Upcoming Films

[Jay 46,245]

Finally watched the trailer for Hunger Games 2

Looks WAY better than the first movie!

[KK 3,313]

Indeed. Posted my thoughts earlier in the last page.

[Jay 46,245]

yea, you and alexcremers both posted links to the trailer before, but neither of them worked. I finally found one that worked last night and watched it and enjoyed the trailer. Thank god it's just not another game, they are actually going somewhere interesting with the story. I hope it's good.

[KK 3,313]

With Philip Seymour Hoffman in it too, I think this film might have a lot more substance than the last one. And maybe none of that ridiculous shaky cam too.

[Jay 46,245]

My biggest problem with the first film was the way it was directed, so I'm glad they are switching directors for this one.... and someone at Lionsgate must have liked what he did for Catching Fire, since he's directing both parts of Mockingjay as well

[BloodBoal 8,711]

(and the final 2 films have another new director as well)

What? They're gonna split the third book into two films?

[KK 3,313]

Where have you been all this time? That's the latest thing with franchises...

[Jay 46,245]

Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games all had their final book split into two films when none of the prior films did and the final book wasn't substantially longer than the others.

[KK 3,313]

Don't forget The Hobbit, although you could argue that's a bit of a different situation.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Don't forget The Hobbit, although you could argue that's a bit of a different situation.

not really, the Hobbit should have been one film, no reason to spit it into 2 let alone 3.

[Jay 46,245]

It's all done because of money and not artistic reasons

[BloodBoal 8,711]

[JoeinAR 1,957]

Artistically it can be successful, and it's great for the uber fans, but it's not for the casual fan.

[KK 3,313]

Well given the content of the novel and the appendices, I actually can't see it as one film without everything seeming a bit shallow and exhausting. It'd just be too much for one film. So I think 2 films makes perfect sense.

3 on the other hand is pushing it. But again, having watched the first film, if they had THAT much filmed content, then I can see why it must have been hard to squeeze that into two films. Unfortunately, there was a lot of useless stuff in there.

If Jackson kept the content on a tighter leash, 2 films could have been perfect for the The Hobbit.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

that's because you guys are uber geeks for it. see your avatars if you disagree,

Artistically the Hobbit is a short enough book to be one film, not everything has to be there. Its the same mistake that CC made with the Sorceror's Stone, not everything had to be there.

Editing is good. You guys can still have your book but you could have a quality movie rather than the incomprehensible mess that is the Hobbit part 1.

[KK 3,313]

The thing is there are a lot of iconic scenes in the book that are ``must-haves`` in any adaptation of the novel (ex. troll scene, Riddles in the dark, Beorn, Mirkwood, battle of the five armies) regardless of whether its for the ``uber-geeks`` or the casual viewers. All those action sequences would have been far too exhausting for one film and would frankly diminish the impact of the film much more. It`d also leave little room for character development.

2 films allows for that kind of room to breathe.

3 films as I said before, is pushing it. Which is why the first film is a mess, because many of the key novel moments have been diluted by gratuitous fan-fiction/additional content to try and make it a whole film. Hopefully, with more content to work with, the remaining 2 films will be an improvement.

[Jay 46,245]

Well the first film covered the first third of the book, so I'd expect the other 2 films to have the same book adaptation to fan fiction ratio

[Quintus 6,499]

It's all done because of money and not artistic reasons

I honestly don't think I can counter that argument anymore.

[Jay 46,245]

I was referring to Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Hunger Games, not The Hobbit. I feel the jury's still out on that one.

[Quintus 6,499]

Jackson severely needs to find an editor before the next two who isn't afraid to tell him to SIT DOWN AND STFU, if my cynical head is to be convinced.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,390]

Well each LOTR film had a different editor.

[crocodile 9,724]

The thing is there are a lot of iconic scenes in the book that are ``must-haves`` in any adaptation of the novel (ex. troll scene, Riddles in the dark, Beorn, Mirkwood, battle of the five armies) regardless of whether its for the ``uber-geeks`` or the casual viewers. All those action sequences would have been far too exhausting for one film and would frankly diminish the impact of the film much more. It`d also leave little room for character development.

2 films allows for that kind of room to breathe.

3 films as I said before, is pushing it. Which is why the first film is a mess, because many of the key novel moments have been diluted by gratuitous fan-fiction/additional content to try and make it a whole film. Hopefully, with more content to work with, the remaining 2 films will be an improvement.

Apparently, it was always intended to be this part of the story, from what I remember when Del Toro was still involved.

Karol

[Once 1,084]

I was referring to Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Hunger Games, not The Hobbit. I feel the jury's still out on that one.

I don't think that's true for Harry Potter. The book made it hard to squeeze into one film without destroying the Hallows sub-plot. They did that anyway, unfortunately, but from interviews with Heyman and Steve Kloves I genuinely believe that they didn't do it for the money.

[A24 5,156]

yea, you and alexcremers both posted links to the trailer before, but neither of them worked. I finally found one that worked last night and watched it and enjoyed the trailer. Thank god it's just not another game, they are actually going somewhere interesting with the story. I hope it's good.

Indeed, but the Running Man concept is gone now.

[Jay 46,245]

They could have also turned books 4 and 6 into two films each and adapted the material a lot more faithfully, but they managed to dwiddle them down to one film a piece without having the films make no sense at all. They could have done the same for Book 7. I'm glad they didn't, though, because both parts of Deathly Hallows were entertaining films.

[Quintus 6,499]

Still haven't watched the last three.

[KK 3,313]

I found part 1 boring and Part 2 alright. Overall, I sort of lost interest in HP after the fourth film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,390]

Still haven't watched the last three.

He died in the last one!

[Jay 46,245]

All 7 Harry Potter books are great. However film wise, only the first three were sucessful, IMHO.

And only the first 2 faithfully adapted the books. Starting with Film 3, they just left SO.MUCH.OUT that was in the books that would have made the films a lot stronger, it's really frustrating, as some of the things not mentioned would have taken 10 seconds to include.

Harry Potter 1 and 2 = Faithful to the books, but many find the direction "boring" (I think they are the best ones, however)

Harry Potter 3 = Less faithful to the book, cutting out an entire subplot (Ron playing Quidditch), but the fascinating directing saves it and makes it very entertaining

Harry Potter 4 is easily the worst film of the bunch, it was oddly directed, the characters all look completely different (especially their hair) and they changed things for seemingly no reason (in the book, the final maze has all kinds of exciting enemies for our heroes to face. In the film, there's some strong wind and plants that come alive. WTF?)

Then Harry Potter 5-8 were all directed by the same guy, and they all have basically the same visual style, pacing, and feel to them. There ended up being a lot more CGI than the prior films, and a lot of it was bad. They cut out huge portions of the books (especially 6) for seemingly no reason. It ended strong though.

One thing consistently good through all 8 films was the cast - they really nailed that, just about perfectly. The big bummer is that Richard Harris passed on, because Michael Gambon was nowhere NEAR as good of a Dumbledore.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

I think Michael Gambon did a fantastic job, he was as good as Harris, but Harris' look was superior.

the problem I had most with the series is they never allowed the films to be as dark as they should be but it was a creative decision. The weakest film to me is Prisoner of Azkaban. It just leaves out too much, and unlike everyone else I do not like the cinematography or look of the film, it's too sloppy. Williams music is great, much of the film is terrific, but jeez, 6 to 10 minutes more would have made a huge and satisfying difference.

[Jay 46,245]

I agree completely.

[JoeinAR 1,957]

and I could do without that last finale scene. Harry in FREEZE FRAME.

but then I'm not a million dollar director.

[Quintus 6,499]

And yet PoA is widely regarded as the best of the series, among the uninitiated, including myself.

It apparently left so much out; yet feels the most filmically complete, working just as well as an isolated fantasy adventure.

[Jay 46,245]

It's a good movie on its own, if you just go to the theater and sit down, you are definitely entertained.

if you read the books, its REALLY frustrating how many IMPORTANT things they left out, many of which would have made the subsequent films stronger.

For example: The film doesn't explain that Harry's dad, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew are the "Marauders" that made the map Harry uses - and that they were all best friends, and used the map to help sneak Lupin out to the Shrieking Shack once a month when he turned into a werewolf. Something they could have explained in 10 seconds.

[Once 1,084]

They could have also turned books 4 and 6 into two films each and adapted the material a lot more faithfully, but they managed to dwiddle them down to one film a piece without having the films make no sense at all. They could have done the same for Book 7. I'm glad they didn't, though, because both parts of Deathly Hallows were entertaining films.

By the third film they decided to cut every sub-plot not directly related to Harry. In book 7 everything is directly related to Harry (except Dumbledore's backstory, one could argue). That's why they decided to it in two films.

I'm a big fan of the books, but the only film that I think is really, really good is Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Jay 46,245]

Yea, you're definitely right about that. It's REALLY too bad they cut out all of Voldemort's backstory from Book 6, it was fascinating stuff.

[Once 1,084]

Oh, there are tons of stuff I wish they had at least shot. And with that cast. Ugh, such a waste!

[Jay 46,245]

YES, and that reminds me of the most frustrating thing. Harry Potter 1 and FOTR both came out around the same time in Nov/Dec 2001. FOTR then had a very successful Extended Edition DVD that was also successful for TTT and ROTK. Now, why IN THE WORLD did WB (Who freaking OWNS New Line) didn't think to do the same thing for the Potter franchinse BLOWS MY MIND.

Yes, their leads were child actors and that made they would never be able to film EVERYTHING but by god - they clearly had the money to spend to shoot for another month or two or three on every film, and the EEs would have sold well enough to justify the cost of the extra fliming.... why not do it?

Blows my mind.

[Once 1,084]

Besides, they have enough material to release extended edition if they wanted to spend the money on it. It wouldn't change the story much, but we know that they shot several scenes not included.

Examples are Peeves in the first film (Rik Mayall), the Ministry's attack on McGonagall and the brain room scene in OotP, additional scenes with Trelawney in PoA, Dumbledore explaining Priori Incantatem to Harry at the end of GoF and so on. And that's just the ones we know about.

[Henry B 51]

None of the directors after Chris Columbus have shown any interest in such an approach. I remember that after the marginally extended versions of SS and CoS, the directors of 3-7 were given an option to release director's cuts, but declined it. They all seemed to favor the approach of creating successful, self-contained movies rather than excerpts of a larger fantasy universe. (Were they actually successful? Maybe, maybe not.)

[Jay 46,245]

It's just frustrating that the deleted scenes on each release are only SOME of the deleted footage, and that NONE of it has been edited back in by the director/studio. it's shot - why not release it!!

[Once 1,084]

None of the directors after Chris Columbus have shown any interest in such an approach. I remember that after the marginally extended versions of SS and CoS, the directors of 3-7 were given an option to release director's cuts, but declined it. They all seemed to favor the approach of creating successful, self-contained movies rather than excerpts of a larger fantasy universe. (Were they actually successful? Maybe, maybe not.)

Chris Columbus didn't make the extended versions, they just put in the already released deleted scenes into the film. None of the 'never seen deleted scenes' were included. They just didn't want to do it with the later films, I assume because it would be hard to re-cut the stories, for example if they included Sirius breaking into the dormitory (they filmed it). It would also need newly added CGI which they apparently don't wanna pay for.

[Jay 46,245]

That's my point -the money they would have spend on finishing up the extra footage and adding more special effects, etc WOULD have paid off if they had done so around the time of the films releases. Now that we're 2 years past the last movie, it's unlikely they would sell as much as if they had done it then. Huge wasted opportunity.

[Once 1,084]

Maybe for a 20- or 50-year super deluxe celebration edition they will. I really wanted to see Mayall's Peeves!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,390]

It's just frustrating that the deleted scenes on each release are only SOME of the deleted footage, and that NONE of it has been edited back in by the director/studio. it's shot - why not release it!!

I guess all the directors were happy with what they put in and left out, and saw no reason to do a extended/directors cut.

[BloodBoal 8,711]

How do you go from this:

The Hobbit, in 2D 24fps.

*****

Nit-picks included.

to this:

It's all done because of money and not artistic reasons

I honestly don't think I can counter that argument anymore.

?

They could have also turned books 4 and 6 into two films each and adapted the material a lot more faithfully, but they managed to dwiddle them down to one film a piece without having the films make no sense at all. They could have done the same for Book 7. I'm glad they didn't, though, because both parts of Deathly Hallows were entertaining films.

No. Both Deahtly Hallows films were dull as hell.

[KK 3,313]

The Deathly Hallows subplot should never have been written!

[JoeinAR 1,957]

How do you go from this:

The Hobbit, in 2D 24fps.

*****

Nit-picks included.

to this:

>

It's all done because of money and not artistic reasons

I honestly don't think I can counter that argument anymore.

?

They could have also turned books 4 and 6 into two films each and adapted the material a lot more faithfully, but they managed to dwiddle them down to one film a piece without having the films make no sense at all. They could have done the same for Book 7. I'm glad they didn't, though, because both parts of Deathly Hallows were entertaining films.

No. Both Deahtly Hallows films were dull as hell.

You mean like the Hobbit?

[KK 3,313]

I'm curious Joey, were there any parts of The Hobbit you did like? Like the Gollum scene? Or anything else? Or was all of it just abysmal?

It's a genuine question.

[Jay 46,245]

Cue Joey saying "I liked the part when it ended, oh wait, I'm still waiting for it to finish"