Massively overrated and or underrated

[vo1v0d]

Registering disgust with Bono is a given, but I am disappointed after going through the whole thread and finding no hatred for Coldplay.

[ShutUpLutz!]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

I know people are going to hate me for saying this.

Two of the most over-rated movies from the 1980's that I can't fucking stand after seeing them only once in the movie theaters, I have had no desire to rewatch them and when they came out on VHS, I didn't run out to rent them like we all do with so many movies on home video release week:

The Princess Bride (1987)

and

The Goonies (1985)

Disagree completely about The Princess Bride.

Agree completely about The Goonies. Truly horrid acting, shitty special effects, the whole opening bust out of jail sequence is brain grindingly annoying and what the fuckish!?

It's on cable here in the US ALL THE GODDAMN TIME, and it seems like everyone is in love with it, and talking about a remake.

[pierrelm]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

Jeez - hard to please people here...
Hell, after the first Jackson film hit the theaters, I was recovering from a heart attack and I recall thinking that I had to take better care of myself if I wanted to see the third film - years down the road.

Peter Jackson has a lot to answer for - I've read and re-read both the Hobbit and LotR many times and the most disappoining aspect of the Wingnut films is that Peter Jackson decided that he could siginificantly improve the books by inserting the 'genius' of his own writing. He didn't, it's appalling.

He means well - the films are obviously made with remarkable care, beautifully shot, with some fantastic performances - Mortenson, Freeman and McKellern in particular.

The films started okay...the first LotR was a triumph...then gradually, PJ couldn't resist the temptation to tinker, 'improving' plotlines, expanding scenes and as the series progressed, increasingly approaching CGI with all the taste of a spotty geek teen with no budgetary constraints. By the time the Hobbit bloated it's way into the cinema as a risible three part behemoth, with some appalling casting (Thorin Oakenshield cast by DH Lawrence 'grim oop north') with Dwarfs looking entirely like they were the creations of Warhammer rather than Tolkien and more CGI then any game playing teen could dream of.
Throw in more scenes, invent new characters, let's have a love interest; PJ didn't lose the plot, he simply allowed his unrestrained ego to imagine that he was a better writer of a story than JRRT, that even more is increasingly better, that bigger, louder, longer is an improvement over real substance.
The biggest grandest conceit was to imagine that 'his' Hobbit, as it undoubtedly became, was the one Tolkien should have written, and an improvement on the original. Bigger, yes, longer, yes, unrestrained, certainly, hideously self-indulgent, without a doubt...better? Sadly, no.

[chris chunt]

Morecombe and Wise.
What a massive load of shit that is from a nostalgia point of view every Xmas in Britain.

I'm playing all the right notes but not in the right order to Andre Previn for the last 47 years.

Fuck off with it.

We all know now the best lines were written by somebody else for funny man Morecombe.

Eddy Braben he was called so Eric Morecombe was not a comic genius.

I don't want another Xmas with the supposed hero hosts of comic xmas past again.

Or ill fukkin scream!!!!!

Oh man and that stoopid dance they do at the end of the show.

Utter dated bollox

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by pierrelm

Peter Jackson has a lot to answer for - I've read and re-read both the Hobbit and LotR many times and the most disappoining aspect of the Wingnut films is that Peter Jackson decided that he could siginificantly improve the books by inserting the 'genius' of his own writing. He didn't, it's appalling.

He means well - the films are obviously made with remarkable care, beautifully shot, with some fantastic performances - Mortenson, Freeman and McKellern in particular.

The films started okay...the first LotR was a triumph...then gradually, PJ couldn't resist the temptation to tinker, 'improving' plotlines, expanding scenes and as the series progressed, increasingly approaching CGI with all the taste of a spotty geek teen with no budgetary constraints. By the time the Hobbit bloated it's way into the cinema as a risible three part behemoth, with some appalling casting (Thorin Oakenshield cast by DH Lawrence 'grim oop north') with Dwarfs looking entirely like they were the creations of Warhammer rather than Tolkien and more CGI then any game playing teen could dream of.
Throw in more scenes, invent new characters, let's have a love interest; PJ didn't lose the plot, he simply allowed his unrestrained ego to imagine that he was a better writer of a story than JRRT, that even more is increasingly better, that bigger, louder, longer is an improvement over real substance.
The biggest grandest conceit was to imagine that 'his' Hobbit, as it undoubtedly became, was the one Tolkien should have written, and an improvement on the original. Bigger, yes, longer, yes, unrestrained, certainly, hideously self-indulgent, without a doubt...better? Sadly, no.

I think you have overlooked the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was a rush job, Peter Jackson was brought in late in the day after the project parameters were well and truly established-the original Guillermo del Toro had dropped out-and there was not the time to do the extremely thorough pre-production that characterised the LOTR trilogy. I agree that the Hobbit movies were bloated and overdone and not in the same league as LOTR-but had Peter Jackson had a free hand, we might have some something of similar-or probably better-given the effects of experience and improvements in CGI-than the LOTR trio. AFAIK the love interest in the Hobbit was a studio demand-and god only knows why the character of Albert was given so much screen time...but I would argue every key element in the Hobbit storyline was there on screen

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by pierrelm

Peter Jackson has a lot to answer for - I've read and re-read both the Hobbit and LotR many times and the most disappoining aspect of the Wingnut films is that Peter Jackson decided that he could siginificantly improve the books by inserting the 'genius' of his own writing. He didn't, it's appalling.

He means well - the films are obviously made with remarkable care, beautifully shot, with some fantastic performances - Mortenson, Freeman and McKellern in particular.

The films started okay...the first LotR was a triumph...then gradually, PJ couldn't resist the temptation to tinker, 'improving' plotlines, expanding scenes and as the series progressed, increasingly approaching CGI with all the taste of a spotty geek teen with no budgetary constraints. By the time the Hobbit bloated it's way into the cinema as a risible three part behemoth, with some appalling casting (Thorin Oakenshield cast by DH Lawrence 'grim oop north') with Dwarfs looking entirely like they were the creations of Warhammer rather than Tolkien and more CGI then any game playing teen could dream of.
Throw in more scenes, invent new characters, let's have a love interest; PJ didn't lose the plot, he simply allowed his unrestrained ego to imagine that he was a better writer of a story than JRRT, that even more is increasingly better, that bigger, louder, longer is an improvement over real substance.
The biggest grandest conceit was to imagine that 'his' Hobbit, as it undoubtedly became, was the one Tolkien should have written, and an improvement on the original. Bigger, yes, longer, yes, unrestrained, certainly, hideously self-indulgent, without a doubt...better? Sadly, no.

I like most of the changes and omissions he made in the original trilogy. As just one example, the death of Saruman early on in Return of the King (which really should have been in the theatrical cut of the film!) works far better than a "faithful" adaption of the novel would have, which would have required a 45 minute epilogue in the Shire after the conclusion of the 3 1/2 hour main story arc. This would have confused and bored most moviegoers, who weren't familiar with the novel, and would have bloated the film well above the limits of an acceptable runtime for moviegoers with even the most seasoned of behinds.



Some narrative choices simply work better in the cinema, which shares many, but not all rules of good storytelling with literature. As everyone who ever had to sit through the orgy of tiresome exposition that is the Architect scene in The Matrix Reloaded knows, a principle of good filmmaking is "show, don't tell". It's not a matter of "improving" upon the source material, but of a different medium given its due. Movie adaptions can be incredibly faithful, and yet incredibly dull, because the essence of the medium and the forced condensation of plotlines and characters require a different approach than writing a novel of a thousand and four hundred pages with an extensive annex.



I fully agree regarding the Hobbit trilogy. As the perfectly fine, densely plotted four-hour Maple Edit of that trilogy proves, making two two hour movies out of the book, like Guillermo del Toro originally planned - rather than three two and a half hour movies (twice the runtime!), would have been the correct choice. There's just not enough story in this 250 page book to stretch over three films and the bloated movie adaption feels like "butter spread over too much bread". To be fair to Peter Jackson, this was a decision the studio made to maximize profits, given the incredibly high production costs, and Jackson tried to do the best he could with being brought on board at the eleventh hour and having to wing it day by day.



It's not the first franchise to be messed up by studio politics, and I can only hope that Amazon does better with their planned TV series. Given that its yet another prequel, and I've grown to hate endless sequels, prequels and reboots, my expectations are already so low that I can only be pleasantly surprised.

[Mal Hombre]

Let's all make a New Years Resolution to be civil,Ok ?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

Let's all make a New Years Resolution to be civil,Ok ?

Better still, lets just be civil. I never keep New Years Resolutions, but being civil isn't so hard as giving up fatty foods or alcohol and taking exercise, and it's just as good for your blood pressure.

[vo1v0d]

Up yours; I refuse to be Cyril. The twat is full of non-sequiturs and irrelevance.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by vo1v0d

non-sequiturs

I've got a pair of those.

Pruning my roses was a flippin' nightmare.