quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: King Kong was masterful.
There, I said it. Masterful. Completely and totally beautiful. Long.... but awe inspiring.
Lessee..
A 20 minute 'boat in the storm about to crash on the island' scene. Hey, Peter - we're here to see a big monkey, man - not to witness the sinking of the Lusitania. Get on with it.
A 20 minute dino stampede scene that accomplished absolutely nothing, and lets not forget Jack Black can out run these dinos.
A 20 minute 'dino crash' scene where the aforementioned dinos collide with eachother while trying to turn and proceed to fall for about an hour or two.
An extremely boring, overdone fight scene between 2 T-Rexes and Kong, then one T-rex and Kong... then that same T-Rex and Kong caught in the vines, THEN THE OTHER TREX AND KONG... all the while the girl is somehow able to survive
Jackson's need to show us that 'everything on this island is big' with Kong, the lizards, and finally the bugs (I mean come on already). I was really hoping to see some huge fish, parrots and maybe some big kittens.
A severely overdone plane sequence that easily could have been about an hour shorter than it was and still accomplish the same thing.
If you want to call a really boring film with those flaws, among other flaws I didn't even mention masterful be my guest.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Halo will be good if it expands on the story set out in the games. It will not be so good if it is just a retelling of the one or both of the games.
However, the inclusion of Joe Staten as the voice of a Grunt will automatically make the movie awesome, regardless of anything else.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a bit of both. I wasn't interested in seeing that movie anyway. I'll keep my memories of the original and the remake with Jessica Lange in a skimpy outfit, thank you.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: King Kong was masterful.
There, I said it. Masterful. Completely and totally beautiful. Long.... but awe inspiring.
Lessee..
A 20 minute 'boat in the storm about to crash on the island' scene. Hey, Peter - we're here to see a big monkey, man - not to witness the sinking of the Lusitania. Get on with it.
A 20 minute dino stampede scene that accomplished absolutely nothing, and lets not forget Jack Black can out run these dinos.
A 20 minute 'dino crash' scene where the aforementioned dinos collide with eachother while trying to turn and proceed to fall for about an hour or two.
An extremely boring, overdone fight scene between 2 T-Rexes and Kong, then one T-rex and Kong... then that same T-Rex and Kong caught in the vines, THEN THE OTHER TREX AND KONG... all the while the girl is somehow able to survive
Jackson's need to show us that 'everything on this island is big' with Kong, the lizards, and finally the bugs (I mean come on already). I was really hoping to see some huge fish, parrots and maybe some big kittens.
A severely overdone plane sequence that easily could have been about an hour shorter than it was and still accomplish the same thing.
If you want to call a really boring film with those flaws, among other flaws I didn't even mention masterful be my guest.
Oh boy do I have nitpicks for you....
First- lets take the "boat crashing" scene as being from the moment the captains compass goes wonky, to the moment jack black and crew get off on a boat. You have, at best, 10 minutes. In these 10 minutes, there are 3 main things going on
1) A metaphorical situation where we see no matter which way we look, no matter where we turn, we are drawn to the island, there is no escape from it.
2) We see the Captains love of his crew.
3) It suspenseful.
The movie is not all about "seeing a big monkey." The movie has three main themes- romantic love, love of the magnificent unknown, and how we end up destroying that which we care for by trying to change it. Does Peter Jackson throw in a lot of GCI eye candy? Heck yea, and I love it.
You're Dino Stampede/Crash altogether about 15-20 minutes, assuming you are taking it from the moment Jack Black and the Actor guy go off till the camera guy gets eaten.
What this scene accomplishes is 4 things.
1st) It shows Jack Blacks absolute amazement and love of what he's seeing.
2) Suspense. Am I the only guy who likes suspense? Come on, they're on a prehistoric-like island. Are you going to tell me they are not going to have any kind of run in with Dinosaurs? Or are you going to tell me that a run in with dinosaurs can be believably resolved in 3 minutes with the same effect?
3) It shows the cowardice of the actor, and the heroicness of the writer. This goes into one of the themes of the movie, the romantic love, showing that the real heros, the real good guys aren't exactly the pretty boys.
4) It shows Jack Blacks beginning of destroying what he loves. When the camera man dies, he talks about how he'll do this and that for the guy, for the price of an admission ticket.
"An extremely boring, overdone fight scene between 2 T-Rexes and Kong, then one T-rex and Kong... then that same T-Rex and Kong caught in the vines, THEN THE OTHER TREX AND KONG... all the while the girl is somehow able to survive"
This coming from the guy who said "show us a big monkey!?" The whole scene, while admittedly being longer than needed, was not boring and was incredibly essential to setting up the connection between Ms. Dawson and Kong.
Overdone plane sequence!? Are you mad!? If they had started whipping Kong and putting him on a cross, I might agree with you. The point is that Kong had an incredible disadvantage, and still managed to put up a heck of a fight. It was the final accent in pointing out how magnificent and unique and beautiful Kong was, knowing that he was doomed but still rooting for him to win. Every second of this scene was beautiful.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might have had valid arguments if you hadn't used the word suspense. The movie was not suspenseful.
It was boring. I literally cried out "WHENS THIS SCENE GOING TO END" about 3 or 4 times. Rationalizing that a scene I claimed took 20 minutes only took 10 or 15 isn't exactly helping your argument.
The fact stands, T_Smith. You might have liked it, sure. But the movie is boring.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: how we end up destroying that which we care for by trying to change it.
That quote can be used against Peter the Terrible Filmmaker (Peter Jackson). He tried to change a movie he loved, and ended up destroying it and making it absolutely terrible. Worst movie I've ever seen in the history of my life.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can a movie be both boring and good at the same time? My comment when I got out of the theater was "Boy was that a butt-number, but it was good".
What I hated about it was Jack Black. Cannot stand him. That whole "Twas beauty that killed the beast" line at the end just made me wanna laugh, then smack him for being such an awful actor.
And don't go raggin on Peter Jackson. He made LOTR, and if you dare say they weren't masterfully done, I'll ... say you're wrong.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, I'm sorry, and I don't mean to instigate, but not only were the LOTR films not masterfully done, IMO, they were dreadfully bad. Also boring. After I watched the first one, I only saw the rest so that if they were bad, I could say so. But nothing will ever be worse than King Kong...ever. The movie was a butt-number, but it was also boring, uneventful and stupid. The only reason I didn't fall asleep, was because I'd already paid, and that would be a waste of money.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Rationalizing that a scene I claimed took 20 minutes only took 10 or 15 isn't exactly helping your argument."
Likewise, rationalizing that a movie was boring based upon the apparent lenghth of scenes isn't helping yours, which was the majority of what you were saying.
By the way, I am totally not arguing this with any type of hate, and I hope I didn't come off that way.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
And don't go raggin on Peter Jackson. He made LOTR, and if you dare say they weren't masterfully done, I'll ... say you're wrong. [/QB]
no no, I liked the Rings movies. I thought he did a great job recreating the books. I said I had faith in him.. then he went and screwed up Kong and lost all credibility.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: "Rationalizing that a scene I claimed took 20 minutes only took 10 or 15 isn't exactly helping your argument."
Likewise, rationalizing that a movie was boring based upon the apparent lenghth of scenes isn't helping yours, which was the majority of what you were saying.
By the way, I am totally not arguing this with any type of hate, and I hope I didn't come off that way.
Not at all. =)
I was talking about the length of the scenes, yes, but the point I was trying to get across is that a 15 minute dino stampede really had nothing to do with King Kong, which - though you might disagree - is the reason people went to see that movie.
People went to see Hulk to see The Hulk, and he didn't show up until almost half the movie was over, and even then there wasn't enough of him.
Another thing about that 15 minute scene is that it was completely boring. Did we really need to see an extension of that scene, too? The extension I'm talking about is the 'crash' scene at the end of it. Even a simple dinosaur falling on it's butt was completely overdone. They were dinos. On an island. That no one cared about. And they got nearly as much screen time as Kong!
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: not only were the LOTR films not masterfully done, IMO, they were dreadfully bad. Also boring. After I watched the first one, I only saw the rest so that if they were bad, I could say so.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I actually heard that Denzel Washington was going to be in the Halo movie.
Which boggles the mind. I mean, I've never seen a movie with him in it that I didn't like but on the other hand, video game movies shriek 'SUCK!'
This could cause the universe to explode. Denzel makes only good movies. Even bad movies with him in them are decent viewing material, "Fallen" for instance, is watchable for this reason (though barely).
So at least if he's in it, it might be bearable.
This is something hollywood aught to learn: if a movie looks like it might suck, you need Denzel Washington in it, and maybe Anthony Hopkins. If the movie looks like it is going to be SO bad you can tell by the title that its going to bomb BIG time, then you get Samuel L. Jackson to do his thing, and you get people to see it anyway (XXX is perhaps the exception, even Jackson can't make that moview watchable, its just TOO CORNY! Although prime real-estate for a movie-to-game adaption, which it should have been in the first place).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still haven't seen 2001: A Space Oddyssey. Some people recommend it highly, some people recommend it for when you feel like clawing your eyeballs out. I'm quite partial to my eyeballs, so I've held off on watching it.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord Solar Macharius: As a curiosity, PUNJABEE, did you like Batman Begins?
I did. If your reason for asking me the question is related to the fact that Batman in his suit doesn't show up until half-way through the film, I've already got an answer for you.
I read up on the Begins and knew that Batman wasn't going to show up for a good part of it. At first I was a little bummed about it (though I'm not the biggest Batman fan) but I soon realized that this movie was't really about Batman. It was about Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman.
That formula worked just fine, especially considering how well the story was written for the film, and that it had some great source material (Year One, Hush, Long Halloween) to be based on.
Unfortunately - it didn't work for Kong. Begins was also hardly boring.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to chime in and say that I really liked Jackson's King Kong on the whole, that it was not boring, and that it was not perfect.
There were a lot of unrealistic things in that movie. Punjabee mentioned the fact that Ann survived the T-Rex fight was unrealistic, and it was. Not just that, but pretty much anytime Kong carries her in his hand he shakes her around so much it would have killed nearly any normal human.
Then there's the fact that Skull Island is home to far more really large animals than any island that size could possibly support, especially large predators. I also thought it was pretty ridiculous that when the T-Rex noticed Ann, he dropped the far larger meal he was already eating in order to chase her.
But given the fact that this is a movie about a 25-foot tall gorilla that lives on an island filled with dinosaurs, a certain level of suspension of disbelief is kind of required in order to watch the movie.
I think your problems with the movie, Punjabee, mostly stem from your expectations of it. You say you (and everyone else) just wanted to see Kong, not the dinosaurs and other stuff. Well, I wanted to see Skull Island, too, and I loved the other stuff. Yes, the movie is about Kong and his attachment to Ann, but a big part of the movie is also about a group of people's struggle to survive in an incredibly hostile, alien environment. The Skull Island scenes served that purpose wonderfully, in my opinion. The T-Rex fight, in particular, was a marvel of an action scene to me.
And this is going back to a comment on the first page, but I want to talk about Final Fantasy Advent Children a bit. It absolutely was fanservice to those who played and enjoyed the game, which I did. Even to me, though, the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense, precisely because it was a continuation of the game, and the plot in the game didn't make sense either.
Even with that, though, I still enjoyed the movie a lot. It's one of the few movies that had action scenes good enough that it redeemed a mediocre story. In my opinion, that movie should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make CGI movie. It's a great example of taking advantage of the computer animated medium and doing things that would never be possible with an actual camera. And I'm not talking about the normal special effects and huge monsters thing, but the camera work itself. Visual effects like zooming the camera around at impossible speeds, and getting right in between two fighters' faces, and other stuff that you just can't do with a dolly.
About the original thread topic, I think Halo has a chance of not sucking, but I won't be heartbroken either way. I'm one of the few gamers who has never played Halo 1 or 2, so I don't have a whole lot of personal attachment to the franchise.
If they ever made a Zelda movie and it sucked, though, I'd probably be scarred for life.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A general bit of advice: If you are a person willing to outright describe Kong as 'totally boring' or the Lord of the Rings trilogy as being 'dreadfully bad,' then you're pretty much going to have to live with the fact that most moviegoers and professional movie critics are going to think that you are mental.
But, after all, that's the miracle of subjective artistic perspective -- Kong is terrible, Kong is wonderful, Rings was atrocious, Rings was sex on filmreel, everyone's right, horray.
quote:Worst movie I've ever seen in the history of my life.
That's nearly impossible, unless you live in a strictly contained media vaccum which carefully screens input. I don't believe it -- you've never seen anything worse on television? No late-night or TBS specials? No cheezy low-budget kid movies from times past? No saturday matinee flicks from the bargain reel bin?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I have never ever seen a film that bored me so much, and was as dreadfully atrocious. Not only was it boring though, but through glaringly STUPID incidents and just awefull directing, it made me angry. I was angry I spent my money on that piece of junk. Yes, it was the worst movie I've ever seen. There are others that are bad, but this movie just makes me angry.
My opinion generally tends to go against critics and their thoughts. IMO, the best film of 2005 was by far and large a tie: War of the Worlds, and Star Wars Episode 3. They both rank #1 on my list of best films ever. They share the number one spot with about 15 other films.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. You thought King Kong was bad because of "stupid incidents" and "awefull directing," but War of the Worlds and Star Wars Episode 3 are your favorite movies of all time?
How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Seriously, though, I would be interested in hearing your criteria for what makes a movie good.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
War of the Worlds? War of the Worlds??? You've got to be freaking kidding me. It wasn't a horrible movie, but seriously ... the kid walks over a hill into an enormous conflagration and lives? At the very least the kid should have died. I'm pissed they had kids in it the first place. They butchered the scene in the basement. Have you read the book? That movie was ... yeah, wow ... War of the Worlds?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did like Episode 3, but not one of my favorite films.
The worst film I've ever seen was ... *drumroll* ... Alligator 2. hehe. Me and my dad watched Alligator 1 and Alligator 2 one weekend (Friday and Saturday night) and wow ... they were bad. 2 wasn't even funny bad. It was just ... ugh.
Reticulum, go watch The Six String Samurai. I wanna hear your opinion about that movie.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:IMO, the best film of 2005 was by far and large a tie: War of the Worlds, and Star Wars Episode 3. They both rank #1 on my list of best films ever.
Remember that stuff about being considered mental?
Beware -- it starts piling on now.
/edit -- I mean, before now. I was too slow.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And this is going back to a comment on the first page, but I want to talk about Final Fantasy Advent Children a bit. It absolutely was fanservice to those who played and enjoyed the game, which I did. Even to me, though, the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense, precisely because it was a continuation of the game, and the plot in the game didn't make sense either.
Even with that, though, I still enjoyed the movie a lot. It's one of the few movies that had action scenes good enough that it redeemed a mediocre story. In my opinion, that movie should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make CGI movie. It's a great example of taking advantage of the computer animated medium and doing things that would never be possible with an actual camera. And I'm not talking about the normal special effects and huge monsters thing, but the camera work itself. Visual effects like zooming the camera around at impossible speeds, and getting right in between two fighters' faces, and other stuff that you just can't do with a dolly.
About the original thread topic, I think Halo has a chance of not sucking, but I won't be heartbroken either way. I'm one of the few gamers who has never played Halo 1 or 2, so I don't have a whole lot of personal attachment to the franchise.
If they ever made a Zelda movie and it sucked, though, I'd probably be scarred for life.
I have never played a single Final Fantasy game and I got the plot the first time I watched it and even more so the second time. I keep picking up on new things everytime that I watch it, but you can't just look at the surface of the film, there are too many historical and political references in the film that lie under the surface.
As for required viewing if you're going into CGI I agree wholeheartedly. The visuals were ultrarealistic and the camera movements were tremendous.
A movie about Zelda is a great idea. But I don't have a clue how that story would turn out. Somehting like Willow, meets Braveheart, meets legend???
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have never played a single Final Fantasy game and I got the plot the first time I watched it and even more so the second time. I keep picking up on new things everytime that I watch it, but you can't just look at the surface of the film, there are too many historical and political references in the film that lie under the surface.
Well, admittedly I've only watched the movie once, and I was mostly paying attention to the action scenes. What are some of the 'under the surface' references that you're talking about?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst film I've ever seen was ... *drumroll* ... Alligator 2.
That's a good one! I think you can trump it with Carnosaur 2.
Also, some may disagree with me, but the movie I had the least fun watching ever was Ichi the Killer. It was schlocky, visually and thematically exploitational, and pretentiously pseudoartistic in, like, all of the bad ways. There were also profoundly unexpected WTF moments involving very, very bad CGI that comes without warning.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since there is a strong anime influence on the movie there are the themes based in every manga and anime of importance made after WWII. Now this is something that I had to research tremendously a couple years back so this is more information from other sources, since I have never been to Japan and only know a couple of people personally who have real experince with the Japanese culture, this should all be taken with a "Grain of Salt."
In films like Akira, Metropolis, Ghost in the Shell and both Final Fantasy films...there is undoubtedly the influence of the devestation known in Japan after the bombs were dropped. The pain and suffereing people went through int he decades after. This is most apparent in Akira but also very easily found in Advent Children. The geostigma would be seen as the devistation caused by the radiation of the nuclear fallout. Beyaond that I would have to go back and watch the film again and look back into my research notes to give you more specifics without the possiblity of misquoting research. This is also aparent in The Spirits Within.
There are also so parrelells that can be found in the anime "Spirited Away". The coolest thing about the Final Fantasy Movies is that there are so many layers that the films exist on. As you mentioned the action sequences add interest for people who like shoot 'em up and blow 'em up films (which I am included) but there are also philisophical and intellectual layers to film that can very powerful if looked at closely enough. And they are kind of kid friendly in that they are about video games that kids or rather young adults play.
Hopefully that helps if you want more information I will go back to the notes and rewatch adn start new thread on the matter.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that you mention it, I can definitely see the "devastation" theme in that movie. You pretty much answered my question with that post, but if you want to make a new thread to explore further I would certainly be interested.
Oh, and about any hypothetical Zelda movie, I'm not sure how it would go, because the Zelda games haven't usually been all that big on traditional story elements. It's more about making a coherent, expansive world for you to explore in than giving a good narrative. They have started doing better with the story parts in the more recent games, though, so I'm sure it could be done. I would much prefer an animated Zelda movie to live-action, though.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Final Fantasy movies are nothing but purty tech demos.
Seriously, the plot and narratives are so threadbare it's not accurate to call such "moving pictures", actual movies. We never had insane CGI when we were sitting 'round the campfire but we had much more moving story arcs and characterizations than the FF movies ever displayed.
They're as hollow as the wireframes they're made with.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the Zelda's I've played always seem to be more about the sdeture of the inner world of the game and less about the narative, I am glad to hear that they have fixed that since I ahve played them.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
There is one possible explanation for why I have never seen a movie worse than King Kong... there aren't any.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You IMO have really, really, IMO bad taste in film IMO. And you use IMO too much (which is at all IMO). Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
There is one possible explanation for why I have never seen a movie worse than King Kong... there aren't any.
I liked Episode III - It was IMO the best out of all the star wars to date. Why Anakin, why did you do it?
WOW - It's pretty good, could've done without dakota fanning but that is just a casting thing. The house interior scene was pretty lame, the battle over the hill was compeltely amazing though. And I really liked the way the aliens came into the movie.
But that's just IMO. Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
Hmm... either you missed the point of that line entirely or you're just ignoring it. I quoted you saying that King Kong had stupid incidents and bad directing. So let's take your paragons of moviemaking one at a time for those two criteria.
First off, for stupid incidents, Dr. Strangelove basically said it for War of the Worlds. I was pissed at the end of the movie when the kid walks out of that house alive, not just because there was no conceivable way that he should still be living, but because they brought such a stupid, self centered character back to life. I was really quite haapy earlier in the film when I thought he had died, just cause he was so irritating. Dakota Fanning was super annoying, too, and for that matter, even Tom Cruise's character was a jerk. That was my biggest problem with the film. It didn't have any likeable characters! And you know it's a problem in a disaster film when you keep rooting for all the main characters to die.
As for Ep. III, I did actually like that movie, although it was mostly because my expectations had been lowered so much by the first two prequels that anything would have seemed good in comparison. But still, you want stupid incidents? Anakin going from "I just want to help my wife" to "Okay, Master Palpatine, I'll go kill a bunch of children " in basically one scene has got to count pretty high on that list. And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
And directing talent? I love Lucas's stories, but the best thing he ever did was get somebody else to direct some of his movies. The man wouldn't know a well-delivered line of dialogue if it smacked him in the face.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
Grievous actually did get his lungs crushed, and it's shown in the Clone Wars cartoon, which was actually *WAY* better than the 3 prequels.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
This sounds like a job for Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer!
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
Hmm... either you missed the point of that line entirely or you're just ignoring it. I quoted you saying that King Kong had stupid incidents and bad directing. So let's take your paragons of moviemaking one at a time for those two criteria.
First off, for stupid incidents, Dr. Strangelove basically said it for War of the Worlds. I was pissed at the end of the movie when the kid walks out of that house alive, not just because there was no conceivable way that he should still be living, but because they brought such a stupid, self centered character back to life. I was really quite haapy earlier in the film when I thought he had died, just cause he was so irritating. Dakota Fanning was super annoying, too, and for that matter, even Tom Cruise's character was a jerk. That was my biggest problem with the film. It didn't have any likeable characters! And you know it's a problem in a disaster film when you keep rooting for all the main characters to die.
As for Ep. III, I did actually like that movie, although it was mostly because my expectations had been lowered so much by the first two prequels that anything would have seemed good in comparison. But still, you want stupid incidents? Anakin going from "I just want to help my wife" to "Okay, Master Palpatine, I'll go kill a bunch of children " in basically one scene has got to count pretty high on that list. And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
And directing talent? I love Lucas's stories, but the best thing he ever did was get somebody else to direct some of his movies. The man wouldn't know a well-delivered line of dialogue if it smacked him in the face.
No, I got what you meant by saying that. All those incidents didn't really stick out much for me in those movies, so I really don't care. I enjoyed the characters in WotW. They are excellent enough movies so that for me they had no impact. I didn't care.
King Kong however... well it was so terrible that there wasn't a single moment of redemption for the movie except one awesome, cool, ruling, just plain good part... The End. That was my favorite part.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it have been better if Gary Oldman voiced Grievous? Damn the SAG for not letting that happen!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really surprised to find out today that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within no longer holds the title of being the largest box-office bomb in all of movie history.
It's now number two behind Treasure Planet, the movie said to have finally slain traditional animation in the Eisner years at Disney.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second... what about Pluto Nash? I seriously thought that was the biggest bomb, even more so than FF: Spirits.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
