Just finished this commentary and enjoyed it thoroughly. Other comments will come later but for now I heart Teague so much for pronouncing "Mojave" the way he did
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Just finished this commentary and enjoyed it thoroughly. Other comments will come later but for now I heart Teague so much for pronouncing "Mojave" the way he did
http://www.atari.com/arcade/lunar_lander for those who think this is easy
I created a two mile crater...is that good?
Also belated, but I spent Christmas away from the computer and the day after at work (retail and all )
Merry Christmas and hope everyone had a safe and fun holiday. Happy New Year as well
Cats and women will do what they like and men and dogs had better get used to it
A possible misquote from Robert Heinlein.
Oh my god, thank you for giving thoughts of Jason Momoa as Azog. That would have been amazing!
And absolutely agree about him btw. Easily the worst creature. Most of the other orcs I could pretty much buy. Although the entire Goblin town sequence was just so fucking balls to the wall ridiculous I can't even remember if the render/comp was decent on them...cause I know for sure the design work sure as hell wasn't gettin it.
I thought Azog was great, and presented almost an inhuman monster in comparison to the rest of the Orcs. I might be wrong, but to me it made him more of a threat, because he lacked the almost Hausian (Harry Hausen reference) of the monsters were there is kind of a person behind them that might make us sympathetic towards them (I can think of moments in LOTR).
Azog is pure villian and I honestly never thought of him as a CG character. Not that Jason Momoa wouldn't have been amazing as a giant hulking white Orc-I agree that would have been cool. But, Azog worked for me because it made him more inhuman and threatening than the average Orc.
Hip, hip... (say Hooray)
hip, hip...(say Hooray)
Good job, Teague.
*runs to listen*'
Edit: Quick question, Teague- what software do you use to record and compile the episodes?
Second Breakfast Club probably works the best and then Mr. Incredible America
This is Christmas music......
Maybe, but it really isn't Christmas without TSO
Congratulations Dave!!!
Enjoy these last days of sleep... Remember them, they will never come back.
This is so true...
I mean, congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Dave
The police in Norway don't even bear arms. Our crime rate is really, really low. If you con't count Anders Behring Breivik who killed 80 people last year in a massacre.
I don't, really...wait
Actually, it amazes me the amount of shootings that have been happening lately, at least in the United States of America. I heard an interesting talking point about the whole "blame the media" bit is the attitude of Hollywood (speaking broadly, not anyone in particular here) and the cheapness of life in many movies. The argument was made that death no longer seems real to many young people, at least as presented in the media, as the actors are still fine at the end, thus blurring the line between fantasy death and real death.
Its an odd argument, but maybe movies have gone too far with wanting high body counts to create a sense of stakes.
/discuss
With the disappointment that we've seen from big hype movies like Prometheus and The Hobbit, maybe "wait and see" mode will be good for this film in the long run.
Maybe
(Great, now I'm skeptical)
fireproof78 wrote:Gregory Harbin wrote:Yeah, that's pretty much it. I was completely unenthused by the preview.
I'm rather amused by the skepticism about this film. It seems that most people are in a wait and see mode than an excited mode.
I get that the first film was not everyone's cup of Earl Grey, but I mean, wow...not sure what to make of it all.
I'm sympathetic to the 'This is not what Star Trek is supposed to be' critique. (At least some) ideas and science, not just running, punch ups, and 'splosions. The reboot just reverts to the standard schlock template.
Someday I will post my full review and analysis but the new Trek never struck me as the same schlock. But, that is me, and I take a different look at a lot of things. I pay attention to weird details that people don't but and things like that ( a quirky for instance was I always liked R5-D4 from Star Wars more than R2-D2).
But, I think there is a lot more depth to Star Trek (2009) and will be more depth to Into Darkness that is often given credit for.
So we have our entire gang of heroes, trapped in the underground lair of a race of beings known for being awesome at toture devices, calling out for thier best and most horrible torture devices to be brought out and used on our heroes.
Yes, I would have liked a MA or R rating too, for all these movies, a chilling dark tone with real stakes. Same with TDKR. The economics is such that if the budget is over $100M, then it's gotta be PG13 these days. There were exceptions in the 80s and 90s (e.g. Starship Troopers) but not so much now.
See, I will honestly never understand this and someone please help me to understand it. Why do things to have this chilling, dark, and R rating to have weight? What is it about torture devices that lend so much more to the story?
Maybe I'm too soft (I'll admit to that) but this movie is not the same as LOTR. The world is not at stake, evil is not about to unleash across Middle Earth in the same way Sauron was the threat in LOTR. The Hobbit is a lighter journey-why does it have have the same dark tones as LOTR?
(Apologies for spelling errors- had an 8 month old trying to help)
Another question (spoilers):
Why do both Thorin and Gandalf agree that the Rivendell elves will try to stop the quest (and so they must lie about it e.g. academic interest only) and then when Elrond finds out, he's not that bothered.
Why does Balin attempt to stop Thorin handing the map to Elrond, and then as soon as the runes are deciphered he blurts out the actual mission objective right in front of Elrond?
fireproof78 wrote:I mean, I get not liking it, or not liking parts of it, but not even watching Captain America before hand and then not caring, doesnt bode well for a movie review.
TBH you only need to watch the trailer and you're set.
Granted, but you would miss out on Hug Weaving, which I'm not one to do
I think knowing a little more about the tesseract helps too.
Radagast is a mixed bag. He works on some levels, and others he is clearly just out there.
I think someone said this, but it bears repeating-this story is far more child like than LOTR. So, while I had hoped for the same type of gravitas, as BDA talked about, I also when in with my cup of salt. The opening and attack by Smaug, was very much a prologue-like intro, showing Dwarves at their peak and the glory they longed to get back. The songs didn't bother me because it was introducing us to Dwarves and their culture, which we knew little of from LOTR.
The child like view comes from, I think, the fact that it is Bilbo's perspective. He is naive and uncertain in the world. A theme in this story is his growth and becoming more adult and experienced and seasoned. So, it takes a child like tone because I think the movie will grow with him.
Just a thought
avatar wrote:I saw the 9 minute Prologue today in front of The Hobbit IMAX, and the lens flares are still there on the bridge. Kirk does an Indiana Jones getting chased by natives with spears.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I was completely unenthused by the preview.
I'm rather amused by the skepticism about this film. It seems that most people are in a wait and see mode than an excited mode.
I get that the first film was not everyone's cup of Earl Grey, but I mean, wow...not sure what to make of it all.
Teague wrote:Then we can have a DIF sleeper cell in London for whenever we have... a... plan... to... colonize Parliament or something.
I would like to welcome our new readers from various international law enforcement agencies, and hope you enjoy your visit to our little home.
If you think that's bad, check this out!
Confused Matthew Yells At The Avengers
Not so much a critical analysis (review) as a rant, seemingly from someone who either didn't pay attention to anything that was happening on screen, or didn't actually see the film but said he did.
Yeah, I normally like Confused Matthew (his Star Wars prequel reviews are pretty interesting) but his Avengers comments just were a rant.
I mean, I get not liking it, or not liking parts of it, but not even watching Captain America before hand and then not caring, doesnt bode well for a movie review.
The "What's Wrong with..." video reminds me of the "Sins of Spiderman" video-nitpicks that are not really nitpicks so much as just complaints for the sake of complaining.
House Lee literally gave me chills.
It looks fantastic.
Would love to see these as banners
Heh. Well, I'll say that since they've trotted out the eagles once again to save the day, it wouldn't hurt to explain them just a little bit for the benefit of folks who haven't read the books. (Which I actually haven't, I got the info from the official LOTR commentaries.)
If it was me, I'd put a brief moment at the top of the next Hobbit movie - Bilbo could ask the perfectly reasonable question "why the heck didn't the eagles take us the rest of the way?" and Gandalf could tell him (and the audience) that eagles don't mix in with the affairs of other races much - though they sometimes do Gandalf favors when his bacon really needs saving.
I'll agree with that, given that the eagles are kind of an enigma within the LOTR films. Given most people's reaction to them, I think Tom Bombadil would have been a huge mistake.
I for one, found Radagast's hovel and interesting hodgepodge, with the spiders reflecting the evil that was coming in to the world. The fact that they ran away may have been due to Radagast's use of his power to heal the hedgehog. He clearly is powerful enough to withstand a Nazgul so the spiders may have sensed his power and fled.
Bilbo probably wasn't thinking about the how of getting back-just that he wanted to get back. Thorin's rejection of him was probably abrupt due to the conflict within himself about whether or not Bilbo was worth keeping around. And Bilbo nearly proved him right.
Thorin wasn't dead. I kept expecting him to stab the Orc or Azog. So, Gandalf didn't strike me as any more a Necromancer than Aragorn in Return of the King.
Eagles-oh, why did you do that? They're not Gandalf's pets but I was waiting, and still am, for Trey's comments. I withhold them for now
Trey wrote:two dwarf musical numbers is still two too many, and Radagast better become important in movies 2 and/or 3 or I'm gonna hate him even more than I do now.
The Misty Mountains hymn is cool. It needs to be extended into a fully blown goth metal version.
I loved that theme running through the film. I know some find it irritating, but it worked well for me in a similar fashion to the Fellowship theme in the LOTR trilogy.
Radagast was a little too over the top for me, but I loved him as a contrast between extremes of Saruman and himself. Radagast became too infatuated with the world, while Saruman clearly had his own machinations at the Council with his downplaying Gandalf's fears, discounting Radagast's opinion.
I mean, I liked Azog as a character and as a foe for Thorin and the gang, I guess. I hated the CGI on him, though. His skin was too smooth, so it looked like there wasn't much detail on him. Made him look like a video game character.
I guess Azog is like the Saruman of this franchise. But is he enough of a presence to sustain it? Maybe the Necromancer will take some of that in Part II.
That's fair.
I found his appearance an interesting change and an engaging one.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.