Chen G.

If by reach you mean flew right over. I would say you're setting yourself up for disappointment. I'm expecting a fine film, but it should be said most concluding films fail to even be all that satisfying within the prospect of concluding their respective trilogy. But for this film - with the change of directors, Fisher's death and fan backlash - to wrap up the entire ennealogy? I would like that to happen, and I think it should, but I don't have almost any hope that its gonna.  Besides, concluding the entire ennealogy would mean a fair bit of references to the prequel trilogy (which the Disney's films did so far, but sparingly) and trying to find a throughline to that trilogy as well which is a) very tricky (especially due to Lucas' wonky continuity) and b) something that I doubt Disney will even attempt.  Its also something that, if attempted without some of the most efficient screenwriting in cinema history, would bog the film down.

I think there's a fine line between being hypocritical and being considerate to the specifics of each case.

Besides the whole "one movie" thing isn't a binary argument: it both is one and isn't. But I definitely think its more one movie than it isn't (and the same is true of The Hobbit). In a way, its better that it isn't truly one film through and through. While I'm a huge fan of this strategy as a way to construct a multi-entry narrative, there's also something to be said for ingenuity and for coming up with new solutions under duress. So doing post-production on each film separately allows for new ideas to sprout with each new film. If one is attentive enough, one could also spot differences between material from different blocks of principal photography: Block One produced much tighter photography than the other two. But on the whole its inconsequential.

That’s really cool. This should happen with other serialized live-to-projection shows, too!

I don’t think that’s the issue. It’s just the character and the way the part is acted. Not a huge issue for me (my issue is more with the subplot itself) but I can see what issues others can have with the characters.

Not to me. Feels like a culmination of what we saw in the previous film. People may not like the introduction of Arwen dying but, contrived or not, it: a) isn’t an editorial choice but a screenwriting one and b) pushes the story and characters forward, so who cares? And really, you’re going to consider the film the least well edited based on the handling of its briefest subplot - maybe ten minutes in a four hour movie? To me, the worst editing choice in the entire sextet is in The Two Towers: the Battle of Helm’s Deep begins, and suddenly we cut...to a quiet scene with Treebeard. Return of the King is also the least egregious when it comes to fake deaths of characters, whether it’s visual or editorial. It happens at least seven times in Fellowship of the Ring, and three or four in The Two Towers (and once or twice in An Unexpected Journey).

Absolutely false. That film won best editing for a reason: even though it’s the longest, it has the shortest first act; the least nonlinearity/flashbacks; It’s finale comes down to two subplots rather than three as in The Two Towers, and the intercutting of the two is a work of art. There’s better juxtaposition between scenes: I love that it cuts from Merry and Pippin’s friendship (when Pippin finds Merry on the battlefield) to a sequence that culminates in reaffirming Frodo and Sam’s friendship, and later the same happens again when we cut from Gimli and Legolas’ friendship (“aye, I could do that”) to the ultimate culmination of San and Frodo’s relationship. There are even more impressive transitions: when Frodo is rescued from Mount Doom we essentially crossfade from the background of Mordor to that of his room in Minas Tirith, with Frodo’s head staying in the same spot. Really, all this “pick the best out of the three” business is silly when it comes to The Lord of the Rings, because it’s essentially one film in three parts.

It’s okay. afterwards it just went as far downhill as sequels can go.

It’s not hollow. Its a very nice gesture to Gunn, I think.

Tolkien wrote two letters on the matter. One more general, to his publisher; the other, more thorough, to the screenwriter, Zimmerman. I believe the script Tolkien commented upon wasn’t a finished script but a story treatment, at best. He was also sent concept art. Generally, his issues were with contrivance (namely, the eagles being featured much more prominently) and with aesthetic. On the one hand, the very foundation to Tolkien’s work was predicated upon the Elves being viewed as being of great stature, intelligence and morals, rather than as fairies - and yet some of Zimmerman’s descriptions were evocative of fairies. On the other, Tolkien astutely abjected to the idea of elaborating on the machanics of his world with pseudo-science. He also had some more specific issues, a few of which may hold true to the Jackson films: he basically wanted the Ringwraiths to have no physical power prior to the Battle of Pelennor, which wouldn’t have worked for a film at all. So he wouldn’t quite approve of the fight on Weathertop. On the other hand, he would have approved of the production design. He clearly wanted a strong visual distinction between Rivendell and Lorien, which is what we got. He wanted the Battle of Pelennor to be very grand - which was again accomplished. But really, at the end of the day, any filmmaker approaching such a source material has to make whatever changes he sees to be necessary, regardless of the book and regardless of such correspondences, as well, where they exist.

I don’t see the need. I see technical flaws in these films, but I like them better than other films which I consider to be effectively perfect, from a technical point of view. At most, I’d edit out about a minute or so of Treebeard and Gimli from The Two Towers and shift the other pieces of the edit accordingly. There’s unused material in these films that I find interesting, but I wouldn’t add anything substantial from that to the films themselves. That’s what I like about the Extended Editions: they still are a coherent edit, not just the entire rough cut dumped on the audience. A rough cut is in no shape or form a palatable movie.

And yet still entertaining, albeit on the most rudimentary level.

Now, Jerry, that’s not fair, because Jaws > most things > Jaws 2.

That’s a fair statement. Although I don’t know that I would call Jaws a character drama outright. But it does have more dramatic elements than Jurassic Park does.

I don't like track titles with slashes, but yeah, its an unfortunate case where the best track titles were used up by the OST.

I wouldn't know about shit, but its not very good, no.

Or just don’t watch The Lovely Bones. It’s better that way.

I wouldn't say bland but it certainly is nowhere near as well-directed as the original. Its still fairly entertaining. As for predictable, I don't see what it is about the original Jurassic Park that was so mind blowingly surprising. If anything, Jurassic Park may be THE example of a movie that gets a ton of milleage out building up towards something that you KNOW is coming (i.e. Dinosaurs getting loose).

I can totally get that. JWFan will literally blow up!

No one said it was a masterwork for the ages. Its FINE.

I wouldn't put it anywhere near the original Jurassic Park, but I like The Lost World fairly well. As you put it, as a "popcorn dinosaur movie" it does its job well enough.

I like that the first half of The Battle of the Five Armies is Thorin being consumed by dragon sickness and lashing out against Bard and Thranduil. That's one of the interesting things about The Hobbit: those last few chapters set to undermine the formulaic adventure story that the book has been until that point. The dragon is slain, the homeland reclaimed, but there's no "happily ever after". Instead, it only opens a nest of political interests in the treasure hoard, and sends Thorin into a deranged state of mind, and the ensuing battle ends up costing the lives of three of the most prominently featured Dwarves (and, in the film, the death of the protagonist). By dwelling on this, the film really makes a point out of it. Its the antithesis of something like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 which delves into the action very quickly with little setup. Well, a second film can't just be a bridge from film one to three. It needs to have its own stuff, and the piece at Bree gives it a sense of beginning, and introduces some bits of plot that are unique to this film (the need to destroy Smaug, Thrain's fate). Its also not entirely without setup: "Thrain, Thorin's Father, was driven mad by grief" - cut to Thorin, the lines clearly weighing on him, "he went missing - taken prisoner or killed - we did not know." I generally like the lack of linearity in this series. Think about The Fellowship of the Ring: we return to the prologue three or four times and every time we learn a new bit of information about what happened there, and how it affects the plot currently. The first act is so short anyway (under 30 minutes out of a three-hour movie) that I don't mind. Its not an action opening but its got a lot of atmosphere to it: it opens with rumbling sound effects over black, and continues with a couple of long takes following Thorin, etc..

Repeadetly. You got it almost right. Fixed it for y'a. No charge. Rather, The Patriot is an American, modern version of Braveheart. The main difference being that the execution of the narrative Braveheart is significantly stronger; Namely, the use of humor offsets a lot of the cheesy elements of old-school epics, in a way that it doesn't in The Patriot.

Of course, the drafts of the script evolve greatly from the interaction with the director and producer (and Spielberg tends to occupy both positions). And there are stuff that a director will add to the script and stuff that will be removed in the edit, etc...

No. Both adaptations.