Pearl Harbor

Come here and discuss your favorite Non-Tolkien movies, TV shows, radio plays, etc.

Postby Telemachos » Tue May 29, 2001 9:37 pm

ROTFL, fin! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Perhaps I just saw the work of the CG Randall Wallace... I could tell it wasn't written by the "real" Wallace -- there was just too much CGI flavored-dialogue coming out of Ben Affleck's mouth. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby Bernd » Tue May 29, 2001 10:02 pm

Hey all. For those still eager to hash out the arguments regarding trailer placement in front of Pearl Harbor, Patrick Goldstein wrote the following story in today's L.A. Times:<BR><BR><a target=new href="http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Movies-X!ArticleDetail-34383,00.html">http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Movies-X!ArticleDetail-34383,00.html</a><BR><BR>It doesn't mention LOTR, but still goes in depth about the process.
User avatar
Bernd
Mariner

 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 6:37 pm
Top

Postby dudalb » Wed May 30, 2001 2:19 pm

I just saw the Randall Wallace's next project is "We Were Soldiers Once, and Young", about the battle of the Ia Drang valley in Vietnam.<BR>As if the Nam vets have not been through enough, now Wallace will treat Vietnam with the same regard for historical accuracy he did in "Braveheart" and "Pearl Harbor".Somebody take away his word processor before he can strike again.....
User avatar
dudalb
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4422
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 9:26 pm
Top

Postby Bernd » Wed May 30, 2001 2:30 pm

dudalb, I increasingly glad that Wallace's With Wings as Eagles project never got off the ground. I shudder at what he would have done with a German POW camp.<BR><BR>I am looking forward to ...Soldiers..., by the way.
User avatar
Bernd
Mariner

 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 6:37 pm
Top

Postby Telemachos » Wed May 30, 2001 5:25 pm

As a desperate effort to get this thread back to being vaguely LOTR-related, does anyone think that Kate Beckinsale would have been a good choice for Arwen? (raises arm enthusiastically)<BR><BR>btw, the review of PH in the New Yorker is a real hoot -- filled with delicious sarcasm (all of it much deserved). Nobody, but nobody, can rip a movie with savage sophistication like Anthony Lane. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR><a target=new href="http://www.newyorker.com/THE_CRITICS/THE_CURRENT_CINEMA/">http://www.newyorker.com/THE_CRITICS/THE_CURRENT_CINEMA/</a>
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby Bernd » Wed May 30, 2001 6:48 pm

I'd take Kate Beckinsale as <b>Frodo</b>if it means she'd be in the movie. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Bernd
Mariner

 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 6:37 pm
Top

Postby Sauron_the_Maia » Wed May 30, 2001 11:40 pm

Wow, this movie is sounding like absolute dreck. I'm thinking I shouldn't see it now. I'm not a big fan of the Disney Empire anyway; it's too evil even for my tastes.
User avatar
Sauron_the_Maia
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 9:09 pm
Top

Postby Telemachos » Wed May 30, 2001 11:42 pm

It's not evil, S_the_M, just boring. (Although perhaps that is the worst sin any movie can commit).
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby Kelannar » Thu May 31, 2001 12:25 am

My my... so many harsh words from people over a movie that they haven't seen yet. And others who say that they have no desire to see it at all! I thought it was illegal... or very very naughty, to judge a movie before you see it! A certain person made the explicit statement a while ago that this CANNOT be done! And yet, here it is, in full. And revisionists are doing it in droves! What is going ON here!? AAAAAAAA!!!!!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>I didn't have any intentions when I started this thread, I posted the info because I hate Disney and want their movie to fail. But I see that this had an unexpected result: closet purists?!<BR><BR>How many of the comments in this thread could be applied to LOTR? What would be said of me if I said the following about PJ's film? Witness the negativity:<BR><BR>vincent: "I said it once! i'll say it again, ITS GOING TO SUCK!!"<BR><BR>GandalfsMother: "Glorification skews the truth just as much as Political Correctness. Neither method should be utilized when attempting to re-tell the past. If a film does so, it is a lesser one for it."<BR><BR>finarfin: "this film appears to be nothing more than the use of cardboard patriotic symbolism in order to sell a couple of pretty faces with some really cool SFX. I refuse to play in to their hands and hope this film tanks after this weekend."<BR><BR>Telemachos: "It sounds like it's a typical movie for him: somewhat less frenetic than usual, gorgeous images, truly (occasional) eye-popping spectacle, and even perhaps a few moments of genuine power, combined with a lot of over-done scenes, camera movements, and general ub-subtlety."<BR><BR>robo: "Why do people watch movies they think are no good? Just to get out of the house? Too much disposable income? It boggles the mind."<BR><BR>Vega: "Money and films can have so much power, why are thy wasted on such trash? "<BR><BR>Xhen: "But it's a film that really could have been more and that's a shame."<BR><BR>Telemachos: "I must say that my disappointment in PH also stems from my hopes that it would be a great film. It's certainly not the worst of the year, just a waste considering what could have been."<BR><BR>Prankster: "it looks like the movie is going to be perceived as a failure. Though who knows. I'm not an expert on this stuff. But I can't help feel a bit of guilty satisfaction. This looks like a terrible movie."<BR><BR>Bernd: "The movie is garbage, but no more so than your aveage Hollywood event pic."<BR><BR><BR>But these two are my personal favorites: <BR><BR>From a CERTAIN PERSON: "They had the chance to do it properly, and they didn't. And there will never be another chance."<BR><BR>freaqboy: "I have not seen Pearl Harbor, nor do I intend to... I did, however, watch Tora! Tora! Tora! again tonight, and if the film is as accurate as many still proclaim, I recommend it to everyone who watched PH."<BR><BR>Congratulations to all revisionists who turned into purists. I will use these words to impeach you when my criticism of PJ and LOTR is questioned. Some people in this thread questioned that others have at least SEEN Pearl Harbor to comment on it. Yet, Mr. Revisionist Himself, freaqboy, says he has no plans to see it, and recommends a movie that is more accurate to the original history. Did he become a purist, or is this just hypocrisy? I don't know. But there are incredible inconsistencies with what certain people are saying in this thread regarding PH and what is said over LOTR. I cannot ignore that, and I'm surprised that no one else noticed it.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Truffo » Thu May 31, 2001 12:42 am

Oh how lovely!<BR><BR>Now let the fun begin... Come on guys, he's left himself wide open this time. Blast him!<BR><BR>As for me, I can't be bothered. But I will be watching from the relative safety of my burrow.
User avatar
Truffo
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 3:04 pm
Top

Postby Diamond of Long Cleeve » Thu May 31, 2001 2:02 am

Kelannar,<BR><BR>You are quite right. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> It's never wise to condemn a film before seeing it. Let's apply this excellent rule to both PEARL HARBOR and the FOTR movie, shall we? <BR><BR>For my part, I was immensely impressed with the LOTR trailer, slightly deranged Gandalf and all. From being worried that PJ was going to serve us a cheese-fest, I am growing more convinced that his films might be wonderful: haunting, atmospheric, moving and a worthy tribute to our favourite author. The trailer bodes well, IMHO.<BR><BR>PEARL HARBOR doesn't sound like a class act. But the FOTR movie may well be. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>PS. Kel, although I disagree with you and find your dislike of PJ's films somewhat alarming, I really can't bear the way you get jumped on all the time. Everyone here has a right to say what they like about the films -but not to castigate anyone else, be they of a purist or revisionist bent. I myself have no interest in these labels.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Diamond of Long Cleeve
Mariner

 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Gumlin » Thu May 31, 2001 6:30 am

Well, we have to decide what films to see and what films not to see somehow.<BR><BR>For me, it depends on many factors such as what the film is about, who the actors are, previous movie making history of the director and also the reviews and stories from people who have seen it - both professional reviewers and friends.<BR><BR>I have read many reviews of Pearl Harbor, a film that I originally was interested in seeing, and the overwhelming impression I have is that it isn't worth the money. I may be wrong of course but I will hold off on seeing it until it is shown on TV, I think.<BR><BR>It is still too early for me to make my mind up about LOTR, but so far all of the reports I have read from people who have seen some of the early footage are very positive. This, combined with my immense interest in seeing a LOTR movie, means that I will almost certainly see LOTR soon after it is released.<BR>
User avatar
Gumlin
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 10, 2001 1:41 am
Top

Postby Whistler » Thu May 31, 2001 6:55 am

Yikes! Kel plans to use my own words to impeach me!<BR><BR>I'd be terrified if I had ANY idea what the heck that's supposed to mean!<BR>
User avatar
Whistler
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Whistler » Thu May 31, 2001 7:04 am

Follow-up: Will somebody point out to Kel that one of these stories is TRUE, while the other one is FICTION?<BR><BR>Yes, that's right. LOTR never happened! To evaluate it in the same way historical dramas are evaluated is (do I even have to say this?) weirdly misguided.<BR><BR>If Kel can produce a handful of veterans from Gondor, I'll judge LOTR by the standards of history. Otherwise I'll judge it as a doggone movie.<BR>
User avatar
Whistler
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:39 pm
Top

Postby Telemachos » Thu May 31, 2001 7:18 am

Kel, I'd also like to point out that I *have* seen Pearl Harbor. Twice. That's why I made the statements I did (which I posted *after* I had seen the film). In other threads, before the film came out, I was very hopeful about the film, but didn't review it or determine it wasn't very good until I had seen it. I plan to do the same with LOTR.
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby Ceorl » Thu May 31, 2001 7:24 am

I had mixed feelings about Pearl Harbor. Some of the movie had real potential and held my interest (in particular the early romance, the bombing of PH and the scenes involving the President).<BR><BR>The problem was that a large part of the movie seemed peripheral to the storyline (the whole RAF involvement could have disappeared without effect on the plot and the love triangle should have disappeared) or examples of political correctness (for example, multiple instances portraying the Japanese as seeing the bombing as a regrettable incident. How does this seem appropriate given Japan's peace overtures and meticulous planning of a surprise attack during this historical period. If this was all viewed as a 'regrettable incident' by Imperial Japan then events would have played out much differently).<BR><BR>In the end though, it was a worthy Saturday matinee movie to me that could have used extensive editing to trim it down to a focused 1:45 - 2 hour movie.
User avatar
Ceorl
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 4:11 pm
Top

Postby Xhen » Thu May 31, 2001 7:38 am

Uh, Kelannar. Thanks for quoting me and all but I SAW the film. I was giving my opinion of it. Do I really have to spell out for you the difference between reviewing a movie you've seen and reviewing a movie you haven't seen? I really can't wait for you to use my review of PH against me. That should be interesting.
User avatar
Xhen
Mariner


 
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 8:41 am
Top

Postby Kelannar » Thu May 31, 2001 7:58 am

"Do I really have to spell out for you the difference between reviewing a movie you've seen and reviewing a movie you haven't seen?"<BR><BR>Try spelling it out for freaqboy.<BR><BR>Telemachos - I know you saw it, and if you're being consistent with your decisions not to judge a movie until you see it, then good for you. Not all of the quotes I chose had to deal with judging a movie before seeing it - most involve criticism of the same ilk that can be made against LOTR. I'm sure you know that. <BR><BR>What I was also trying to show was that some severely harsh comments towards PH were made by those who also claim to have open minds over LOTR. It was if all that embodied the word "hypocrisy" fell out of heaven and landed in this thread. If that doesn't implicate you, then you're more the better for it, and I salute you. There were several here who explicitly refused to judge PH before they saw it, and they might have done so on their principled doctrine of "wait and see." But OTHERS? Oh boy... talk about getting caught in a trap. And this was just too good an opportunity for me to pass up. I think freaqboy, finarfin, and a CERTAIN PERSON will rue the day they wrote their own words in this thread.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby finarfin » Thu May 31, 2001 8:23 am

Rue the day? If LOTR garners as many God awful reviews as PH did and it comes to mind that it was filmed strictly to sell popcorn, then I might consider NOT seeing it. Though, unlike PH, I've invested a lot of time concerned with LOTR and zip with PH. But I guess you didn't consider that as you were sharpening your punji sticks, eh? <BR><BR>Also, there are a few differences between the two productions. I'll list a few of the ones going against PH before it ever was released.<BR><BR>1. Ben Affleck<BR>2. Michael Bay<BR>3. Jerry Bruckhiemer<BR>4. Better versions of the same event already on film.<BR>5. Disney<BR>6. Josh Hartnell<BR>7. A Baldwin as Doolittle<BR>8. Randall Wallace<BR>9. John Schwartzman <BR>10.Three hour film and the crucial event is in the middle?<BR><BR>Those are a few of my favorite things. <BR><BR>Trap? What the hell are you talking about. Sometimes I think your only ambition on these boards is to be the moral police of great works! DOH! I'm sorry that is really what you want to be when you grow up, huh?
User avatar
finarfin
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4624
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 9:57 am
Top

Postby Whistler » Thu May 31, 2001 8:26 am

Darn, I'm rueing even now!<BR><BR>Ouch! This is some SERIOUS rue I'm feeling!<BR>
User avatar
Whistler
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:39 pm
Top

Postby roaccarcsson » Thu May 31, 2001 8:27 am

For Ceorl: I have not seen the movie so I don't know if it whitewashes the Japanese as some seem to think. But it is a matter of historical record that Admiral Yamomoto, who planned the PH attack, believed strongly that it was suicidal for Japan to attack the US. Not only because of the huge disparity in resources, but because he actually knew Americans and disagreed with the general Japanese view that they were weaklings who wouldn't fight. He said in effect, No, they don't want to fight, but if you get them sufficiently p*ssed off, they will be relentless.<BR><BR>And of course he was totally right. And he personally was killed, shot down in what amounted to an assasination motivated by his role in the PH attack.
User avatar
roaccarcsson
Mariner

 
Posts: 5542
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2001 6:21 pm
Top

Postby Telemachos » Thu May 31, 2001 8:30 am

We all make judgement calls on the films we see and the books we read. I think those who haven't seen PH (because of the lousy reviews and bad word-of-mouth) didn't have any innate love for the story even before the film came out -- because they had seen previous films by the producer and director and figured it would be more of the same.<BR><BR>There *are* parallels here to the upcoming LOTR movie -- for example, I could see why someone could not want to see the film because they felt PJ was a director they didn't like (based on seeing his previous films). Or didn't want to see it for a whole multitude of reasons -- this is largely Wildwood's position (and it's a very respected one). However, people may not have seen PH even if it got good reviews (again, like Wildwood and LOTR). But that's different from entirely condemning a film in its entirely *without* having seen it.<BR><BR>It's totally cool for you to say you're biased against the film (which you've done) and that you don't care to see it because you don't feel it will be a good adaptation. But to proclaim the poor film-making without having seen it (or without anyone else having seen it) seems a little off, to me. <BR><BR>The people who aren't bothering to see PH are basing their condemnations on a wide variety of newspaper reviews and a whole bevy of personal reviews here on TORC. That's *very* different from condemning the LOTR movies based on 2 trailers, some photos, and a few rumors (and ignoring the enthusiastic word of mouth from those who *have* seen chunks of the film or read the script).<BR><BR>At least, that's why I think it's a slightly different situation. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby freaqboy » Thu May 31, 2001 8:39 am

<BR> Kel - <BR><BR>"Try spelling it out for freaqboy"<BR><BR> Are you really this desperate for attention? Try becoming literate.<BR><BR> Note: REVIEWS from trusted friends and film reviewers, judging the FINISHED PRODUCT.<BR><BR> I didn't think it was that hard to figure out, but I guess it is. My condolences on your failed law career, if this is the best you can manage.<BR><BR> <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-rolleyes.gif"border=0>
User avatar
freaqboy
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Telemachos » Thu May 31, 2001 8:49 am

Hey fin, don't you go insulting my man Ben. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0> He's of the few positives about the film -- having an ability to be somehow serious and self-mocking helps greatly in a film like this.<BR><BR>I gotta stand up for John Schwartzman too. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Randall Wallace and Michael Bay should be fighting it out for the #1 spot, with ole Jerry B. running a close second for somehow, despite all his marketing savvy and knowledge of the American audience, failing to recognize the MAJOR problems with the film's pacing and third act.
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

Postby Bernd » Thu May 31, 2001 8:52 am

I don't get it, man. I stated, very clearly, that<BR><BR><i>I couldn’t care less about how good PH is. I suspect it’s no good, but I’ll have to see for myself. I, for one, do not prejudge something and then prove myself right by what other people say.</i><BR><BR>Then I saw the movie and decided I didn't care for it. How does this make me a hypocrite?<BR><BR>I was chastised by my brother last night for using the word "hypocrite." He considered it a loaded expression that could easily lead to an escalation of tension in a discussion, not unlike "racist." I decided to agree with him.<BR>
User avatar
Bernd
Mariner

 
Posts: 9521
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2001 6:37 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Thu May 31, 2001 9:13 am

Facts are stubborn things, freaqboy. The fact is, you refused to watch a film that you had commented on. You said that a different movie that was more loyal to an original history was better. This is entirely at odds with your position for the LOTR movie, and you know it. Your entire principle, if you haven't abandoned it in this thread, is to "wait and see" and to judge for YOURSELF (and also that loyal versions aren't any better than a non-loyal one). By clinging to the claims of others here, and refusing to see a movie on that basis, you've apparrently dismissed all debate over this issue for LOTR. Nice work - you've made all your arguments in the past entirely irrelevant, and you've embarassed those like Telemachos who actually continue to hold to that "wait and see" principle.<BR><BR>Now, I'm sure that others like finarfin will object and say "but there are differences!" and he'll list a bunch like the actors and the directors. I see no distinction, though, because anyone can say the same about LOTR (and in fact some have done so specifically regarding Liv Tyler and others). Telemachos is mature enough to acknowledge this is his last post. So what is the REAL difference? Telemachos claims it's the AMOUNT of knowledge we have, that reviewers of PH have more knowledge of that movie than we have of LOTR. Even if that's true, does that change the underlying bad verses good equation? To me, it seems as if the equation is the same but the numbers are just different. Instead of 10 > 5, it's 10000 > 5000. Where is the principle here? I think "wait and see" has been totally abandoned here, at least on principle. <BR><BR>So what can revisonists say about LOTR now? How can they object to someone who says they will refuse to see LOTR? Will they say that it's different from PH, and list some factors? What if that person says they don't want to see LOTR because of those factors? Like Liv Tyler, and PJ's apparrent focus on horror, and Cate Blanchett, etc. I recall that for Bregolad, author of the Movie Accuracy Petition, the line was crossed when Wood was chosen as Frodo. So what NOW? What will a revisionist say now? At least in the past, "wait and see" in principle would be the great defense, and I'll admit that it has been a defense in principle. But now, it seems meaningless. Has the dam been shattered?<BR><BR>Finally, I reiterate - I AM going to see LOTR. I simply have concluded that it will be a bad movie and that between now and the time I see it the problems will not be fixed.<BR><BR>PS: freaqboy, I remember when once you actually made lengthy posts in objection to what I said. Now you make petty, pathetic comments like "try becoming literate." I don't know what's the matter with you (maybe you've lost the will to fight, maybe you realize you've been defeated on this issue), but you really don't help yourself with that crap, and I cannot help but thinking that I'm facing an unworthy adversary who can't sufficiently trade swords with me. If you're just busy with things then that's fine - but just say so. Don't make yourself look like a fool who can't debate with me.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Kelannar » Thu May 31, 2001 9:15 am

Bernd, I referenced you and your position when I said: "There were several here who explicitly refused to judge PH before they saw it, and they might have done so on their principled doctrine of "wait and see.'" You're not a hypocrite at all.<BR>
User avatar
Kelannar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2000 9:30 pm
Top

Postby Xhen » Thu May 31, 2001 9:26 am

Here's my review of KP (Kelannar's Post):<BR><BR>Kelannar started out with a strong premise by sarcastically insinuating that Revisionists were being hypocritical by condemning PH without seeing it. Unfortunately his argument began to fall apart when he made the mistake of quoting the opinions of people who HAD seen the film. A rookie mistake by someone who is supposed to be a trained debater. <BR><BR>Kelannar's attempts to compare PH to LOTR also failed badly in that PH is a completed work which has now been seen by millions of people and a consensus is forming about the quality of the completed film. LOTR is not even a film yet. All in all a very superficial comparison.<BR><BR>Although Kelannar's post started out strongly it failed to live up to it's promise and has to be considered a failed attempt...an example of superficiality over substance. Two thumbs down.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Xhen
Mariner


 
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 8:41 am
Top

Postby pavelnash » Thu May 31, 2001 9:33 am

But Josh Hartnett is SSOOOO HOT!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-devil.gif"border=0>
User avatar
pavelnash
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 4:08 am
Top

Postby Telemachos » Thu May 31, 2001 9:33 am

<i>I think "wait and see" has been totally abandoned here, at least on principle. </i><BR><BR>I can only speak for myself, Kel, but every year there are a number of movies that greatly interest and excite me. Obviously, FOTR is one of those movies, and has been since I heard LOTR was being filmed. I go into every one of these movies expecting the best -- that I will enjoy what I will see. So I am a strong optimist. I have no problems with those who declare that -- for any numbers of reasons -- they aren't going to see a film. Everyone certainly has the right to make up their mind... any way they choose to do so. (I may think they are deluded, but I'm sure people occasionally think the same of me. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>)<BR><BR>This is why I don't have a problem with Wildwood's position, or Cerin's, or even yours -- when you are speaking about yourself and your own reactions. What I find disappointing is that you consistently declare that your opinion is the only correct one, and make desparaging comments towards those who hold a different view than you. You hold that the films are not nearly faithful to the books for you, and that far too many liberties are being taken with the characters and themes for your comfort and satisfaction. Fine and good. But, given the same information, others have come to a different conclusion. There is no completely objective right or wrong position here... unless you state (which you have <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>) that the film-makers have made changes from the book. That is fact and no one has denied it.<BR><BR><i>At least in the past, "wait and see" in principle would be the great defense, and I'll admit that it has been a defense in principle. But now, it seems meaningless. Has the dam been shattered?</i><BR><BR>No, it hasn't. "Wait and see" simply means -- for those who are willing to keep an open mind -- wait until the final product is shown. There are those who have made the personal choice NOT to have an open mind -- Wildwood and yourself, for example. But that is not the only correct choice, simply the one that feels right for you. Regarding PH, finarfin made a decision prior to the film's release not to see the film, similar to Wildwood and LOTR. <BR><BR>But you have also made up your mind (which is fine) and still are determined to see the film. That strikes me as determination to prove (somehow) that because you disapprove of the final product will make you "right". It won't, except for the fact that you've proved to yourself that your original doubts were correct.
User avatar
Telemachos
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 13789
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 11:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Movies and Media: Other

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest