Nick1Ø66

Runner-up for me after Oppenheimer would be The Holdovers, which was fantastic. A real return to form for Payne, and Giammati was simply excellent. I think I'll need to watch this again next. The only other best pic nominees I saw were Past Lives (which I quite liked) and Killers of the Flower Moon (which was...OK).

I just watched Oppenheimer again a few days ago. I liked it even better the second time. Simply a phenomenal film, and I'm starting to think it may be Nolan's best work. Really a remarkable achievement in movie making. IMO it was the best film of the year, and deserves to win Best Picture/Director (and will).

Got that beat. I'd have done it at home watching a movie I downloaded for free.

IMAX Karen!!!

It takes one to know one! Yes. Of all the souls I have encountered in my reading of Dune, hers in the most...human.

Jessica? Chani? A worrying mother and a teenage girl? Anyone else here like me and fully relate to Paul? Especially in the next film.

Along with Casablanca, probably my favourite as well. TTT & ROTK are also phenomenal, of course. But damn...The Fellowship of the Ring to me is about as close to perfection as a film can get.

Yep. I liked the first one as well! Likeable characters, fun, didn't take itself too seriously, and had just the right amount of callbacks without being obnoxious...more 'homage' than strict fan service. I actually think it's the best since the original JP.

I'm quite pleased with how spectacularly Dune is doing, critically and commercially! Not just because I like the film (and the first one), and want to see more, but it's incredibly gratifying to see a cerebral, expertly crafted science fiction film doing so well. Especially one that makes intelligent use of CGI, made by people who seem to have passion and care about what they're doing. This isn't assembly-line filmmaking, and it's nice to see a genre film that doesn't involve Superheroes and people getting slammed into walls at the top of the box office. A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one. Hopefully this bodes well for the future, not just for Dune but for cinema in general.

What do you think of Mortenson's comments, Jay?

Fixed.

For me personally, it's the most visceral war film I've ever seen. I don't think I could watch it again.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but pretty much all OSTs in this century are now heavily edited.

It's really a pity WB didn't have the courage and foresight to just let Villeneuve film both parts simultaneously (assuming it was their, not his, choice). Messiah is going to be its own thing, by necessity. It's been years since I read the book, but as I recall there's a decade+ jump in time, and the universe and characters are in a completely different place. Maybe if you chopped up all three films into a miniseries for HBOMAX (which they'll probably do at some point) it could play as a single piece, but otherwise it will definitely feel more like a traditional sequel. Which, after all, is what it is, as both film and literature.

I don't think Viggo is approaching this the same way your typical Hollywood actor is (i.e. it's all about me). If that were the case, he'd probably name Return of the King as his favourite. The guy is a thoughtful artist, and I think his comments reflect that. And I'd submit that he's more (not less) qualified to comment on this subject than any of us here. While I love the second two films dearly, I pretty much agree with him (especially with regard to The Hobbit). And he's not slamming TTT & ROTK...he's just saying the subtlety and organic quality of the first film was gradually lost. I don't think this is an unfair assessment. I actually detect it less with Dune. I don't see as significant a shift in sensibility between Part I & Part II as FOTR and its sequels, despite the latter being mostly filmed simultaneously (films are made in the edit).

Yeah. I think Villeneuve would certainly have been mindful of what worked and what didn't work in the first part, and this undoubtedly lead to tweaking whatever he had planned for the second. Still, I think both parts could be edited together into one massive film, and it would mostly play as such (though some characters, such as the Emperor and Feyd, would probably be introduced earlier). But the third film? No. That will clearly be a different, separate thing. I frankly think this occurred to a lesser extent on The Lord of the Rings as well. While the films were shot simultaneously, it's pretty clear to me that Jackson made editing decisions for the second two films based on what worked before. In other words, had all three films not only been shot simultaneously, but also edited and ultimately released at the same time, the second two films, particularly ROTK, would have played out differently, and perhaps significantly so (no doubt to Viggo Mortenson's approval).

Sure. And if you're talking about "leaks/spoilers", you had some of that with Lord of the Rings. What will Aragorn be like? How will Faramir be portrayed? Turns out, Aragorn was portrayed as a reluctant heir to the throne and Faramir was human after all and tempted by the Ring. Merry and Pippin were comic relief, and Arwen's role was expanded. So, sure, those would have been spoilers had they leaked early (and some did). Here's the thing though...since Lord of the Rings ended up being a mostly faithful adaptation, that more or less followed the novel beat by beat (and very effectively) it was easy once the film came out, to forgive things like that which are necessary in adaptation. Jackson & Co. (especially in LOTR) established a lot of credibility early on with their faithfulness to the books, which allowed them to deviate when necessary. And aside from a few grumpy purists, most Tolkien fans not only accepted by embraced many of the changes. So I guess in one way WotR has an advantage in that they can pretty much make up anything they wish since we know almost nothing about these characters, and they're at a disadvantage in that they can pretty much make up anything they wish since we know almost nothing about these characters. Since I haven't followed the leaks on this film closely, the only one I think I can safely speculate is the portrayal of Saruman, which I think will be much like he was portrayed in The Hobbit...more or less on the "right" side of things and wanting to preserve a certain sense peace and order in Middle-Earth, but with Machiavellian tendencies and a hint of darkness. Do we know which voice actor will be doing an impression of Christopher Lee? As for Eowyn, given the scant material regarding the battle itself, my guess is we'll be hearing the voice of an older Eowyn, after she's settled in Ithilien and had a son, so, via her narration, they can hint at some of what audiences don't know about her, Faramir and Rohan post-ROTK. Meaning, I don't think it will be an impersonal narration, rather I think they'll almost try to make her an omniscient character in her own right throughout. The one thing I can guarantee is that the "Women of this kingdom..." bit will be in there somewhere, if not among her opening lines.

Ironically, the fact that there could be plot-based "spoilers" to leak about RoP and WotR at all just underscores how much fan-fiction they really are. If it were truly an adaptation (like Lord of the Rings), we'd already pretty much know the whole plot, who the characters are, what they do and when, etc. I mean, just the "Premise" section of the WotR Wiki entry pretty much sums up everything Tolkien wrote about it (kidding of course, but not by much).

Indeed. My sources tell me that Helm Hammerhand's hammer will Feel free to post (anonymously, of course).

Nothing can dampen your spirits Chen. I admire your hope (even if it remains a fool's hope). BTW, what's this I read about Fellowship of Fans getting played with disinformation?

I don't doubt for a moment mother Boyens in-depth knowledge and insight into Middle-Earth. But having that expertise alone doesn't for a good screenplay, or film, make. The show runners of Rings of Power seem to know and love their Tolkien fairly well, and even if they didn't, they had plenty of experts to call upon. They said all the right things and made all the right references before the show aired to calm people down. And that show is a disaster. I mean, I like to think I know Middle-Earth pretty well, but I wouldn't write fan-fiction and call it Tolkien. And frankly, I didn't see anything in that interview that leads me to believe that the two kids actually writing the film share Philippa's knowledge of Tolkien. They listed as their credentials liking anime, growing up around the corner WETA and watching the movies once a year. And if Boyens can lend her expertise to her kid, why couldn't she do it for the original screenwriters? Obviously, that's a rhetorical question, but you'll forgive me if I'm sceptical. To adapt something, you must first have something to adapt. When you strip it down, what we're getting is basically an original animated film, written by two green screenwriters, set in Middle-Earth, using a few names and an event Tolkien once referenced. At best, the film, like the series, is "Inspired by characters and situations created by J.R.R. Tolkien".

So why are Addiss and Matthews no longer on the project?

Well I made the mistake of venturing to TORN and listening to an interview with the "fresh-faced" writers of this film and....well I'm not filled with hope. Looks like we're going to get another project that's 95% fan fiction written by two people with very little life experience and almost zero significant writing experience, especially at this level. One of which is a nepo baby. But we're told not to worry because they grew up loving anime. Oh, and because Alan Lee and John Howe are involved. One can only hope Boyens is actually writing this thing herself and just helping get her daughter a major screen credit (which has been known to happen). But I'm starting to get the same feeling I had early on about Rings of Power.