Morgoth Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I enjoyed Dredd 3D. The chemistry between Karl Urban and Olivia Thirlby worked well. Overall, a simple yet fun movie. Just don't expect any sort of artificially induced "Hollywood morals" or other nonsense like that. It was an UK/South African production, and I appreciated that very much. Rain makes everything better.
Gorgon Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Smart idea to just concentrate on that one encounter in the highrise. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Hurlshort Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I thought the trolls in the Hobbit could have been done better. There were also a few scenes that I thought were designed simply to make a 3D experience worthwhile, and that bothered me. But the positives far outweighed that stuff.
Gorgon Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I think it would have looked a lot better in traditional animation. You know line drawings with a high production value as opposed to computer animation and face masks. I love the book, but it's nothing without atmosphere. The dwarves look either like humans or like they were lost from the set of Snow White. They are supposed to look like Warhammer badasses. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Hurlshort Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I thought very few of the dwarves looked good as well. At least Thorin was well done, and the brothers, but the rest were silly or easy to forget.
Blarghagh Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I actually appreciated that the dwarves didn't all look exactly the same, which they tend to do. Like, all Warhammer, WarCraft, previous Lord of the Rings movies, dwarves from all other media have like a single, boring variation. You've got Gimli, blonde Gimli, brunette Gimli and old Gimli. Not all of their designs worked, I agree, but at least they weren't boring. It also reflected that they all essentially assimilated other cultures - they were scattered across Middle-Earth, because they lost their Kingdom they also kindof lost who they are. I've noticed that all the ones that I remember dying in the book are the ones that look the most human.
Raithe Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I think it also stood out that they weren't "stumpy" or "squat" dwarves. Of course, I found it amusing that the moment Thorin comes on screen women over here in the UK pretty much all sigh and smile. Ever since Richard Armitage appeared in North and South he's been one of the romance heart throbs of females all over this isle.. "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Orogun01 Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I do wish he could had stayed doing Strike Back though. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Maedhros Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) I don't think it could have been better. It's a kids book which isn't cinematic at all. They did what they could with it while still trying to please the purists. Honestly, I felt the movie would have worked better if they changed more. I could have done without the trolls especially, and I know from the book that we're going have to suffer through yet another instance of the eagle ex machina and I had my fill of those after Return of the King. So you do think it could've been better? Edited January 3, 2013 by Thingolfin
LadyCrimson Posted January 3, 2013 Author Posted January 3, 2013 The way things are going I'm going to have to hit hubby on the head with a big stick and drag him to the theater to see The Hobbit. It'd be easier if it was a summer release.... Of course, I found it amusing that the moment Thorin comes on screen women over here in the UK pretty much all sigh and smile. Ever since Richard Armitage appeared in North and South he's been one of the romance heart throbs of females all over this isle.. My first thought was "That Swayze mini-series?" Then a Google said Patrick Stewart played in an old version of North and South....can one still find that version? heh Armitage's handsome enough I suppose, but doesn't do much for me. And Thorin even less (based on preview images of the dwarves). “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Raithe Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 My first thought was "That Swayze mini-series?" Then a Google said Patrick Stewart played in an old version of North and South....can one still find that version? heh Armitage's handsome enough I suppose, but doesn't do much for me. And Thorin even less (based on preview images of the dwarves). Ah yes, North and South was an adaption of a piece of literature over here. Industrial revolution setting.. Kind of Pride and Prejudice type of thing. "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
'GM' Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I think it also stood out that they weren't "stumpy" or "squat" dwarves. Of course, I found it amusing that the moment Thorin comes on screen women over here in the UK pretty much all sigh and smile. Ever since Richard Armitage appeared in North and South he's been one of the romance heart throbs of females all over this isle.. Yeah, over here too. I really liked him in Robin Hood. If I was maid Marian I'd have picked him over Robin any ol' day.
Gorgon Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 You can't do 'stocky' dwarves with rubber masks, you wind up with Gimli from the first movie. The proportions look wrong. It's the same reason all the alien species on startrek looked stupid. Dwarves have a different body structure. I think they all conformed rather neatly to sub culture expectations of Dwarves. Warhammer, warcraft, whatever. They just weren't very good. Save maybe one or two. 'Stumpy', the orc general from the battle of Moria bothered me too. Sure so the first part of the book doesn't have a clear antagonist, but the movie didn't need one transplanted either. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Blarghagh Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Well at least he came from that story. It's just that this time around he survived the battle at Moria. If I recall correctly, his son is even in the book. It's a fairly minor change and it gave the bad guys a face. In theory he worked, just in practice he looked a little too uncanny valley. I kept switching between "wow, this guy look great" and "wow, this guy looks fake". As far as I remember, Radagast wasn't even mentioned in the book, was he? I thought he was mentioned briefly in Lord of the Rings and that's it. Now that's a transplant. I don't think it could have been better. It's a kids book which isn't cinematic at all. They did what they could with it while still trying to please the purists. Honestly, I felt the movie would have worked better if they changed more. I could have done without the trolls especially, and I know from the book that we're going have to suffer through yet another instance of the eagle ex machina and I had my fill of those after Return of the King. So you do think it could've been better? Well no, because then they would have gotten a ****storm from the purists. They were damned if you do etc. from the start. That's what I meant. I was a bit unclear.
Raithe Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Well there is meant to be a whole batch of stuff transplanted in from the Silmarillon and such. Elements that aren't in the book of the Hobbit "properly", but helped set in motion the things that happen in Lord of the Rings. Jackson apparently wanted to make all those connections clearer for the Hobbit film being a prequel by making it about more then just "this is how Bilbo found the ring". I'm not saying I agree with exactly how he went about it, but I can see the logic to a lot of those choices. Of course, that's also a large reason why it got pushed from two films to three... So there's possibly another side to the logic for that as well... "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Oerwinde Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I enjoyed Dredd 3D. The chemistry between Karl Urban and Olivia Thirlby worked well. Overall, a simple yet fun movie. Just don't expect any sort of artificially induced "Hollywood morals" or other nonsense like that. It was an UK/South African production, and I appreciated that very much. Its sad that such a universally loved movie couldn't break 15 million US gross. Supposedly a 50 million take would have greenlit a sequel. I figured that was an easy task then it debuted at number 6 or so behind a damn re-release of Finding Nemo. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
'GM' Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Well there's always going to be somebody who doesn't like something about anything. People are nitpicky by nature. Personally I liked how the dwarves were done up... gave them all some physical individuality like humankind.
Amentep Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I enjoyed Dredd 3D. The chemistry between Karl Urban and Olivia Thirlby worked well. Overall, a simple yet fun movie. Just don't expect any sort of artificially induced "Hollywood morals" or other nonsense like that. It was an UK/South African production, and I appreciated that very much. Its sad that such a universally loved movie couldn't break 15 million US gross. Supposedly a 50 million take would have greenlit a sequel. I figured that was an easy task then it debuted at number 6 or so behind a damn re-release of Finding Nemo. It should have done a lot better. Alas, what could have been. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Oerwinde Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I enjoyed Dredd 3D. The chemistry between Karl Urban and Olivia Thirlby worked well. Overall, a simple yet fun movie. Just don't expect any sort of artificially induced "Hollywood morals" or other nonsense like that. It was an UK/South African production, and I appreciated that very much. Its sad that such a universally loved movie couldn't break 15 million US gross. Supposedly a 50 million take would have greenlit a sequel. I figured that was an easy task then it debuted at number 6 or so behind a damn re-release of Finding Nemo. It should have done a lot better. Alas, what could have been. Maybe it will pull a Batman Begins and sell enough on DVD to get a sequel The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Hurlshort Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Huh? Batman Begins was solid at the box office, I don't get the comparison.
Oerwinde Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Batman Begins made 90 million domestic, sold stupid well on dvd due to word of mouth, then Dark Knight made 500 million. Obviously Dredd won't do the same numbers, but hopefully it sees good enough sales for a sequel and the sequel makes upwards of 70 to 90 million. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Blarghagh Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) Well, I wouldn't call it solid - 200 million domestic gross on a production budget of 150 million plus advertising isn't that much. Batman Begins definitely owes its sequel to DVD sales. On the other hand, Dredd seems much less likely to do so. Production budget of 50 million and a worldwide all time gross of barely over 50% of that? Very few films have failed that badly. They said they needed at least 50 million domestic alone to even start thinking about a sequel. EDIT: 90 million? Box Office Mojo said 200 domestic for Batman Begins. Pretty sure it made at least 70 million opening weekend. Edited January 3, 2013 by TrueNeutral
Oerwinde Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) Yeah, my info was off. Was going by memory and obviously remembered wrong. Edited January 3, 2013 by Oerwinde The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Blarghagh Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 What was your source? Box Office Mojo isn't the most trustworthy site so I could be wrong.
Oerwinde Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Boxoffice mojo is where I get my info too. I could have sworn BB made a lot less though. Oh well. Hellboy is another example though. First one didn't even break even on production budget domestically, yet got a sequel, I'm assuming due to DVD sales. 2nd did well considering Dark Knight came out a week later but still didn't make a ton, and talk is Del Toro is trying to make space in his schedule for number 3 The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Recommended Posts