I know, RotK was terrible.

It wasn't just RotK.

I know, but that's the one I found terrible.

It's the same thing with Sin City. At first everyone is obsessed and thinks it's the best movie ever made. After a while, people will realize its flaws.

Such as?

This is why I hate 'art students' judging anything worth a damn. They're always so...wrong.

And getting worked up about a movie isnt immature? People have opinions, whats gold to someone may be feces on a shoe to someone else. People didn't like the prequels, your love for it won't change their minds, live with it.

What do you know REALLY what makes a great movie? Unless one is really educated on what makes a script good, what makes someones directing considered good,etc than your view on it is no more than a matter of opinion.

Man I already explained this to Timewolf personally... I don't feel like typing it out again. I would just copy and paste it, but I don't feel like doing that either. I'll explain it later.

Just keep this in mind: Sin City could have been a LOT better.

My God. You're right. How can I ever hope to counter such a convincing argument?

You can't. It was too well thought out.

*sigh* Fine.

I saw Sin City at a midnight showing. I thought it was going to be the movie of the year.. Hell.. The movie of the past several years even. I am a big fan of Desperado, and from what I had heard, Rodriguez was at the top of his game with this movie. I expected to see some *** kicking camera work and an *** kicking score. What I got was Frank Miller's comics. But that's what Rodriguez wanted to do, make a moving comic book. Right?

Well, Uwe Boll wanted Alone in the Dark to be just how it is. That doesn't mean it's good.

But you might say, by that, wouldn't the comics have to be terrible? If its made a frame-by-frame, word-by-word adaptation, what's bad about that?

I thought it was really cool, but there's only one problem. It gave us something we already have. We already have Sin City in that form. It's the comic book. The fact that he just made it move tells me he didn't take it far enough.

There are certain things out there which make movies a great medium to tell a story with, and he didn't utilize ANY of them. Camera movement and editing and such. It was just the comic all over again. Sure he showed us some *** kicking use of technology, but he should have done more.

Movies and comic books are two very different things. Each one is good for several different reasons. Those reasons don't translate well from one to the other. It's just like how the Episode 3 graphic novel isn't very good.


That is pretty much how I explained it to Timewolf. Some of the points are credited to him.

Comic book to movie is ALWAYS going to suck.

Theres something you lose in the transition, that NO ammount of special effects is going to make up for.

my problems with the prequels...

midichlorians
that whole virgin birth load of crap... anakin/darth vader is now the SW jesus?
not only jar jar... but the gungans in general... can't take them seriously as a race of warriors when they talk like complete morons
boba was a clone
young boba speaking after his one line on kamino
i agree.. that bit about sand was bad
the whole "where did the REAL set go" thing with the excessive use of CG

You know how much cheaper it is as opposed to onlocation shooting? Especially in Tunisia?

I'm still trying to remember what that was. And even which episode.

episode 2... anakin basically tells padme she is softer/smoother than sand

you know how much BETTER it looks to have REAL sets instead of CG? you know how much money GL most likely has available?... i seriously doubt he has a money problem

Something tells me that he could afford it if he wanted to. :p

The point isn't that he can afford it. The point is that he doesn't want to take a loss on the movie. If you didn't know already, these movies cost a LOT to make, and if the sets were tangible, they would cost even more. He's not going to lose money on the movie just to make you happy you know. Regardless of how much he has, throwing it down the toilet for people who mostly hate him would seem kind of stupid.

Allowing half a billion to be spent creating real sets wouldn't make alot of sense if the movie is going to gross 350 million.

You know how much I don't care when it looks like crap?

Now Bill, you see, you act like if it isn't perfect, it sucks. So yeah, please, forgive me for not taking your opinion seriously at all for more than one reason:
1) Okay, so just because he makes an adaptation the way he wants it, I don't have to like it? I mean, that doesn't mean I WILL like it or it WILL be good, but for god's sake, if I like it and think it was well done, let me think that. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't good. Maybe what the public wanted was indeed just a 100% adaptation, what have you.

2) You just compared Frank Miller and Rodriguez to Uwe Boll

3) Frank Miller created the comic, he created the movie, so it's not like it's a horrendous adaptation. In fact, as you said, it's extremely accurate, and very well done. The fact that it doesn't deviate does not hinder its goodness.

In conclusion: LotR was great, at least the movies. This is coming from someone who hates the books.

With a passion.

I think he's saying he was disappointed in the film merely because it wasn't taking advantage of what films offers as opposed to restrictive panels of a comic book. After hearing his opinion I do agree partially with him. While the film was the most faithful adaptation I've seen of any medium to film, it could have branched out a bit.

But that doesn't make it a bad movie, is my point.

I didn't say it was bad. I said it was half assed. I mean they could have done it better.

Hmm... This discussion is amazing. We're all somehow talking about two or three things at once.

For the record, I liked Episodes I and II, and I plan on seeing III.

Since when are top of the line CGI shots cheap? I don't know what the cost would be of one versus the other, but given the amount of CGI in the prequel movies, there was a lot of money spent on it.

then please... DO IT BETTER

That's a silly thing to say. Does Bill have a ton of money, well-known actors, a major studio, and so on?

That's flawed logic. While I've been known to do it in the past, it is still flawed. One can still say something can be done better and not require the skills to do it. For example, I think the War on Drugs and War on Terroism can be handled better, but I do not really have the power to take action with them.

Okay, I hate it when people say that. Because it's impossible. You say it as if it's the perfect argument, and there's no way the other person could refute that because they can't make something better. Well, of course he can't make it better! He's not a director with several million or billion dollars to spend on a movie with the possibility to make something better! He's a normal person with maybe no money, and it's absolutely impossible to make something better than the rich director could.

I hate this. It's asking a normal person to do something impossible.

To be honest, Jim, that's somewhat of a fallacious argument.

Bill: I went expecting a comic-book movie. I got a comic-book movie. It had interesting dialogue, enjoyable characters, a very unique artistic style, and interesting scenes of action. What were you expecting?

And, as for the LotR movies, I thought they were great. And that books, great stories they may, are written quite horribly.

The reason these 'movie' buffs who see 1000's of movies make me mad is they start taking a movie and break it down to levels. Is it artistic enough? Is the dialogue original? Is the camera angles and motion original? Etc

When I see a movie, I just want to be entertained.

On that note, I enjoyed I and II, and plan to see III.

I only do that with certain FILMS.

When it comes to MOVIES, I just want to be entertained, because trying to analyze them is pointless because they're contrived plots that have been done time and time again and have no symbolic meaning.

well i didn't want to just say "STFU"

Well, you did. Just in more words.

I have to agree.

Now I'm going to leave the thread and never return because I feel that 90% of what's in here is BS.

Amen

I dont think the CG in Ep 2 looked like crap. I didnt sit in the theater and go "That cg shot looks like crap, I wish it was a real set."

Could any of you even tell that Obi-Wan's robes were CG when Dex hugged him the first time you saw it? I didn't know until I read it or saw it in some behind the scenes thing.

On the other hand, in ANH, when they are looking off the cliff at Mos Eisley, I look at that and say "Huh? Where's the city? I just see more sand and stuff..." So when Obi-Wan says "The Mos Eisley spaceport" like I'm supposed to be impressed... I am not impressed.

People who post their opinions about movies on forums suck. Mostly because noone cares about it.

What about people posting opinions about people who post opinions on movies?

Yet you must care about it... seeing as you went through the trouble to post about it and everything.