|
|
Post by HuntingWolf on Mar 11, 2006 16:28:04 GMT
The Black Cauldron? It's one of my favorite Disney tunes.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothmog on Mar 11, 2006 19:26:01 GMT
Yeah, I liked it when I was a kid for a while, until I discovered the books it was based on by Lloyd Alexander, set in a kind of fantasy version of medieval Wales, inspired by the Mabinogion and the like. They were pretty good, though the last two were a bit disappointing.
Anyone else used to read Alan Garner?
|
|
|
|
Post by HuntingWolf on Mar 12, 2006 0:38:07 GMT
Who's he?
Ya like Dragonlance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Mar 12, 2006 1:30:51 GMT
The books are great! I can't stand how they butchered them in that damn disney cartoon.
|
|
|
|
Post by HuntingWolf on Mar 12, 2006 3:59:01 GMT
I remember reading one of the books as a wee lad in school.... but I liked the Disney movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothmog on Mar 12, 2006 14:06:32 GMT
Alan Garner wrote a series of Celtic/Norse inspired fantasy stories in the 60s, usually based around the theme of normal British kids getting caught up in a fantasy world coexisting with our own. Just remembered them because I read them about the same time as Lloyd Alexander's books. Sometimes veering into Tolkien-lite, with dwarves and elves and the like, but I remember them being pretty entertaining nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by HuntingWolf on Mar 12, 2006 16:28:43 GMT
Killer. I have about, mm, 4 or 5 of Tolkien's books, but they came in a Hobbit/Lord of The Rings set. Never was able to get into them.... love the films though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Mar 12, 2006 20:09:05 GMT
Killer. I have about, mm, 4 or 5 of Tolkien's books, but they came in a Hobbit/Lord of The Rings set. Never was able to get into them.... love the films though... The films beyond the first one are an abhoration of the books. And to be honest, I didn't think the last two films were all that great as films in and of themselves. Can't believe you haven't read the books... what is the world coming to? |
|
|
|
Post by gothmog on Mar 12, 2006 20:15:17 GMT
I'll admit now I was never completely convinced by Tolkien's writing - he had a great imagination but his characters and stories didn't really grab me. Though I wasn't that impressed with the films either, which I seem to be alone in.
Edit: good to see Zipp agrees with me at least about the last two. I just really didn't like the visual style of the whole thing - the orcs looked like something out of a cheap science-fiction film, the armour was just all over the place, none of the elves looked right, the pacing was too frenetic... I could go on forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 12, 2006 20:57:58 GMT
I probably wouldn't normally answer, but I'm bored and there's 10 minutes 'til Father Ted starts . . .  I like Tolkien's writing because of the "dryness" of the text--nothing puts me off reading more than soap opera--yech! Particularly when it's supposed to be fantasy--Anne McCaffrey has committed crimes against literature! (Somehow, I really like Eddings' Belgariad and Malloreon, despite being rather soap opera-y . . . but not his other stuff.) And Tolkien gets the balance right: slightly stilted in an other-wordly way without sounding like bad Shakespeare. And actually, I think all three movies were superb!  The stuff they changed had to be changed to make three films. They didn't need to stand alone, Zipp--you have a captive audience if you're releasing them one a year just after the release of the EE on DVD. They fixed loads of stuff in the editing stage, though--Arwen at Helm's Deep would have been dreadful! Perhaps a mini-series could have done better justice to the books, but . . . And here's another reason why I disagree with you, Zipp: Dune, the recent TV mini-series, sucked donkey balls. I can't articulate how bad I thought it was. Awful, absolutely awful. I liked none of the characters save Duke Leto (William Hurt, I think?) who dies off really quickly. The guy playing Paul Atreides was so badly cast I can't believe they didn't scrap the entire shoot. No, the LotR movies were enjoyable and captured the spirit of the books-- Earthsea and Dune were unwatchable garbage. Anyone care to post a top 10 of their favourite films or similar? I'd be interested in yours, Zipp. Right, off to watch Bishop Brennan being kicked up the a*se (again). ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Mar 12, 2006 23:52:16 GMT
And actually, I think all three movies were superb! The stuff they changed had to be changed to make three films. They didn't need to stand alone, Zipp--you have a captive audience if you're releasing them one a year just after the release of the EE on DVD. They fixed loads of stuff in the editing stage, though--Arwen at Helm's Deep would have been dreadful! Perhaps a mini-series could have done better justice to the books, but . . . I don't think the stuff they changed had to be changed to make the books into movies. For instance, they didn't need Aragorn falling off the cliff to have a make out scene with his horse and one of the damn stupidest love scenes ever. Denethor didn't have to be as evil as they made him. Galadariel didn't need a transformation sequence. Faramir didn't need to take Frodo back to Gondor and didn't have to be a complete ass (total opposite of his character in the book). No, these things were changed for dramatic purposes only. And beyond what was needed. Peter Jackson is known for pouring on the drama in his films. King Kong was lambasted by critics for it's over drama. Fellowship of the Ring worked well and is an excellent film. Two Towers was a good movie (minus the Aragorn scene) but an abomination to the books. Return of the King was crap. Tolkein always said his books wouldn't work well as movies, because he intentionally kept them as free as he could of drama. His books are really about philology, mixed with the horror of his war experience and thoughts on what Fairy Stories should be and originally were. The movies take a mature theme and dumb it down for the audience in places where it wasn't needed. Except, once again, Fellowship, which I maintain is a great film. How are you disagreeing with me? I thought the Dune series was terrible, and I never said I wanted a Tolkein mini series. God no. But just because they were awful doesn't make the LotR movies good. I don't see the connection here. |
|
|
|
Post by HuntingWolf on Mar 13, 2006 0:57:09 GMT
My top 10 movies:
1. Lord of the Rings series
2. Walk The Line
3. Harry Potter series
4. Braveheart
5. Disney films
....and I can't think of the rest. I have Cradle of Filth blasting their obscene lyrics in my ear and it's disturbing me. Plus, the Simpsons are coming on in about, oh, 3 or 4 minutes. I'll think o' the rest later.
|
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Mar 13, 2006 10:16:06 GMT
@ Zipp: The connection is that the LotR movies caught the spirit of the originals; the Dune series completely rewrote the main character for expediency. The Dune series truly was dumbed down. And the less said about Eathsea the better, I think.  While I agree in part with what criticisms you made of Lotr, the changes don't bother me too much because they weren't too intrusive. It wasn't as if they just took the title and wrote their own film about it (cf. I, Robot), or they altered the whole point of the story (cf. TV Dune). They didn't try to make a 90-hour literal adaptation that everyone save for a few élitist fools would have panned and ignored. They didn't exactly pander to the masses either, with three long films that force the viewer to use their brains to remember who is doing what--the absence of a recap at the start of films 2 and 3 was deliberate; it's all one story, after all. Although there were bits I would have done differently, I can't complain with what was done, because they were three enjoyable films that delivered a visual précis of the book, deviating from time to time to enhance the flow of the story in a visual medium. For instance, when I first saw Frodo and Sam taken to Osgiliath, I was frothing at the mouth. How dared they change the Good Book?! However, in the writers' commentary it was stated that if they hadn't done that, two things would have been apparent: 1) the Ring isn't as powerful as everyone else says; and 2) Frodo and Sam wouldn't have had much to do at all in the second film. Because they were making the individual plotlines run parallel (did I spell that right?), they couldn't have Shelob in the second film, since it happens concurrent to the Battle of the Pelennor, and I appreciate the filmmakers making the films that way, since it works better that way in a visual medium. So in order to give Frodo and Sam something to do, they sent them to Osgiliath. Not perfect, but acceptable. Similarly, the other changes always had a purpose--they were perhaps not perfect, but they were acceptable (moreso once you understood why the writers did it), and enjoyable nevertheless. The truly unacceptable stuff fortunately hit the cutting room floor (Arwen at Helm's Deep, Aragorn vs. Sauron at the Black Gate). Most directors/screenwriters think of fantasy and they make something like Willow, or Death Stalker. The only fantasy film close to being as deep/meaningful/clever as the LotR movies would be (no laughs) Conan the Barbarian. (BTW: Any thoughts on wu xia movies, Zipp?) |
|
|
|
Post by gothmog on Mar 13, 2006 13:43:02 GMT
My complaints with the LOTR adaptations weren't really the changes they made, because you have to make some changes in adapting books to the screen. I was just disappointed with the stylistic elements. Take the first film. We open into this nauseatingly saccharine vision of the Shire, all thick greens and reds and irritatingly cheesy music in the background. Then a little later, it's evil-time, so the director just rams it down our throats at just how vile and evil these Black Riders are, with a scary sub-Carl Orff soundtrack playing and whatnot. It's like we're all a bunch of complete idiots who don't know what to feel when presented with certain images, so PJ just needs to put in massive ink letters saying THIS BIT IS SCARY SO START BEING SCARED RIGHT NOW OK?  ? And sorry to dwell on the orcs, what the name of holy pecking heck are they supposed to be? They look a bunch of deformed Klingons who've just ransacked the Wallace Collection for random scraps of armour from the 15th century onwards. I think the films could have been much worse and I respect Peter Jackson for managing to do what he did with the films, but I still think they could have been so much better since every time I see anything to do with them or in fact the Lord of the Rings in general now I feel like punching the walls repeatedly because there's just so much about it!OK, rant over. all of this is naturally just MHO. |
|
|
|
Post by HuntingWolf on Mar 13, 2006 15:46:17 GMT
Heh.
|
|
The stuff they changed had to be changed to make three films. They didn't need to stand alone, Zipp--you have a captive audience if you're releasing them one a year just after the release of the EE on DVD. They fixed loads of stuff in the editing stage, though--Arwen at Helm's Deep would have been dreadful! Perhaps a mini-series could have done better justice to the books, but . . .
?