Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:I sort of imagine everybody sitting around a table many years ago, right after Lord of the Rings and Pirates made Bloom so popular, smoking set piece pipes and thinking "Man, if only we could have some sort of Legolas tragic romance film. We'd make enough money to buy all the Indian homeless child organs we can eat! I could pay my ex-wife to pick my nose! We could even shut down the government if we wanted to. But, alas, we can't."

And now, suddenly, the ghost of Tom Cruise has seen fit to grant them this one chance to do exactly that...graft a purposeless and pouty little mini-movie onto the scarred, borrowed heart of their previously too-sparse woopsidaisy.

These people aren't stupid. They hurried right over, pulled the scriptwriters off of whatever crying Fillipino girls they were on top of at the moment, slapped their backs, and said, "Son, we're gonna need you to OH MY GOD WHAT WERE YOU DOING TO HER SHE'S-"

That's sort of where my imagination fades to black. But the gist is still there.

You wrote this in Word before you posted it, didn't you.

harmless wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I sort of imagine everybody sitting around a table many years ago, right after Lord of the Rings and Pirates made Bloom so popular, smoking set piece pipes and thinking "Man, if only we could have some sort of Legolas tragic romance film. We'd make enough money to buy all the Indian homeless child organs we can eat! I could pay my ex-wife to pick my nose! We could even shut down the government if we wanted to. But, alas, we can't."

And now, suddenly, the ghost of Tom Cruise has seen fit to grant them this one chance to do exactly that...graft a purposeless and pouty little mini-movie onto the scarred, borrowed heart of their previously too-sparse woopsidaisy.

These people aren't stupid. They hurried right over, pulled the scriptwriters off of whatever crying Fillipino girls they were on top of at the moment, slapped their backs, and said, "Son, we're gonna need you to OH MY GOD WHAT WERE YOU DOING TO HER SHE'S-"

That's sort of where my imagination fades to black. But the gist is still there.

You wrote this in Word before you posted it, didn't you.

No. Doesn't it say that I edited it once? I forgot some commas.

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I was gonna answer that in binary, McP.
Then I realised you'd probably be able to read it and suddenly it wouldn't be funny.

I reach pretty deep into autism territory, to be frank. Not a whole lot of what any of you say makes an impact.

Gee. Thanks a lot.

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I've a feeling DOS will be kick ass.

I was always a fan of dir/p

dimejinky99 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I was gonna answer that in binary, McP.
Then I realised you'd probably be able to read it and suddenly it wouldn't be funny.

I reach pretty deep into autism territory, to be frank. Not a whole lot of what any of you say makes an impact.

Gee. Thanks a lot.

Yeah. Like that. Good example.

I was always a fan of dir/p

This sent a weird shiver of revulsion through me, though.

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I was gonna answer that in binary, McP.
Then I realised you'd probably be able to read it and suddenly it wouldn't be funny.

I reach pretty deep into autism territory, to be frank. Not a whole lot of what any of you say makes an impact.

Gee. Thanks a lot.

Yeah. Like that. Good example.

I was always a fan of dir/p

This sent a weird shiver of revulsion through me, though.

Just tap the keyboard and you'll get through it.

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I was gonna answer that in binary, McP.
Then I realised you'd probably be able to read it and suddenly it wouldn't be funny.

I reach pretty deep into autism territory, to be frank. Not a whole lot of what any of you say makes an impact.

Gee. Thanks a lot.

Yeah. Like that. Good example.

I was always a fan of dir/p

This sent a weird shiver of revulsion through me, though.

No idea what you're getting at but thanks.

I thought that looked good. A lot more exciting. The legolas subplot doesn't need to be there, but if it is executed well I won't care. The rest of it seems like lore, even if it isn't actually in the hobbit. But I don't care. He's not really telling the hobbit. He is telling the prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I was gonna answer that in binary, McP.
Then I realised you'd probably be able to read it and suddenly it wouldn't be funny.

I reach pretty deep into autism territory, to be frank. Not a whole lot of what any of you say makes an impact.

Gee. Thanks a lot.

Yeah. Like that. Good example.

I was always a fan of dir/p

This sent a weird shiver of revulsion through me, though.

I still use DOS all the time.

I feel like they read one of the sites detailing all the similarities between the first Hobbit and the Star Wars prequels, and felt like there needed to be more of that.

"Well what did they do that we could do more of?"

"Inject known characters into historical events without precedence or reason? Events that, one would think, might have come up during or influenced their behavior over the course of the movies we already made?"

"Yeah, okay. That's pretty good. What else?"

"More....politicking?"

"Definitely!!!"

*high five*

McParadigm wrote:I feel like they read one of the sites detailing all the similarities between the first Hobbit and the Star Wars prequels, and felt like there needed to be more of that.

"Well what did they do that we could do more of?"

"Inject known characters into historical events without precedence or reason? Events that, one would think, might have come up during or influenced their behavior over the course of the movies we already made?"

"Yeah, okay. That's pretty good. What else?"

"More....politicking?"

"Definitely!!!"

*high five*

fair critiques if this stuff is done terribly (as it was in the star wars movies). But legolas WAS in the woods at that time, and the political stuff might:

A: make sense
B: be more appropriate since the politics in that world really comes down to the whim of the leaders
C: the help/snubbing of the elves helps define some of the characterization of the dwarves.


Again, it could be shit, in which case why add it, but it might be enjoyable to watch. All of this is complicated by the huge backstory material they are drawing on. I don't know what is lore and what isn't.


But, like I said before, I actually don't think the hobbit story is all that great as is, and so some of the stuff they add to it might make it more compelling. If the elves and the orcs having a war makes for some entertaining eye candy I'd rather it be there.

IF it is done well.

stip wrote:fair critiques if this stuff is done terribly (as it was in the star wars movies). But legolas WAS in the woods at that time, and the political stuff might:

A: make sense
B: be more appropriate since the politics in that world really comes down to the whim of the leaders
C: the help/snubbing of the elves helps define some of the characterization of the dwarves.

I won't say it might not work. But seeing as how the last movie was such a huuuuuge step down from the Lord of the Rings movies, as Phantom Menace was a huuuuuge step down from the original trilogy, I don't see a lot of reason to assume that suddenly they're going to refind their mojo.

Again, it could be shit, in which case why add it, but it might be enjoyable to watch.

Just in terms of telling the best possible story, the addition ought to justify itself from jump....not simply because it was a well done irrelevancy.

If they can't make it feel natural and integral to the story they're telling, it shouldn't be there.

But, like I said before, I actually don't think the hobbit story is all that great as is

I won't argue with that at all. It might have made for a really good three hour film, I think, if they'd focused on cutting rather than adding. But there was just sooooo much money at stake....

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:fair critiques if this stuff is done terribly (as it was in the star wars movies). But legolas WAS in the woods at that time, and the political stuff might:

A: make sense
B: be more appropriate since the politics in that world really comes down to the whim of the leaders
C: the help/snubbing of the elves helps define some of the characterization of the dwarves.

I won't say it might not work. But seeing as how the last movie was such a huuuuuge step down from the Lord of the Rings movies, as Phantom Menace was a huuuuuge step down from the original trilogy, I don't see a lot of reason to assume that suddenly they're going to refind their mojo.

Yeah, could be. It's a worry. But flashes of the hobbit had that old magic, and so I am choosing to believe that the limitations of the hobbit reflect problems with the source material (the part of the story they had to work with), and that as more stuff happens the films will improve. If number 2 also kinda sucks it'll be hard to hold out hope for 3.


Acutally, I was disappointed in the Hobbit, esp. given the expectations I had going in, but I enjoyed myself watching the movie. I have no regrets that I saw it. Although I've watched it 2 times since it came out on DVD and the second time it definitely felt like I was watching it because I'm supposed to love it. If 2 is bad I'll still see 3, but maybe just once.

McParadigm wrote:

Again, it could be shit, in which case why add it, but it might be enjoyable to watch.

Just in terms of telling the best possible story, the addition ought to justify itself from jump....not simply because it was a well done irrelevancy.

If they can't make it feel natural and integral to the story they're telling, it shouldn't be there.

Given the nature of this story, and the scope of it, and tolkien's writing/source material in general, I'm not sure natural and integral are the standards to use for this film. The whole world is bursting at the seams with bloat.

McParadigm wrote:

But, like I said before, I actually don't think the hobbit story is all that great as is

I won't argue with that at all. It might have made for a really good three hour film, I think, if they'd focused on cutting rather than adding. But there was just sooooo much money at stake....

I agree in theory (waiting for the execution). Since gandalf remains the best parts of these films if the necromancer story pays off I'll be glad for the addition. Otherwise yeah. one long movie would have been better.

I THINK i read somewhere that these things are so expensive to make that the studio kinda needs 3 just to turn a profit. That it is survival as much as greed. (that may be what you meant by the money). I wonder if that was re: LOTR.

I don't mind the cash grab idea of making it tree instead of one film, the problem is, PJ is rumoured to have been under all kinds of pressure to make these as blockbuster as possible and get in those people that just won't go see films of this type. I didn't believe it initially but watching those trailers it seems he's definitely tied the line and appeased the established fanbase by using the smoke screen of 'we've expanded the story using material from the appendices in order to try tell the whole story and portray all the events of the time'

I'm ok with that if I get to see things I've wondered about like just how did Galadriel and the white council expel the necromancer/Sauron? The white council dot have the military back up to do this so it must come down to pure big kick ass elven magic. That, I'd love to see.

But there's a shot in the trailer that looks directly lifted from LOTR of millions of Orcs marching so I guess it'll be a regular old battle. This suggests another change cos as I've already pointed out, none of the white council have the physical man power to fight such a battle. Even though Nike if the elves have left middle earth yet, it's still not possible in terms of numbers and its not a fight they'd take in anyways so it must come down to a big laser show with the heads of the white council and Gandalf particularly.

I'm rambling. Sorry. I want these to be awesome and the first one hasn't inspired any confidence at all

I remember about 30 minutes into seeing Fellowship for the first time my eyes teared up a little bit with joy, relief, and awe--with the realization that 'holy shit, they're going to pull it off'. Certainly nothing in the hobbit made me feel that way--but there are still moments that were great (unlike the star wars prequels, which lacked those entirely for three films). So here's hoping that those moments come to the fore.

I don't know why but I really think this second one will pull it out of the bag in a big way. We get Smaug. And in fairness to dumberbatch, he sounds perfect. And it's all about the voice I don't really care what the dragon looks like.

We'll come to the meat of the matter with this one. It's gonna be really hard to screw it up.
But I'm somehow still not confident completely, that the dragging of it into explosions chases and in effect dumbing it down by blowing it up, isn't going to ruin it.

dimejinky99 wrote:I don't mind the cash grab idea of making it tree instead of one film, the problem is, PJ is rumoured to have been under all kinds of pressure to make these as blockbuster as possible and get in those people that just won't go see films of this type.

That's really weird, because part of what made the LotR movies so influential was that they establish that people WOULD go see those types of films. They made bank like mad, and the result was that summer movies started incorporating a lot of imagery that would previously have resulted in stupid amounts of Dungeons and Dragons jokes, and emphasizing size and scope in more great big wide shots (that's about all you ever really expect Hollywood to glean from the success of a good movie).

This stuff (the last movie and, it seems, this one) seems like it opts for the more failed LotR-lite you saw in movies like Snow White and the Huntsman or Jack the Giant Slayer, rather than capitalizing on the facets that made the original movies so strong. There's also something about the CGI in these films that always reminds me of the way big action sequences are handled in the Avengers series, which isn't particularly flattering to this universe.

stip wrote:I remember about 30 minutes into seeing Fellowship for the first time my eyes teared up a little bit with joy, relief, and awe--with the realization that 'holy shit, they're going to pull it off'.

I had no opinion going in to that one. I'd read the books twice and never come away giving a fart (in fact, I remembered very little), and I had no intentions of seeing the Fellowship until friends started ranting about it to me. I can vividly remember sitting in the theater and seeing the opening sequence of that movie for the first time. I can't say stuff like that about very many movies.

Certainly nothing in the hobbit made me feel that way--but there are still moments that were great (unlike the star wars prequels, which lacked those entirely for three films). So here's hoping that those moments come to the fore.

The whole scene where Jar Jar rides his rabbit sleigh in a purposeless circle around the heroes, who never quite figure out what to do about that incredibly vexing scenario, and then it turns out they were like fifteen feet from the Elven city the whole time and all they had to do was crawl in this cave which turns out not to be a cave but sort of a cliff face but you couldn't see that from above so that's kind of weird.

That was pretty much Phantom Menace level for me.

McParadigm wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:I don't mind the cash grab idea of making it tree instead of one film, the problem is, PJ is rumoured to have been under all kinds of pressure to make these as blockbuster as possible and get in those people that just won't go see films of this type.

That's really weird, because part of what made the LotR movies so influential was that they establish that people WOULD go see those types of films. They made bank like mad, and the result was that summer movies started incorporating a lot of imagery that would previously have resulted in stupid amounts of Dungeons and Dragons jokes, and emphasizing size and scope in more great big wide shots (that's about all you ever really expect Hollywood to glean from the success of a good movie).

This stuff (the last movie and, it seems, this one) seems like it opts for the more failed LotR-lite you saw in movies like Snow White and the Huntsman or Jack the Giant Slayer, rather than capitalizing on the facets that made the original movies so strong. There's also something about the CGI in these films that always reminds me of the way big action sequences are handled in the Avengers series, which isn't particularly flattering to this universe.

I dunno how much you know about the business side of this McP but here's what I know
-Warners/MGM were both about to go under buy owning the rights to the hobbit since the 40s/50s decided that after the success of LOTR, this was their cash cow lifeboat
-costs have been cut in as far as possible. Hence all the cgi rather than full scale sets and extras (they didn't even make any if the bigatures which were the stars of the show in LOTR)
-most of that clipped cash is going into promotion for the releases
-PJ was very sternly supervised with regards how the story was food and what would feature, again, to get as many seats filled as possible.

So overall this is a gigantic cash grab. We knew that. We can only hope Jackson makes it a worthwhile and does what he can to make it worthwhile and honour the story. He has a huge mountain to climb.


I just wish PJ et al had made the hobbit first and moved onto LOTR now.