I just saw it. I thought Peter Jackson took some liberties as he usually does, but in this case it worked very well. Tolkein was a brilliant professor and devout Catholic. Some of the images he weaves into his stories are not easy to see, but I think Jackson found a brilliant way to interpret what he was saying. This was a brilliant movie. I'm still not sure how he's going to get 2 movies out of what is left, but this first installation was absolutely brilliant.
(12-23-2012, 02:43 PM)Makc_RU Wrote: 1. Once your get a degree in Visual Arts or direct your own movie, then you will earn the right to say what to cut and what not to cut.
I work in the arts. Maybe the work being created by the people I work with is for a minority audience... But the truth of the whole thing, is that the audience's perception of your work matters. If they all think it is crap and nobody goes to see it, then people like me suddenly have no income.
Audience no likey, I no eat.
The audience has the right to cast whatever criticism they freakin' want to. The "problem" with any art, is that once you make it public, you will get criticism for it from people regardless of whether you believe them to be qualified to cast it.
(12-23-2012, 02:43 PM)Makc_RU Wrote: 2. This is the beginning, so it has to have some background, some story telling, it can't be all action-sword-wielding-orc-killing movie.
I agree with this. Also, I enjoyed the first hour of the film.
Jihad, you have to look at it from another perspective. Imagine how good of imagination you need to have to make a movie out of the book? Books are always better because:
- We use our own imagine when reading them, thus not relying on director's point of view
- It is hard to put a lot of details that books have into a movie
I think you work with visual effects, if my memory is correct. Imagine if you are invited to a major party event, 20-50 DJ, you work your ass off on lightning, laser shows, fogs,etc and an idiot like me comes in at says: I think everything sucked, lasers must die, lightnings was terrible, etc, etc and the critic himself/herself does not know jack about how to set it up. That is what bothered me and why I wrote such a straight forward response.
I strongly think that instead of saying the movie sucked and should be cut, or whatnot, why not say: Well, the first part seemed boring to me and in my opinion it should've had more action and less lore.
User was banned for: banned pending staff discussions
Time left: (Permanent)
Liked the movie. Not as good as LotR but still.
First hour is fine. If you read Tolkien you'd know that songs and stuff are present there too, not just killing orcs.
Quote:"Cloud Atlas" was also three hours long. And I don't see any problems about that.
Cloud Atlas was too short, i think. So many storylines in just 3 hours.. meh.
It's been quite some time since I have read the book, but I felt it was fairly detailed and any 'liberties' seemed ok. Wasn't too happy with that imagining of Radagast, but overall good.
As a film itself, it looked amazing but was kind of hard to watch with the double frame rate.
I enjoyed it and am looking forward to the other two parts. Not as good as LOTR though.
![[Image: vJQQbhu.png]](http://i.imgur.com/vJQQbhu.png)
![[Image: 2zrfioi.png]](http://i40.tinypic.com/2zrfioi.png)
![[Image: DramaticExit.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/DramaticExit.gif)
