The Film Thread: Page 131 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

The Film Thread

Gazza M

i was an avid reader of tolkiens wider mythology when i was younger. he's a pretty average writer, but i always found the wider mythology fascinating. if the length of these films is due to more of that mythology finding it's way on screen, i won't be too unhappy. if it's because PJ is chewing up screen time with his slapstick/slasher bs, i'll be annoyed.

Claudius

Wonder if I have the stomach for this one. Have watched the Lords of the Rings movies each exactly once. It's not 10 hours I can put myself through again. Nothing wrong with a long movie, but those movies do feel like they're each about 20% too long.

Captain

Thought Lord of the Rings did well to cut much of the bloat from the book. Sounds like the opposite has happened with The Hobbit and I can't see it ending well.

Burnwinter

Let's face it.

It's fucking lame that the modern film industry is so inexorably commercially focused on "franchises" that even with something as safe and bankable as Star Wars they can't announce a single further sequel without announcing three of the fucking things.

The same has to be said about the comics movies. Bunch of fucking aesthetically bankrupt cynics and their collaborators.

Klaus

The new Star Trek trailer that is floating around on the net is terrible. Why does it look like a cross between Revenge of the Sith and your average Hollywood superhero film? And why is there no colon in the title?

I fucking hate JJ Abrams.

Captain

It will be a class film though.

Klaus

Maybe. Casting is good, effects look great. It'll be a terrible Star Trek film though.

Captain

Nah, last one was the best by miles. Have great confidence that they will smash it again, although Abrams did follow up MI3 with ghost protocol which was nowhere near as accomplished.

Captain

I'm no trekkie though, so my opinion is only marginally valid.

banduan

the last star trek film was the best star trek film ever

if you're no trekkie

banduan

Burnwinter wrote:
Really? There's a fairly massive twist in the book. Perhaps it's telegraphed a bit more thoroughly in the film.

I can imagine two things that could possibly be a twist.

One was a surprise at the end which I guess could be a twist. But it's a sweet surprise which added a little depth to what was really a simple tall tale. Sweet surprises tend to be fairly padded as twists go.

Klaus

None of the Star Trek films are any good to be fair. Maybe the first two (or three at a stretch) and one or two of the ones Frakes directed. Shatner and Nimoy's efforts had a bit of heart though. I just don't feel it in Star Trek: 90210. No sense of exploration either. I appreciated that it picked up on Spock's storyline from where the TNG episodes left the character but the rest was just a misguided, miscasted mess in a nice suit.

Klaus

I've noticed that the nickname "Jar Jar Abrams" has been thrown around a lot lately. It feels apt.

Burnwinter

Klaus wrote:
None of the Star Trek films are any good to be fair.

Was going to say this. Most Trek fans I know (I'm not one) are only willing to speak up for one or two; I've seen those, and they're shit. It's probably a bit like Dr Who (also not a fan) in that respect, which doesn't transfer well to film.

JJ Abrams is a mediocre creator though. Looking at the things he's been involved in writing and directing, the only one I really enjoyed was Super 8, and that was mainly due to the Spielberg nostalgia.

Hollywood's got an overflow of Abrams, Lindelof, Whedon types around at the moment - guys who are embedded enough in genre culture that they can talk themselves into taking on these reboots, prequels and sequels that the movie franchise factory requires. They're producing a lot of turkeys for every success.

Bold Tone

What level obsession does one qualify to be a Trekkie?

Burnwinter

I'd regard anyone who can distinguish between the various TV series, and has either watched them all or ever re-watched any of them as near enough.

I don't know how they define themselves though 🙂

Klaus

Burnwinter wrote:
Hollywood's got an overflow of Abrams, Lindelof, Whedon types around at the moment - guys who are embedded enough in genre culture that they can talk themselves into taking on these reboots, prequels and sequels that the movie franchise factory requires.

Summarises it perfectly. They're so similar in terms of aesthetics too. Factory-made packages of plot and visuals. Glossy, technically competent and completely pointless. Whedon probably has the world's most undeserved reputation. He's a fuckup who has attracted an unproportionally large fanbase because they still adore a ten-year-old tv show that ran for fourteen episodes.

FEBravo

Burnwinter wrote:
Klaus wrote:
None of the Star Trek films are any good to be fair.

Was going to say this. Most Trek fans I know (I'm not one) are only willing to speak up for one or two; I've seen those, and they're shit. It's probably a bit like Dr Who (also not a fan) in that respect, which doesn't transfer well to film.

I really didn't watch any of the Star Trek's until the last movie, and I was impressed. One of my Trekkie mates then lent me the Original Series on DVD and I watched a bit of TNG. Anyway, he was saying "The Wrath of Khan" is the only movie that is worth anything. I haven't seen it though.

Captain

MI3 is class. Star trek is class. Serenity is class.

Not bothered by a director's reputation or lack there of, those are very good movies.

Timbob

I enjoyed all three of those movies.

« Previous Page Next Page »