|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 5, 2007 11:33:31 GMT -5
From the studio that took you to Middle Earth.....
Yeah, this looks good. All star cast and beautiful scenery...I'm so there.
|
|
|
Post by trantee on Aug 19, 2007 3:26:26 GMT -5
Saw the trailer yesterday at the movies .. it look good .. "real" good .. but so did the trailer of Chroni*what*cels of Narnia .. That was "wauw", until i saw the movie and expected a lot more .. So i'm terrified they did the same with The Golden Compass and took "the" (only) best parts of the movie and put that in the trailer... Gawd, i hope i'm wrong
|
|
|
Post by tangentgirl on Aug 19, 2007 11:11:28 GMT -5
I haven't seen a preview for this movie yet... or if I did... don't remember it.
I actually DID like their rendition of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. (much better than other versions, actually).
Did I love it and think it was the most AMAZING thing I'd ever seen???
NO... far from it, but it was ok. And I liked it better the more I viewed it... which has been a few times w/ my nieces.
I'll be on the look out for this Compass thing.
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 19, 2007 18:27:38 GMT -5
As far as Chronicles of Narnia, I don't think it was that great. As far as it being better than other versions out there....um, not sure. The BBC one was good. The new one had better effects....umm.
I think the Compass will be good. I'm keeping the faith.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 20, 2007 13:40:31 GMT -5
Why is everybody doggin' Narnia? I loved it. Thought it was better than both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.
|
|
|
Post by tangentgirl on Aug 20, 2007 20:09:02 GMT -5
Hmm... this from the man who has never heard of a matinee... just kidding.
I'm not dogging it! I liked it... and like it better upon more viewings. It just didn't totally knock my socks out. I loved this story as a kid. Had a giant map on my wall.
As for the BBC production one... if it's the one I saw... it was a bit of a snorefest. ***(And I LOVE the BBC!!!! Like I said though. I'm not sure if it was a BBC production I saw or not.)
I really liked the Lucy in the newer production. She rocked.
However... some of the Harry Potters were better (than Lion, Witch...) and Lord of the Rings.... come on, as a whole... it was not better (than Chronicles of Narnia).
We will see how many more of the stories they make. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was always my favorite one as a kid as far as the Chronicles of Narnia is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by tangentgirl on Aug 20, 2007 20:13:58 GMT -5
Oh... but as for the Golden Compass... saw a movie poster and it looked interesting. Some Big Star power there.
Okay... just went to the website and watched the trailer.
(You had me at Sam Elliot.)
Seriously though, it looked really good to me.
I'm sold!!!
|
|
|
Post by trantee on Aug 21, 2007 2:02:15 GMT -5
Why is everybody doggin' Narnia? I loved it. Thought it was better than both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Going off-topic for a sec. For me it was the trailer off Narnia that killed that movie for me. It looked so g@dd#?n awesome that it seemed as if the movie would be(have been) so incredibly better than LoTR's .. so i got my hopes up .. way to high .. Perhaps i should watch it again. That could change my mind about the movie
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 21, 2007 21:33:11 GMT -5
Sorry, LOTR is WAY better than Chronicles. And Potter? Ugh, anything is better than those movies -- just awful.
Chronicles just, well, the book is awesome. And much of the conversations between the characters and particularly Aslan is missing from the movie. The acting and effects in the new one are vastly superior to the BBC, but BBC hit more of the story and character development than the new one. That's why I'm not that much into Chronicles. You don't have to agree JB.
LOTR movies are BETTER than the books. So -- here's hoping Compass is just as good if not better.
Potter? The books are way better than the movies and most of the books aren't that great so they are really botching the movies.
Trantee, you should watch your expectations -- they can seriously ruin your movie for you.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 22, 2007 13:46:07 GMT -5
Sorry, LOTR is WAY better than Chronicles. I realize that I can't expect everyone's opinion to be as correct as mine, so that's fine. The problem is that you (and even TG, based on her comments) have the benefit of comparing Narnia to the entire LOTR series, and that's not a fair comparison. So to put this on even ground you need to stack The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (LWW) against the Fellowship of the Ring (FOTR), and there's no contest - LWW is superior. I know I'm gonna ruffle a few feathers here, but that's what I like to do, so why does it exceed FOTR? Let me count the ways... 1) It's FAR superior as a stand-alone movie. I can watch LWW and feel as if I've watched a complete journey. Sure, you can say FOTR is simply one part of a trilogy, and I don't mind movies that leave an open door for the sequel(s), but I got no closure. LWW created a believable, yet imaginary, fantasy world and told a COMPLETE story in a mere two hours, compared to the meandering three that FOTR took to not really tell us anything (more on that later). 2) LWW made me WANT to read the book on which it was based. I read through the entire series after watching the movie, and I loved it. FOTR did absolutely nothing to convince me I should pick up the book. And FM, you complain about the movie adaptation of the book, but you neglect to mention the ways the film actually added to what the book gave us. The true beauty of the film is that it takes the source material and fills in the blanks that had previously been left to the reader's mind. Visualizing in your head the fight between Aslan's army and the witch's minions is a joy for the creative, but WATCHING a massive battle involving centaurs, minotaurs, dwarves, giants, and a wide variety of other mythical creatures is truly a sight to behold. 3) LWW does a much better job at appealing to both young and old audiences. C.S. Lewis thought that if a book is worth reading when you're five, then it needs to be equally worth reading when you're 50. The same holds for the movie - I can gladly recommend LWW regardless of age. FOTR, however, doesn't possess the same magic. Why? Let's examine... 4) FOTR is freakin' boring. Sorry, but it's true. Over three stinkin' hours to watch a bunch of gay hobbits dancing around (sorry, I never did like the hobbits), people walking slowly through lush scenery, and a bunch of other boring stuff I didn't care about. The trailer looked awesome, chock full of battle scenes, etc. But the film greatly disappoints. I watched it a second time to see if my original impression was merely fueled by my disappointment - nope. I was even more bored the second time. The series did improve greatly as it progressed (though the Two Towers would've benefited by trimming away about an hour), and I thought the special effects and battle scenes in The Return of the King are fantastic, but The Fellowship of the Ring? Nah. It remains one of Hollywood's most overrated movies. Disagree if you want to, that's fine. After all, this is just my opinion; you could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tangentgirl on Aug 23, 2007 12:55:55 GMT -5
Yeah... I guess you'll just have to call me wrong then.
The only part of the Trilogy that I'd say Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was better than was the theatrical version of The Return of the King, with its 5-6 "false endings" ... that was SOOOO annoying.
And ... after watching the first installment of the LOTR--- I *DID* want to read the books.
I will be interested in seeing the Prince Caspian... its been years since I read any of the Chronicles of Narnia... but I remember that a few of them I didn't like and a couple I don't think I ever finished. Didn't hold my interest enough.
I think that I hated the first one and almost didn't read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.... it turned out to be the best one.
Again... it's been a long time since I read them... perhaps I'll reread them one day.
I will say this as far as the movie adaptation goes... the movie seemed much more violent than I remembered the book. And I'll give them this... they sure didn't shy away from the religious symbolism. Good for them.
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 23, 2007 16:23:49 GMT -5
I'm with TG, we'll just disagree JB. TLTW&TW's battle scenes were great, but they did not ADD to the book. The book describes the battle very well. Yes, it's stunning to see, but it did not ADD to the book. TLOTR:TFOTR had closure. It was THE FELLOWSHIP. It was created, it saw, and it died. It was the journey of THE FELLOWSHIP. And it added to the book--made Aragon more human instead of perfect and it brought out the romance story more. It ADDED. You are comparing apples and oranges when you compare these two in the level of "stand alone." While TCON are a series, they are barely related. TLOTR? Intimately related as it's the first part of the story of the destruction of the ring. Can't argue with your opinion that it was boring. If you thought it was boring and you hate hobbits -- then well, that's your opinion. I loved it and certainly didn't find it boring. A little off topic -- I do have to agree with TG about TLOTR:TROTK and it's multiple endings. BAD and HORENDOUS editing. I heartly agree about the symbolism. It was in the book and if you're going to adapt it and be faithful ( ) then the adaption should have it too.
|
|
|
Post by MsCali on Aug 23, 2007 17:21:10 GMT -5
JB I'll stand on the Narnia side of the line with you.
I HATED FOTR. HATED. HATED HATED HATED HATED HATED (did I mention that I also HATED it?).
The other two were okay. I never, ever want to see them again though. Once was enough.
Narnia was great! I've only seen it the one time, but I'm not opposed to watching it again. Unlike LOTR, which I never want to see again (any of them).
Harry Potter was much better than LOTR (any of the movies), but not as good as Narnia.
|
|
|
Post by MrShade on Aug 24, 2007 9:25:50 GMT -5
Irrelevant. FOTR is far superior in being part of a trilogy - what does that matter? Narnia is based on an entire book in a series that loosely ties together. FOTR is based on the first third of a book. There's no closure in the book either - closure comes at the end of the third movie.
You didn't like the movie so you didn't want to read the book. I'm not sure how that is an argument for Narnia being better other than you liked it more.
LOTR is not a kid's book or a kid's movie. Narnia was written for people of all ages. I wouldn't recommend Hemingway or Shakespeare to a 5 year old.
Apparently FOTR did a better job at appealing to older audiences because it did better in box office, critical reviews and overall score at IMDB.
To use some of JB's quotes: "It's a deliberately-paced story" and "Those of you impatient moviegoers with goldfish attention spans might become restless due to the fact that a quick pace is abandoned for character development".
|
|
|
Post by MrShade on Aug 24, 2007 9:38:16 GMT -5
I'm shocked that everyone on here seems to hate at least of those series - I've enjoyed all three and I'm looking forward to future Narnia and Potter films. I'm just glad that good fantasy films are finally getting made.
|
|