You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Abbie
Dogma: 7.5/10
I didn't care much for the sophomoric moments, and there were a couple of scenes in which the dialogue abruptly switched from clever to very stiff, but overall I very much enjoyed the film—competently shot, well-written for the most part, well-performed (particularly on the part of Alan Rickman), and actually surprisingly thoughtful. I'm not planning on viewing any other Smith films after having been indoctrinated against him by WAYDM ( 
), but I'm glad I saw this one.
I'd be really interested in a Skyfall commentary. I just relistened to the Best of 2012 Intermission, where Brian called it his favorite film of the year, and was quite frankly baffled; the numerous plotholes in that film were awful, I thought.
I think the problem with that argument, though, is that, because we haven't seen many of her outlines, you could still make the claim of it being an ass-pull that she made look good, no matter how detailed her planning was, unless she were being incredibly obvious with her foreshadowing. The whole point of good foreshadowing is that it isn't obvious the first time around; if it were, it would be clunky.
If nothing else, if this chart is anything to go by, I'd say it's pretty clear Rowling does outline and plot her books extensively.
And a genius at planning would have figured out some way to mention the Deathly Hallows somewhere in SIX books, since Dumbledore, Ron, Hermione, and Sirius all know Harry has a cloak just like the one in the story.
But it's quite clearly established early on that invisibility cloaks are by no means unheard of; they're rare, but not incredibly so. And as the Hallows are a crackpot's theory based on the fairy story, it'd be like expecting a general audience to know some nut's theories about a code in the fairytales of the Brothers Grimm. Dumbledore is the only exception, and there's very good reasons for his not wanting Harry to know about the existence of the Hallows.
Dorkman wrote:It's possible ... but the number of early seeds planted for major plot points is so extensive it would require Rowling to be significantly more of a genius to pull them together with no plan at all than to have planted them deliberately, and is frankly the less plausible explanation.
Disagree. The case for the former is how many things central to a story are not even mentioned until the beginning of that story.
James' circle of friends and their magical map aren't discussed until Azkaban; prior to that, Sirius is just a guy who loaned Hagrid a motorcycle and Scabbers is a rat.
Death Eaters aren't mentioned until Goblet of Fire, despite the fact that Snape was one (surely a subject of rumor at the school) and Sirius was accused of being in league with V.
The Triwizard Tournament is first mentioned in Goblet, despite the fact that winning it bestows "eternal glory".
The Order of the Phoenix and the prophecy about Harry aren't even hinted at until Order, despite the fact that all the central characters in Azkaban were in the order and V's whole motivation for attacking Harry is the prophecy.
The Deathly Hallows, the Elder Wand, and wands having or changing allegiances due to disarming and "defeating by superior skill" aren't discussed until Hallows, even tho there is a ton of disarming and defeating done thruout, including Draco and Snape killing Dumbledore at the end of Prince.
And there is a shit-ton of after-the-fact explanation by Dumbledore, Snape, Sirius, and Lupin at times, most of which is obvious retcon flim-flammery. Clearly, Rowling just kept good notes and often said "who (or what) can I use here that I've only mentioned before?"
I don't think you can use that to just sweep away all of the prior planning she clearly did, though. She spent five years outlining the series before she began writing. And even if it were a case of ass-pulling, it's some of the most convincing ass-pulling I've seen, which, as Dorkman said, as arguably just as impressive.
Compare that to one of the other seven-volume fantasy epics of our time, Stephen King's Dark Tower series. While I loved the first four books, one thing that consistently annoyed me was that there wasn't even an attempt at making overarching plot threads and connections; King introduced the thing he needed for Wizard and Glass's ending to work in Wizard and Glass, pulls a huge amount of shit out of nowhere in The Waste Lands. And that's just in the first four; the last three are a complete mess of unplanned crap, with only one major plot point having its seeds in a previous book. It's a muddled, rudderless mess. At least with Potter, Rowling, if nothing else, makes it feel that she was building to this ending the whole time, rather than having a completely WTF conclusion like King did.
Also, there are at least some plausible reasons as to why some of your points weren't mentioned. The Triwizard Tournament hadn't been held for centuries, so it'd be like our mainstream culture remembering some obscure athletic event from five hundred years ago—the Olympics obviously being the major exception, but those are international, whereas the tournament is intercollegiate. The Deathly Hallows myth is based in a wizard's children's story, which Harry of course would have no exposure to. And Rowling couldn't very well have set up the Marauders' friendship earlier without giving far too much away. As for the prophecy—first of all, I think the reader can reasonably infer V's motives for killing Harry very early on. And the justification given by Dumbledore works quite well, I think—he cared about Harry's security and happiness too much. In the same way, if Rowling had introduced the prophecy early on, it would have diluted the "safe" feel of the early books for younger readers.
I think the simplest answer was said during the LotR commentaries (you guys were referring to that universe, but it still applies here): the books created a world more beautiful than our own. The Harry Potter books are the closest I've ever read to something that can truly be called "magical". I can't think of a single person who wouldn't, deep down, want to live in the world where Hogwarts is a reality, and be able to live as part of a secret world full of good friends and adventure.
Dorkman wrote:For a while now I've been wanting to shoot a wand duel that did all the cool stuff the movie duels didn't. We might finally do that next year.
Scene: Some generic factory.
Dorkman enters from the right, a light saber on his hip. Ryan enters from the left. Dorkman draws his saber, ready to fight his old nemesis. Ryan reaches, and pulls out... a wand.
Dorkman looks at it, surprised. Holstering his saber, he reaches down to his other hip, unseen by the view, and draws his own wand.
They fight.
I will kickstart that. I will kickstart that so hard.
Praise be.
Watch CHAMBER again. That's what it does there, too. It blows Lockhart back but his wand stays in his hand.
True, but at least later in the movie they show Harry using it to disarm Lockhart.
Casting unforgivable curses becomes a lot trickier if you have to worry about it bouncing back at you.
Not to be too much of a nerd, but Avada Kedavra, at least, is unblockable, and that's pretty much the only one Voldy cares about using, so any defensive spells would be useless.
Zarban wrote:[*]The movies really should have made the magic more cinematic. The books really do have characters just get shoved around a lot.[/*]
The movies actually managed to make magic less imaginative. No matter what incantation is verbalized, 90 percent of the time the effect is "blast target back about 20 feet."
The most annoying one is that Expelliarmus, the disarming spell, Harry's signature spell, the spell that defeats Voldemort, morphs into exactly that by the fourth movie. Why the fuck did you set it up in the second film if you were just going to throw away its effects by two films later?
Those couple of people who told me "Hermione's not as much of a know-it-all in the books" are full of shit. Kloves should have given some of that stuff to Ron, because he is fucking useless in the middle books.
She's nowhere near as obnoxious in the books, though. I utterly despise the way the films treat Ron after the first one—half of his being useful in Chamber of Secrets is given to Hermione, and over the course of the rest he just degrades into this useless buffoon when in the books he's just as smart as Harry.
Having said that, I would like to hear the panel tackle this one, but I agree as to being worried of a Spider-Man 2 hatefest, which I feel isn't very constructive and misses out on a lot worth discussing.
Well, if nothing else Dorkman likes it, or at least he did at the time he wrote his review, so it'll have at least one defender.
It's A Wonderful Life...
...And Then Sharks.
Like. Like. ALL THE LIKE.
I still don't understand how people can hate TDKR. It's fridge-logicy, sure, but so is Star Trek 2009 and everyone save Brian loves that one.
Yay, class trip is rescheduled. So I will be there all 24 hours. 
People always looks to Eowyn as the only example of a strong female character in the Lord of the Rings.
Let's not forget that the entire Elven race is pretty much ruled by one woman. Galadriel is the foremost power of the West, a founding member of the White Council and a wielder of a ring of power. While she doesn't fight in a battle during the main narrative, she's essentially the leader of the rebellion.
With her guidance and military prowess, she was able to rout a large attacking force set from Mordor and Dol Guldur across the Anduin. A victory they won four times. Her and her husband's army pushed back the Orc army and then turned their sights on Dol Guldur, where "Galadriel herself threw down its walls, and laid its pits bare."
That's one place where I think the musical did a better job than the films—Galadriel is one of the best characters in it, and her role is expanded to show how important a position she holds.
is there a movie you watch once a year, every year, perhaps on some anniversary?
Generally the original Star Wars trilogy and the LotR trilogy. And, every Fifth of November, V for Vendetta.
do you switch off the lights and the phones and unplug the door bells?
Lights? Yes. Everything else? I wish.
if there are sequels, do you try and watch all of them together?
Only if it's Star Wars, LotR or Indiana Jones. As has been said, sequel decay tends to set in with just about everything else.
can you just watch #2 or #5 in a series, or do you have to watch all in order?
I skip the first Star Trek film on principle.
can you watch over other friend's houses, or do you have to have it perfect at home?
I like talking about the movie as it plays, so anywhere I can do that is fine by me.
do the blu-ray snobs refuse to watch DVDs now?
I'm a proud DVD snob, thank you very much.
with certain movies, can you just watch a scene or do you have to watch the entire movie?
I can generally just stick with the Joker scenes with The Dark Knight, but still tend to watch the whole film, as I only put it in when I'm in the mood for an overlong, draining, epic viewing experience.
Y'know what crappy sequel to a Jimmy Stewart film I'd like to see? The Vertigo/Willy Wonka crossover that was discussed in the Vertigo commentary. That would be glorious.
Also, they'd better retitle this as It's a Wonderful Life II: The Lifening.
I might have a trip to an art museum for class during this. 
I certainly hope that can be rectified.
there's not a whole lot going on thematically beyond "Anyone can be a hero," which is a pretty simplistic theme to hang such a grand and epic film on.
I'd argue that the best epics have simplistic themes.
I can quibble about the fridge stuff in between viewings, but in the three times I've watched it I've been engrossed every time. It's still no Dark Knight, but it blows Begins out of the water.
Is The Dark Knight Rises included in that lineup? I'd be really curious to hear your guys' thoughts on how it holds up.
Okay, sorry, just trying to tease this out...
So Fox has theatrical and home video rights on A New Hope forever and on Episodes 1,2,3,5, & 6 until 2020.
I hadn't realized they still have temporary rights to the other films. In that case, would it make sense for Fox to try to obtain the negatives and try to do a box set now, getting as much profit as possible before Disney takes ownership?
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Abbie
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
