|
Human Tornada posted:Should I watch the Lord of the Rings movies? It took me two tries to get through 30 minutes of the first one because I was insanely bored and had to turn it off. Is this a common complaint or are these movies just not for me?
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Should I watch the Lord of the Rings movies? It took me two tries to get through 30 minutes of the first one because I was insanely bored and had to turn it off. Is this a common complaint or are these movies just not for me? God help you if ever try to watch Lawrence of Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Should I watch the Lord of the Rings movies? It took me two tries to get through 30 minutes of the first one because I was insanely bored and had to turn it off. Is this a common complaint or are these movies just not for me? They're p boring tbh, esp if you're not into fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:God help you if ever try to watch Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia owns though (at least pre-intermission, it kind of drags after that).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
effectual posted:I think a single ~3 hour version has the potential to be better than 2 slow 2-hour movies. I think both movies are well-paced though, and that the second film has a slightly different tone than the first, which is nicely delineated by them being separate films. I feel like turning it into one long film would require accelerating the plot purely to make it all fit. It seems like it would be really hard preserve the pacing and flow of individual scenes if you were trying to cut that much runtime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Should I watch the Lord of the Rings movies? It took me two tries to get through 30 minutes of the first one because I was insanely bored and had to turn it off. Is this a common complaint or are these movies just not for me? I watched them two years ago with knowing nothing apart from the things that crept into pop culture and the memes. I found them all to be incredibly boring and I found virtually every character to be boring and bland. I can't remember anything off hand that I liked. I may watch them again in the future to give them another chance. Watch Willow instead. EDIT; I think I'm minority though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Just watch the first one, it's the most tolerable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
If you didn't like the first one, I can't imagine that you'd like the others at all. I like them but they're far from perfect - if it didn't do anything for you, don't try to force it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
The first one gets much better as it goes. But really, if you're not interested in the Tolkien books or the copious amounts of handcrafted fantasy kit covering every surface, the trilogy is going to be a slog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Should I watch the Lord of the Rings movies? It took me two tries to get through 30 minutes of the first one because I was insanely bored and had to turn it off. Is this a common complaint or are these movies just not for me? The first one is fully boring. First half of the 2nd one is boring, but the 2nd half is pretty good. Haven't seen the 3rd one yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Should I watch the Lord of the Rings movies? It took me two tries to get through 30 minutes of the first one because I was insanely bored and had to turn it off. Is this a common complaint or are these movies just not for me? The first book is insanely boring in the first few hundred pages but once you get to Helm's Deep it gets good. And the movie is paced much faster. I'd advise you to grab a cup of mead and wait for the good poo poo. The Hobbit movies on the other hand, maybe get some heroin and look forward to bed sores trying to sit through them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
MisterGBH posted:I watched them two years ago with knowing nothing apart from the things that crept into pop culture and the memes. What'sup Willow buddy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
Fake edit: there's also a rifftrax of LotR so if you like to watch 800 hours of faux medieval poo poo with Mike Nelson and definitely not a couple robots making dad jokes over Legolas doing sweet kickflips there's that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:What'sup Willow buddy! Joining the Willow crew. For more fun fantasy that doesn't take forever, watch Dragonslayer. Vermithrax Pejorative is still the best dragon put to the the screen. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Vermithrax Pejorative is still the best dragon put to the the screen. True dat. Back in my day if you wanted some impressive visual effects on screen the characters had to march for weeks through all sorts of dangers to arrive at it and bloody well earn it and the effect was all the better for it, these days they just chuck it up on screen in the first scene of the movie. Edit: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, looks like I'm not gonna bother!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Thanks everyone, looks like I'm not gonna bother! Get the rifftrax, get drunk off your rear end and enjoy the origins of dungeons and dragons and basically all modern fantasy. There are a lot of badass scenes, Peter Jackson was doing his best dealing with the source material, which was really good for the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Dragonslayer is great. That dragon (and the shot of the princess in the cave) gave me nightmares as a kid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:Get the rifftrax, get drunk off your rear end and enjoy the origins of dungeons and dragons and basically all modern fantasy. Don't sleep on Robert E Howard, creator of Conan. Tolkien + Howard = modern fantasy. Also not does Dragonslayer have the best dragon with the best dragon name, it's also got the best rear end in a top hat wizard he's a jerk-rear end old coot who comes back from the dead to blow himself up to gently caress over the dragon! Edit: Dragonslayer is right at the tail-end of 70s-inspired fantasy (check out the poster at Wikipedia, which owns) and really deserves more of an audience. It's really gritty and nasty and horrible and makes an excellent double-feature with Conan the Barbarian. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Dragonslayer owns. Dragonheart is lame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Snak posted:Dragonslayer owns. Dragonheart is lame. Agreed, except that I would add that that Dragonheart is stupid as well as lame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
loving hell, Dragonslayer isn't on blu-ray? That's a travesty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Reign of Fire is my dragon movie of choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Edit: Dragonslayer is right at the tail-end of 70s-inspired fantasy (check out the poster at Wikipedia, which owns) and really deserves more of an audience. It's really gritty and nasty and horrible and makes an excellent double-feature with Conan the Barbarian. We tend to think of the '80s as the era of the one-liner hero action film, but there was a metric shitload of broadsword-and-labia fantasy in there too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
The best thing about Krull is how much of a blatant Star Wars ripoff it is, down to having a trash-compactor scene. Ladyhawk is pretty great. I mean, I'm sure it's terrible, i haven't seen it in over 10 years...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Snak posted:The best thing about Krull is how much of a blatant Star Wars ripoff it is, down to having a trash-compactor scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Willow is just a movie you should watch, whatever the occasion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
SubG posted:Naaaaah. The whole serious-but-cheesy fantasy thing continued to be a `thing' well into the mid to late '80s, fueled both by the increasing popularity of Dungeons & Dragons and the seemingly endless market for special effects films following Star Wars (1977) and then The Empire Strikes Back (1980). Dragonslayer isn't very cheesy at all and it's really poor analysis to compare it to Beastmaster, which I would say is the first of real 80s fantasy films (Conan the Barbarian straddles the line nicely) featuring an oiled-up chosen one fighting an evil wizard. Reminder: Dragonslayer features Professional Beta Peter MacNicol getting clowned by almost everyone, including the dragon, who he doesn't even directly defeat. At the end he rides off wondering if the age of fantasy is over. It's much more of a downbeat than your typical 80s power fantasy. Ladyhawke is pretty good but listen to this track from Dragonslayer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnGypprUsbY) vs. Ladyhawke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi87Y8o33uI especially at the one minute mark) and tell me it belongs in the 80s. Dragonslayer is dirty and nasty and disempowering in ways that 80s fantasy films weren't. Also Willow owns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Willow isn't too hot but the dragon is excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Dragonslayer isn't very cheesy at all and it's really poor analysis to compare it to Beastmaster, which I would say is the first of real 80s fantasy films (Conan the Barbarian straddles the line nicely) featuring an oiled-up chosen one fighting an evil wizard. Reminder: Dragonslayer features Professional Beta Peter MacNicol getting clowned by almost everyone, including the dragon, who he doesn't even directly defeat. At the end he rides off wondering if the age of fantasy is over. It's much more of a downbeat than your typical 80s power fantasy. The '70s, if we really want to think of this in terms of decades, was a pretty slow period for fantasy, and it wasn't really until Star Wars and Dungeons & Dragons rekindled interest in the genre that we start seeing a lot of fantasy films. If you want a real transitional fossil here, it's probably Clash of the Titans (1981), connecting with the Harryhausen adventure fantasies of the '60s but having a zany robot sidekick. Also, Dragonslayer is cheesy as hell. It's just earnest about it, like all Disney genre films, e.g. The Black Hole (1979).
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Conan is the most amazingly bizarre thing. It's not at all what you think it will be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Conan is the most amazingly bizarre thing. It's not at all what you think it will be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Conan The Barbarian is every bit as serious as Lord of the Rings, but it's also a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
I recently looked back at the relatively short list of movies that I went to see at the theater in 2015, and found it interesting that they're almost all special effects driven big budget pictures from major studios that are packed to the gills with CGI. While I enjoy these every now and then, my taste leans a lot more toward unique storytelling and originality, and I watch a lot of small budget independent stuff, foreign films, etc on Netflix, DVD/BluRay, and through downloads, etc. My dilemma is that I find it hard to justify paying $13 or whatever crazy price to see a movie on the big screen that's going to be mainly just closeups of people talking. Special effects 'blockbuster' type movies are the ones that really benefit from being on the big screen. I'm more interested in The Big Short, but I'm still going to see Star Wars instead because I don't feel that I'm missing much by seeing The Big Short, etc in six months at home, while Star Wars is obviously going to be a very different experience at the theater. So essentially I'm voting with my dollars against my own interests and encouraging studios to focus even more heavily on special effects and big budget popcorn flicks, when I'd like to see the emphasis move in the exact opposite direction. If tickets weren't so expensive I'd go to a lot of smaller movies in my preferred genres but that's a whole other issue. I'm curious how other folks see this. When you head to the theater are you asking yourself, "Which of these movies would I enjoy the most and fits my taste?" or are you thinking like me and asking, "Which of these is going to gain the most from being on the big screen and which of the good movies will be essentially the same experience at home in six months?" I'd like to reward unique and good story telling and risk taking by studios and filmmakers, but high ticket prices and the nature of the theater experience always pushes me in the opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Well, either way see The Big Short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Definitely the latter, I'm in the same boat. It's also a case of "I know what I'm getting" so I know I'm in for a high floor on the enjoyment scale. Yeah, I love all the low budget thought provoking movies more, but there is also a chance I really won't like the film and have wasted my money as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Some of it has to do with how much the average home theater has caught up with the actual movie theater experience. There's definitely something about being part of a captive audience, but I'm not sure how much that plays into the decision making of a typical household. Just over a decade ago, most people were still watching movies at home on a 20" CRT. Today, it's increasingly difficult to find even a budget TV smaller than 40" in stock. For an average consumer, it definitely seems like there are fewer and fewer reasons to watch a movie that's not pure audio-visual spectacle on the silver screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Smilin Joe Fission posted:I recently looked back at the relatively short list of movies that I went to see at the theater in 2015, and found it interesting that they're almost all special effects driven big budget pictures from major studios that are packed to the gills with CGI. While I enjoy these every now and then, my taste leans a lot more toward unique storytelling and originality, and I watch a lot of small budget independent stuff, foreign films, etc on Netflix, DVD/BluRay, and through downloads, etc. My dilemma is that I find it hard to justify paying $13 or whatever crazy price to see a movie on the big screen that's going to be mainly just closeups of people talking. Special effects 'blockbuster' type movies are the ones that really benefit from being on the big screen. I'm more interested in The Big Short, but I'm still going to see Star Wars instead because I don't feel that I'm missing much by seeing The Big Short, etc in six months at home, while Star Wars is obviously going to be a very different experience at the theater. If ticket prices are your main limiting factor, get MoviePass. It pays for itself in 2-3 films a month. Slowhanded posted:Some of it has to do with how much the average home theater has caught up with the actual movie theater experience. There's definitely something about being part of a captive audience, but I'm not sure how much that plays into the decision making of a typical household. Just over a decade ago, most people were still watching movies at home on a 20" CRT. Today, it's increasingly difficult to find even a budget TV smaller than 40" in stock. For an average consumer, it definitely seems like there are fewer and fewer reasons to watch a movie that's not pure audio-visual spectacle on the silver screen. Terrorist Fistbump fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:If ticket prices are your main limiting factor, get MoviePass. It pays for itself in 2-3 films a month. I'm surprised that I've somehow never heard of MoviePass before. It seems like a cool idea and I would definitely see a lot more movies. I could see repeatedly joining and cancelling every second month to give enough time for a complete refresh of the slate of movies that are showing and then seeing anything that looks interesting within the month that I'm a member, followed by taking a month off from theater going. After checking into this a bit it seems to imply that you need a smartphone due to the fact you can only buy a ticket if you're physically near the theater. I'm smartphone-less at the moment although I do have an iPad and my theater has free wifi. So far I haven't been able to find a clear answer online as to whether you can buy a ticket via wifi, or if you have to be connected through the cellular network. Anyone know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:This is exactly backwards. Spectacle movies look and sound just as good at home with $1500 worth of equipment as they do in the theater, plus you can text your friends and get up and make a snack and grab a beer whenever you want. The theater experience, on the other hand, is an opportunity to focus your attention completely on a film with (ideally) no quotidian distractions. Films that reward that attention are what you should be seeing, especially if they're what you'd prefer to be watching anyway. Like I said, I'm not sure how many people that constitute that average moviegoing populace agree with you on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:03
|
|