Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post Reply
User avatar
jackattack
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by jackattack » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:04 pm

I think they were afraid to use the name "Bolg" for the Orc leader.
Favorite Pieces: Chasms, 45 Degree Passages, River & Lava Banks, Ledges, Large Curved Walls, Elevation Arch

User avatar
TK 266
Orc
Orc
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:23 pm

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by TK 266 » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:06 pm

Reboots are not a bad thing unto themselves and some things get made a lot. I think there are some 50 odd versions of the three musketeers (counting tv and animation), which since the invention of films makes one about every three years. Some are crap, some are fantastic. It is not new that things are remade; I think people just get more excised about it if they remember a version from their youth. Going back the three musketeers, I thought the perfect one was the 1973 version with Michal York (saw in on TV), but my father though it was crap due to liking a version that had been made when he was a kid in the 1940's. Movie makers have been rebooting for the last 90 years and will continue to do so for the next 90 I am sure.

As for what is in a book verses what is in a move that is always going to be an issue. Movies (standard 120 page script) will never be able to hold the detail and background info that a book does. Movies also need to appeal to a wider audience than the book reached as there are lots more people who what stuff than read stuff. The only movie I would say (IMHO) that was better than the books were the Bourne Identity series, but that has more to do with my thinking that Robert Ludlum is a crappy writer.

As someone who read the LOTR 17 times (on my own or to others) and the hobbit even more than that, I was very impressed with the LOTR trilogy. I have been less impressed with the Hobbit, but have still enjoyed it. As I understand that a movie is a directors take on a book, I expect some changes. With LOTR using the appendixes from the book (think Aragorn and Arwen storyline) I was expecting the hobbit to have some of that, but the Azog tie in was a bit over the top. It is understandable to add it to add elements of action as the book does have slow parts, but it was odd to bring to life a character that was deep backstory.

Well that is just my opinion and it is worth what you paid for it. :)
Order 66? Isn't that the Kung Pao Chicken?

User avatar
jackattack
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by jackattack » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:56 pm

The elvish weapons' not glowing isn't a matter of sloppiness, it was a conscious decision. When you start waving around full-length swords that glow blue, they look like lightsabers (especially at a distance).

I would have attributed the glowing to something beyond simply being of Elvish make. "Elvish blades of this type glow blue when orcs or goblins are near."


Regarding added material, I think they always intended to show elements derived from appendices and errata. Which does, by the way, explain why Gandalf disappeared for a major portion of the book. It also adds a bit of context for the Ring. It also allows them to bring back a couple of characters from the LotR movies, and provides story elements that those of us who have read the books don't expect.

As for the Evangeline Lilly character, the elvish captain of the guard was actually a minor character from the novel. They have expanded the role considerably, and brought Legolas into the mix (which makes sense given that he is Thranduil's son), but they did so in order to add exposition to the Greenwood elves. Without multiple elvish characters who can talk to each other, all we get is Thranduil being manipulative and callous to Thorin. With Legolas and Tauriel, we get differing viewpoints among the elves and lay the foundation for the Thranduil to join the coming battle rather than withdraw (like he did the last time).
Favorite Pieces: Chasms, 45 Degree Passages, River & Lava Banks, Ledges, Large Curved Walls, Elevation Arch

User avatar
LordDust
Minotaur
Minotaur
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:40 pm
Location: Indiana

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by LordDust » Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:41 pm

LOTR had some issues, sure, but overall I was very impressed with what Jackson and WETA achieved. I was disappointed that the scourging of the shire was not included... the reasoning was apparently that it was too anti-climactic and would not be well received by movie goers. I get Tom Bombadil being removed, his portion would seem very out of place and nonsensical to anyone not a fan of the books (heck, a portion of the fans of the book still find Bombadil to be nonsensical).

I have yet to see The Hobbit films. I will watch them eventually, and hopefully I will like them, but I intend to go in with few expectations.

Reboots are fine, and a certain amount of deviation from source material whether adapting a book or other medium is also fine. Heck, Daryl from Walking Dead has garnered such a positive reaction many are agitating to add him to the comic (never heard if it was actually happening). I just prefer that the treatment stay true to the core of what a product is. Walking Dead does change quite a bit, but it is true to the dark, gritty, feel of the comics by turns being darker and occasionally less so.

Something like the Michael Bay reboot of TMNT where the turtles aren't even actually mutants or turtles? Yeeaaaaah.... no thanks.

maximillian
Goblin
Goblin
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:47 am

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by maximillian » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:59 am

My POV is that if you are going to remake a movie or TV show then you need to bring something new to the table. Most remakes these days are just attempts to cash in on the memory of loved IPs.

My issue with the Hobbit movies is the difference between removing scenes that occurred in the book vs. adding scenes that didn't appear in the book.

The death of Saruman is a good example of leaving things out. If you planned to remove the Scouring of the Shire then the death of Saruman had to change. By the same token leave out Tom Bombadil and you need to leave out the Wright in the Barrow Mound and come up with another way to explain how the hobbits got their swords.

It's the adding stuff in that offends me. If you are going to leave stuff out due to time why then add stuff in?

The hobbit is far worse that LOTR in this respect. There they added so much material to stretch it out to 3 movies Jackson must be channelling the spirit of Robert Jordan.

Plus the Hobbit is sloppy. None of the elven weapons glow blue around orcs for example.

However compared to World War Z, where the only part of the book that appeared in the movie was the title.............

Burgundy Lotus
Goblin
Goblin
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:01 am

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by Burgundy Lotus » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:04 am

Mini series are typically underwhelming unfortunately. Mainly because they don't throw enough money at them, you'd need one of the cable networks to do it (HBO and the like) and not one of the big 3 networks.

User avatar
jackattack
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by jackattack » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:01 pm

Excellent point about epic works possibly being better suited for television.

There are several books and movies that I think would make excellent miniseries, or single-season one-hour dramas.
Favorite Pieces: Chasms, 45 Degree Passages, River & Lava Banks, Ledges, Large Curved Walls, Elevation Arch

User avatar
jchunick
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: Thunder Bay
Contact:

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by jchunick » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:39 pm

I would agree with everything you said and add these points:

1. For myself, I read The Hobbit and LOTR about 20 years ago now so I don't remember them that much. I think this helped me with any issues I might have had with regard to deviating from the book, as many people complain about. That being said, I read 'The Walking Dead' comic series from Issue 1-100 back to back over a period of a few days and I rather like the deviations that show has taken.

2. Which brings me to my next point: I think movies are often the wrong vehicle for epic stories which span several thousands of pages. In that vein I will always give Peter Jackson props for what he has done for bringing the fantasy genre onto the screen without it turning into a 'Hollywood' produced piece of steaming crap made purely to appeal to the widest audience to make their money back (a safe bet). There's nothing wrong with wanting to turn a profit, but when that's all that drives a movie then the artistic and creative takes a back seat.

LOTR set the bar ridiculously high in it's production value. The attention to detail and locations, set design and the technology that brought the world alive had never been done on such a scale before. The only other movie which comes close is Harry Potter.

3. I think 'Game of Thrones' has shown where the next natural step is in realizing amazing and fantastical worlds. Several things were done correctly, not least of which was involving Mr. Martin in the production to such an extent (I'm sure that was probably part of the contractual terms, however, having the writer involved to such an extent has rarely been done in the past, it seems to me).

Anyway, I can write a lot more on fantasy stories being made into movies/tv shows, but I think I'm going to enjoy some other shows now like Sherlock, Elementary (surprisingly good for an American version) and Almost Human.
If you aren't gaming then you aren't living.

jimibones83
Orc
Orc
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:30 pm

Re:Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by jimibones83 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:53 pm

Pretty well said jackattack

User avatar
jackattack
Minotaur Lord
Minotaur Lord
Posts: 3359
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:47 pm

Open-Ended Movie Discussion

Post by jackattack » Tue Feb 11, 2014 7:35 pm

I'll kick things off.

1. I don't mind an honest reboot or reimagining of a franchise (or a single work) that has been out of play for twenty years, but I can't stand someone tacking a franchise's name onto something that is different enough to stand as an original work.

2. Some movies (even classics) are dated enough that a young audience cannot fully appreciate them without a history lesson to understand references, themes, and context. Even then, they may not feel the emotional impact that the movie carried when it was originally made.

3. I think that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies are very good in spite of certain excesses in the action sequences. There are lots of things I would have done differently, but I understand many of the decisions that were made and I agree with many of those.

Discuss.
Favorite Pieces: Chasms, 45 Degree Passages, River & Lava Banks, Ledges, Large Curved Walls, Elevation Arch

Post Reply

Return to “Non-Gaming Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests