|
Post by MsAng on Aug 24, 2007 12:51:47 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. Ahh.... *sigh** (in a totally platonic way) I LOVE you. I completely agree with everything. I don't know what most of this thread is about as I haven't looked up the Golden Compass trailer yet, but was just glancing though and found this post. THANK YOU. I can't stand LOTR. Except for laughing at Sam when he cries.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 24, 2007 13:22:30 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. It's relevant within the context of one of the reasons why I prefer Narnia. A lot of people on the board complained about Pirates of the Caribbean 2 being a set-up for the third movie. I argue that the same complaint should be levied against FOTR - it's not much more than a set-up, and as such, a disappointment when viewed as a stand-alone. After investing three hours in something, I want to feel like I got some kind of return. Although I agree that The Return of the King's 27 false endings were even worse. 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. Ideally, the artistic approach of a film based on a novel should be to gear the audience's interest toward the source material. If I wrote a novel that was turned into a movie then I'd pray that the movie was made in such a way that it convinced viewers to seek out my book. Conversely, you'd hope a book is so good that if you read it first then it makes you eager to see the movie. The Lonesome Dove miniseries convinced me to read the book. LWW convinced me to read the book. You've told me that the LOTR as a novel is boring, therefore, it looks like the FOTR conveyed that. 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. Statistics are great in that they can be adapted to fit any argument you want. Box Office: X-Men: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3 and Superman Returns (worldwide) all made more money than Batman Begins, but there's not much disagreement on which of those is the better comic book film. Critical reviews: I'd be wary of trumpeting when the majority of douche nozzle critics agree with you. They're the ones who inexplicably slapped a 95% approval rating on Lost in Translation, so if that's your measuring stick... IMDb score: The great voters at IMDb have voted The Godfather as the #1 movie of all time, a film that you and most everybody on this board have deemed interminably boring. Again, if that's your measuring stick... Hmm, I see a trend. 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". Good quotes. There's a big difference between deliberate and slow. And I'm all about character development, if I care for the actual characters. Not many people disagree that hobbits, by nature, are just gay, and watching them dance around on a table like idiots does nothing to develop their character. I guess it was developed that Elijah Woods' bug-eyed Frodo was a whiny little girl. Considering your contempt of Harry Potter, FM, I'm really surprised of your tolerance of Frodo (come on, the dude's name is Frodo Baggins - more fey, he could not be). He whines and complains more than Harry Potter does when it's his time of the month. 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. Gotta disagree with you on this one. C.S. Lewis never told the reader how he was supposed to perceive the Narnia world; Lewis was content to leave a lot to the imagination. The final battle for Narnia is described in fewer than two pages. The movie depiction fills in the blanks. *high fives Ms. Cali* I knew that thanks to you I wouldn't be completely alone in this battle!
|
|
|
Post by tangentgirl on Aug 24, 2007 14:31:47 GMT -5
Mr. Shade wrote:
Argh... let me clarify that I, too, have liked all the movies put out thus far in all three series. I was merely saying that some of them I LOVED and can watch again and again... and others I liked a lot, and others I liked okay and have grown more and more on me the more I watch them.
Okay... now I have to get ready for work... but first one last thing.
J.B. wrote:
What! Huh! Don't get me wrong... I still have mad love for you and want my tee shirt; however, I don't follow this logic at all.
I think that movies are made for many reasons... I don't think that it is the "norm" that movies are made with the intention of boosting sales/ getting attention to the source material (book/play/graphic novel, etc...).
I think that usually someone reads something and thinks, "hey, that would translate well to the big screen. That would make a great movie." Or even... hey, this video game has a big fan base... perhaps if we make a movie of it, we can rake in the dough.
Who knows. I think its great when someone sees a movie and then goes out and buys the book, etc... but I don't think that the producers/director's/etc... job or motive is to gear the audience's interest to the source material. If they truly recognize it as art and not just a possible money-maker, then I am sure they do everything in their power to be as true to that work as possible (w/in reason), but I don't think that there goal is to get people to go buy a book.
I think that usually the reverse is true. A popular work is turned into a movie because there is a fan base there that will go out and see the movie... regardless of how well it is adapted in some cases. (Ex. The DaVinci Code)
Okay... gotta go.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 24, 2007 14:42:13 GMT -5
Ahh.... *sigh** (in a totally platonic way) I LOVE you. I completely agree with everything. I don't know what most of this thread is about as I haven't looked up the Golden Compass trailer yet, but was just glancing though and found this post. THANK YOU. I can't stand LOTR. Except for laughing at Sam when he cries. *hugs* You, my dear Ms. Ang, are clearly a genius.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 24, 2007 15:27:05 GMT -5
J.B. wrote:What! Huh! Don't get me wrong... I still have mad love for you and want my tee shirt; however, I don't follow this logic at all. I think that movies are made for many reasons... I don't think that it is the "norm" that movies are made with the intention of boosting sales/ getting attention to the source material (book/play/graphic novel, etc...). That's why I said "ideally" and the "artistic approach." It has nothing to do with boosting a book's sales, even if that's a byproduct. When everybody jumps on board a movie simply so they can piggyback a novel's success and reap the monetary benefits, then chances are nobody is overly concerned with an artistic or faithful approach. What's the purpose of a movie based on a true story? Shouldn't it, ideally, be to get people interested in the STORY? If I walk away from a "based on a true story" movie, itching to jump on Google and do more research then the movie has succeeded. If I walk away from that movie thinking, "Welp, I couldn't care any less about looking up more info on that crap," then the film has failed, I don't care how much money it makes. Of course Hollywood is money driven, that's why so many of their films are terrible. They want to rake in the dough, as you mentioned, and they don't care about respecting the source material. They don't care about giving it proper treatment. Take video game adaptations. I would like to walk away from a video game movie thinking, "Man, I HAVE to play the game that this movie is based on, it must rock!" See, if I hadn't already been a fan of the Silent Hill games then I would've walked out of the theater wanting to play them. House of the Dead, on the other hand, just made me want to punch Uwe Boll straight in the face. Instances like that are doing a disservice to the source material and in a perfect world probably shouldn't be made. but I don't think that the producers/director's/etc... job or motive is to gear the audience's interest to the source material. And that's why so many such adaptations end up being mediocre or downright awful. If you wrote a series of books that was to be turned into a series of movies, who would you want to be in charge of making the movies - a talented director who is a fan of your books, has read every single one, and wants to make faithful adaptations, or a director who says, "Hmm, these books have a big fanbase. We can make a bunch of dough off this! Screw the source material!" If we're speaking in my aforementioned idealistic terms then the choice is obvious. I think that usually the reverse is true. A popular work is turned into a movie because there is a fan base there that will go out and see the movie... regardless of how well it is adapted in some cases. (Ex. The DaVinci Code) Right. They're in it for the money, not for reaching any sort of artistic vision. And that's the problem. True fans of the book want to see a faithful, respectful adaptation. There's a reason I said A Sound of Thunder was so bad that Ray Bradbury might consider killing himself just so he could roll over in his grave. Ask any author who's had to bemoan a bad adaptation of his work what he thinks should've been the approach in making the film. Chances are the response won't be, "So the filmmakers can make a lot of money off my hard work." I reiterate, ideally, a movie based on a book should be so good I want to read the book afterward, a movie based on a video game should be so fun that I want to play the game afterward, and a movie based on a true story should be so compelling that I want to do more research on the story afterward. Those are my terms of an adaptation's success. If I walk out thinking, "Yep, they were clearly just cashing in on that one," then how could that possibly be an artistic accomplishment?
|
|
|
Post by MrShade on Aug 24, 2007 17:03:51 GMT -5
Hardly adapted. I used the 3 measuring sticks that are available and FOTR comes out ahead in all 3. There are obviously specific scenarios that each one is not entirely accurate in but all 3 combined give you a pretty good indicator about a movie.
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 25, 2007 16:04:42 GMT -5
Good grief! Wow. Nice conversation/arguement going on. Where's maria? NBJ? Come on! All into the fray!
Mr. Shade. I liked TLOTR and I like TL,TW, & TW. I liked the Potter books -- not thrilled with the movies especially the last one which was CRAP! I love fantasy and sci-fi so I get annoyed when they aren't done right and that was SOOOOOOO Potter.
JB-you really aren't complaining about the adaption of TLOTR-you CAN'T be because you didn't READ the book so you don't know. Jackson was very respectful and faithful to the books. You didn't like the hobbits-that's not the movies' or books' fault. You didn't like how FRIENDSHIP close Sam and Frodo are -- you think they're gay as I assume your macho nature has to -- and that's exactly how they are in the book. You don't like the characters and story of TLOTR -- so of COURSE you're not going to like the books or the movies.
|
|
|
Post by trantee on Aug 27, 2007 3:10:09 GMT -5
[ God, i love this forum.. no "y00 stewpid b1&ch LOTR suxx0rz kekekeke" *sigh* ] Anyway, I'm a LOTR's fan myself, but wont hate other movies.. Imo, you can't really compare any movie with another (LOTR's <> Naria). Isn't it the goal of a script/movie makers/etc etc to make something as unique as possible, just so you can't compare it to something else ? I liked them all, in what they were. True, perhaps i expected more - or too much - from Naria due to the trailer, but it still delivered... You can't say any off those movies were B-movies ... and I hope the same for The Golden Compass ...
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 27, 2007 8:28:21 GMT -5
I too very much love this forum. Decent, intelligent people who give actual arguments and facts instead of insults to prove their points.
JB, just because a battle description is only contained in two pages does not mean it isn't a good description! Some movie battle scenes are less than a minute long -- that does not mean they still can't be good! We love you JB, but I don't think you are right on this....of course you don't think I'm right on this.... ;D okay, round 10?
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 27, 2007 9:25:31 GMT -5
JB-you really aren't complaining about the adaption of TLOTR-you CAN'T be because you didn't READ the book so you don't know. I've merely been stating why I prefer one movie over the other. You didn't like how FRIENDSHIP close Sam and Frodo are -- you think they're gay as I assume your macho nature has to -- I should point out that I don't literally think they're homosexuals. I meant "Hobbits are gay" in the same way as "fanny packs are gay." Or how a guy can be a heterosexual yet still wear a "gay yellow sweater." Ms. Cali and a few others should get that joke.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 27, 2007 9:36:19 GMT -5
I too very much love this forum. Decent, intelligent people who give actual arguments and facts instead of insults to prove their points. Whatever, wainch. JUST KIDDING! ;D JB, just because a battle description is only contained in two pages does not mean it isn't a good description! Some movie battle scenes are less than a minute long -- that does not mean they still can't be good! We love you JB, but I don't think you are right on this....of course you don't think I'm right on this.... ;D okay, round 10? Haha, let me go to my corner. I'm all about healthy discussion and debate. Movies are quite subjective (even if my opinion is typically the most accurate gauge) so it's always interesting to listen when someone expresses his or her viewpoint in an intellectual and intelligble manner.
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 27, 2007 9:56:22 GMT -5
Wainch? ROFL You're silly, JB! Okay, I guess I undertand the gay thing as an adjective, but since there are a lot of men that do think Sam and Frodo were homosexual you can understand my understanding I hope? I still think you macho guys are just a bit weird....like the unspoken rule that guys -- unless related -- have to sit in a movie theater with a seat between them unless it's a sold out show? WEIRD.
|
|
|
Post by The Movie Mark on Aug 27, 2007 10:52:42 GMT -5
I still think you macho guys are just a bit weird....like the unspoken rule that guys -- unless related -- have to sit in a movie theater with a seat between them unless it's a sold out show? WEIRD. I think that goes for all guys, not just macho ones. We need our room! We can't risk our legs accidentally bumping into each other's! Actually, I usually sit next to my friends at the theater. However, there are some things that just should not be done. See this Dave Barry shirt as an example: www.threadless.com/submission/70978/Awkward
|
|
|
Post by FieryMaid on Aug 27, 2007 14:46:30 GMT -5
That's just scary!
|
|
|
Post by trantee on Aug 28, 2007 2:23:31 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA LOVE the t-shirt Sorry, but with the ongoing Frodo-Sam-Gay discussion, i just had to post this little pic tee hee
|
|