| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
 Posted - 12/11/2007 : 15:16:14
|
All of which was already in the movie. In fact, some of it was handled with some pretty clunky exposition.
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 15:22:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
They never bothered to make the daemons important to anything
It tells you in the first few seconds that daemons are people's souls, so it's not exactly rocket surgery!
quote:
I find it very telling that this film's defenders are all fans of the novel.
You imply that it is an invalid position to find the film good specifically as a companion piece to the book, but like I've mentioned you're just assuming that a film needs to exist in a vacuum simply because most of them do so. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/11/2007 15:23:20 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 16:45:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It tells you in the first few seconds that daemons are people's souls,
(*Gulp*) I guess I did miss something important during my little nap.quote:
it's not exactly rocket surgery!
I freakin' LOVE that! 
I'm going to use it from now on. 
BTW: I'm thoroughly confused as to who's arguing with whom, who agrees with what, and whether anyone here is speaking with an English accent, but it is good fun and very entertaining discussion! 
Indeed: way more entertaining than the movie.   |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 12/11/2007 17:05:37 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 17:53:28
|
quote:
You imply that it is an invalid position to find the film good specifically as a companion piece to the book, but like I've mentioned you're just assuming that a film needs to exist in a vacuum simply because most of them do so.
That's a standard I have and I'm not going to bend on it. I mean, that's great for you, Salopian, but where does it leave me? I haven't read the book! Do I have to go read every book before I can see the movie? Do I have to slog through the original book versions of "Dr. Strangelove," "Death Wish," "Mean Girls," "Fast Food Nation," "Die Hard," etc. before I see them? I think on some level films have to stand alone and be worthwhile on their own terms.
quote:
It tells you in the first few seconds that daemons are people's souls, so it's not exactly rocket surgery!
Yeah, I know that, but what does that mean exactly? What does it mean when you have your soul intercised or whatever? Is it like that Simpsons episode where Bart sells his soul and then automatic doors don't open for him and you can't laugh? Or do you just get lonely, or ostracized, or what? What does it matter? |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 18:15:29
|
I was going to point out that "Dr. Strangelove" was not a book, and opine that you're now screwed because there's nothing to read. But having jogged my memory through internet research, I have to mention that it did rely for source material on the book "Red Alert," which I never read.
Does this mean that I didn't really enjoy the film because I didn't read the book, thus I really didn't know what was going on? 
|
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 21:44:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I was going to point out that "Dr. Strangelove" was not a book, and opine that you're now screwed because there's nothing to read. But having jogged my memory through internet research, I have to mention that it did rely for source material on the book "Red Alert," which I never read.
Does this mean that I didn't really enjoy the film because I didn't read the book, thus I really didn't know what was going on?
I did read it. RED ALERT played it straight! You would have been so lost... |
Edited by - randall on 12/11/2007 21:45:16 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 22:39:04
|
| Great: there goes one of my all-time favorite movie experiences down the drain -- and all because of some dumb book I never read! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 23:06:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
it's not exactly rocket surgery!
I freakin' LOVE that!
It's from Downtown. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 12/11/2007 23:06:52 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 23:08:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
The rings trilogy would have worked just as well without the Council of Rivendell. Frodo has to get rid of the ring because Gandalf told him so. That's good enough.
I disagree. The Council of Rivendell substantially increased the seriousness of the mission. If Gandalf had said to Frodo "Take the ring to Mordor and Doom it to save Middle Earth" and that was that, well, it's not enough to keep an 11 hour movie alive. The viewer was left in no doubt following the Council (due to it's dramatisation) that the survival of the major races/species throughout Middle Earth was at stake. Also, the other major subplots of the movie (Aragorn's mission, and introduction of other major characters etc) began at the Council, Frodo's mission wasn't the only one.
quote:
The problem was, of course, the maniacal fanbase, of which Jackson et al were also members.
That wasn't a problem. LOTR was the 2nd biggest selling book of the last century (The Bible was the first). That's a pretty good reason to leave it as it was written. Major change would have been lunacy.quote:
The rings films break one of cinema's most important rules: Never do the same thing twice.
Art shouldn't have rules. Breaking rules is a good thing. Hollywood genericity has become boring and predictable precisely because most don't break rules.quote:
Circularity, repetition of the same incident in different guises, is antithetical to the dramatic form. It is the signature of the epic and the autobiography. Which is the reason both are adapted into drama with much difficulty and little success. As was the case in The Lord of the Rings.
You're implying LOTR had 'little success'? The great majority of viewers rated this trilogy very highly, obviously you can't please everyone. |
Edited by - Sean on 12/11/2007 23:11:48 |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 07:31:01
|
The Lord of the Rings films don't work as decent drama. A lot of people disagree with me there. A lot of people are wrong.
Regarding "rules in art." Sean seems to have misunderstood my point. The rule is dictated by the audience, not by an overall authority, and has absolutely nothing to do with Hollywood, which 99 times out of 100 go against it. If you do the same thing twice, it becomes boring in drama, and people start switching off. In the epic, circularity is required: in drama, superfluous.
Sean's defense of the meandering disaster of a scene that is the Council of Rivendell also makes no dramatic sense with regards to cinema. It's just a bunch of people in wigs talking to each other. It feels like an AA meeting. On valium.
Finally, the stuff about the Rings books selling more than any others in the 20th Century apart from the Bible. I am not sure how true that is. Fans of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead also claim that title. Perhaps not too surprisingly, both works overstay their welcome by about 500 pages (Actually, The Fountainhead is an outright disaster).
PS. Genericity is not a word. At least not in the way you meant it.
|
Edited by - Ali on 12/12/2007 07:41:07 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 08:53:42
|
quote:
Sean's defense of the meandering disaster of a scene that is the Council of Rivendell also makes no dramatic sense with regards to cinema. It's just a bunch of people in wigs talking to each other. It feels like an AA meeting. On valium.
All I can say, man, is I wouldn't want to watch a movie you wrote, Ali. What you want in a movie is exactly counter to what I want in mine. |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 10:14:15
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 10:38:23
|
Ali, I can see with LOTR that you are definitely not the target audience for the book or the movie. I'm the target audience. It's one of the best books I've ever read and one of the best movies I've ever seen. That means your opinion on what's right or wrong in the movie doesn't mean much. Likewise, my opinion on what's best in a popcorn rom-com aimed at 13-year old US girls doesn't count, as I'm not the target, all that matters is whether the 13-year old girls liked it or not. Sure, I might think it's garbage, but if all the girlies go see it and rave about it then it's a total success.
LOTR was aimed at ringnuts (and those who didn't know they were ringnuts who became ringnuts after watching it). And as a ringnut I can say that the only way that trilogy could be improved (from the 11.5 hour Extended real version) is by adding about another 45 minutes (The Scourge of the Shire). |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 10:45:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
PS. Genericity is not a word. At least not in the way you meant it.
I learn something every day.  Gonna have to stop using that one. Looks like the word is "genericalness". A word that I don't recall ever having heard before.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 11:15:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Do I have to go read every book before I can see the movie?
Of course not. The point was that just because films usually stand alone does not mean that there is a magical law that they always have to. If you want to add such a law in your head, then that is up to you, but film-makers are not obliged to bow to it. There are films that I see without having read the books but common sense made it quite obvious to me that I should read the book first in this case. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The Golden Compass
