Jump to content

The Old Moviefile Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

171 replies to this topic

#1

Strega

Strega

Posted Apr 8, 2008 @ 7:30 PM

Discuss news (or "news") about movies at the production, pre-production, or pre-glimmer-of-an-idea stages.

#2

samsnee

samsnee

    Stalker

Posted Apr 9, 2008 @ 6:32 PM

Do we really need a Cars 2? Didn't we really say all we needed to say with the first one?

#3

psychofarmboy

psychofarmboy

    Just Tuned In

Posted Apr 10, 2008 @ 1:25 PM

Let's nip this 3D thing in the bud. I, too, cannot see 3D, at least not with those new-style 3D glasses Disney uses. Can we form a support group or something?

#4

VersesBatman

VersesBatman

    Stalker

Posted Apr 10, 2008 @ 1:30 PM

Do we really need a Cars 2? Didn't we really say all we needed to say with the first one?

I thought Pixar was above churning out sequels.

#5

caia1970

caia1970

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 10, 2008 @ 2:21 PM

Toy Story 2? Which was just as good as the first one so I have no problems with Pixar doing sequels. Cars was not a particular favourite though, I'd much rather have a sequel to The Incredibles. (Except maybe if it were 'The Adventures of Guido and Luigi in Italia!' I'd love that.)

#6

Vermicious Knid

Vermicious Knid

    Stalker

Posted Apr 10, 2008 @ 3:19 PM

I personally am looking forward to Wall-E, this summer's entry. I read a report of the first third of the movie and there's no dialogue, at all. It sounds like a return to the classic Pixar of Luxo Jr where so much emotion was conveyed through motion alone. This will also feature the first live action person in a Pixar feature, which I'm a little afraid of.

Didn't love Cars, which might be because I'm not a NASCAR fan. I saw it on DVD and happily ff-ed through the racing parts.

#7

Imperatrix

Imperatrix

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 10, 2008 @ 3:25 PM

No, we do not need Cars 2, since Cars is already an animated rehash of Doc Hollywood.

#8

dchmello

dchmello

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 11, 2008 @ 5:17 PM

What do y'all think about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows being split into two films? I think it's a silly idea. Every other Potter book has been reasonably edited into one flick (none as good as the books, but considering the medium the movies have been fine so far).

#9

AimingforYoko

AimingforYoko

    Stalker

  • Gender:Male

Posted Apr 11, 2008 @ 5:50 PM

What do y'all think about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows being split into two films? I think it's a silly idea.

Studio Head: "Hmmm, we have this massively profitable movie franchise, but the series is coming to an end. I know, we'll split the finale into two movies! Double the ticket sales, double the DVD sales."

#10

Geeni

Geeni

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Apr 11, 2008 @ 6:42 PM

What do y'all think about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows being split into two films? I think it's a silly idea.


I totally agree. Three-quarters of the book was the trio angsty!camping, and the filmmakers could easily cut half, if not most, of that out. "The Order of the Phoenix" film was the one that should've been split into two. Instead, the best/longest book was the worst/shortest film.

#11

ShadowyMoon

ShadowyMoon

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 11, 2008 @ 6:52 PM

I agree with the two commenters above. It seems like nothing more than a way for WB to squeeze more money out of an ending franchise, and I am concerned that the first movie will be very much like the first half of the book - little more than an interminable camping trip. Although, if the second movie is going to give Fred, Tonks and Remus's deaths (spoilered just to be on the safe side) the attention they didn't get and deserved in the book, then I'll get over my reservations.

#12

Silentforce

Silentforce

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 12, 2008 @ 6:24 AM

I can see them splitting it in two but wish they would have had the forsight to do this earlier and they could have introduced the Bill/Fleur coupling and used that for the wedding...some people think the wedding scene will be changed to Remus/Tonks. Anyway, I have no complaints if it means more Harry Potter scenes in total.

#13

kathrynann

kathrynann

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 12, 2008 @ 11:46 AM

I'm actually happy about them splitting Deathly Hallows in two. I think there's enough story for it, and I would have hated to see it crammed into an hour and a half like Order of the Phoenix.

On the other hand I read somewhere that The Hobbit is being split into two movies and that does seem like just a blatant attempt to double the profits.

#14

VersesBatman

VersesBatman

    Stalker

Posted Apr 12, 2008 @ 1:05 PM

Why? The Hobbit isn't that long.

#15

Ananayel

Ananayel

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Durham NC

Posted Apr 12, 2008 @ 2:44 PM

Why? The Hobbit isn't that long.

I had heard it was because they were going to try and put in things from the various ancillary tales etc. But that makes no sense really, since The Hobbit was a neat, self-contained tale (well, as neat and self-contained as anything Tolkien could be.) Frankly, I'm doubting it will get made at all at this point.

#16

monef

monef

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 13, 2008 @ 8:19 PM

I'm actually happy about them splitting Deathly Hallows in two. I think there's enough story for it, and I would have hated to see it crammed into an hour and a half like Order of the Phoenix.


I'm really happy about it too. Hopefully, this way we can actually have an emotionally satisfying payoff. As for the angsty camping business, if they pace both movies properly it should work perfectly. None of the movise have come close to doing the books proud IMO, with the exception of 'Prisoner of Azkhaban'.

#17

MFD

MFD

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 16, 2008 @ 8:26 AM

Guillermo del Toro needs to finish The Hobbit or get off the pot, man. I mean, he wants to do a Doctor Strange movie and his dream project.

I want him to also do his dream project.

Mm... At the Mountains of Madness...

#18

furrylump

furrylump

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted Apr 17, 2008 @ 4:42 AM

I'm actually happy about them splitting Deathly Hallows in two. I think there's enough story for it, and I would have hated to see it crammed into an hour and a half like Order of the Phoenix.

I'm really happy about it too. Hopefully, this way we can actually have an emotionally satisfying payoff. As for the angsty camping business, if they pace both movies properly it should work perfectly. None of the movise have come close to doing the books proud IMO, with the exception of 'Prisoner of Azkhaban'.

Me three. With one movie they'd have to cut down on some big stuff, more than just the angst camping. With two, we can keep all that in, and hopefully [prays] get more time spent on certain things like, I don't know, half the secondary characters dying or Ron and Hermione destroying that horcrux near the end. And they better keep that scene at the Malfoy mansion the same. IMO it was one of the most painful and emotional bits of the book and I will be so pissed if they cut that out. Especially after the major changes to the Ministry of Magic battle in OOTP.

Although they could cut way down on Harry losing faith in Dumbledore. There was way too much time spent on that in the book, especially considering it was a stupid idea anyway. Same goes for the angst camping, naturally. IMHO, of course.

Actually, thinking about how much time was spent on angst camping and losing faith in Dumbledore, I can't decide if I want them to make it into two movies or not now. That's annoying.

#19

monef

monef

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 18, 2008 @ 12:45 PM

Although they could cut way down on Harry losing faith in Dumbledore. There was way too much time spent on that in the book, especially considering it was a stupid idea anyway. Same goes for the angst camping, naturally. IMHO, of course.


ITA. The two movies could certainly convey those sentiments without spending excesive amounts of time going into detail. The larger themes and arcs are more important. I truly hope they don't feel the need to censor "Not my daughter you BITCH!!".

#20

mathyoucough

mathyoucough

    Channel Surfer

Posted Apr 19, 2008 @ 2:00 PM

I don't think Deathly Hallows needs to be two books, but I also thought Order of the Phoenix's length was fine and that it was the best of the movies.

Saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall last night and I thought it was pretty good.

#21

flickchick85

flickchick85

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 19, 2008 @ 5:37 PM

I agree about Order of the Phoenix. That and Prisoner of Azkaban are my two favorite movies in the series (in fact, the only 2 I actually like), and they're the ones that cut out the most. That said, for some reason, I don't mind them making Deathly Hallows two movies. If it wasn't the final one, I would have a problem with it, but this way it feels like a grand last hurrah or something. Based on OotP, I'm trusting Yates to keep both "volumes" from getting boring. I don't think he'll leave in any of the fat (especially in the woods). There are enough huge set pieces throughout the book to make for two exciting chapters, imo.

#22

RoRo

RoRo

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 21, 2008 @ 9:37 AM

I am all for splitting Deathly Hallows into 2 movies because when I first read the book, I thought there was no way they could make that into 1 movie. I liked the OotP movie, but after I read the book (I saw the movie first) I was really disappointed at everything that was cut out. After reading DH, I couldn't bear the thought of the DH movie getting the OotP treatment. But reading some of your comments, I agree that we could do with less angsty!camping and brooding over Dumbledore. I wonder if they could fit that all into 1 movie. Of course they won't because double the movies = double the bucks.

#23

Quiddler

Quiddler

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 21, 2008 @ 7:57 PM

I had heard it was because they were going to try and put in things from the various ancillary tales etc. But that makes no sense really, since The Hobbit was a neat, self-contained tale (well, as neat and self-contained as anything Tolkien could be.)

What I read was that the first movie would cover the events of "The Hobbit" and the 2nd would cover the 60 years between "The Hobbit" and "The Fellowship of The Ring." That time span would cover the rise of Saruman and his corruption by Sauron. Other events that could be covered: Aragorn during his formative years, maybe more of his early romance with Arwen, and the story of how Frodo came to live with Bilbo after his (Frodo's) parents drowned.

I'm praying this film gets made.

#24

Radagast

Radagast

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:50 AM

Just wanted to back up Quiddler - the first film will be The Hobbit, wholesale; the second film will be... other stuff - I just hope they manage to string a coherent plot through it all.

#25

monef

monef

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:29 AM

What I read was that the first movie would cover the events of "The Hobbit" and the 2nd would cover the 60 years between "The Hobbit" and "The Fellowship of The Ring." That time span would cover the rise of Saruman and his corruption by Sauron. Other events that could be covered: Aragorn during his formative years, maybe more of his early romance with Arwen, and the story of how Frodo came to live with Bilbo after his (Frodo's) parents drowned.


That has the potential to be truly brilliant if executed properly. I never took the time to read most of the ancilliary stuff, so it would b great if they are able to come up with a decent plot and put all the bits and pieces in perspective.

#26

svarlo

svarlo

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:05 PM

I really think OOTP gets a bad rap. mr. svarlo hasn't read any of the books, but watched the movies with me. Since film is such a different medium than literature, I tend to judge the HP series through the filter of what parts of the stories he is able to glean from them. He understood the story of the first two films, but was bored with them. I had to explain the ending of PoA because many details were glossed over and GoF had gaps that I had to fill in as well. OOTP he completely understood the plot, the themes, and nothing had to be filled in. It's his favorite of the five and I understand why.

That being said, the issue of turning DH into two films is tricky. Yates has shown that he can effectively convey the important aspects without weighing down the production with unneccessary minutiae that only fans would appreciate or enjoy. However, so many fans of the book seem to hate the missing details that all of the movies, save PoA, have been criticised by the fan base. (Though I don't know why...explaining the ending was the least enjoyable aspect of any of the movies)

So, it feels like a necessary evil to me. Yates need to work his magic on two films to captivate the unitiated and satisfy the fans. I don't think it is necessary, but I understand it.

#27

karate0kat

karate0kat

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Apr 23, 2008 @ 9:25 AM

Here's the thing about splitting DH into two vs. keeping it as one. What would they be able to cut to fit it into one? Yes, they've cut loads of stuff from the previous movies, but books 1-6 all had sub plots that had nothing to do with the overall Voldemort plot, and those were easily condensed or cut (like the S.P.E.W. storyline in GOF). Almost everything in book 7 relates directly to the main plot. The whole plot about Dumbldore's past could probably be cut, and Tonks/Lupin getting married and having a kid. Everything else that I can think of off the top of my head is directly important to the plot. Cutting any one thing that happens would require massive changes in another scene to make up for the lost information. They wouldn't be able to just cut out an entire plot like they have before. I'm not naive enough to think that money didn't play a part in the decision, but I really do think that this is a creatively good idea.

#28

zelmia

zelmia

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2008 @ 1:40 PM

I'm not naive enough to think that money didn't play a part in the decision, but I really do think that this is a creatively good idea.

Well said, Karate0kat. I agree completely. Yes, DH is the only one of the 7 novels - and to a lesser extent HBP - where there really aren't any "sub" plots that don't directly relate to the overall main story arc. We could probably have an entire Thread devoted to speculation on the HP films alone, so I won't go into that here. But I'm sure there will be major changes (bloody Steve Kloves) even with the additional running time of a sequel.

#29

monef

monef

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 23, 2008 @ 1:57 PM

I really think OOTP gets a bad rap. mr. svarlo hasn't read any of the books, but watched the movies with me. Since film is such a different medium than literature, I tend to judge the HP series through the filter of what parts of the stories he is able to glean from them. He understood the story of the first two films, but was bored with them. I had to explain the ending of PoA because many details were glossed over and GoF had gaps that I had to fill in as well. OOTP he completely understood the plot, the themes, and nothing had to be filled in. It's his favorite of the five and I understand why.


I know this is totally subjective, but I don't get mad when they leave things out, it annoys me that they leave the things we could do without in and take the things we need out. Even though PoA is my favourite of the movies so far, IMO, none of them convey the central themes of Rowling's story. A prime example is the death of Sirius Black. Because the other movies only skimmed on the importance of the relationship between Sirius and Harry, there was no emotional payoff when Sirius was killed. Maybe now that we know how it all ends, the movies will have a firmer grasp on things. The LOTR adaptations leaves tons of stuff out without ever lessening the impact of the staory. The fans are happy, and those movies are extremely solid in their own right. The HP adaptations feel like illustrations to a fantastic story. I have watched them so far to see if things wil look they way I imagined they would. Here's hoping DH can change that.

#30

stekkin

stekkin

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CT, USA
  • Interests:Anime, manga, etc.

Posted Apr 24, 2008 @ 4:15 PM

Guillermo del Toro needs to finish The Hobbit or get off the pot, man. I mean, he wants to do a Doctor Strange movie and his dream project.


WORD! Um, but wasn't "Hellboy" his dream project? I mean, he blew off "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" in order to do it. Anyway, speaking of directors we're annoyed with, let's talk about Uwe Boll, director of many, many terrible big-screen adaptations of video games (SEE: "BloodRayne", "Alone in the Dark" & "Postal", to name a few). He's promised to retire if 1 million people sign a petition asking him to quit. Sign here: Stop Dr. Uwe Boll. So far we're up to about 223,450. We need those votes, people!

Edited by stekkin, Apr 24, 2008 @ 4:20 PM.