|
The Auralnauts Hobbit video is really good, although apparently not on youtube anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ZkyMcDbUQ
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:The Auralnauts Hobbit video is really good, although apparently not on youtube anymore. No, still untouched by the bots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcMkf2iq1Ac
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
New thread now? CA drama seems to be on the downturn, not that it seems like Mike and co are going to actually respond any time soon, taking the ol' bunker approach. It's inevitable were going to discuss this more if only cause it definitely has legs, but it's moving slow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Mars4523 posted:Have some surprise Lindsay. Also, why am I still awake? This has sorta been alluded to, but do this for the LOTR triology now Ellis posted:- pacing issues those things apply to the LOTR trilogy as well. I came super late to the Hobbit movies in that I watched them just this year after a friend of mine said they were "the worst movies ever" and they're...fine? I struggle to understand the hate, and this video doesn't necessarily illuminate any of those critiques, since they ring (har har) incredibly shallow in the face of them all being applicable to the revered films, too
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
The Lord of the Rings movies are (largely?) serving the impulse to get a good version of things people remember reading from the books up on a screen. There isn’t any padding, and only very stupid or grindingly slow things are cut out. If they’re slow or weirdly paced, it’s because the books are too, but also revered for that reason. Plus, even people who super love those movies do bag on the endless procession of concluding scenes, and have since 2005. There’s something in here about the best films adapted from novels being those that change mediocre source material in ways that serve the unique aspects of the medium of film. That’s probably different from calling something a good adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:There’s something in here about the best films adapted from novels being those that change mediocre source material in ways that serve the unique aspects of the medium of film. That’s probably different from calling something a good adaptation. Pretty sure that's the very definition of an "adaptation".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
I don't remember if it was in this thread or a CD one where this idea came up that Youtube critics should really only talk about movies that they like because honestly the montage of Ellis just listing things that weren't in the books with an exasperated voice seems so...odd? Like there's this rhetoric being built up that "if it wasn't in the book it was bad"? I just don't understand this genre of criticism where you just list things in an annoyed way and we're supposed to nod along and agree, "yes, that is bad" I'd just like some more insight into why, for instance "the white council, this orc miniboss who's in all three films, fighting dragon priests..." etc etc are bad This video presupposes that the viewer already doesn't like the Hobbit movies because why would they? The internet doesn't like them!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:Pretty sure that's the very definition of an "adaptation". People don’t really discuss Jaws or The Godfather as adaptations. Lord of the Rings is in kind of a different category there. Like, it’s a big part of how the movies were authorized and funded and sold, and so it’s baked into the production, marketing, and reception. Unless maybe people do discuss Jaws and The Godfather as adaptations and I just am not a part of those conversations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I'd just like some more insight into why, for instance "the white council, this orc miniboss who's in all three films, fighting dragon priests..." etc etc are bad Like I said, the video doesn't says nothing new. It's just repeating criticisms people have made for years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:I don't remember if it was in this thread or a CD one where this idea came up that Youtube critics should really only talk about movies that they like because honestly the montage of Ellis just listing things that weren't in the books with an exasperated voice seems so...odd? Like there's this rhetoric being built up that "if it wasn't in the book it was bad"? I just don't understand this genre of criticism where you just list things in an annoyed way and we're supposed to nod along and agree, "yes, that is bad" They were not necessary for the story that was being adapted, and only served to increase the runtime and make the tone weird. This should have been easy to pick up in context, but I guess because she didn't give a bullet point list for every one, it wasn't explicit enough? In fact, in reviewing the video, the sequence you're complaining about is an introductory preamble for a section where she goes on to explain why these things are bad. Like, when you have a story, usually you only want things in it that serve to enhance the narrative somehow: either changing the status of the main characters, or revealing something about the main characters. Most of the scenes listed did none of that, and served only as action setpieces or exposition to set up the LotR story. This is bad writing, and pretty much anyone involved in writing will tell you it's bad writing. If you're not interested in the story itself and are content with thrill ride setpieces and exposition, why not just buy a copy of the Silmarillion and cue up one of those old flash animations of huge fight scenes? It'll have the same effect and be much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:People don’t really discuss Jaws or The Godfather as adaptations. Lord of the Rings is in kind of a different category there. Like, it’s a big part of how the movies were authorized and funded and sold, and so it’s baked into the production, marketing, and reception. Unless maybe people do discuss Jaws and The Godfather as adaptations and I just am not a part of those conversations. That's more because people were aware of those movies first rather than the books. In LOTR's case, the books were already very widely known and loved. They are still, by definition, adaptations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
It's interesting that zero people have brought up the crux of why the Hobbit ended up the way it did. Namely, that the studio demanded up-front to have it be a two-movie story. Guillermo del Toro got signed on as director and started pre-production. Part-way into development, he stepped down. With no one else to take the reins, Peter reluctantly (key word here) stepped in to keep the project going. As pre-production continued into actual filming, the studio changed their minds and told him to stretch it into 3 movies. There was no script for this change. They had to retool the script they had to make it fit this new mandate, and as a result they were limited by what Guillermo had in the script and what they needed to add in to keep the story from thinning out too much. The tight schedule meant that they didn't have time for script re-writes. In fact, this got so bad that they didn't even have a script for the third film by the time they started shooting it. They were basically writing as they went. And you can tell how much of a toll this whole process took on Peter when you watch any of the latter dev diaires. Even the initial interview he did about doing the film before all of this he doesn't seem super thrilled about it. The whole thing just makes me sad, not angry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:No, still untouched by the bots That explains why I couldn't find it: it's blocked in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
I am happy to see that we have finally moved past the Prequels as the go to for pointless contrarianism and that now the Hobbits movies serve that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
I haven't watched Lindsey's video yet, but the Hobbit movies just fill the "good enough" category for me. While I'd recommend anyone to watch TLOTR, The Hobbit I can only recommend to someone if they like TLOTR and its setting. Like, I doubt anyone would argue they're better than TLOTR. But they aren't the Star Wars prequels our Matrix sequels. Those movies a labyrinth of weird decisions. The Hobbit's problems just don't feel... interesting? It's pretty standard "geek film gripe" stuff. Though, I'll watch Lindsey's video in a bit to see if she has some unique observations. Ultimately I thought the CGI and action in the EE of the third movie was actually fun. Like, it triples down on Jackson's less popular impulses, escalated the battle to the point of absurdity, where I felt some of the passion going in to them again. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:That's more because people were aware of those movies first rather than the books. In LOTR's case, the books were already very widely known and loved. They are still, by definition, adaptations. Right—I’m saying that movies that treat their source material with reverence seem like a distinct category of movie sometimes, as compared to movies that don’t really mark themselves as having a source. There would never be an expensive Lord of the Rings trilogy if there weren’t already precise expectations about what it would have to be like and include, and that marks the movies vs Kubrick just doing whatever he wanted with the plot outline of The Shining. Partially that has to do with how movies function as commodities within a marketplace through self-conscious employment of features that mark them as reverent or as made by people who take the material seriously, which marks the films themselves. Like, not every adaptation is an exercise in showing love for the source material, but it was in the case of the Lord of the Rings, and necessarily included close fidelity to a big long story with a lot of walking. An economical Lord of the Rings would never have been greenlit in the first place—they probably got made partially on the promise that the dvd versions would be even longer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
My big problem with the Hobbit (at least the first movie; I didn't want to blow my money on the other two) was that it didn't really feel like the book. This was the same general problem I had with LotR; both feel more like Generic Action Movie but in Middle Earth and with hobbits, but the Hobbit as a story was all about how Bilbo WASN'T an action movie guy, and just got by on account of his being a crafty motherfucker. So the movies basically turning him into an action guy was basically saying, "Yeah, we weren't interested in the nerd kind of hero." Also the thrill ride action sequences just draaaaaaagged.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:This has sorta been alluded to, but do this for the LOTR triology now Ridiculous, none of these things afflict the LOTR trilogy anywhere near as bad as they do the Hobbit movies. It's a bit like defending the poor acting in the Star Wars prequels by saying that there was some bad acting in the original series too, technically true, but disingenuous since one is clearly much worse in that regard than the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:only served to increase the runtime and make the tone weird. This is a problem with the 'pseudo-objective' approach in much modern media analysis. It takes what are ultimately subjective complaints (I didn't personally like this scene for reasons that are complex and relate to my personal relationship with the books and previous film adaptations, a relationship that's ultimately very common to internet nerds who watch films) and attempts to justify them in the form of overly simplistic truth-isms that actually only deflect from the core reasons why people didn't like the film. "Usually you want to do X. These scenes didn't do X. This is bad writing." Like oh wow, you've found the formula, professor, it's a real shame Peter Jackson and the hundreds of people who worked on it didn't think to ask you for the One Weird Trick To Make Film Good. Oh, wait, you actually just wrote a bunk rule that renders hundreds of critically acclaimed films bad and fundamentally undermines the loving concept of art. Almost 110 minutes of 2001 a space odyssey, of the best films ever, are bad now. If only there was an alternative approach, where you think more about why people think things, instead of less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
e X posted:I am happy to see that we have finally moved past the Prequels as the go to for pointless contrarianism and that now the Hobbits movies serve that purpose. maybe it's not good to presuppose movies are bad on account of being memed neither the Hobbit movies nor the prequels are this sort of "objectively" bad that people meme them for, to the point where just listing things that happen in them results in an exasperated tone from a Youtuber
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
I thought Ellis’ video was pretty good but I’ve also never seen LOTR and only the first two Hobbit films. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To me the Hobbit was a victim of poor production and studio decisions, and I recall reasonably enjoying the first one but being bored to tears by the second one. The two movie GDT version sounds interesting and I’m sad we didn’t get that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
I fell asleep during The Hobbit but I still agree with you hbomb. I am definitely from the school of criticism that argues everything is good to someone, and if you can defend your position with evidence you deserve to be heard. This also means no one is right about anything, ever. My grad program was basically one, long, exhausting argument with this one dude who thought Titus Andronicus was bad. Coincidentally he also really loved those "bad first line of a book" award things.... Hmm....
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Lindsay's video is really good and well made btw and everyone should watch it. My contrarian hill-dying and art opinions should be taken separately from an appreciation of the good work people are doing in film crit!!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Kim Justice posted:New thread now? CA drama seems to be on the downturn, not that it seems like Mike and co are going to actually respond any time soon, taking the ol' bunker approach. It's inevitable were going to discuss this more if only cause it definitely has legs, but it's moving slow. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
People are all saying that Lindsay's points are all stuff they've heard before. That's mostly true, but when she points out that the composer re-used the Ringwraith theme out of context because they weren't given time to make a new song, it's hilarious and it seems like the kind of thing that a lot of people wouldn't notice. I also feel bummed when hearing that Christopher Lee felt enthusiasm for his thankless role in the Hobbit movies. It's the same kind of bummed I felt when I heard that Spielberg put an extended homage to his dead friend Stanley Kubrick in Ready Player One.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Speaking of Christopher Lee, is the Christopher Lee who narrates near as I can tell every single Agatha Christie book on Audible the same as movie actor Christopher Lee? I haven't decided how I want to listen to her books, and an answer on this could help immensely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:maybe it's not good to presuppose movies are bad on account of being memed  So, are you going to become a famous youtuber in a couple of month, too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Speaking of Christopher Lee, is the Christopher Lee who narrates near as I can tell every single Agatha Christie book on Audible the same as movie actor Christopher Lee? I haven't decided how I want to listen to her books, and an answer on this could help immensely. it is, he's, as you'd expect, DELIGHTFUL doing it. Even if I wasn't a huge Christie fan I'd say it's a must have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Solitair posted:People are all saying that Lindsay's points are all stuff they've heard before. That's mostly true, but when she points out that the composer re-used the Ringwraith theme out of context because they weren't given time to make a new song, it's hilarious and it seems like the kind of thing that a lot of people wouldn't notice. It's certainly possible to appreciate garbage because one person in it cares or tries, or at least appreciate what that one person does. I'm pretty sure that's how Allison chooses a lot of the movies she covers. Color of Night doesn't have a lot to offer unless you're curious about Bakula. Lee is the reason I watched Dracula 1972 AD and Satanic Rites of Dracula, and he's only in them for probably seven minutes each. And he definitely didn't feel enthusiasm for those roles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Lee also did Children of Hurin for Audible entirely solo and boy is it just great to hear him do it. You can really feel the passion even for this weird little side story compiled by Tolkien's son. Dude just clearly loves Lord of the Rings and is happy to be a part of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
In celebration of the upcoming end of the old thread and the beginning of the new, I memed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:It's certainly possible to appreciate garbage because one person in it cares or tries, or at least appreciate what that one person does. I'm pretty sure that's how Allison chooses a lot of the movies she covers. Color of Night doesn't have a lot to offer unless you're curious about Bakula. When I see something that's bad overall, I usually focus on the elements that work really well and regret that the rest of the story couldn't measure up to it. Plus, it's not like I'm enthusiastic to watch Ready Player One in theaters just to see that one scene. What I really want to see right now is the BBC adaptation of Titus Groan and Gormenghast, where Lee plays Mr. Flay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Kim Justice posted:In celebration of the upcoming end of the old thread and the beginning of the new, I memed. I only know who one these guys are. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Lee also did Children of Hurin for Audible entirely solo and boy is it just great to hear him do it. You can really feel the passion even for this weird little side story compiled by Tolkien's son. Dude just clearly loves Lord of the Rings and is happy to be a part of it. For some reason it's really important to be "into" these franchises. Nobody cares if you're really into Homer or Mervyn Peake, but it's a huge deal that someone likes Tolkien. It signals that the material is really lacking despite its appeal, which is why there's this rhetoric of more enjoyment. The Gormenghast books on the other hand are so satisfying despite being unfinished that there is no fandom or academic movement trying to decipher its "world-building". BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Mar 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Zedd posted:I know the "big document" is supposed to come out on April 2nd but not a bad idea to start a new thread before that. Hopefully before April 1, but that's up to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
yea Christopher Lee is famously a really shallow plebe with no real understanding of classics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea Christopher Lee is famously a really shallow plebe with no real understanding of classics. Was
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
I love, by the way, that the only reason Lee wasn't a stuffy Classical Literature or Latin professor in some university is because he thought the hours would be restrictive and it was a stuffy sounding job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Sarcopenia posted:I only know who one these guys are. Behold YouTube's new Million Dollar Quartet, bonded by male pattern baldness and a shared love for food, music, and pop science. Andrew "Welcome back TO Binging With Babish" Rea, Sean "For First We Feast, I'm Sean" Evans, Michael "Hey, Vsauce" Stevens, and Anthony "Nazi Fraud" Fantano.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
More snobs should take the Lee path. He was the English Vincent Price. His only complaint about being Dracula was that the movies weren’t fully utilizing the character, and that unrealized potential angered him enough that he started refusing to appear in the later sequels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 18:09
|
|