Nick1Ø66

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.

Yes I'm sure the whole thing simply breathtaking.

I can't Thumbs Up your comments about Ms. Marvel. However, since I always enjoy your posts, I've decided to highlight the parts of your review I agree with.

Every season has been a “save the Universe” mystery box retread, and by looks of it (see :36 in the trailer), season 5 literally looks like it features a mystery box.

Right. The MCU is a well-oiled machine. Their "studio system" for churning out these films (mostly) worked through Endgame. Sony really hasn't been able to replicate that with Spider-Man. Nor has LucasFilm with Star Wars or WB with either their DCU or the so-called (and aborted) Monsterverse. I guess we can chalk to the "it's not as easy as it looks" department. That said, I don't even know if Clarkson had a "vision" for the film to be ruined by the studio in the first place? I dunno. You either need a great director or a studio head that knows what they're doing. Something tells me there was never a good Madame Web to begin with.

Oh, I don't necessarily think she's to blame for whatever technical failures plagued the film. At the same time, let's not give her too much credit for how technically proficient the TV episodes she directed were either. It's recognized that once you get to post, especially on a film like this (and certainly on TV shows), such things are typically out of the director's hands, especially one with little clout like Clarkson. I don't doubt that she's a competent director. That said, even if the film had no technical problems, it still wouldn't have been good film. Let's put it this way...there are plenty of movies that are technically superior but suck. Conversely, if a film is otherwise great, it's easy to overlook technical issues. Madame Web failed on all levels and there's plenty of blame to go around, and that includes the director. I just think it's lazy to throw the blame on "studio interference".

I think the “studio interference” excuse is getting a little played. The studio interferes on all these films. As far as I know WB is the only studio that leaves their directors alone in superhero movies…and only well established directors at that. So yeah, if you’re a director signing up for a franchise film, particularly one involving Disney or Sony, you know what you’re signing up for. Every director of these films has to deal with studio interference. If your vision and gravitas isn’t strong enough to overcome that, that’s on you. And let’s remember one of the reasons these inexperienced directors are chosen in the first place is because the studio wants someone they can control. What, Disney or Sony is supposed to give the keys to the kingdom to someone who directed a few episodes of Gilmore Girls and say “have at it”? The MCU wouldn’t be what it’s been if not for studio interference. Sometimes having inexperienced (or TV) directors works out (e.g. the Russos), sometimes it doesn’t (e.g. Taylor, Clarkson, DaCosta). But the studio interferes in most cases either way. However when a film from a franchise we love is great, it's the director who is praised, but when it fails, the old “studio interference” excuse is trotted out. I’m not saying meddling executives can’t ruin a movie. They certainly can and have. But sorry, there’s no good version of Madame Web in there. And I’m not defending the studio system and this approach. However for good and bad, it is what it is. The MCU films work together in the way they do for a reason. If you like their consistency, understand it's a product of a system.

There should be a "feels like" run time for movies, kind of like with the weather. No Time to Die (2021) Run time: 163 minutes Feels Like: 4.5 hours

Yeah, potentially excellent news for those who still collect physical media. It should mean that more Disney catalogue titles get released on disc, and hopefully also means existing titles that are only on DVD & HD get an upgrade to UHD. Sony is just better equipped to manufacture & distribute physical media than Disney, and if it's more cost-effective to do so, more titles should see the light of day.