http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=93086
QuotePeter Jackson just confirmed last week's rumor on Facebook that "The Hobbit" will now be three films:
It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved 'yes.'
We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.
So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of "The Hobbit" films, I'd like to announce that two films will become three.
It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."
Cheers,
Peter J
The first installment, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, will hit theaters and IMAX on December 14. The Hobbit: There and Back Again will follow on December 13, 2013. The third film is expected to hit theaters in the summer of 2014.
Pants, dairy factory.
I have to admit, I am really looking forward to this.
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
Part of me is happy that this means more Tolkein films.
Part of me is angry at this obvious example of the money machine in action.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
LOTR extended editions were a million times better than theatrical versions. So yes, I want them to cram in as much stuff as possible.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 30, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
LOTR extended editions were a million times better than theatrical versions. So yes, I want them to cram in as much stuff as possible.
Agreed.
Quote from: Solmyr on July 30, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
LOTR extended editions were a million times better than theatrical versions. So yes, I want them to cram in as much stuff as possible.
Ugh. Well we'll have to agree to disagree. My comment came off my memory of watching both the theatrical and extended (my cousin made me watch the latter) and in both sets, I was struck by how overly long they were. I got a headache while watching the hobbits play in bed and the long drawn out gazes while chilling on Mount Doom. I'm likely to pass on this now expanded Hobbit set.
Just going by the source material, Lord of the Rings was a much bigger work than The Hobbit, so I'm not sure the fact that the former could support a trilogy means that the latter can as well.
Well, it sounds like they're adding on plenty that wasn't in the actual book, such as the Battle of Dol Guldur.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
I agree with him. garbon is right.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on July 30, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
LOTR extended editions were a million times better than theatrical versions. So yes, I want them to cram in as much stuff as possible.
Ugh. Well we'll have to agree to disagree. My comment came off my memory of watching both the theatrical and extended (my cousin made me watch the latter) and in both sets, I was struck by how overly long they were. I got a headache while watching the hobbits play in bed and the long drawn out gazes while chilling on Mount Doom. I'm likely to pass on this now expanded Hobbit set.
I probably preferred the extended versions myself, but it changed it from a movie to more of a mni-series - we didn't watch each movie in one sitting.
That being said... the LOTR movies had the problem of too much source material for a 2 hour movie. The source material of The Hobbit is much more limited. Compare the number of pages of text for the LOTR books to the number of pages of text in The Hobbit...
I know the plan is to add stuff from the LOTR Appendices, but a Gandalf romance? Fighting Sauron in Mirkwood? It just seems silly.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2012, 11:32:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
I agree with him. garbon is right.
Yes. Sometime less is more. The theatrical version of Return of the King could have used some trimming. For instance it didn't need 5 endings or a green cloud of ghosts.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 30, 2012, 11:39:35 AM
I know the plan is to add stuff from the LOTR Appendices, but a Gandalf romance? Fighting Sauron in Mirkwood? It just seems silly.
If the LotR series did anything for me, it is that it has turned me off to almost all modern films. At least, the drama/action ones. They pretty much all just seem way over-the-top, or like they're always trying too hard to please an audience that has "seen it all". Or pandering to mindless fanboys/girls.
I find myself returning more to the quaint simplicity of older, classic films. :sleep:
Quote from: Faeelin on July 30, 2012, 11:39:35 AM
I know the plan is to add stuff from the LOTR Appendices, but a Gandalf romance? Fighting Sauron in Mirkwood? It just seems silly.
Don't know anything about a "Gandalf romance" but the Battle of Dol Guldur is from the books.
My concern isn't that there is enough material to make three movies. My concern is that making these into three movies might make Jackson more inclined to include some of his disastrous and silly "additions." His wife "gets" Tolkien; Jackson does not.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 12:01:02 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 30, 2012, 11:39:35 AM
I know the plan is to add stuff from the LOTR Appendices, but a Gandalf romance? Fighting Sauron in Mirkwood? It just seems silly.
Don't know anything about a "Gandalf romance" but the Battle of Dol Guldur is from the books.
My concern isn't that there is enough material to make three movies. My concern is that making these into three movies might make Jackson more inclined to include some of his disastrous and silly "additions." His wife "gets" Tolkien; Jackson does not.
This. Driving The Necromancer out of Dol Guldur was in the books, though I don't know that it was a hugeass battle to the death, as it'll likely get turned into here. I had issues with a lot of Jackson's interpretations from Lord of the Rings. This was a childrens' book, and not a long one. A lot of it was part travelogue too. Hard to turn it into an eight hour cinematic epic.
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 11:24:06 AM
Just going by the source material, Lord of the Rings was a much bigger work than The Hobbit, so I'm not sure the fact that the former could support a trilogy means that the latter can as well.
A lot of the material in the Lord of the Rings didnt make it onto the screen and some of it was oversimplified to the point of stupidity - the infamous green blob.
There is a lot of material in the Hobbit to draw from. Not as much as the Lord of the Rings I agree. But this way, hopefully he is able to stay more true to the source material rather than putting his own interpretation on things as he squeezes it into a two hour movie.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
If the LotR series did anything for me, it is that it has turned me off to almost all modern films. At least, the drama/action ones. They pretty much all just seem way over-the-top, or like they're always trying too hard to please an audience that has "seen it all". Or pandering to mindless fanboys/girls.
I find myself returning more to the quaint simplicity of older, classic films. :sleep:
LOTR fanboiism aside, I didn't feel that way until
Avatar, actually. That's the one that did it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
If the LotR series did anything for me, it is that it has turned me off to almost all modern films. At least, the drama/action ones. They pretty much all just seem way over-the-top, or like they're always trying too hard to please an audience that has "seen it all". Or pandering to mindless fanboys/girls.
I find myself returning more to the quaint simplicity of older, classic films. :sleep:
LOTR fanboiism aside, I didn't feel that way until Avatar, actually. That's the one that did it.
Glad I missed that one.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
If the LotR series did anything for me, it is that it has turned me off to almost all modern films. At least, the drama/action ones. They pretty much all just seem way over-the-top, or like they're always trying too hard to please an audience that has "seen it all". Or pandering to mindless fanboys/girls.
I find myself returning more to the quaint simplicity of older, classic films. :sleep:
LOTR fanboiism aside, I didn't feel that way until Avatar, actually. That's the one that did it.
Glad I missed that one.
Word.
Beorn?
We can only hope so.
Looked like "dances with blue cat aliens", to me.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 01:59:48 PM
Looked like "dances with blue cat aliens", to me.
Yup.
The Last Samurai against
Teh Evul Environment Raping Mega Interstellar Bain Capital Corporation(tm): who I would normally root against, but not against aliens, and stupid looking ones at that.
Stephen Lang deserved better. :mad:
Oh yeah, and on topic: saw on the ticker this AM that Cameron announced the sequel, due 2015. Yahoo.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
:lol:
And too true; really did the guy lose the keys to the edit suite and has been too embarassed to tell anyone for the last 10 years ?
I am astonished the people think the problems with The Lord of the Rings movies were due to editing! :huh:
The problem was with the writing (hobbits bouncing on beds, green slime people, Aragorn's story completely fucked up, elves at Helm's Deep, orcs attacking fortifications with pikes at Helm's Deep, horses riding down vertical walls, etc). The editing wasn't brilliant, but it was competent, and good editing would be hard to do for such a complex story.
The only real editing blunder I saw was including all that silly stuff with Aragorn falling off the cliff, and then excluding the end of the Sauraman story. The editors got their priorities wrong, there.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
If the LotR series did anything for me, it is that it has turned me off to almost all modern films. At least, the drama/action ones. They pretty much all just seem way over-the-top, or like they're always trying too hard to please an audience that has "seen it all". Or pandering to mindless fanboys/girls.
I find myself returning more to the quaint simplicity of older, classic films. :sleep:
LOTR fanboiism aside, I didn't feel that way until Avatar, actually. That's the one that did it.
Glad I missed that one.
Yeah, I got that feeling from the trailer for Avatar, and decided I'd not waste the time watching it. And everyone telling me I just had to watch it unknowingly made me even more resistant.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 03:47:33 PM
I am astonished the people think the problems with The Lord of the Rings movies were due to editing! :huh:
The problem was with the writing (hobbits bouncing on beds, green slime people, Aragorn's story completely fucked up, elves at Helm's Deep, orcs attacking fortifications with pikes at Helm's Deep, horses riding down vertical walls, etc). The editing wasn't brilliant, but it was competent, and good editing would be hard to do for such a complex story.
The only real editing blunder I saw was including all that silly stuff with Aragorn falling off the cliff, and then excluding the end of the Sauraman story. The editors got their priorities wrong, there.
I pointed out two parts - I didn't need. Frodo-Sam mooney eyes and hobbits in bed. Editing could have removed both of those even if the scenes had been written and filmed.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 04:05:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 03:47:33 PM
I am astonished the people think the problems with The Lord of the Rings movies were due to editing! :huh:
The problem was with the writing (hobbits bouncing on beds, green slime people, Aragorn's story completely fucked up, elves at Helm's Deep, orcs attacking fortifications with pikes at Helm's Deep, horses riding down vertical walls, etc). The editing wasn't brilliant, but it was competent, and good editing would be hard to do for such a complex story.
The only real editing blunder I saw was including all that silly stuff with Aragorn falling off the cliff, and then excluding the end of the Sauraman story. The editors got their priorities wrong, there.
I pointed out two parts - I didn't need. Frodo-Sam mooney eyes and hobbits in bed. Editing could have removed both of those even if the scenes had been written and filmed.
There was also what the did to Arwen; turning Gondor - particularly Denethor - into crap; the whole giant eye thing; the ghosts and the corsairs...
Well presumably on the ghosts, they'd spent some decent budget animating those - so I can understand if it wasn't okay to edit them away.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 04:31:58 PM
Well presumably on the ghosts, they'd spent some decent budget animating those - so I can understand if it wasn't okay to edit them away.
:lol: That was the same problem with
Star Trek: The Motion Picture, among other things: WE SPENT A GAZILLION DOLLARS ON THIS PARTICULAR SET MODEL ITS GOTTA GET 4 MINUTES OF FILM TIME
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 04:34:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 04:31:58 PM
Well presumably on the ghosts, they'd spent some decent budget animating those - so I can understand if it wasn't okay to edit them away.
:lol: That was the same problem with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, among other things: WE SPENT A GAZILLION DOLLARS ON THIS PARTICULAR SET MODEL ITS GOTTA GET 4 MINUTES OF FILM TIME
Yeah seems like things like that could get more politically heated in discussions for removal. Hobbits playing in bed? Not so much. :D
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 04:44:40 PM
Yeah seems like things like that could get more politically heated in discussions for removal. Hobbits playing in bed? Not so much. :D
Marti the exec producer would be all like, "The hairy toes bedroom scene stays in the picture!"
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 04:05:23 PM
I pointed out two parts - I didn't need. Frodo-Sam mooney eyes and hobbits in bed. Editing could have removed both of those even if the scenes had been written and filmed.
I don't think Hobbits in bed was in the edited version. Dunno what "Frodo-Sam Mooney eyes" is, so I'm not sure whether that was in the edited version or not.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
There was also what the did to Arwen; turning Gondor - particularly Denethor - into crap; the whole giant eye thing; the ghosts and the corsairs...
I think that was writing, not editing.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
I don't think Hobbits in bed was in the edited version. Dunno what "Frodo-Sam Mooney eyes" is, so I'm not sure whether that was in the edited version or not.
I already said what it was early in this thread. The unnecessary seen of Frodo and Sam chilling on Mount Doom - essentially professing their gay love for one another...which then was oddly book-ended by Sam suddenly getting married. :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 04:58:36 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
There was also what the did to Arwen; turning Gondor - particularly Denethor - into crap; the whole giant eye thing; the ghosts and the corsairs...
I think that was writing, not editing.
Yes and no. I mean editing can hide some of the writing if only because it literally removes the presence of what was written. Arwen/Gondor though, without specifics from Wags, do indeed strike me as writing that editing couldn't help.
King Kong is the greatest movie EVER. Fact.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
King Kong is the greatest movie EVER. Fact.
Fuck Charles Grodin, man. Fag.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
I already said what it was early in this thread. The unnecessary seen of Frodo and Sam chilling on Mount Doom - essentially professing their gay love for one another...which then was oddly book-ended by Sam suddenly getting married. :D
Didn't see that version of the movie.
But the scene after they escape from the lava could have been cut in half. It had to be there, to show you that Frodo lived, but it didn't need so much exposition.
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 05:08:19 PM
Didn't see that version of the movie.
But the scene after they escape from the lava could have been cut in half. It had to be there, to show you that Frodo lived, but it didn't need so much exposition.
Good for you. No idea what you saw though.
I enjoyed Avatar. More than the LOTR movies in fact. It flowed better, was easier to take in one sitting, despite similar length.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
King Kong is the greatest movie EVER. Fact.
Fuck Charles Grodin, man. Fag.
To be fair, he may not have meant that version. Perhaps you should be telling him to fuck Robert Armstrong or Jack Black instead.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2012, 11:32:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
I agree with him. garbon is right.
Yes. Sometime less is more. The theatrical version of Return of the King could have used some trimming. For instance it didn't need 5 endings or a green cloud of ghosts.
Less is more? Are you fucking Obama?
Yeay for the trilogy, yeay for free enterprise in cinema.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2012, 07:51:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 30, 2012, 11:32:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
I agree with him. garbon is right.
Yes. Sometime less is more. The theatrical version of Return of the King could have used some trimming. For instance it didn't need 5 endings or a green cloud of ghosts.
Less is more? Are you fucking Obama?
Yeay for the trilogy, yeay for free enterprise in cinema.
No, I'm not engaged in sex with the President. Don't be stupid.
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2012, 07:51:18 PM
Less is more? Are you fucking Obama?
If you had a little economy with your posts, we'd all do better.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 30, 2012, 07:51:18 PM
Less is more? Are you fucking Obama?
If you had a little economy with your posts, we'd all do better.
Economy? Heck, if he had a little sanity with his posts, we'd all do better.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Yes because bloat and lack of efficient editing is a positive? Color me skeptical.
Yep. And those problems have never afflicted Jackson films before :bleeding:
This may end up as another part of my argument why fanboys shouldn't be allowed near adaptations.
Strip it back to its barebones and make it cinematically compelling.
Admittedly my dream version of LOTR would've been like a Hobbit 'The Road'...:mellow:
I'm not sure if a movie where Frodo and Sam starve to death five miles outside of the shire would be that compelling.
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 07:57:41 PM
Economy? Heck, if he had a little sanity with his posts, we'd all do better.
If Siege was lucid, he wouldn't be so funny.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
I don't think Hobbits in bed was in the edited version. Dunno what "Frodo-Sam Mooney eyes" is, so I'm not sure whether that was in the edited version or not.
I already said what it was early in this thread. The unnecessary seen of Frodo and Sam chilling on Mount Doom - essentially professing their gay love for one another...which then was oddly book-ended by Sam suddenly getting married. :D
Pretty sure there was a very early scene showing that Sam was interested in the girl. I didn't get the feeling that there was any gay love between Sam and Frodo.
Can anyone enlighten me as to what is wrong with hobbits jumping on a bed :unsure:
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 07:43:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
King Kong is the greatest movie EVER. Fact.
Fuck Charles Grodin, man. Fag.
To be fair, he may not have meant that version. Perhaps you should be telling him to fuck Robert Armstrong or Jack Black instead.
He knows what he did. He left an opening.
QuoteAdmittedly my dream version of LOTR would've been like a Hobbit 'The Road'.
:lmfao:
Worth it just for the scene where Frodo and Sam discover the half-eaten baby.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 30, 2012, 08:41:22 PM
Pretty sure there was a very early scene showing that Sam was interested in the girl. I didn't get the feeling that there was any gay love between Sam and Frodo.
You probably saw the version I saw, not the one garbo saw (or thinks he saw).
QuoteCan anyone enlighten me as to what is wrong with hobbits jumping on a bed :unsure:
It was unnecessary, long, and rather painfully filmed. The film would have been better if they had never filmed it, or if they ignored the fact that they had filmed it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: dps on July 30, 2012, 07:43:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
King Kong is the greatest movie EVER. Fact.
Fuck Charles Grodin, man. Fag.
To be fair, he may not have meant that version. Perhaps you should be telling him to fuck Robert Armstrong or Jack Black instead.
He knows what he did. He left an opening.
:yes:
I made a Tim joke, Seedy slipped Grodin in.
Incidentally, did anyone find the movie's version of the Misty Mountain song to be wrong? I pictured it as a fast-paced tune the dwarves sang while putting away dishes, not some funeral dirge.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 31, 2012, 07:42:46 AM
Incidentally, did anyone find the movie's version of the Misty Mountain song to be wrong? I pictured it as a fast-paced tune the dwarves sang while putting away dishes, not some funeral dirge.
Well, it was no "Where There's a Whip, There is a Way!"...
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 31, 2012, 07:59:44 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 31, 2012, 07:42:46 AM
Incidentally, did anyone find the movie's version of the Misty Mountain song to be wrong? I pictured it as a fast-paced tune the dwarves sang while putting away dishes, not some funeral dirge.
Well, it was no "Where There's a Whip, There is a Way!"...
Yeah, in the book it was a fast moving work song. However, that wouldn't play well in today's gritty drama oriented fantasy market.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 31, 2012, 07:42:46 AM
Incidentally, did anyone find the movie's version of the Misty Mountain song to be wrong? I pictured it as a fast-paced tune the dwarves sang while putting away dishes, not some funeral dirge.
I think you are confusing songs. There was another song they sang while putting away dishes and the book made it pretty clear this was a serious mysterious sort of song.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 31, 2012, 08:03:25 AM
Yeah, in the book it was a fast moving work song. However, that wouldn't play well in today's gritty drama oriented fantasy market.
Yeah ok they were sitting in Bilbo's house playing instruments while smoking. Not sure what work was going on.
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2012, 08:25:27 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 31, 2012, 08:03:25 AM
Yeah, in the book it was a fast moving work song. However, that wouldn't play well in today's gritty drama oriented fantasy market.
Yeah ok they were sitting in Bilbo's house playing instruments while smoking. Not sure what work was going on.
I think I'm getting it mixed up with the That's what Bilbo Baggins hates song while they are cleaning up his house after their drunken dwarf party.
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2012, 08:24:24 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 31, 2012, 07:42:46 AM
Incidentally, did anyone find the movie's version of the Misty Mountain song to be wrong? I pictured it as a fast-paced tune the dwarves sang while putting away dishes, not some funeral dirge.
I think you are confusing songs. There was another song they sang while putting away dishes
Hi Ho?
I think it was Led Zeppelin.
Quote from: derspiess on July 30, 2012, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 30, 2012, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2012, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2012, 11:46:36 AM
If the LotR series did anything for me, it is that it has turned me off to almost all modern films. At least, the drama/action ones. They pretty much all just seem way over-the-top, or like they're always trying too hard to please an audience that has "seen it all". Or pandering to mindless fanboys/girls.
I find myself returning more to the quaint simplicity of older, classic films. :sleep:
LOTR fanboiism aside, I didn't feel that way until Avatar, actually. That's the one that did it.
Glad I missed that one.
Yeah, I got that feeling from the trailer for Avatar, and decided I'd not waste the time watching it. And everyone telling me I just had to watch it unknowingly made me even more resistant.
My only cinema date with my ex was the Avatar. I remember being very very tired and sleeping through the middle of the movie.
Quote from: garbon on July 30, 2012, 05:00:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 30, 2012, 04:57:34 PM
I don't think Hobbits in bed was in the edited version. Dunno what "Frodo-Sam Mooney eyes" is, so I'm not sure whether that was in the edited version or not.
I already said what it was early in this thread. The unnecessary seen of Frodo and Sam chilling on Mount Doom - essentially professing their gay love for one another...which then was oddly book-ended by Sam suddenly getting married. :D
The best part for me was Ian McKellen perving on Elijah Wood frolicking in the bed while in the house of that Priscilla Queen of the Desert dude.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 31, 2012, 11:40:29 AM
I think it was Led Zeppelin.
Nah, songs about high hos are more likely to be hip-hop. :P