...How did sex get into this?

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]I presume you will be similarly up in arms when you see Arthur hit on Trillian in HHGG.[/quote]

Nah. I could see the book Arthur character doing that. Hell, he already was at the party that Zafod took her from. Trillian being kidnapped by the Vougons though... W to the TF?

[quote="Lysander"]Faramir's already a fine upstanding character. Why change him? [/quote]

I haven't read the books, but he sounds like a poof in them. I think adding conflict to a movie is infinitely better than everyone just getting along.

And if you think that a guy with no cock like J.R.R. making books about people who never have sex is OK then that is fine. But you can't make movies like that. I presume you will be similarly up in arms when you see Arthur hit on Trillian in HHGG.

Pinback's complaints are retarded and baseless for other reasons. Aside from the fact that everyone who has written a sci-fi or fantasy story has ripped J.R.R. off and therefore diminished his work, how someone who can get all choked up about the old guy in Magnolia bleating endlessly about how he should not have been reprehensible and then be utterly unmoved when Rudy single handedly explains why any of us should get out of bed in the morning and push on is beyond me. Oh, one guy had pointy ears. Right, automatically then, everything that came out of his mouth had to be pointless garbage. The Two Towers would have been better if the author was the sort of deep, meaningful person who chose to be around [i]Fiona Fucking Apple[/i] on a deep personal level.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]So basically you were upset that the movie wasn't a bunch of guys reading the books for 15 hours.[/quote]

No, I'm upset because the movie wasn't a bunch of guys illustrating the books for fifteen hours. There's a difference.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"] Okay. I was hoping that you were one of the people who weren't down on The Two Towers because that one fruit who was a brother to whatshisface... the "One does not simply walk into Mordor" guy, Sean Bean. Yes, I was hoping you weren't down on the TT because Faramir acted differently, but apparently you are and this is not a good reason to dislike TTT the movie.[/quote]
Faramir's already a fine upstanding character. Why change him? Oh right, because Peter Jackson likes Frodo more. This is not "The lord Of The Rings Like I'd Have Written It". I don't give three leaping fucks what Peter Jackson thinks should happen. "Der, this plot's great except for hte part when the Ents decide to go to war on their own! Now, if *I* was writing it, I would have them be passafist, peace-loving walking trees of utter distruction, and have them not really care about the world coming to an end and all of the trees of their forrests being knocked down for Saruman's army! That way, we can have Merrry and Pippin get more screen time--and while I'm on the subject, Pippin looks too smart. Let's make him about 50 times stupider. Oh, yeah, and that Helm's Deep thing? There's no way they could have won it on their own. I woudl have had some elves ride in from fucking nowhere and change Theoden into a pussy old man so that Arrigorn can get 10 minutes more god-damned useless screen time telling everyone what a fucking badass he's supposed to be!

"

[quote="Lysander"]You don't *need* to change anything, and furthermore, since you have no way of knowing whether Tolkien would have approoved, you can't change anything without changing his vision for the characters or the plot or what have you.[/quote]

So basically you were upset that the movie wasn't a bunch of guys reading the books for 15 hours. Okay. I was hoping that you were one of the people who weren't down on The Two Towers because that one fruit who was a brother to whatshisface... the "One does not simply [i]walk[/i] into Mordor" guy, Sean Bean. Yes, I was hoping you weren't down on the TT because Faramir acted differently, but apparently you are and this is not a good reason to dislike TTT the movie.

[quote="Casual Observer"]It's disgusting that that stupid english lady who wrote Harry Potter has made so much goddam money on that crap. All she did was repackage ages old drivel about ghosts, witches, and goblins and feed it into the commercialization and marketing machine. Over-hyped and unwatchable, that's my take on the potter movies.[/quote]

Right. I know I say this every time it comes up, but bear with me -- take a look at "Ernie Eaglebeak" from the Spellcasting 101 series and take a look at Potter there from those books. They look like the exact same guy. Great, you ripped off a bunch of lame fantasy and a text game that nobody remembers except for 300 guys in their thirties and Emily Short. Without an ounce of actual creativity you can become a millionaire! There's where the fucking magic came from.

[quote="Ice Cream Jonsey"]Oh, I think it's necessary.

You're in over your head on this one, Bond. You can't win![/quote]

Alright, it's very simple. It's a problem with all three movies, but it tends to get accentuated in Two Towers:

The scriptwriters pick favorits. There are like four characters that hte scriptwriters really seem to like, and they get loads and loads of screen time. As a result, everyone else gets shafted. To a lesser extent, it's where Resident Evil Apocalypse went wrong, only RE:A was about sixteen thousand times more stupid about it because it was all focused on *one* person, and that person was an original character who didn't belong there in the first place. But I digress.

Arrigorn gets all the badass moments. He gets all teh drama he could ever ask for--nevermind about the five thousand dead soldiers, one guy fell off a cliff! Stop the motherfucking war! I don't have a problem with diversing from the plot of the books normally but, you're writing a script based on the greatest trilogy of books ever written, and the guy is DEAD. You don't *need* to change anything, and furthermore, since you have no way of knowing whether Tolkien would have approoved, you can't change anything without changing his vision for the characters or the plot or what have you.

[quote="pinback"]Oh, that reminds me. I also hate the Harry Potter movies, but not exactly for the same reasons (because the effects in those movies are ridiculous.) I also hate lots of other things.[/quote] It's disgusting that that stupid english lady who wrote Harry Potter has made so much goddam money on that crap. All she did was repackage ages old drivel about ghosts, witches, and goblins and feed it into the commercialization and marketing machine. Over-hyped and unwatchable, that's my take on the potter movies.

[quote="Lysander"]Two Towers was fucking awful.[/quote]Maybe if you could have seen it. . . nevermind. LOL.

If any (ANY) of the characters in any of the LOTR movies, or any of the last three Star Wars movies, had even HINTED at approaching even the depth of a mere [i]two-[/i]dimensional character, they would become watchable, and possibly even (though, let's not get some hookers and coke and go [i]crazy[/i] here) [i]enjoyable[/i].

However, as between those two trilogies, we have approximately 15 (!) hours of film with cardboard cutouts dressed in goofy costumes, reading pre-teen level lines with a dead-headed enthusiasm whcih would make Captain Christopher Pike look like a coked up Robin Williams, we also have 15 hours of wasted celluloid. It's hard to care about all the virtual reality spinning and swooping and blazing around these people when we do not care one whit about these people, and in fact fail to even recognize them as people. They are plastic action figures that someone removed from their original packing, and then forgot to put back into the toychest.

I maintain that the only people who liked the LOTR movies are those who were fans of the books, and thus had already built up a fondness for these characters, so the [i]placeholders[/i] they had for 'em (and that's all that they were) in the movies were enough to rekindle the old flame.

Because, here's what everybody who hadn't read the books said for 9 straight hours:

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwn."

PUMP IT UP!

Yeah, I agree with ICJ on this one. The opening sequence is just fantastic, and the pacing and momentum is absolutely fantastic for at least the first half of the movie (it never utterly disappoints in that respect but given the length of these movies, I'm just impressed by how well that first chunk flows by).

[quote="Lysander"][quote="Ice Cream JOnsey"]You can't say that Two Towers is bad.[/quote]

Yes, yes I can. I'm saying it, now, with arguments to bring to the table if necessary:[/quote]

Oh, I think it's necessary.

You're in over your head on this one, Bond. You can't win!

[quote="Ice Cream JOnsey"]You can't say that Two Towers is bad.[/quote]

Yes, yes I can. I'm saying it, now, with arguments to bring to the table if necessary:

Two Towers was fucking awful. ThankWorst LOTR movie evvar, and that's saying a lot comparing the other movies.

The whole problem is that they didn't use enough puppets.

[quote] The movie is really only decent as a light show.
[quote]because it's STAR WARS[/quote]
[/quote]

The first three (particularly the first two) were excellent movies, [i]enhanced[/i] by the light show, not [i]because of[/i] the light show.

This is an old argument, though. It's just, people on my side are (still) right.

I re-watched Cuckoo's Nest tonight. Light saber battles: 0. CGI budget: 0. Greatness level: high.


[quote]
[quote]Yeah, go ahead. It's okay to make bad movies now.[/quote]

Only if they are STAR WARS
[/quote]

Oh, that reminds me. I also hate the Harry Potter movies, but not exactly for the same reasons (because the effects in those movies are ridiculous.) I also hate lots of other things.

PUMP IT UP.

[quote] Everybody -- EVERYBODY, down to the last vagrant, starving slave-labor movie critics in the slums of Rio de Janiero -- gives this movie three and a half stars out of four.
[/quote]

Because it's STAR WARS. The last STAR WARS of all time.

After this the potato chip wrappers and soda pop labels will have to find something else to have on the front.


[quote] The movie is really only decent as a light show. [/quote]

because it's STAR WARS



[quote]Yeah, go ahead. It's okay to make bad movies now.[/quote]


Only if they are STAR WARS

THE
CLOSURE
AARDVARK

Pinner, I'll got with you that people are maggots over these movies unjustly. Though maybe you should sit down and watch Fighting Club from now on instead of seeing new movies.

Yeah, all the LOTR's sucked ass. You could only enjoy that shit if you're some kind of maggot who likes staring into some short kid's really blue eyes for 9 hours. The final movie was so goddamed homoerotic that I'm surprised nobody has leaked the cut scenes of everyone buttfucking on the spirit boat at the end.

I have seen all of the first two, and half of the third one.

Why only half?

Because this movie -- this, the "greatest movie of 2003", according to a hundred some-odd plastic dipshits who probably never saw it to begin with -- with its kindergarten-level writing and computer graphics, was SO offensive to my sensibilities, that I absolutely could not get through it. I found myself more intently staring at the dust on the screen that whatever worthless pablum was flickering on the glass behind it. That's when I popped it out of the player and took it back to the store.

I don't have any problem with people liking these movies. I mean, that ain't ever going to change. On any given weekend, the top spot at the box office is ALWAYS occupied by the worst-reviewed movie which opened that weekend. People like bad movies. Fine.

Only thing I have a problem with is critics, whose job it is to be CRITICAL of such things, give up and just start riding the waves.

(I also have a problem with people eating apples near me, but that's not what we're talking about here.)

You didn't even see any of the LOTR movies, did you? You can't say that Two Towers is bad. I know that's the one disliked most by all the Haggots (a combination of Hobbits and maggots) who have ruined everything dealing with Tolkein but for Christ's sake it starts with an old guy beating up fire and goes on to a midget having a conversation with himself about whether or not he's going to kill some midgets.

We've all been there! Well, wait, we haven't, which is why that one rocked.

I would maintain that the "Fellowship" one wasn't a good movie if you want. But again, if you've seen them this is news to me.

This is so disheartening, it makes me wish I was in a galaxy far, far away.

Go to MRQE. Type in "Revenge of the Motherfucking Sith". Take a look. Listen to the radio. Watch the TV box screen. Everybody -- EVERYBODY, down to the last vagrant, starving slave-labor movie critics in the slums of Rio de Janiero -- gives this movie three and a half stars out of four.

Read them. Listen to them. Listen to how they start. "Star Wars Six is an amazing spectacle, full of raucous action, amazing special effects, high-energy scenes of unimagineable excitement, and space lasers and shit! A true roller coaster ride for the senses!" Wow! What a great sounding movie! I can't wait to pay my $10, get my giant box of Goobers and listen to thirteen year olds chat on their cellphones for two hours!

Oh. Hold up. Not all is well in Mudville, though. The reviews, without exception, continue:

"Now, the writing is unbearably trite and absurd, and even quality actors, which this movie absolutely does [i]not[/i] have, would have trouble suffering through them. THREE AND A HALF STARS!"

Ah.

Okay, so you mean to say that when the movie truly excels is when NONE OF THE HIRED ACTORS ARE 1) ON THE SCREEN and/or 2) SAYING ANYTHING. The movie's quality, in essence, would rise exponentially if the only people involved with the project were sound editors and CGI geeks. The movie is really only decent as a light show.

The movie is a Windows screensaver.

And it's a half star away from a perfect rating.

Lest you think I'm singling this movie out as the "turning point" in this war against quality which even so-called "respected critics" have joined, I am not. In fact, I blame Lord of the Rings, all three of them, for this disastrous turn of events. Okay. Here's a little clue for those of you who might have been confused by all the hoopla and Academy Awards (jesus) and jizz-tastic exultations of the MASTERPIECES of STORYTELLING which were the LOTR trilogy:

[i]They were not good movies.[/i] They were pretty lights, plus bad acting, plus dialogue so bad that they should have provided power drills to everyone who ever bought a ticket or rented one of the things so they could perform an emergency trepaning halfway through. Or at least jam 'em into their ears.

But it won [b]BEST FUCKING PICTURE[/b], something I still refuse to acknowledge.

So, it's official now. The critics have fought against mindless drivel for years, but they've been at it so long that they're unable to determine friend from foe anymore. They've laid down their swords. They've waved their white flags, and decried from the top of the most spectacularly-drawn CGI mountaintop vista:

Yeah, go ahead. It's okay to make bad movies now.