Still the same script. Just going to be cut in three instead of in two. Which is actually along the lines of what happened to the original LOTR novels.
I don't fancy spending the next month trying to get librarian out of the carpet.
Spike ,'Chosen'
Buffista Movies 7: Brides for 7 Samurai
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Typo Boy - Jul 30, 2012 5:59:37 pm PDT #22060 of 30000
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
sumi - Jul 31, 2012 4:20:37 am PDT #22061 of 30000
Art Crawl!!!
But -- no dragon until the third film??!!!
Not good.
Kalshane - Jul 31, 2012 5:55:24 am PDT #22062 of 30000
GS: If you had to choose between kicking evil in the head or the behind, which would you choose, and why?
Minsc: I'm not sure I understand the question. I have two feet, do I not? You do not take a small plate when the feast of evil welcomes seconds.
I'm more okay with a single massive tome being split up into three slightly less massive tomes, than trying to squeeze three movies out of one book, appendices or not.
I don't know, we'll have to see what happens. I can understand them having enough footage for three movies. I just don't know that they will make for three coherent stories.
I just worry about directorial overreach (see George Lucas, Worchowski's, etc)
§ ita § - Jul 31, 2012 6:15:30 am PDT #22063 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm okay without three coherent stories, as long as they make one well doled-out story.
lisah - Jul 31, 2012 6:42:39 am PDT #22064 of 30000
Punishingly Intricate
I am dreading the film adaptation of Cloud Atlas. The book is one of my favorites and the trailer looks like they have really cheesed it up.
Tom Scola - Aug 01, 2012 9:32:27 am PDT #22065 of 30000
hwæt
Every ten years, Sight and Sound Magazine publishes their extensive poll of worldwide film directors’ and film critics’ favourite films, boiling each survey down to a pair of “Best” lists.
DavidS - Aug 01, 2012 9:37:41 am PDT #22066 of 30000
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Vertigo on top! A shocker.
I saw the re-release of Vertigo (after it had been out of circulation for more than 20 years) when I lived in Boston. And in that same week I saw Fanny and Alexander for the first time. Still two of the best movies I've ever seen and a week that completely remade me as a film fan.
Sophia Brooks - Aug 01, 2012 9:45:37 am PDT #22067 of 30000
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
I am so happy that Citizen Kane is no longer number one. I hate Citizen Kane. I saw it as a teenager, and I can't even tell you why I hated it, except I thought it was boring. And I loved old movies when I was a kid.
Vonnie K - Aug 01, 2012 10:14:35 am PDT #22068 of 30000
Kiss me, my girl, before I'm sick.
8. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
I've seen about half the films on each list, but have heard of the rest. Except this one. The fact that three of the ten film on the critics' list are silent films makes me roll my eyes a bit.
I like The Third Man (apparently placed 73rd) better than any of the films listed except for Vertigo. And I am generally unmoved by the works of the the Big Three (Kubrick, Scorcese, and Coppola) so that second list is not doing much for me either. Ah well.
DavidS - Aug 01, 2012 10:23:38 am PDT #22069 of 30000
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
I've seen about half the films in each list, but have heard of the rest. Except this one.
It was almost completely unavailable in the West until it came out on DVD. So it's been highly lauded since its rediscovery. But it probably wouldn't ping your radar if you weren't in film school or a film scholar.
The fact that three of the ten film on the critics' list are silent films make me roll my eyes a bit.
How come? That they're being willfully obscure, or trying to score cool points?
The techniques of silent film masters are often seen as more cinematic/visual because they had to be and they were innovating the forms. The introduction of sound set camera movement back until...well, people like Welles basically.
To me it's no more eye-rolly than admiring Shakespeare's writing, which attains a very high level of technique in a style that's very different from contemporary writing.