yeah, see, that's one of my problems with younger filmmakers: no establishing shots. Just like a good story (which it is) a good movie should slowly build to action and adventure. If you just "get on with it", you end up focusing more on action and less on things like plot, acting, and the all-important, oft-neglected thing called "suspense" or "build up". And when that happens, you go down this road of having to top each subsequent film with more outrageous action, more expensive FX, louder music, more frenetic camera shots, as audiences get inured to the effects of what came before. LOTR succeeds because it's an engaging *story* with good writing and a good *adventure*, that is supported and bolstered by the action and FX. "The Two Towers" arguably is the most overall action intense of the three films, and it's my least favorite. I much more remember the little things of suspense: Gandalf's battle with the Balrog, but more importantly, the reaction of the Fellowship when he fel l...the moment in the first film when the Dark Riders entered Barliman's tavern, preceed by mist, the owner cowering in terror behind the bar...the scene of overwhelming sadness and resignation at the meeting in Rivendale when Frodo says "I will take the Ring. But...I do not know the way".
Maybe it is generational, but this tendency to ignore slow build ups, long camera pans, and suspense in favor of immediate action and gratification just doesn't always work for me. The best films--scifi or fantasy--from Blade Runner to The Matrix, succeed because they have something behind the action and FX. If you just jump into things, you have all gloss but no substance. Off the soapbox now! :) -------------- Original message -------------- From: Daryle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Lord Of The Rings movies bore me because they move entirely too slow. There are entire scenes dedicated to establishing shots. I know I'm Generation X and I'm used to MTV style editing and all that, but I just think the entire first movie could have been covered in 30 minutes and then we could have gotten on with the second film, which is where the action sort of was. When I saw these movies in a theater I immediately sympathized with people who don't like Star Trek. If you've never cared about any of the Trek series, and the first time someone sits you down to watch it, it's the first movie, you are going to fall asleep. Because it is a long and drawn out story about people with whom you have no connection whatsoever. I didn't grow up reading Tolkien. I grew up reading Asimov and watching old Flash Gordon. When my friends in high school played D&D, I was reading Douglas Adams. It's why I don't get "Beowulf". It's why I've never played "Zelda". So when I watched the movies on DVD, I was able to study the filmmaking. I could stop and check the details. I could go get a sandwich. Take a phone call. I was impressed by what I saw, because it was like someone had taken all this time to put all this data on screen. It was made, in my opinion, to stop and take it all in. Freeze frame, slow-mo. The LOTR movies are the best argument for HD that I can imagine. On 12/22/07 1:26 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why do you think LOTR bored you at the theatre? what was the difference in > your home viewing experience? > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Daryle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > And here is where the fandom line is sort of drawn. I have said this before, > and I will say it again. I saw LOTR in a theater and I have never had such a > good sleep outside of my own bed. I tried again with the second picture, and > again, fell asleep. These just aren¹t my kind of stories. I can appreciate > the production value, but I simply have never cared about these stories. So > last year I watched all three on DVD, stayed awake, and was amazed at what I > saw. Peter Jackson is a great filmmaker and tells stories better than many > of his contemporaries. > > Raimi has done stories that I DO care about, and I have to say that he is > remarkably inconsistent. Consistently FUNNY, but not exactly a string of > classics. I like Sam himself more than the pictures he¹s done. WITH THE > EXCEPTION of Spider Man 2. > > On 12/22/07 11:15 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> i gotta disagree on "Hellboy". That movie rocked. And some of the pieces: the >> initial magic working with Nazis, the religious dude, the look and feel of >> their headquarters, all show a deft hand with set design, FX, and even CGI. >> It's not a direct one-to-one correlation with the world of the Hobbit, but my >> point is the basic skillsets and abilities shown there can be adapted. I >> mean, >> after Blood Simple (think that was it) and The Frighteners, I never would >> have >> pegged Jackson to be right for LOTR, but New Line saw something in him... >> >> -------------- Original message -------------- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:Gymfig%40aol.com> >> >> In a message dated 12/22/2007 1:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:KeithBJohnson%40comcast.net> writes: >> >> for some reason I feel del Toro's immersion in fantasy (Pan's Labyrinth, Hell >> boy) would work, combined with his natural ebullience and childlike sense of >> wonder >> >> Pan had other theme intertwined in the movie. The Hobbit is not a mature >> prequel. Maybe he could do Tne Simarillion. >> >> Hellboy was a cheap comic book adaptation. It is good for the Sci Fi channel >> or FX. I don't see The Hobbit being a sci fi or FX kind of movie. The tone is >> too different. >> >> **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes >> (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
