The Film Thread

[hogso]

Thumbs up from me for Tree of LIfe. The juxtaposition of the massive scale (well, largest possible scale, I guess) of life and death with that of the single death of a member of a family was executed perfectly. Malik's ability to direct his cast in such a natural way too made the 'human' elements of the film, mostly, really touching. PLUS IT HAD PRETTY COOL DINOSAURS.

I've got The Raid and A Ma Soeur! waiting for me to watch sometime soon. I don't know if I'll manage them before/during the weekend, but hope to.

[CVByrne]

Yeah hogso, you think back to how his first two features are regarded now. Badlands as a stunning debut and Days of Heaven is now considered the most beautiful film ever made. Though for me, he got fed up after 3 years of trying to make a film from all his footage and could have done a better edit than the final cut ended up as. He then took 20 years off after he couldn't make his next project, the Q project work (The Tree of Life).

But I fear that his perfectionism will be lost with the glut of films he's now making. He's Terrance Malick he doesn't need lots of movies he already is the greatest film maker of all time. Chill out and go back into being a recluse for 5 years at least.

[PieFacE]

Watched Looper the other night. Thought it was really good... untill I started to think about it a bit more and there's a few plot flaws. But was a good film all the same!

[Stevo985]

It's certainly not for everyone. But arts are hard viewing. The magic of Malick is how at the end there is a wash of emotion the flows over your and I don't know how he does it. It stuck with me hours after I left the cinema.

I left (or rather finished coz I watched it on DVD) thinking "That was almost amazing"

I think it tried too hard and ended up being pretentious.

Maybe that's just me, and I'm not into the arty stuff enough. But even though, as I said, parts of it were excellent, I couldn't help hating it.

[Stevo985]

Watched Looper the other night. Thought it was really good... untill I started to think about it a bit more and there's a few plot flaws. But was a good film all the same!

There's one huge plot flaw (in my opnion) which I've seen a lot of people tout as their favourite scene

[MCU]

There's one huge plot flaw (in my opnion) which I've seen a lot of people tout as their favourite scene

Which?

I really liked Looper. The ending was fantastic. I thought the makeup they put on Joseph Gordon-Levitt to make him look like Willis was a tremendous effort they could have just left alone. Also took me a while to realise Abe was Jeff Daniels!

On another note, I've just seen Warrior. My mate lent it me as he was banging on about it for a while. Really enjoyed it.

[CVByrne]

Looper, shit movie that will thankfully be forgotten about quickly.

Question, is Peter Jackson gonna drag the Hobbit out into a 56 hour long trilogy?

[Chindie]

I'd bet it'll be between 7.5 and 9 hours theatrically, across the 3, and upto 11 when extended editions hit home media. The first film is clocking 2hrs 40 atm without it being finished. The next one, depending where he's cut it and how indulgent he's been, should be as long if not longer, and then he's got the third film and whatever appendices he's filming...

A lot of the length will depend on how he's chopped up the book. The first half of the Hobbit needs a fair amount of playing things over the top to make it a interesting action y film, as most of what happens early on are fairly small perilous moments with no great action. Tbh, i still don't believe, even with additions, the book lends itself to making 3 satisfying films.

[BOF]

You'd imagine the 2nd film will be the best of the 3 if he splits the story evenly. And if he doesn't. If he leaves the good stuff til the 3rd then the first 2 will be shit. So yeah, basically wot Chindie sed in his final sentence.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It should be one movie and it should be animated and whimsical and aimed at children.

If he tries to make another LOTR he's lost the plot. It is an entirely different story.

It seems to be he's making direct LOTR prequels in all but name.

[CVByrne]

I'd bet it'll be between 7.5 and 9 hours theatrically, across the 3, and upto 11 when extended editions hit home media. The first film is clocking 2hrs 40 atm without it being finished. The next one, depending where he's cut it and how indulgent he's been, should be as long if not longer, and then he's got the third film and whatever appendices he's filming...

A lot of the length will depend on how he's chopped up the book. The first half of the Hobbit needs a fair amount of playing things over the top to make it a interesting action y film, as most of what happens early on are fairly small perilous moments with no great action. Tbh, i still don't believe, even with additions, the book lends itself to making 3 satisfying films.

Don't forget he just made up loads of stuff for Lord of the Rings, so I'd imagine he'll make up loads more stuff to put in here. He is good at creating and directing these mvies, but by lord is he indulgent and he shouldn't be let near an editing room. Those Lord of the Rings movies were LOOONG and that hurt them almost as severly as his butchery of the books.

So now with a short kids book like the Hobbit, he;s gonna drag us through a **** trilogy?! With large swaythes of it totally made up by him. I'll pass on that, I learnt my lesson with the excrutiatingly long King Kong.

Oh why couldn't the movie have been made a few years ago when Jackson wasn't attached as director? It could have been bearable as a single 2hr30min movie.

[MCU]

Looper, shit movie that will thankfully be forgotten about quickly.

Question, is Peter Jackson gonna drag the Hobbit out into a 56 hour long trilogy?

Don't think there was any need for that.

[coda]

I'd be happier if the suits had stuck with Guillermo Del Toro for The Hobbit.

^ Possibly NSFW

[Chindie]

It should be one movie and it should be animated and whimsical and aimed at children.

If he tries to make another LOTR he's lost the plot. It is an entirely different story.

It seems to be he's making direct LOTR prequels in all but name.

He's definitely associated it with LOTR, there's clear links in the art design even from just the stuff we've seen already (as opposed to what del Toro was going to do, which was do 1 film in his unmistakable style and the second film as a bridge between his and Jackson's styles), and it's clearly intended to be a LOTR prequel (which in fairness the book is, just with a very different tone). From the trailers and talk released so far however, there is a tonal shift - there's a clear shift towards something a little more light hearted and whimsical. The last trailer ended on a slapstick gag for instance and it's clear they are intending to play up the dwarves as mischievous, often comedic characters.

Don't forget he just made up loads of stuff for Lord of the Rings, so I'd imagine he'll make up loads more stuff to put in here. He is good at creating and directing these mvies, but by lord is he indulgent and he shouldn't be let near an editing room. Those Lord of the Rings movies were LOOONG and that hurt them almost as severly as his butchery of the books.

So now with a short kids book like the Hobbit, he;s gonna drag us through a **** trilogy?! With large swaythes of it totally made up by him. I'll pass on that, I learnt my lesson with the excrutiatingly long King Kong.

Oh why couldn't the movie have been made a few years ago when Jackson wasn't attached as director? It could have been bearable as a single 2hr30min movie.

The thing is (and Roger Ebert argues this well) that Jackson took a book that was about a journey, with LOTR, and made a big budget blockbuster action movie trilogy. The book is about a party travelling on a great adventure, burdened with great purpose and seeing fantastic sights. Tolkein describes battles in that book, from what I remember, the way a particularly flowery journalist might, great moments in the War of the Ring are over in just a few pages, the extravagant details are rarely given except in hugely important moments like major deaths. A film that captured the tone of the book would have almost been a bit art house, very different and destined not to make a penny. Jackson chose to make an action series and did it fairly well.

It's been a while since I read the books (I used to read them annually but haven't in some time) but I think by and large, Jackson stuck to them fairly rigidly as far as events and general plotting went, cutting some bits (Ghan buri Ghan and the pygmies most notably) and elaborating on the action heavily which I think is pretty forgiveable even for a true lover of the books - sure I find some of it daft (Pelennor Fields is the best example, Legolas on the mumakil, the encounter between Gandalf and the Witch-King which was chopped from the theatrical release, etc etc) but I can forgive him extrapolating out and adding action into the bits of the story Tolkein himself is more interested in telling the story of more than describing. I don't remember much being straight up made up that are massively important to the story or were examples of fudging for adaptation.

They needed to be long films regardless, and I think the Hobbit, despite being a shorter work, needs length. A lot happens in the Hobbit and again, it's a huge journey and theres a load of characters to introduce and flesh out. Sadly for an action film adaptation a lot of what happens in the Hobbit early doors (arguably over half of it, really) are not particularly big action moments and again he's definitely extrapolating them (the trolls sequence is definitely being made into a full action sequence, Mirkwood is being blown into a massive action sequence when in the book, IIRC, it's more a mildly perilous encounter with some wolves and spiders...). It could have been made into a (decent length, over 3 hours) single film, but given that they are adding in bits from Tolkein's 'legendarium' exploring, for instance, what Gandalf is upto when he vanishes throughout the Hobbit, 2 films is understandable. There are also fairly obvious and satisfying places you can cut it for a 2 film series.

3 is certainly pushing it, I don't see where you can cut it into 3 without it feeling very clearly chopped up, and I worry that the second and possibly the third film would be curious movies because of it. The second could potentially be a very bizarre film, because it starts, at the absolute earliest, with Bilbo having just found the Ring and from what I remember of the book it's, bar a small dalliance in Laketown, pretty much all Smaug and the Lonely Mountain then until the battle at the end which IIRC Bilbo plays an absolutely tiny part in. You'd have to end the third there or there abouts with Bilbo's return journey so what on earth do you do with the second film?! IIRC theres not even that much going on at that time with Gandalf, though my Tolkein canon isn't strong outside of the LOTR and the Hobbit.

[CVByrne]

Don't think there was any need for that.

Eh?

[CVByrne]

Chindie the major battle in Return of the King was the Battle on the Fields of Pelenor. In the book is was long and it was epic. What Jackson did to a pretty faultless battle as described in the book was, make it a joke with this Legolas Oliphant scene, and worse the **** Ghosts.

All the best parts of that battle he butchered. The Witch King confronting Gandalf after they break through in Minas Tirith, gone from the original cut.

Eomear seeing not only the King dead but his sister too who he didn't know was there. Then taking the kings banner as he is now king and charging on a suicide run at the enemy, by doing this rallies his the rohirim and bursts through the enemy ranks cutting himself off from the army of Gondor. Then when all is lost, the Return of the King with the rest of the Gondor army from the south arrive on the river (NO **** GHOSTS) and now the tide is finally turned.

NONE of that was in his made up battle. He decided that he;d make up his own scenes for it. Criminal, to be excited to see that amazing battle with those amazing moments and none of them actually being in the movie. Such a crime.

[Chindie]

Yes, Pelennor Fields is the major battle in the whole book... I am familiar with it . It's the only battle where Tolkein puts any effort into in depth description - even Helms Deep gets pretty short shrift IIRC - because of it's importance to the story, and it's bringing together of so many moments that had been building.

I can forgive what you dislike about it. The Witch-king encounter was cut in the theatrical release for length and pacing IIRC - and even in the extended editions whilst it is a good scene (one of my favourites in the whole trilogy actually) I recall it being different to the book, but it worked.

Eomer had a massively reduced role thanks to the adaptation and so trimming some of his scenes was inevitable. They do make reference to his grief at finding Eowyn, he finds her on the battlefield and breaks down, although IIRC they do that when the battle is more or less done so he doesn't do his beserker thing.

The Deadmen are used as a deus ex machina to bring the battle to a swift end, IIRC Jackson didn't actually like that entire part of the book and only put them in to prevent disappointment, so he expanded their role from effectively being boatjackers into a major part of the battle. I can see why you'd do it - Tolken makes a big deal out of them but they actually do very little, and by adding them in it allowed him to trim some complexity (Aragorn leading a small company of men at that point, Gondor's reserves, really, using the boats and coming to the rescue, etc) and also get the battle done with, it runs long anyway and that without Jackson adding that much of the daft stuff, like Legolas trunk surfing. I actually don't like the addition myself but I let him off because I can ee why he did it, he made a call in favour of fan service and used it to his advantage in making the film more manageable.

Ultimately it doesn't actually affect the battle all that much, the major plays still happen, the events largely go down as they needed to. It's not a big deal, and believe I love the books too.

[Stevo985]

Which?

The bit where the one guy from the future is slowly losing all his bodyparts because they're surgically removing parts of him in the present.

Removing all his limbs would vastly change everything that happens in his life thereafter. He'd never find himself in a position to escape if he was just basically a pillow.

Doesn't make any sense.

But time travel films always suffer from plot holes. The most famous one ever (BTTF) and a massive great huge plothole staring you in the face, which they even highlighted at the start. Still awesome though

[Brumerican]

If you want to watch a mindfuck of a time travel movie then watch Primer .

[CVByrne]

Well Chindie we can disagree on that.

I was horrified at Jackson adding in his own scenes and leaving out the best scenes of the entire book. The whole ghosts saving the day sucks the total life out of what actually happened in the book totally anti climax to the battle and made worse by this joking of Legolas scene. It was suppose to be the grave desperate struggle at which every seemingly turning point for man, the arrival of the Rohirim just as the witch king confronts a powerless Gandalf, Eomer's suicide charge rallies his men to the Kings banner but ends up with him cut off. It was the climactic battle of Man perservering with the return of the King. The flying of the Kings banner on the umbar ships being the final lift men needed to win the battle. Instead, comedy is how this amazing battle that has been played over in kids minds for decades is ended.

Criminal.