Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106774 times)

Mongrel · « **Reply #380 on:** December 21, 2009, 02:55:56 PM »

Quote from: Büge on December 21, 2009, 02:55:18 PM

Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 02:43:14 PM
horribly book-only fanboyism of Tolkien (i.e. I don't like the movies)

Hey-dol-merry-dol-ring-ding-a-dillo!

François · « **Reply #381 on:** December 21, 2009, 03:06:39 PM »

i liked the bits in the movie where they spend like ten pages talking about weed

oh wait

Friday · « **Reply #382 on:** December 21, 2009, 03:06:48 PM »

I love the books and always have since I was a little girl. That being said, I don't think the movies (again, especially the first) are devoid of merit.

Also, yeah, Pixar is fucking amazing.

Miss Cat Ears · « **Reply #383 on:** December 21, 2009, 03:44:56 PM »

I hate Tolkien

Büge · « **Reply #384 on:** December 21, 2009, 04:00:23 PM »

Stop tolkien

SCD · « **Reply #385 on:** December 21, 2009, 04:16:56 PM »

Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 12:18:49 PM

I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it. Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas. I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog. Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to.

Catloaf · « **Reply #386 on:** December 21, 2009, 04:38:00 PM »

Thanks for saving me the $10 guys.

On the LotR front, I respect Tolkien, but I find little entertainment in reading his work. I just can't bring myself to give a damn about all the little bits of side information that have absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand. If they were humorous, I'd like them. But nope, just boring. I think it's because I grew up with Tolkien-derived vivid fantasy worlds being commonplace so I wasn't amazed when I saw the original.

Kashan · « **Reply #387 on:** December 21, 2009, 05:40:02 PM »

I'd just like to point out that Unobtanium is a real term used by scientists and engineers since at least the 1950s. Also, Sunshine was awesome, even if the hard science in it was horrible.

Frocto · « **Reply #388 on:** December 21, 2009, 06:09:37 PM »

District 9 was crazy good. Like seriously an amazingly awesome movie.

And, uh, don't hang me for this, but Metal Gear Solid 4?

Miss Cat Ears · « **Reply #389 on:** December 21, 2009, 06:14:43 PM »

Quote from: Kashan on December 21, 2009, 05:40:02 PM

Also, Sunshine was awesome, even if the hard science in it was horrible.

I agree completely

Büge · « **Reply #390 on:** December 21, 2009, 06:23:30 PM »

Now I can't stop thinking about how boring Solaris was. Successor to 2001 A space Odyssey? The devil, you say!

Kashan · « **Reply #391 on:** December 21, 2009, 08:34:51 PM »

Quote from: Büge on December 21, 2009, 06:23:30 PM

Now I can't stop thinking about how boring Solaris was. Successor to 2001 A space Odyssey? The devil, you say!

Uh, you realize 2001 is an incredible boring movie right? I mean it's got great scenes and characters, but it's so fucking slow that I couldn't appreciate until I was in my 20's and properly medicated.

Niku · « **Reply #392 on:** December 21, 2009, 08:38:41 PM »

kashan gets jokes

Mongrel · « **Reply #393 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:14:45 PM »

Quote from: Sniper's Calm Deliberation on December 21, 2009, 04:16:56 PM

Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it. Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas. I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog. Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to.

Well, I don't know, I'm on the fence there. I've heard some folks raving about it and others thought it was a painfully contrived peice of schlock.

I'll have to watch it sometime, no doubt.

With regards to Tolkien, he was the first one I read. If I pick up something like Dragonlance, Tad Williams, Guy Kay, Shannara, whatever-the-fuck-other big-time fantasy franchise, it's like a kid with crayons filling in a JRR Tolkien colouring book. Only with more emo and bullshit.

One of the most commonly overlooked keys to enjoying Tolkien is to understand that he is NOT like these authors of the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90s'. He is much older and his work reflects this. Tolkien's work is best compared to things like The Wind in The Willows, Ghormenghast, The Once and Future King, Conan, or even Lovecraft*.

*_{The two people I have ever read who I felt truly knew what it's like to write a story that really feels like an actual dream are Lovecraft and Tolkien, and even then they do not always hit the mark, Tolkien almost never. But 'almost never' is a damn sight better than not at all.

That's not to say that I think folks like Lewis Carrol are bad authors, just that there's something subtle they miss in trying to replicate the true feel of a dream in the waking world.}

Kashan · « **Reply #394 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Niku on December 21, 2009, 08:38:41 PM

kashan gets jokes

PhilosopherDirtbike · « **Reply #395 on:** December 21, 2009, 10:06:20 PM »

I never really got into Tolkien either though my introduction to the world of fantasy literature was the world of Xanth by Piers Anthony so

Niku · « **Reply #396 on:** December 21, 2009, 10:24:25 PM »

i think you mean MAGIC FLORIDA

Miss Cat Ears · « **Reply #397 on:** December 22, 2009, 06:28:42 AM »

Oh my gosh, I read all those Piers Anthony books when I was little, but for the life of me could not remember what they were. MY HERO

Büge · « **Reply #398 on:** December 22, 2009, 06:51:39 AM »

Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 09:14:45 PM

Quote from: Sniper's Calm Deliberation on December 21, 2009, 04:16:56 PM
Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it. Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas. I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog. Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to.

Well, I don't know, I'm on the fence there. I've heard some folks raving about it and others thought it was a painfully contrived peice of schlock.

I'll have to watch it sometime, no doubt.

With regards to Tolkien, he was the first one I read. If I pick up something like Dragonlance, Tad Williams, Guy Kay, Shannara, whatever-the-fuck-other big-time fantasy franchise, it's like a kid with crayons filling in a JRR Tolkien colouring book. Only with more emo and bullshit.

One of the most commonly overlooked keys to enjoying Tolkien is to understand that he is NOT like these authors of the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90s'. He is much older and his work reflects this. Tolkien's work is best compared to things like The Wind in The Willows, Ghormenghast, The Once and Future King, Conan, or even Lovecraft*.

But not C.S. Lewis, Fritz Lieber or Jack Vance, oh-ho-ho-ho-ho no

Mongrel · « **Reply #399 on:** December 22, 2009, 07:07:51 AM »

Quote from: Büge on December 22, 2009, 06:51:39 AM

Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 09:14:45 PM
Quote from: Sniper's Calm Deliberation on December 21, 2009, 04:16:56 PM
Quote from: Mongrel on December 21, 2009, 12:18:49 PM
I know it's just my cynical brain blocking things out and that there must've been a FEW movies that used effects to beautify an already-good story rather than hide the lack of one, so uh... name some? Ones that aren't remakes or adaptations? Please? For the love of god?

District Nine is a good movie and respectfully you are criminal, sir, for not watching it. Gattaca is two years out of the range you're hoping for, but it was also a good movie which points out that good Science Fiction concepts in the "what if" don't require special effects, just a lot of ideas. I have a DVD of the later which I'm always willing to loan you next time we cross paths.

That being said, if you want good Science Fiction, subscribe to Analog. Decent ideas seldom make it past the Hollywood big wigs as Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Season 8 can attest to.

Well, I don't know, I'm on the fence there. I've heard some folks raving about it and others thought it was a painfully contrived peice of schlock.

I'll have to watch it sometime, no doubt.

With regards to Tolkien, he was the first one I read. If I pick up something like Dragonlance, Tad Williams, Guy Kay, Shannara, whatever-the-fuck-other big-time fantasy franchise, it's like a kid with crayons filling in a JRR Tolkien colouring book. Only with more emo and bullshit.

One of the most commonly overlooked keys to enjoying Tolkien is to understand that he is NOT like these authors of the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90s'. He is much older and his work reflects this. Tolkien's work is best compared to things like The Wind in The Willows, Ghormenghast, The Once and Future King, Conan, or even Lovecraft*.

But not C.S. Lewis, Fritz Lieber or Jack Vance, oh-ho-ho-ho-ho no

Now, just because I didn't name EVERYBODY...

Or was that a serious post? Because I can see someone putting C.S in his own category, but to me Fritz Lieber always seemed like a man standing on a tripod with Robert E Howard, Tolkien, and Lovecraft as the legs (not literally... they weren't direct influences, I think?), obviously leaning closer to Howard's work. His worlds are less boisterous than Howard's and more cold and empty. Sort of like a Conan who grew up, found the world to be a dark and empty place, and drank himself to death. Not that that makes a bad story.

Jack Vance, I've never read.

News:

Author Topic: Movies in the Theater (Read 106774 times)