|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 15:33:57 GMT
my biggest question is, were they true to the spirit of the book, or is it just a movie that is similar to a book.?
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 15:56:19 GMT
From what I understand, they were as true as possible given the time and budget constraints.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 15:59:43 GMT
From what I understand, they were as true as possible given the time and budget constraints. several of my friends were concerned about that.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 16:02:38 GMT
From what I understand, they were as true as possible given the time and budget constraints. several of my friends were concerned about that. Well, Orson Scott Card himself was involved in adapting the novel and was even credited as a producer.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 16:05:24 GMT
several of my friends were concerned about that. Well, Orson Scott Card himself was involved in adapting the novel and was even credited as a producer. That is something they might have benefitted form making more prominent in the trailer.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 16:08:38 GMT
9.75 / 10. Minor technical glitches in some of the computer animation, but I found the film itself to be well-written and well-cast. Of course, given the controversy around the film, the very fact that I gave it a good rating means that I'm now getting flamed and trolled elsewhere. Well that suxs! I hope they realise that A) It's just one man's opinion & B) Your just doing your job - which is to give your opinion(s) on the films you see to others. Some people are just major donkeys & no matter how hard you try nothin's gonna change em! It gets better. I noted that, based on early hype, I was interested in seeing The Saratov Approach, a docudrama about the real-life 1998 kidnapping of two Mormon missionaries who were serving in Russia. After all, I explained, early showings in and around Utah were so lucrative that even far-right Breitbart.com and Hollywood leftist Variety were singing its praises. Given how opposed the two sources are politically, the fact that they were both able to agree on a single film should say something about said film. Cue people spinning a conspiracy theory about me being out to support Mormon interests. No, folks, I'm out to support good movies, with a special focus on obscure ones.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 16:11:13 GMT
Well, Orson Scott Card himself was involved in adapting the novel and was even credited as a producer. That is something they might have benefitted form making more prominent in the trailer. The producers were probably too busy spoiling the movie by showing off Ben Kingsley in the early promotional materials.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 16:12:11 GMT
Well that suxs! I hope they realise that A) It's just one man's opinion & B) Your just doing your job - which is to give your opinion(s) on the films you see to others. Some people are just major donkeys & no matter how hard you try nothin's gonna change em! It gets better. I noted that, based on early hype, I was interested in seeing The Saratov Approach, a docudrama about the real-life 1998 kidnapping of two Mormon missionaries who were serving in Russia. After all, I explained, early showings in and around Utah were so lucrative that even far-right Breitbart.com and Hollywood leftist Variety were singing its praises. Given how opposed the two sources are politically, the fact that they were both able to agree on a single film should say something about said film. Cue people spinning a conspiracy theory about me being out to support Mormon interests. No, folks, I'm out to support good movies, with a special focus on obscure ones. welcome to America, where even the most innocuous thing can be politicized by the lunatic fringe. (reminds me of a diatribe I once heard about how food support for the poor were a conspiracy to kill them through malnutrition - yes, apparently certain forms of food (commercially packaged pasta) are worse than no food at all.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 16:14:47 GMT
That is something they might have benefitted form making more prominent in the trailer. The producers were probably too busy spoiling the movie by showing off Ben Kingsley in the early promotional materials. it's the old "it has ____________ in it so it must be good." approach. granted, that works for some stars; who either have good taste in scripts; or are iconic to the point the script writes itself around them.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 16:22:27 GMT
The producers were probably too busy spoiling the movie by showing off Ben Kingsley in the early promotional materials. it's the old "it has ____________ in it so it must be good." approach. granted, that works for some stars; who either have good taste in scripts; or are iconic to the point the script writes itself around them. Thing is, even saying that Kingsley is in the film spoils it due to the fact that his character's existence is supposed to be a secret.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 16:25:05 GMT
it's the old "it has ____________ in it so it must be good." approach. granted, that works for some stars; who either have good taste in scripts; or are iconic to the point the script writes itself around them. Thing is, even saying that Kingsley is in the film spoils it due to the fact that his character's existence is supposed to be a secret. that puts "did you even watch the movie" status on the promotion crew.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 16:29:01 GMT
It gets better. I noted that, based on early hype, I was interested in seeing The Saratov Approach, a docudrama about the real-life 1998 kidnapping of two Mormon missionaries who were serving in Russia. After all, I explained, early showings in and around Utah were so lucrative that even far-right Breitbart.com and Hollywood leftist Variety were singing its praises. Given how opposed the two sources are politically, the fact that they were both able to agree on a single film should say something about said film. Cue people spinning a conspiracy theory about me being out to support Mormon interests. No, folks, I'm out to support good movies, with a special focus on obscure ones. welcome to America, where even the most innocuous thing can be politicized by the lunatic fringe. (reminds me of a diatribe I once heard about how food support for the poor were a conspiracy to kill them through malnutrition - yes, apparently certain forms of food (commercially packaged pasta) are worse than no food at all.) It's also a large part of why I'm going to see "Delivery Man" instead of "Catching Fire" (the latter is likely going to get so much press attention that the former is probably going to be ignored) and why I'm going to see "Walking With Dinosaurs" instead of "Anchorman 2" (I really should get some more family-friendly films in place).
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 16:31:56 GMT
Thing is, even saying that Kingsley is in the film spoils it due to the fact that his character's existence is supposed to be a secret. that puts "did you even watch the movie" status on the promotion crew. Yeah; this forced me to identify him by name in my review, as I had to explain just what his role was in the film. BIG HONKIN' SPOILER: He plays Mazer Rackham.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 16:38:46 GMT
wow. I went to the IMDB listing to see some inner details, and there is a flame war going on over the fact that Orson Scott Card opposes "gay marriage" - the conduct of which borders on being worse than the original offense.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 16:43:04 GMT
I'd choose something else over Anchorman2, as well. I don't like that genre.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 5, 2013 16:55:43 GMT
Did you see 'The Avengers'? If that's anything to go by, I'd say don't bother. Thor and Loki were rediculous characters that seemed completely out of place. I mean, seriously! Norse gods turned into aliens that battle it out on Earth? Dumbest crap ever! I actually kinda liked 'The Avengers' it was a nice 'popcorn movie' ie: sit back enjoy the ride & forget about reality for the next two hours. Ok turning Gods into aliens may seem far fetched to you, but when the Spanish Conquistador's came to the Americas the locals thought they were 'Gods'. Anyone that visits a group of people with highly advanced tech is bound to be thought of as 'Gods' by the 'primitive' locals. It still happens today when explores run into tribes in the Amazon jungle. Oziris, did you see Thor? I ask because both Loki and Thor are more fully fleshed out in that film, and of course Avengers follows on from that.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 5, 2013 19:30:26 GMT
I actually kinda liked 'The Avengers' it was a nice 'popcorn movie' ie: sit back enjoy the ride & forget about reality for the next two hours. Ok turning Gods into aliens may seem far fetched to you, but when the Spanish Conquistador's came to the Americas the locals thought they were 'Gods'. Anyone that visits a group of people with highly advanced tech is bound to be thought of as 'Gods' by the 'primitive' locals. It still happens today when explores run into tribes in the Amazon jungle. Oziris, did you see Thor? I ask because both Loki and Thor are more fully fleshed out in that film, and of course Avengers follows on from that. No, I didn't see Thor, because I think the whole idea of making a superhero movie out of old norse gods is both stupid and tasteless. The only reason I could possibly find to watch that movie was if I felt an overwhealming urge to be mad at someone and couldn't find anyone to direct that anger toward.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 5, 2013 19:42:16 GMT
Oziris, did you see Thor? I ask because both Loki and Thor are more fully fleshed out in that film, and of course Avengers follows on from that. No, I didn't see Thor, because I think the whole idea of making a superhero movie out of old norse gods is both stupid and tasteless. The only reason I could possibly find to watch that movie was if I felt an overwhealming urge to be mad at someone and couldn't find anyone to direct that anger toward. okay, then. the marvel universe is probably not the entertainment genre for you.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 5, 2013 21:03:09 GMT
Oziris, did you see Thor? I ask because both Loki and Thor are more fully fleshed out in that film, and of course Avengers follows on from that. No, I didn't see Thor, because I think the whole idea of making a superhero movie out of old norse gods is both stupid and tasteless. The only reason I could possibly find to watch that movie was if I felt an overwhealming urge to be mad at someone and couldn't find anyone to direct that anger toward. You are aware that Thor has been a Marvel character since 1962? So its not like Marvel suddenly decided to pick a mythological character for the hell (or maybe that should be Asgard) of it. The character was one of the founding members of the Avengers in the comics*, and the Avengers in the comics came into being thanks to Loki's meddling. So as soon as they decided they were going to make an Avengers film having Thor turn up was a no brainer. As to Thor the film...its not bad, not brilliant but definitely enjoyable with a couple of laugh out loud moments. The pacing is a little strange, as the action scenes are a lot better at the start than they are at the end. But it does make sense in context, which is more than can be said for a lot of films. There are more than a few Easter eggs in it, both to the history of the comic book version and the 'real world' mythology surrounding the Norse Gods. In fact in this regard Marvel has always seemed to respect the original mythology where possible - which for the most part means changing the characterisation rather than much of the background 'history'. I'd say that Thor is roughly on a par with the first Iron Man film, it lacks some of the charm of that film but is clearly bigger budgeted and more focused - hardly surprising given that they knew they were heading for the Avengers film. As to being a 'true' Gods, the only Asgardian to make that claim is Loki - who is hardly the model of sanity. In Thor it is noted several times that humans view them as Gods during the opening narration, something that is repeated by one of the Warriors Three later on. Thor himself says that 'where I come from magic and science are the same thing', implying that Asgardians are simply far more technologically advanced than humans. This is repeated in Avengers, where Black Widow simply tells Captain America that 'These guys are basically Gods' and Thor (again) notes that 'we see ourselves as Gods' - at least compared to humans based on the context. Tony Stark refers to Thor as a demi-God when talking to Loki, and Nick Fury later says 'I didn't make that call, I just didn't argue with the God who did'. In all of these cases it seems clear that Thor's status as a 'God' (along with that of Asgard as a whole) is based purely on the amount of power they possess compared to humans, rather than any claim or belief they are really divine. Even Loki seems to understand this when he says to Thor 'Humans think us immortal, shall we test that?'. (*For those wondering the original members of the Avengers were Iron Man, Thor, Wasp, Giant Man** (Ant man at the time) and believe it or not the Hulk. The Hulk left very quickly, and Captain America was discovered, defrosted and given Hulks founding member status.) (**Wasp and Giant/Ant Man are of course not in the Avengers film, nor do I suspect are likely to be included. The reason for this is that the two characters are husband and wife with Mr Pym being abusive - not really the background you want in a 'family' film because everyone will focus on that regardless of how the character is played or written.)
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 5, 2013 23:38:59 GMT
Actually, what happened with Ant Man was that he flipped out once and smacked Wasp in the face... and then immediately felt horrible about it as soon as he realized what he just did. The sequence was meant to represent his hitting rock bottom. The incident was then blown out of proportion by a large swath of comic book fans who weren't familiar with the background of what happened, and so people just took it for granted that he was a jerk.
It's kind of like how people take Tony Stark to be a stumbling drunk because of a story arc in the 1980s. Obadaiah Stane found out that Stark had a drinking problem while in college, and began pushing Stark's buttons until Stark climbed back into the bottle. It took War Machine and several other people to make Stark climb back out, and by Stark's own admission he was a terrible mess for some time afterwords.
As it is, both characters did appear in Disney's short-lived "Avengers" cartoon, and there was a video floating around that was ostensibly a trailer for an actual "Ant Man" film.
|
|