Jump to content

Movie Discussion Thread Vol. 2


STICK3Rboy

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, CarbonCore said:

 

Watch all extended back to back, that is the only way. Two Towers kinda drags a bit in the middle, but man RotK will blow your mind if you thought Fellowship was epic.

 

Fun fact: I've already watched TTT in a movie hall. My cousin dragged me to it saying it's awesome, and he'd already seen it, but neither him nor I had watched the first one till then. The good news is that I remember none of it, and I was too young then to have grasped the movie anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, achilles said:

 

 

I honestly thought even this was a wee bit too long. Three hours is too much of a continuous load on my brain with this sheer level of awesomeness. 

I'm going to be watching the other two soon. What should be my first watch, the theatrical or the extended? 

 

Watch the extended version. Theatrical was just that - for theater releases, where you can't take a break. These problems are not there at home. At home, you have the luxury of pausing the movie at will, stopping to watch later etc. And frankly, if you watch Theatrical at home - it's the demo version and you will be missing a lot, and you will not have the will to watch extended later (Unless you become a fan). And the extended scenes are very much worth it. Also, if you get the extended version, the DVD extras are too awesome to miss out on.

 

Also don't do what @CarbonCore said. People tried that challenge and most ended up falling asleep. There are tons of epic scenes in Two Towers and Return of the King, and you will not enjoy it if you watch at a stretch.

 

@Joe Cool Kinda natural that Hobbit Trilogy was bad. Tolkien was a Master Story-Teller and Peter Jackson does not compare to him in that area. Since almost the entire Hobbit Trilogy was Peter Jackson's invention, you got his story rather than Tolkien's story.

 

Edited by roun90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, roun90 said:

And the extended scenes are very much worth it. Also, if you get the extended version, the DVD extras are too awesome to miss out on. 

Thanks, extended it is.

The only thing is that three hours of screen time is already near my limit of watching with one small break in between. Four might be too much, and I really don't like to not finish a movie that I want to watch I the same stretch. 

Side note: when I paused this movie for a dinner break, it was split right down the middle, minute perfect, without realising it. When I paused it I thought maybe there'd be another half hour left. :D

 

6 minutes ago, roun90 said:

Also don't do what @CarbonCore said. People tried that challenge and most ended up falling asleep. There are tons of epic scenes in Two Towers and Return of the King, and you will not enjoy it if you watch at a stretch.

Couldn't do that even if I wanted to. :P 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roun90 said:

 

Watch the extended version. Theatrical was just that - for theater releases, where you can't take a break. These problems are not there at home. At home, you have the luxury of pausing the movie at will, stopping to watch later etc. And frankly, if you watch Theatrical at home - it's the demo version and you will be missing a lot, and you will not have the will to watch extended later (Unless you become a fan). And the extended scenes are very much worth it. Also, if you get the extended version, the DVD extras are too awesome to miss out on.

 

Also don't do what @CarbonCore said. People tried that challenge and most ended up falling asleep. There are tons of epic scenes in Two Towers and Return of the King, and you will not enjoy it if you watch at a stretch.

 

@Joe Cool Kinda natural that Hobbit Trilogy was bad. Tolkien was a Master Story-Teller and Peter Jackson does not compare to him in that area. Since almost the entire Hobbit Trilogy was Peter Jackson's invention, you got his story rather than Tolkien's story.

 

Yup. DVDs of the making are just too awesome for a fan. Even director's commentary is amazing.

 

And the Middle Earth map is so awesome. I spot Shire everytime i see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Cool said:

 

Even Prisoner of Azkaban??? 

 

I like first 5 HP movies. Still re-watch it. 

 

LOTR is all time good. Hobbit series is awful though. 

Didn't interest me to even reach prisoner of azkaban (I don't even know which part is that)

Only watched the first ever part as a child.

 

Main thing is I have never liked the fantasy genre and also hate the sci-fi genre.

Made me dislike game of thrones as well after it turned to magic, white walkers and other stuff.

 

Absolutely love the historical drama/fantasy genre and also mythological stuff.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GunnerY2J said:

Didn't interest me to even reach prisoner of azkaban (I don't even know which part is that)

Only watched the first ever part as a child.

 

Main thing is I have never liked the fantasy genre and also hate the sci-fi genre.

Made me dislike game of thrones as well after it turned to magic, white walkers and other stuff.

 

Absolutely love the historical drama/fantasy genre and also mythological stuff.

Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal was mythological all right. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bird Bird Bird said:

Dhan Dhana Dhan Goal was mythological all right. 

No, it basically includes movies like

Gladiator, troy, 300 (first part), Clash of the Titans to name a few. (Even Bahubali)

 

Hercules and immortals come in the category but were extremely poor.

 

 

And an exception needs to be made for movies like dhan dhana dhan.

 

 

Edited by GunnerY2J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GunnerY2J said:

Main thing is I have never liked the fantasy genre and also hate the sci-fi genre.

 

Absolutely love the historical drama/fantasy genre and also mythological stuff.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Snake said:

 

There's a difference between fantasy genre like lord of the rings, Harry potter, hobbit, Narnia etc (didn't like any)

 

 

 

And historical fantasy like the ones I mentioned.

I don't know why you can't understand a very basic difference.

Edited by GunnerY2J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GunnerY2J said:

There's a difference between fantasy genre like lord of the rings, Harry potter, hobbit, Narnia etc (didn't like any)

 

 

 

And historical fantasy like the ones I mentioned.

I don't know why you can't understand a very basic difference.

 

You said you never liked the fantasy genre, but also said you love historical drama/fantasy genre (which means you love both).

 

I don't know why you can't understand a very basic difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Joe Cool said:

 

Even Prisoner of Azkaban??? 

 

I like first 5 HP movies. Still re-watch it. 

 

Nah, Order of the Phoenix is the best HP movie! 

 

Huge fantasy geek this side :wOOtjumpy::wOOtjumpy::wOOtjumpy:. I know they usually mess up book adaptations, but I'd pay big money to see Sanderson/Robin Hobb/Patrick Rothfuss works on a screen. 

 

 

Edited by Chirag2001
Link to comment
Share on other sites


22 hours ago, roun90 said:


Tolkien was a Master Story-Teller.

 

I don't think the LoTR books(or movies) are the best in fantasy anymore, but Tolkien formed the basis of all high-fantasy literature so I don't deny their importance at any rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Snake said:

 

You said you never liked the fantasy genre, but also said you love historical drama/fantasy genre (which means you love both).

 

I don't know why you can't understand a very basic difference.

I don't like the fantasy genre.(only fantasy - nothing to classify it further into sub genre which are totally different movies)

 

I think the ones like hobbit, lord of the rings, Narnia should be fantasy adventure (you all liking these movies should have a better name for it)

 

 

 

While the ones like 300, clash of the titans also come under fantasy but historical or mythological fantasy which I very much like.

But both are fantasy.

Gladiator might be historical drama.

 

 

So you are just going by their names being similar and not understanding the concept and that they are completely different movies and made by and for different people.

 

 

 

Edited by GunnerY2J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GunnerY2J said:

 

While the ones like 300, clash of the titans, troy also come under fantasy but historical or mythological fantasy.

But both are fantasy.

 

If I'm not mistaken, thats called Historical Fiction. If I'm wrong do correct me. 

 

And LoTR, Chronicles of Narnia, Game of Thrones, HP are fantasy (which has sub-genres). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chirag2001 said:

 

If I'm not mistaken, thats called Historical Fiction. If I'm wrong do correct me. 

 

And LoTR, Chronicles of Narnia, Game of Thrones, HP are fantasy (which has sub-genres). 

 

Fiction is everything (like mostly every movie that's not a biography is fiction)

 

fantasy is a better, more accurate word for these as well but adding historical/mythological changes it from the basic fantasy genre.

 

Maybe Google the movies name and see what comes on top.

 

Edited by GunnerY2J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...