87 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

I sometimes feel like I am the only person who hasn't watched all of the Lord of the Rings movies, and the Harry Potter films. I have only seen the first LOTR one.

I also believe I will never watch them. It's the same with the new Spiderman, Batman and Superman movies, the Hulk or any remake of any 70's horror or cop show.

Anyone else with me? Or am I strange?


Cheers...

[Joyce Carrington]

I'm with you on LOTR. I just don't see where all the hype comes from. The films make me either fall asleep or crack up. The books... well, don't get me started on those.

Phew... good to know I'm not weird either.

I do love HP though, the books that is.

[DaveBond21]

Thanks Joyce.

I read the Hobbit at school when I was 11. That was more than enough for me.

[Harmsway]

Well, while I love LORD OF THE RINGS, the last two Harry Potter films, BATMAN BEGINS, and SUPERMAN RETURNS, you're hardly that odd for not being interested. Perhaps a little out of the mainstream tastes, but not everyone has to like or go to see the "phenomena" films. Personally, I make a point of seeing "phenomena" movies so I know what everyone's talking about, regardless of whether I have a big desire to see them or not. Sometimes my disinterest is confirmed, but sometimes I get won over. Because I very much enjoy the moviegoing experience in general, I don't mind taking that chance.

As for LORD OF THE RINGS, in particular, it has a specific appeal - some people will "get it" and others won't, as is the way of the world. I'm a bigger fan of the books (the books are truly masterpieces of the fantasy genre, beautifully telling a mythological tale in the tradition of other mythological epics), but I enjoy the films. At the same time, I can perfectly understand why someone wouldn't want to sit through 10+ hour epic about hobbits and dwarves and wizards all seeking to destroy a magic ring.

Still, I would encourage checking out BATMAN BEGINS before you dismiss it. If you haven't already, that is. It seems to have broader appeal than your average comic book film, just like CASINO ROYALE seems to have broader appeal than your average Bond film.

[OVERLORD]

I'm with you on LOTR. I just don't see where all the hype comes from. The films make me either fall asleep or crack up. The books... well, don't get me started on those.

Agreed, Don't get me started on these self-indulgent piles of drivel. As for the books did'nt one of Tolkien's own friends say during one of his readings, "Oh no! Not another ing elf!"

[Santa]

Dave, I'm with you. LOTR, well, I watched it, it was OK, nothing more. Spiderman - boring. Superman I didn't bother with and Harry Potter? Oh purleeze... Batman is the exception, I like them.

[Safari Suit]

I'm with you on LOTR, and Harry Potter.

Superman mostly rates as a "meh".

I like Batman.

I think remakes are getting excessive.

I thought Spiderman 2 was utter mince!

[Santa]

men and small children!!

Aren't they the same thing?

[Johnboy007]

I like the second LOTR movie, but I thought Return of the King simply dragged forever.

I tried long ago to get into the Harry Potter series but I just couldn't do it. The books were dull and gave me no reason to see the movies.

[Loomis]

Personally, I make a point of seeing "phenomena" movies so I know what everyone's talking about, regardless of whether I have a big desire to see them or not.

I don't. I just see what takes my fancy. Which means I've passed on the likes of HOSTEL, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 1 and 2, the SAW franchise and 300, and have no plans to watch films like SPIDER-MAN 3 and TRANSFORMERS. However, upcoming releases like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, DIE HARD 4.0 and GRINDHOUSE have me over a barrel.

I was a little different five years ago, more of a true movie geek who'd check everything out. I kept up to speed on everything, and would mop up most of a year's "major" releases either at the cinema or on DVD/VHS. So, back then, I'd definitely have seen those things I've just been going on about not seeing in the first paragraph of this post.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS I admire more than like. FELLOWSHIP (the only one I saw on the big screen, BTW) and THE TWO TOWERS are extremely well-made and have some amazing moments, but then they also have long stretches of utter boredom. OTOH, I find THE RETURN OF THE KING an utter yawn from start to eventual final finish. So I'd hardly call myself a fan, but might be persuaded to see them on the big screen again if the opportunity arose (I feel the same way about the STAR WARS films). Never felt compelled to give the books a crack.

Harry Potter I'm even less interested in. Saw the first one at the flicks and thought it was awful. That's it. Now, I do gather that the one by Alfonso Cuaron (CHILDREN OF MEN) is good, but I'm happy to take people's word for that until the day I'm trapped with it on a rainy afternoon.

I don't much care for "fantasy" or "superhero" films and franchises (or, generally speaking, westerns or musicals), although PAN'S LABYRINTH I do want to see. Quite liked BATMAN BEGINS and SUPERMAN RETURNS, as well as the first couple of SUPERMANs, but don't feel the need to own them on DVD.

What I like are action franchises (and, obviously, other films - my two favourite films of this decade are LOST IN TRANSLATION and SIDEWAYS, but the following is what I'm into in franchise terms): Bond, Bourne, McClane, Riggs and so forth. But only those "classic" action franchises - couldn't give a monkey's about THE TRANSPORTER or whatever.

In particular, I'm a fan of Sylvester Stallone and Rocky and Rambo. Anyone else with me? Or am I strange?

[00Twelve]

Of course you're not weird, Dave. I can see where LOTR and Harry Potter might be even more mainstream where you are, being English in origin, but some people just aren't into the fantasy genre. I know plenty of folks who aren't into either of those. I myself am a Tolkien nerd, but I totally understand it not being someone's cup of tea.

[Mamadou]

LOTR was certainly boring, and, like some people here, I saw it only to be able to keep up my end of the conversation, and to provide counterpoint to the people who were lapping that crap up like it was caviar. Also like some people, fantasy really isn't my thing either, which is strange considering that I'm fascinated by the King Arthur legend (as written about in the Middle Ages, NOT its modern interpretations, including on film), and Greek mythology (once again, as written in poems and plays from Greece, not modern ). As for the supposed filmmaking achievement, I'm mixed about it. Peter Jackson deserves all the glory he can get for sticking with this series for nine years; I just don't think the material was worth the effort. I also don't think the execution was as great as some people say it was (his use of stand-ins for height problems was rather obvious), and CGI also really isn't my thing. That said, New Zealand looks great.

Superhero franchises don't usually excite me. I haven't bothered with Superman, and I thought both Spiderman movies were dreck and incredibly overrated. But I loved "Batman Begins," and I'm not a Batman fan. What primarily drew me to that movie was its cast: Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, a new face in Cillian Murphy, and of course Christian Bale. I knew I was never going to see that ensemble again, so I decided to make the most of it. Really, Dave, give this one a try.

As for Harry Potter, when the first three books came out I was the perfect age for them--and, to me, they also had a charm that everything after that lacked (especially the fifth and sixth books). I literally couldn't put the first book down, and read it in a few hours. But then I grew out of them as J.K. Rowling's writing got worse and worse, and I didn't have the fangirl emotional investment in them that many of my friends did (some of them were crying when Sirius Black died; though I do admit that I was shocked by Dumbledore's death*). And the movies? I love them. I think they're absolute triumphs of adaptations from book to screen, especially the most recent one. It was actually the first one that got my dad into the series. No, he hasn't read the books, but once again, he described it as having a charm to draw you in.

My $0.02



*I don't think I'm spoiling anything for anybody, am I?

Edited by Mamadou, 18 April 2007 - 07:18 PM.

[Vauxhall]

Hi Dave, funnily enough I'm the same (perhaps that makes us both strange!) I've seen all three LORD OF THE RINGS movies, but I can't really distinguish one from the other in my mind, despite having read the books. It's just not really the sort of genre which interests me hugely. I watched them merely out of the intrigue of seeing what was acknowledged to be a major triumph in movie making. I've also never really got into the HARRY POTTER movies, but I feel that this may be attributed to the fact that the child actors annoy me!

[Judo chop]

Weird? No. Just wrong.

A JOKE!



Personally, I love the LOTR Trilogy. On some days I say that if I could only own one movie until the day I day, I would petition to count all 3 as one long film, and pick it. Some folks do not dig the fantasy genre, as others have pointed out. Me

[Safari Suit]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='728476' date='18 April 2007 - 15:57']Me

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Your not weird. I've seen all of these movies only because I have a younger brother 17 and he loves these movies. All the Harry Potter movies I've actually only sat and watched once and LOTR too unless someone was watching it and I happened to be sitting around. Still in all I think they were very creative well made movies but there not really my thing.

[Judo chop]

[quote name='Safari Suit' post='728619' date='18 April 2007 - 13:35'][quote name='Judo chop' post='728476' date='18 April 2007 - 15:57']Me

[Harmsway]

Personally, I make a point of seeing "phenomena" movies so I know what everyone's talking about, regardless of whether I have a big desire to see them or not.

I don't. I just see what takes my fancy.

It's a better policy. If I took that route, I'd save a lot of money.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS I admire more than like. FELLOWSHIP (the only one I saw on the big screen, BTW) and THE TWO TOWERS are extremely well-made and have some amazing moments, but then they also have long stretches of utter boredom. OTOH, I find THE RETURN OF THE KING an utter yawn from start to eventual final finish.

Pacing isn't the best in Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS, and yes, RETURN OF THE KING is certainly the weakest installment (and, as a Tolkien fan, it makes some downright heretical choices in adaptation... adding lots of cheese into what was a very powerful conclusion).

Still, I think the films are quite the accomplishment. For all the issues I have with the films, I can't imagine them being made any better.

Harry Potter I'm even less interested in. Saw the first one at the flicks and thought it was awful. That's it. Now, I do gather that the one by Alfonso Cuaron (CHILDREN OF MEN) is good, but I'm happy to take people's word for that until the day I'm trapped with it on a rainy afternoon.

Well, as I said, I like the last two films. The first two were pretty dreadful. Thankfully Columbus was left, and more talented directors came in. Cuaron's entry is solid, but I daresay Mike Newell's GOBLET OF FIRE was much better, and is the only one in the franchise I really like.

[00Twelve]

I'll chime in and say that the LOTR EE's are the only ones I will watch. Yes, they're interminably long, but I find they still pass quickly, and the reinserted material is completely necessary for my viewing experience (especially Saruman's final scene, horribly left out of the ROTK theatrical cut), having read the books.

[JLaidlaw]

I like the theatrical editions far better, but that's more the length than unnecessary scenes.

Yes I like the Lord of the Rings movies, will get round to reading the books. I like the Harry Potter books, but the movies are total bilge as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree that JK's writing got worse, I think people just got older (just a theory). If you look at Order of the Phoenix, the writing style's more complex (if not neccesarily more skilled) than the first two books. I didn't like Half Blood Prince at all, as it was a rehash of Chamber of Secrets, and the ending goes against practically everything in the books so far. Sorry, I'm diverging...

You're absolutely right on one thing though, DaveBond21, we have too many remakes of old shows (Miami Vice, Starsky and Hutch, Shaft, Scooby Doo, Hitchhiker's Guide, Dukes of Hazzard) too many sequels (Die Hard 4.0, Rocky Balboa, Terminator 4, Indiana Jones 4, Shrek the Third) too many comic book adaptations (Spiderman, Superman, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Hulk), and the fact that there are so many means that I won't see any of them, which is a shame because it sounds like there's at least one good one (Batman Begins). The fact is, cinema is getting repetitive, producing the same thing over and over again. Isn't practically every big blockbuster this summer an adaptation, remake or a sequel? (unless you count Ratatouile, which itself is a spiritual sequel to the other Pixar films). The great thing is that noone seems to have informed the movie industry it's one of the reasons why there has been a decline in Box Office figures. Hopefully it'll just be that 2006-07 is a year of stagnation before a change. After all, music in 2006 was just the same Bands from 2004-2005 releasing similar songs, so I think we get these years before something slightly revolutionary picks us up again. Right now the real action is in the smaller more emotional films, but it'll change soon.

Just my 1 penny sterling (based on todays exchange rates)

[Tarl_Cabot]

I loved The LOTR films and I have the DVDs but I have zero interest in Harry Potter.I just don't care for child protagonists. I never liked them even as a child. I didn't see Goonies and I saw ET just once...and I hated the inclusion of Short round/young Indy in the Indy sequels, Jake LLoyd as Anakin Skywalker...etc. I think Superman having a son was a bad idea.

[Kilroy6644]

men and small children!!

Aren't they the same thing?

Of COURSE they are!!!! Silly me!!

I take offense to these remarks. Men most certainly are NOT small children. We are large children, thank you very much.

[Harmsway]

I don't agree that JK's writing got worse, I think people just got older (just a theory). If you look at Order of the Phoenix, the writing style's more complex (if not neccesarily more skilled) than the first two books. I didn't like Half Blood Prince at all, as it was a rehash of Chamber of Secrets, and the ending goes against practically everything in the books so far.

Well, I don't think it's so much that her style has lessened, just more that the plotting of her books has gotten much worse. ORDER OF THE PHOENIX was nothing more than filler, and HALF-BLOOD PRINCE was just filler interspersed with a few ridiculous and cheap plot-twists that will very clearly be reversed in book 7.

You're absolutely right on one thing though, DaveBond21, we have too many remakes of old shows (Miami Vice, Starsky and Hutch, Shaft, Scooby Doo, Hitchhiker's Guide, Dukes of Hazzard) too many sequels (Die Hard 4.0, Rocky Balboa, Terminator 4, Indiana Jones 4, Shrek the Third) too many comic book adaptations (Spiderman, Superman, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Hulk), and the fact that there are so many means that I won't see any of them, which is a shame because it sounds like there's at least one good one (Batman Begins).

Why does the fact that there are so many keep you from seeing any of them? I don't get that logic at all. Just because there are so many you're not going to bother to check out the ones that are actually quality?

The great thing is that noone seems to have informed the movie industry it's one of the reasons why there has been a decline in Box Office figures.

The supposed decline has been strongly rebuked at this point.

[Professor Dent]

Dave, you are definitely not strange. I have no desire to read a LOTR book or a Harry Potter book -- the movies are fine for me. I enjoyed the LOTR movies & own all of the extended editions primarily because I am a junkie for behind the scenes stuff. I think the second of the movies was the best but these aren't movies you just pop in the DVD player & watch, they are a significant time commitment which, I think, is a turn-off for some people. On the superhero movies, I've been a fan since I was a kid so I'm a little biased. Most are worth a rental at least (except for The Hulk - avoid it at all costs).

[DaveBond21]

Interesting points, thanks everyone. I haven't written these movies off, I just have no interest in seeing them.

It's not like I watched them, or read the books, and then said I didn't like them. It's that I have no desire to even begin.

I do enjoy fantasy films like Close Encounters, or ET. I enjoyed Alien, and The Thing. I like ghost movies, and arty horror. My favourite films are Don't Look Now, Walkabout, Jaws, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr Zhivago, The Asphyx, Magic, Rosemary's Baby, Duel, The Wicker Man, Witchfinder General, The Birds, Pyscho, Apocalypse Now, Blair Witch, Amityville Horror, What Lies Beneath, The Omen, Blind Terror, The Ring, Roxanne, American Pie, After Hours, Heaven can wait, and the Indiana Jones movies.

There is a certain amount of fantasy in there. But much of it is unexplained, ambigious, potentially real. I am a big fan of arty, beautifully-shot movies with open-endings, open for interpretation, often with no well-known actors.

So the latest blockbuster or superhero or fantasy movie does not appeal to me at all.

[Harmsway]

So the latest blockbuster or superhero or fantasy movie does not appeal to me at all.

Well, you did see CASINO ROYALE, one of the latest "blockbuster" movies.

You should still check out BATMAN BEGINS. It's not fantasy. It's a more realistic take on the superhero genre, with one of the more realistic superheroes, and isn't really any more unrealistic than CASINO ROYALE. It feels more like an independent film than a blockbuster film, if you ask me.

[DaveBond21]

Thanks Harmsway, I might have to check out Batman Begins, based on your recommendation.

By the way, what did you think of Diana Rigg's cameo in Extras (George Lazenby forum)?

[Harmsway]

Thanks Harmsway, I might have to check out Batman Begins, based on your recommendation.

Please do.

By the way, what did you think of Diana Rigg's cameo in Extras (George Lazenby forum)?

I haven't seen it.

[DaveBond21]

By the way, what did you think of Diana Rigg's cameo in Extras (George Lazenby forum)?

I haven't seen it.

It's funny - I started a thread about it in that Forum - I'd love to know what you think.

[JLaidlaw]

Just because there are so many you're not going to bother to check out the ones that are actually quality?

Ah, fair point, but how do I know which ones are the actual quality ones. The people who rave about one of them seem to rave about all of them, and I'm not really interested in superheros anyway. Usually though, if a superhero film is that good, then it appeals to people beyond the comic book reader, like the Tim Burton Batman movies did. The fact that there are so many Comic book adaptations makes it exceptionally hard for me to work out which are the good ones (or, good one) without wasting time and money watching the bad ones. So I have a way of working which other people may find, quite frankly, stupid. Usually good movies last, whilst over-hyped movies die very quickly. So just wait three or four years and then sit back and enjoy what are by now 'classics', and probably cost you less to own on DVD than it did to see in the cinema. It means you can't join in film conversations, but you can always glaze over and nod occasionally.

And that thing about Cinema tickets declining? Rebuked, really? I am behind the times. I admit no expertise in this area, so I should just ask rebuked by whom?