but I find that they tend to do that to a lot of action flicks with similar styles (that's why I never take their word for it LOL :p )
-
"Aeon Flux"...oh, you mean that excuse to see Charlize Theron is skimpy clothings deguised as a movie!
If you've seen the new "Charlie's Angels" films and the "Tomb Raider"...ahem...films: you've seen "Aeon Flux".
-
So more of the same sorta thing then as Tomb Raider and Resident Evil movies? Not bad...I still reckon it's worth a view...might go and see it (once I finally get paid that is LOL :lol )
-
I really want to see Ice Age 2. I loved the first one.
-
Dito!!! :D I'm really looking forward to Ice Age 2. A trailer I have seen looks quite promising.
-
Double ditto! The 1st Ice Age was wikid! The 2nd one looks just as funny. It's here 7th April...can't wait! :D
-
I'm on the fense about "Ice Age 2". The original doesn't need a sequel, and there's no way in hell that they'll be able to top, or even reach, the emotional level of the previous one, and that was part of the beauty of the original: You had a great comedy with an actual emotional level that was well-handled that made for great drama.
-
I really don't see why it should be impossible for people who made a good movie once, to make a good movie twice with the same characters. You have something against sequels in general WR and some sequels of some movies give certainly some substance to your stand on the matter. However, so far there is no point whatsoever which would support the idea that Ice Age 2 is going to be bad. So till I watch it I will endulge in pleasant anticipation rather than staying on the fence. Even in case the movie should turn out to be a disappointment nothing on earth could deceive me for that anticipation.
-
I really don't see why it should be impossible for people who made a good movie once, to make a good movie twice with the same characters. You have something against sequels in general WR and some sequels of some movies give certainly some substance to your stand on the matter. However, so far there is no point whatsoever which would support the idea that Ice Age 2 is going to be bad. So till I watch it I will endulge in pleasant anticipation rather than staying on the fence. Even in case the movie should turn out to be a disappointment nothing on earth could deceive me for that anticipation.
Good point, Malte. Besides, a lot of sequels are actually goot. take Land Before Time for example.
-
I suppose it's all down to the individual to take their views on sequels. Most people go with the saying "Original is always best" (of course this is arguablle). With me, I like the idea of sequels. Gives a new edge and a new situation to existing characters. It doesn't necessarily have to be better than the previous instalment to be enjoyable. You can decide on which you like better AFTER you've seen it. In liking the first one, I wooda thought the idea of a sequel would be a GOOD thing...
Meh...each to their own I supposed! :^.^:
-
I didn't say that the sequel would be bad, persay, but there's no way in hell that it'll measure up to the original, and the sequel to a story that wrapped up rather nicely is pointless and will serve as nothing else than to make more money, oh, and the director of the original is not returning, so your little comment about "why couldn't people who made a movie good the first not be able to do it a second time?" comment has officially been nullified. And the fact that Queen Latifa is doing a voice only works against it even more (she is one of the people I find most irritating).
Thus far, I'm not seeing any of the charm of the original in the sequel.
-
the sequel to a story that wrapped up rather nicely is pointless and will serve as nothing else than to make more money
To be honest Raptor, that's all film making is. It's a business market set up in order for companies to make money. That's exactly what it is if you boil it down. LBT is no different. If something is deemed profitable, you make more of them so more people buy/invest into the company's services or buy their product. It's down to the people who watch films. Whether you like it or not is not their problem if you've already forked out to see it in the cinema and so many 1000s of others have as well. The film companies have got what they want.
As for liking sequels, again it's down to the person's own individual perception and willingness of acceptance. I for one reckon that a sequel CAN outmatch its original counterpart (I use that term loosely). New directors on a scene don't necessarily cast a doomed shadow over a movie's sequel but again that's MY personal opinion...I can't change people's views (neva plan to) but if it's something that you liked first time round, I can't see the logic in thinking that the next instalment is gonna be inferior. I wooda thought that if you enjoyed the first one, it would give you the drive to interested by more that are released. To me that just sounds...well...prejudice. Make your judgement AFTER you've seen it.
-
Most don't hear me say things like this, but I do plan to see Ice Age 2 as well. :o Yeah, RR goes and actually plans to watch a sequel....might be another Shrek 2 in the making.
-
might be another Shrek 2 in the making.
Do you mean this to be a praise or a fear? Personally I liked Shrek 2, especially for it's countless allusions to other movies.
-
Personally I liked Shrek 2, especially for it's countless allusions to other movies.
I really should way Shrek 2 someday; I've heard good things about it, but I've never actually gotten around to watching it.
Anywho, regarding Ice Age 2, I'm not particularily looking forward to it, however if the opportunity arises, I'd be interested in checking it out. I very much enjoyed the original.
-
I meant that in a good way Malte. ;) Shrek 2 is the ONLY sequel that I have seen that I actually liked more than the original.
-
To be honest Raptor, that's all film making is. It's a business market set up in order for companies to make money. That's exactly what it is if you boil it down.
If that's what you honestly think: you're very naive.
LBT is no different. If something is deemed profitable, you make more of them so more people buy/invest into the company's services or buy their product. It's down to the people who watch films. Whether you like it or not is not their problem if you've already forked out to see it in the cinema and so many 1000s of others have as well. The film companies have got what they want.
Yes, the companies, not the filmmakers in many cases.
As for liking sequels, again it's down to the person's own individual perception and willingness of acceptance.
And there people go again, calling me close-minded, dumb, and unwilling to accept, just because I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's going to get me to agree oh so quickly.
I for one reckon that a sequel CAN outmatch its original counterpart (I use that term loosely).
Yeah, when hell freezes over. And especially not in this case. The original "Ice Age" had a wonderful setting and story, and they wrapped the story up so completely that a sequel like this is nothing but a joke and an insult.
New directors on a scene don't necessarily cast a doomed shadow over a movie's sequel but again that's MY personal opinion...I can't change people's views (neva plan to) but if it's something that you liked first time round, I can't see the logic in thinking that the next instalment is gonna be inferior.
One: The film already looks very, very stupid. Two: only the original director can bring "Ice Age" to life the way it deserves. Three: replacement directors are never, ever able to make a project better than before, unless you're that moron who directed the first two "Harry Potter" films, in which case just about anyone else would be better than you.
I wooda thought that if you enjoyed the first one, it would give you the drive to interested by more that are released. To me that just sounds...well...prejudice. Make your judgement AFTER you've seen it.
I did enjoy the first one, but this sequel is right up there in the "most unnecessary sequels" list. Oh, and I make MY judgments when I frikkin want to!
Oh, and I also hated "Shrek 2", people.
-
Raptor...what your deal with immediately going on the defensive neither concerns me nor does it infringe me in the slightest. So, in light of that, let's talk...
Before you consider my naiveity...perhaps you should think about the idea. If movies were not made for obtaining profit then why should we pay for them? What's the point in them folking out excess of millions for making films for the general public if it wasn't for the concept of raking in profits from it. A-list producers, actors etc all raking in millions for what they put on show. Businesses are set up to make money...tell me I'm a liar? I seriously reckon it's someone else who need to quit being so blissfully ignorant.
And there people go again, calling me close-minded, dumb, and unwilling to accept, just because I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's going to get me to agree oh so quickly.
Where you got that assumption from I don't know...neither do I care. I never called you close-minded nor did I imply it. My statement was highlighting tha fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Which links nicely to the next point on sequels and their originals. I specifically said "I" reckon they can (my personal opinion). That comes plain and simple as it is. You either agree or disagree. That then allows the potential for a debate...but there's no need to flare up and get snappy about it. There happens to be a distinct difference between a debate and an argument.
Your opinions, judgements and views are all yours Raptor but maybe you should consider thinking about what you say before you actually say it... Why light a match in a room you can smell gas?! If you don't want people to think of you as "close-minded" etc. then don't take other people's opinions to heart. Just coz one person says something is good doesn't mean others are gonna agree. But you're gonna start taking it personally then don't expect others to shine upon...coz I certainly don't.
-
If that's what you honestly think: you're very naive.
If it is not about money (and if anyone who thinks so is to be considered naive) I beg you to tell us what you think movie business is all about? Just movie makers in a selfless ambition to create good movies without any material interests? I must say that sounds (don't mean to offend you) naive to me.
And there people go again, calling me close-minded, dumb, and unwilling to accept, just because I'm not a fan of sequels in general. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That's going to get me to agree oh so quickly.
:blink: I must be very unattentive indeed if I didn't even notice such offenses against you were written. Please quote the lines where anyone is calling you close-minded or dumb. While NOBODY here wrote anything but their own opinions often stressing that it was opinion without any claim of it being general truth (if you want me to quote lines for examples that is no problem at all). It is YOU WR who started calling people naive and claim to be attacked by them. Maybe you fancy yourself in such a role as a poor misunderstood victim whom everyone dislikes, alas it is simply not reality. Nobody attacked you here! So get a grip, represent you opinion and do NOT attack anyone else.
-
If it is not about money (and if anyone who thinks so is to be considered naive) I beg you to tell us what you think movie business is all about? Just movie makers in a selfless ambition to create good movies without any material interests? I must say that sounds (don't mean to offend you) naive to me.
Yeah, its about the money to the executives at the film companies, but to the filmmakers, themselves, its about creating good movies. You don't get films like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is it were just for the money.
As for liking sequels, again it's down to the person's own individual perception and willingness of acceptance.
If you weren't implying that I was close-minded, then why is there is a comment about "willingness to accept" in there? Eh? I've had things like that implied far too often to not look for something between the lines. Paranoid, perhaps, but better safe than sorry.
-
I think we can all agree on this logic:
Filmmaking/directing a film is a job. What do you do at a job? Making money so you can buy the necessities of life, blah blah blah.
What does Speilberg do this for? A hobby? A good feeling? No frickin way! He makes good money because he makes good films.
-
And I've never really considered Spielberg a real filmmaker.
-
Yeah, its about the money to the executives at the film companies, but to the filmmakers, themselves, its about creating good movies. You don't get films like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is it were just for the money.
Money, reputation, award winnings...it's all part of status building. Becoming the biggest player in the market. It's all competition. That's what businesses do. Compete for consumers' money. Money to a business is the equivilent to blood to a living creature. No money...no business...it is that simple.
If you weren't implying that I was close-minded, then why is there is a comment about "willingness to accept" in there? Eh? I've had things like that implied far too often to not look for something between the lines.
That comment was generic Raptor...not specific to you. People have different tolerance levels to different things and that tends to be their source for drawing on personal opinions. If you don't think that sequels are exactly Godly decrees then that's your opinion mate. That's your entitlement and no one can take that from you. But in light of what's been said, it's almost sounds like your fishing for sympathy. There was no need for an argument to kick up over this...there really wasnt.
-
I was not "fishing for sympathy", I'm just very suspicious of people in general.
Correction. That's what you think filmmaking is about. Its not about that to indie filmmakers, who'd have a much better chance of making money off a regular job than making films the way they do.
And if you think that filmmaking is only about money, reputation, and such, then you haven't the slightest idea of what goes into a film.
-
As an outsider in this conversation, I'm seeing the largest arguements are revolving around the amount of closed-minded language being used: "Only", "always", "all", "never", etc. If there is one thing I've learned from years of Social Studies and English essays, such words lead to many arguements, as they are rarely true.
Filmmakers, and anyone else for that matter, generally have more than one reason for doing something. For many of them, a career and money making opportunity is an important reason, but it's not going to be the only reason. Who would go ito film making if they didn't have some sort of desire to do so? Film makers, like any other artist, treat their work with respect, and only hope that the public shares this respect for their art. If the public appreciates it, the film maker is rewarded both financially and psychologically. His art did something good for the world, at least through the eyes of the people who watched and enjoyed the film. Like any career, money is one reason to get involved in film making, however the love of the art is bound to be one of the major drives to invest in such a career.
-
Why on earth are we rguing about this? Did I start this? All I said was that I wanted to see Ice Age 2. It turned into an argument. Lets get back on subject, people.
-
Lol that's what I was wondering! :lol
Ice Age was awesome :wow
-
Does anyone think there is serious competition between Dreamworks Animation Studios and Pixar? I do because there are so many ways they are ripping eachother off. First, Pixar makes finding Nemo and it's a huge hit. Dreamworks thinks they should make an underwater fish movie too to gain more popularity and they come out with Shark Tale. Then DW comes out with Madagascar, and now Pix is coming out with The Wild, which appears to be very similar, what with animals escaping from the Central Park Zoo and telling from the plotline, it looks more like Madagascar in reverse. I believe Pixar and Dreamworks go together as well as Coke and Pepsi in my opinion.
And BY THE WAY, WR, I'm still holding the fact against you that you called me an idiot in my genre topic, just because I don't like what you like. You need to WAKE UP! I FEEL LIKE I'M ARGUING WITH MY DAD HERE! DAMN IT!
-
:mad Can we drop this argument now? Lets get back o subject.
(btw, welcome back, Cyberlizard. :yes :yes )
-
Thanks. I took the worst vacation EVER. I was going to California so my Mom can go to College and visit some relatives, when our early flight to Salt Lake was delayed. So we had to take off at night and I got the stomach flu on the way over there. I was vomiting in the mens room when we got there, and we missed our flight to Burbank by fifteen minutes. Then we had to spend the night in Salt Lake at the Hilton, and what a terrible night THAT was. :x I was vomiting all over the place in the middle of the night, anything I ate came back up. I starved myself all next day and I went to visit my dad in Santa Paula. He took us to Midevil Times the next day and boy did I regret THAT because I was up all night again, VOMITING MY HEAD OFF. :x :x :x :x :x :bang :bang :bang I was feeling better the next day when dad took us to Disneyland. I only managed to visit Tomorrowland WHEN THE DAMN VIRUS ATTACKS ME AGAIN. THEN I SPEND THE REMAINING SIX HOURS IN THE PARKING GARAGE, SLEEPING IN THE CAR. :bang Finally, the next day I was feeling better and me and my sister left the RV park my dad stays at and we go visit some best friends in central California. The rest of the trip went uphill from there. But I just got back today and I'm glad to be home.
-
:o Sounds like a real crappy experience. Sorry to hear that. :huh:
-
It wasn't all that bad. I accidentally left out that I went to the Ronald Regan Library and Museum. I went to see the new Air Force One exhibit they got there.
-
Sweet!
-
They had the real Air Force One on display and you got to go inside it. There was also an F-14 Tomcat on display outside. :DD
-
Sounds like a vacation I took to Jamaica. I had an ear infection on an airplace...while it was taking off. :wacko: :blink: :cry :bang
Imagine the pain. I was pain...pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain, pain...ect. There were not words for it.
One thing I'm looking forward to "V for Vandetta".
-
Last week I went to see Ultraviolet with some friends. I thought it was an ok movie. About 3 out of 5.
-
Isn't supposed to be kind of a rehash of "Aeon Flux"?
-
I have a feeling it is. But I haven't seen Aeon Flux yet.
-
Super-enhanced hot chick that works as Government opportative gets screwed over and now seeks to revenge. Takes place in some sci-fi future, featuring some hot actress. Exact same plot.
-
Sounds similar to Aeon Flux. I'm pretty sure Aeon Flux was a manga comic at some stage in history before it became a movie. I know critics have labelled it fairly poor but it sounds like the sorta flick I'd go to see (nope...still havent seen it yet). My friend from my old college told me that V for Vendetta is supposed to be a good 'un. Not heavily overdosed on the action as some other films like it but still worth the view and popcorn! LOL :)
I might be standing alone here but, has anyone seen (or wants to see) Tarantino's latest horror "Hostel"? I looks pretty cool (despite the theme of it) coz Tarantino's flicks seem to have grown on me since about Kill Bill and I was tempted to go see it. Looks a tad bit grissly though but then again...blood and gore has never freaked me out before...
And of course, Ice Age 2 premiers here this coming Friday...yay! :D
-
Wasn't "Hostel" one of those horror flicks or something? I just remember some of the things in the trailers looking demonic, or am I thinking of the wrong movie, because there seem to be a lot of those out now.
-
I'm not to hot on the plot of Hostel but it's definitely not for the faint of heart. It got something to do with a group of people in some place who are physically and brutally tortured...for what reason I don't know...I haven't really looked into it. It's not so much that that sorta thing is the stuff I like, it's just that I've been intrigued by Tarantino's latest films and Hostel is another one...maybe it's outta league for a forum such as this but I was just enquiring to see if anyone knew about it...
But you are right there Raptor. There do seem to be a lot of horror films along the same sorta thread nowadays. Saw, Devil's Rejects...they all seem to be about some twisted psycho maiming and torturing victims but means of getting them to solve puzzles before they are killed off. Something in Saw (dunno if it's 1 or 2) about some guys with a head mounted REVERSE bear-trap on his head. He has to do something horrible to himself in order to escape it otherwise... :o I can't say I'm into horrors much but maybe, with most of them out on DVD now, I might have a fright night with a couple of friends LOL :DD
-
I see...
Just avoid "Jeepers Creepers" and its sequel, if you get around to looking for some good scares. Those two films were a total waste (the villain looks like they just took the Freddie Krueger make-up and made it purple).
-
LOL....so I've heard. Jeepers Creepers is supposed to be abismal. I've seen most of the 1st one ad got bored but I haven't seen the 2nd one. Another horror series that I cant seem to take seriously is Final Destination. The one were a group of people manage to cheat death so it comes for them by making them victims of freak accidents. The deaths in those films were in some cases, I thought, hilerious. They're supposed to make you scream but I was screaming with laughter! :lol Sounds a bit sadistic of me but I just could not take it seriously. It was way too predictable and even when it did catch me off guard, I wasn't frightened, I was in histerics.
Btw, a friend of mine from back home told me that he went to see Hostel and he thought it was excellent. He thought it out-did Kill Bill but I'm gonna have to decide on that for myself.
-
I mainly like horror movies with a SciFi setting to it. I think the best one I've seen was 28 Days Later. As well as the first Alien movie. (I still have yet to watch the other three ;) )
Sorry the next chapter of my story is taking so long, my agonizing trip to California not only caused me to get the stomach flu, but a bad case of writer's block when I came back home.
-
28 days later is a wickid film. I wonder how much they had to fork out to get entire sections of Central London to look absolutely deserted :unsure: And they're normally some of the busier stretches of the city too. Musta bin a shed load LOL :lol:
Oh and as for the Alien series, in this particular occasion I'd agree that "the original is best". They seemed to get progressively worse as they brought out more sequels. Ressurrection was quite sad considering the success of the first one. But I mean, if you're into the series then by all means check it out but it seemed like more of the same to me. Alien attacks, someone dies (or nearly dies), they lose it and the process repeats over again. But like I said, if it's your swing then swing as high as you like! LOL :DD
As for the writer's block Cyberlizard...I wouldn't worry too much. It's a phase you'll get over. You just need something for a little inspiration is all. You'll find it eventually ;)
-
Ice Age 2 comes out today, the reviews have been good.
-
Still got another week to go here. Me and a couple of friends are gonna go see it. Can't wait! :D
-
Same goes for me. I definitely won't see it on the release day though. My Dad is marrying :). Won't be a long waiting time though, for my stepmom is quite a fan of Ice Age.
-
I will give this film, "Ice Age 2" a chance, although I am not expecting much out of it.
I just went to see "V for Vandetta" a couple days ago. I was good film, but not for the faint of heart, nor for those of us who tend towards a pacifist mindset (the hero kills a quite a few people on his political conquest).
"Inside Man", which I saw yesterday was also awsome! You actually root for the villain far more than you root for the hero.
-
Same goes for me. I definitely won't see it on the release day though. My Dad is marrying :). Won't be a long waiting time though, for my stepmom is quite a fan of Ice Age.
Oh, well congratulations to your father and his wife-to-be. :)
I really need to watch the first Ice Age again. I have only seen it once, and that was almost 3 years ago. I can't remember much from it :rolleyes:
-
I just got back from seeing Ice Age 2. I liked it and thought it was pretty good. Funny also.
-
Ijust got back frm "Ice Age 2" as well. I set low expectations for the film and they couldn't even reach them.
(Spoiler)
There's a bizarre scene where Sid is hailed as a god by some small, rainbow colored sloffs. The scene left me thinking "what the hell here the filmmakers smoking?"
-
It's called padding the length time."
-
I agree with F-14 Ice Age 2 was pretty good. The most recent movie that I saw Benchwarmers though I didn't like it at all.
-
I saw Ice Age 2 on the weekend after it came out. A great movie! I loved every minute of it! Scrat was even better in this one. He had me in creases everytime. Poor guy, just can't catch a break! PMSL :DD I heard rumours that Scrat is supposed to be getting his own movie. Can anyone verifiy this? It wouldn't surprise me if he did coz he's great. LOL :lol
I also went to see Scary Movie 4 a few days later. That was good. Some realy grisly bits though. For the sake of people's stomachs I wont divulge info but if you liked the other Scary Movies (even though the 1st one was the best one in my opinion), it's worth seeing. It's a mick-rip cross between Saw and War of the Worlds and a few others. Great comedy to go and see! :D
-
Today I saw RV good movie if you ask me. I saw Ice Age 2 and Scary Movie 4 a few weeks ago Ice Age 2 probably was the best out of them all I loved um what's that sloth's name? Oh yeah Sid!
-
RV Looks pretty dumb, but very amusing. Most of my friends don't want to see it, but I'm tempted to go see it anyways :lol
-
I thought the previes looked preety dumb also but I often like too see a movie myself before casting judgement on it and it was good better then I expected.
-
Which movie is abbreviated to RV?
-
Its not abbreviated, Malte. 'RV' IS the title.
-
While I love Robin Williams as a comedian, I don't plan on seeing RV.
-
While I love Robin Williams as a comedian, I don't plan on seeing RV.
I love him too that's kinda why I saw it but truth be told it wasn't one of his best. Little advice If you love Robin Williams as a comedian better stick with his older movies he was way funnier in those
-
Williams probably did his best work in Mrs. Doubtfire thirteen years ago....nothing's come close since....
-
Williams probably did his best work in Mrs. Doubtfire thirteen years ago....nothing's come close since....
Agreed! After that he wasn't quite the same. Perfect Example Adam Sandler I love that guy probably one of my favorite comedians EVER! I've seen almost every one of his movies except Little Nicky that was impossible too watch. Anyway All his movies are good IMO. But his best work was Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison which happened quite a little while ago.
-
I'd like to see godzilla final wars amazingly I havent seen it yet but I am goin to buy it its on DVD now. three hours long the sucker. I was reading the movies stats on www.wikipedia.com and the movies three hours long that makes me want to see it even more. I will buy it!
-
I'd have to say that "Mrs. Doubtfire" was one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. They just quite simply didn't do nearly enough with the great source material they had for that film.
I much prefer "Jumanji" to anything else Williams did in the 90s, except for his voice over role in "Aladdin" and "Aladdin and the King of Thieves". He roles as Genie!
-
I would agree Wk that Jumanji was his best work, although I thought MRs Doubtfire was a riot. But apart from those two films, his recentr fiilms hab=ven't been hits. Death to Smoochy and the birdcage come to mind.
-
I just return from Ice Age 2, which many of you may have seen already. I sure love the movie :) Again it is a mixture of some of the funniest scenes ever with a bit of sentimentalism. Did anyone else see it yet?
-
I haven't seen it just yet, but it's on my To-Watch list. :wow Thanks for the mini-review, Malte :yes
-
Anyone seen 'X-3: The Last Stand"? Tell us a bit about what you thought, please. :D
-
I just got back from "Over the Hedge" not that long ago. Its hilarious! Bruce Willis is appropriately smarmy, and the moments with the character Sid are to die for! Excellent voice acting, well-put together plot, great humor. I must see for anyone who likes talking animals.
-
I just saw Cars. I must say that it was very enjoyable. Anyone else going to see it?
-
I just saw Cars. I must say that it was very enjoyable. Anyone else going to see it?
I want to see it eventually, but I don't really feel like going to the theatre by myself, and it's really hard to get my friends together to do anything these days. They're always so busy with whatever. :P:
I'll probably end up renting it or getting it on DVD. Same with Over the Hedge. I don't think I know anyone who would see Over the Hedge with me. :lol
-
Same with Over the Hedge. I don't think I know anyone who would see Over the Hedge with me.
I'm still looking for someone to watch that movie with me. Hey Tim, how about this, you pay my flight to Canada and I pay the cinema tickets for the two of us. Deal? :P:
-
I have to say that I'm really not overly interested in seeing "Cars". It has very little appeal to me. It looks like "Transformers" without the ability to turn into cool robots.
-
Is anyone planning on seeing Superman Returns? I am! :yes :yes
-
Me, too. I just hope that people finally forget about Chris Reeve after this.
-
Hey Tim, how about this, you pay my flight to Canada and I pay the cinema tickets for the two of us. Deal? :P:
Tempting. Very tempting. B) :p
-
I'm sure. :lol:
Hey, has anyone actually seen "The Da Vinci Code"?
-
Hey, has anyone actually seen "The Da Vinci Code"?
Nope, and I don't plan on seeing it. I just don't have a desire to get into fictional religious controversy. :P:
-
I would go to watch the movie if only I found somebody to come along. I hate going to cinema on my own.
-
I hate going to cinema on my own.
Ah, that makes two of us, my friend. B)
There aren't actually that many activities I enjoy doing on my own, especially out of the house. That's probably why I don't get out and do things very often. :P:
-
i plan to see posiden you know ocean liner rolls over by tidal wave
-
Well, I've seen "Titanic", and that was enough to make me put off of ocean liners sinking movies for alltime.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PCFhcCa5HNM/maxresdefault.jpg)
The Darkness 2016
-
The special effects looks awful
-
I saw that movie (The Darkness). I was hoping for more jump scares in that movie.
-
It bombed critics and others hated the movie. It only got like a 5% on rotten tomatoes.
-
It bombed critics and others hated the movie. It only got like a 5% on rotten tomatoes.
Doesn't surprise me.
-
Yesterday My GF and I went to watch Independence Day: Insurrection. Fun movie. Though some bits were a bit cheesy, I'd label it as a fun to watch movie.
We saw it at the Alamo Draft House. It's a movie theater that you can order from a menu from in the movie theater area itself. So she and I ate our lunch as we watched the previews and the movie itself, and drank the sweet tea I ordered and she drank her coffee also.
-
I might check out the sequel even tho critics didn't seem to give it a good review. I still hold the first as a guilty pleasure of mine.
-
(http://cdn.traileraddict.com/content/momentum-pictures/intruders-poster.jpg)
Intruders 2016
(http://cdn3-www.shocktillyoudrop.com/assets/uploads/2015/03/WeAreStillHerePoster.jpg)
We Are Still Here
-
Ah more horror movies trying to cash in. I'm not gonna see these since they look poorly made
-
My GF and I went to see the latest Tarzan movie earlier this week, and we both enjoyed it.
-
I saw "The Conjuring 2" on my birthday. It's worth watching, despite some historical inaccuracies😉.
-
It's Hollywood of course they will take a true story that it's suppose to be based on and mess it up for the entertainment aspect.
-
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJNz7Xwfro[/video][/QUOTE][video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJNz7Xwfro[/video]
- Code: on
[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJNz7Xwfro[/video]
The video link is broken can't view it.
My GF and I went to see Star Trek Beyond Sunday morning and we both enjoyed it. Fun movie to watch with quite a few funny lines.
Ah that's good even tho I'm a Star Trek nerd I still prefer the old ones instead of the new ones. But glad that you liked the movie. I'm not sure if I'd see it tho. Since my favorite gerne is Animation.
(https://blog.screenweek.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Friend-request.jpg)
(http://irecommend.ru/sites/default/files/imagecache/copyright1/user-images/503021/a7CuWrYdBZ9fqWv3kPljA.jpg)
(http://cache.hdmovie2k.me/unfriended-b4.png)
This looks like unfriended the Facebook horror movie. They're making a couple of sequels I read for the movie.
Last Friday morning my GF and I went to see Suicide Squad, we both enjoyed the movie.
Yeah but the critics hated it giving it like a 20% on rotten tomatoes.
Also went to see the "Suicide Squad" with a couple of friends yesterday. After the initial trailer and reading a bunch of negative reviews my expectations were pretty low, but the movie turned out to be surprisingly entertaining, mostly thanks to a good dose of superhero/supervillain themed humor. My only gripe with the flick is the Joker... No doubt about it - this is the worst portrayal of the character ever in a motion picture. <_<
Also went to see the "Suicide Squad" with a couple of friends yesterday. After the initial trailer and reading a bunch of negative reviews my expectations were pretty low, but the movie turned out to be surprisingly entertaining, mostly thanks to a good dose of superhero/supervillain themed humor. My only gripe with the flick is the Joker... No doubt about it - this is the worst portrayal of the character ever in a motion picture. <_<
Agreed. I honestly don't get the hate.
Best thing ever sausage party beat suicide squad giving it 100% on rotten tomatoes. I wanna see that more than a super hero rip off.
KarlovyVaryFilm Review: ëHouse of Others’Inspired by the director’s own experiences, the film opens in the 1990s, “after the war,” as a small family ó father Astamur (Zurab Magalashvili), his wife, son and young daughter ó rattles up a rainy hillside in rural Georgia in a jeep with a cracked windshield.(http://
URL= [url=https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/house-of-others-movie-review-karlovy-vary.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1]https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2016...70&h=377&crop=1[/url]]https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2016...70&h=377&crop=1[/URL
)
Besides sausage party there's nothing I wanna see really right now.
Not the best picture for this site dude.