2014 Films Thread

[Rowand44]

I think I'll probably go see Mockingjay Friday during the day since I'm off work.

 

It's cool to see a movie by yourself, right Brian?

[Kyyle23]

I think I'll probably go see Mockingjay Friday during the day since I'm off work.

 

It's cool to see a movie by yourself, right Brian?

 

you wont see it by yourself. Brian will be there

[Rowand44]

 

YAY!

[Jenksismyhero]

What's the big deal about splitting up a movie into two parts?

 

Because they generally suck. It's not necessary. They sacrifice the story for $$$$$$$

Edited November 20, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Kyyle23]

Because they generally suck. It's not necessary. They sacrifice the story for $$$$$$$

 

Usually dont they split the movie into two parts in order to preserve the story, and NOT cut out anything? Pretty sure that was why Deathly Hallows and Mockingjay did it

[Balta1701]

Usually dont they split the movie into two parts in order to preserve the story, and NOT cut out anything? Pretty sure that was why Deathly Hallows and Mockingjay did it

The "double money" part is a pretty convenient benefit though, don't you have to admit?

[Jenksismyhero]

Usually dont they split the movie into two parts in order to preserve the story, and NOT cut out anything? Pretty sure that was why Deathly Hallows and Mockingjay did it

 

I'm sure that's how they justify it to people, but the studios want the money. The Hobbit is a perfect example. I think those movies suffer by being stretched out to 6 hours instead of 2-2.5. If they wanted to preserve the story they could make it 10 hours but that doesn't make it a worthwhile movie-going experience.

[Kyyle23]

I'm sure that's how they justify it to people, but the studios want the money. The Hobbit is a perfect example. I think those movies suffer by being stretched out to 6 hours instead of 2-2.5. If they wanted to preserve the story they could make it 10 hours but that doesn't make it a worthwhile movie-going experience.

 

Of course the studios want the money. But the story isnt being sacrificed in order to spread the movies out into two. If anything the stories are remaining (more)true to the subject matter. And the hobbit isnt really true to the subject matter to begin with, there is a whole other substory in that set of movies that was just a blip in the book(the albino orc). They added to the story, and spread it out.

 

Just say you want to watch a 4 hour movie and pay once. Thats all

 

The "double money" part is a pretty convenient benefit though, don't you have to admit?

 

Of course. But putting movies in theaters is tricky anymore, a lot of production companies are losing money doing it now(which is getting us movies on blu ray and onDemand quick as hell).

[Brian]

I think I'll probably go see Mockingjay Friday during the day since I'm off work.

 

It's cool to see a movie by yourself, right Brian?

 

Hell yeah. It's the coolest.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm sure that's how they justify it to people, but the studios want the money. The Hobbit is a perfect example. I think those movies suffer by being stretched out to 6 hours instead of 2-2.5. If they wanted to preserve the story they could make it 10 hours but that doesn't make it a worthwhile movie-going experience.

I think the Hobbit is a great example of that. I feel like the Harry Potters were good and it worked for them and Lord of the Rings being stretched was fine, however, the Hobbit being stretched has led to the movies being more boring then they should be (as they should be excellent).

 

I will see MockingJay though. Wife and I love the Hunger Game movies. We don't watch many movies anymore, but that is one we will definitely catch.

[LDF]

I think the Hobbit is a great example of that. I feel like the Harry Potters were good and it worked for them and Lord of the Rings being stretched was fine, however, the Hobbit being stretched has led to the movies being more boring then they should be (as they should be excellent).

 

I will see MockingJay though. Wife and I love the Hunger Game movies. We don't watch many movies anymore, but that is one we will definitely catch.

 

that is if the books and the story is really long. then I can see if they stretch it. but like

twilite the last book, into 2 movies..... they wanted the money.

 

LOTR and the Hobbit are long books and need to be explain totally in the movie, if not,

you will miss things. however I will say this, the Hobbit into 3 movies, uhhhh they wanted

the money.

 

the Hobbit first installment made all its money for all 3 movies, salary and production cost,

and it still made a tidy profit. the second book was gravy and the 3rd, wow, the profit margin

is going to be a knockout. all 3 movies in my opinion are and will be really good.

 

now Mockingjay. I was totally disappointed in the book. I am not going to see that #1 but may

see #2, then maybe not. I really hated the last book.

[caulfield12]

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20483133_20874139,00.html

 

This is a typical review.

 

Lots of B-'s and scores in the 50's, 60's and 70's from critics.

 

Lots of criticism for "wasting" our time and money dragging the process out into two movies, studio cash grab, etc. (Of course, if you're the head of the studio and you can gross $750,000,000 X 2 or one billion on a single, longer final film...it's obvious what the SOP is today with gold mine movie franchises...and it works the other way against making sequels when there's a major disappointment, like John Carter, Green Lantern, the CS Lewis movie series or P.Pullman novels).

 

 

It's STILL going to be a huge event, not unlike Twilight or the second to last Harry Potter film...but we all know we're going to leave the theatre disappointed and irritated at the same time.

Edited November 21, 2014 by caulfield12

[Iwritecode]

Speaking of stretching out stories, I’m hearing talk of making Stephen King’s The Stand into 4 movies.

 

I know the book is 1000+ pages but that seems like it’s at least one movie too many.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

LOTR and the Hobbit are long books and need to be explain totally in the movie, if not,

you will miss things. however I will say this, the Hobbit into 3 movies, uhhhh they wanted

the money.

 

LOTR is ~1200 pages and became three movies.

 

The Hobbit is only 300 pages. It could have been done in one. Desolation of Smaug was straight up boring.

[whitesoxfan99]

LOTR is ~1200 pages and became three movies.

 

The Hobbit is only 300 pages. It could have been done in one. Desolation of Smaug was straight up boring.

 

Despite being only 300 pages I don't think the Hobbit would have worked well as one movie. 3 movies was definitely overkill though.

[southsider2k5]

Speaking of stretching out stories, I’m hearing talk of making Stephen King’s The Stand into 4 movies.

 

I know the book is 1000+ pages but that seems like it’s at least one movie too many.

 

I am down.

[Kyyle23]

Kings books are such theater of the mind, it makes sense to me that it would be stretched out. 4 movies is a lot though

[LDF]

LOTR is ~1200 pages and became three movies.

 

The Hobbit is only 300 pages. It could have been done in one. Desolation of Smaug was straight up boring.

 

thanks for responding.

 

I forgot that the Hobbit wasn't that long. but it has a lot of story lines. it needed to be at

least 2 movies as I said before.

 

in the Harry Potter, the last one was too long and boring. there were several books in the middle

that could.ve been made into 2 movies. but then again I don't know if it is that I am a fan of HP.

[Balta1701]

Despite being only 300 pages I don't think the Hobbit would have worked well as one movie. 3 movies was definitely overkill though.

I think 3 movies would have worked for The Hobbit as done but it needed heavier editing to make each movie ~2 hours rather than >2.5+.

[Kyyle23]

A trailer for Star Wars:The Force Awakens is supposedly coming with the final Hobbit movie, and a trailer for Jurassic World will be played Thursday around the football games

[NorthSideSox72]

A trailer for Star Wars:The Force Awakens is supposedly coming with the final Hobbit movie, and a trailer for Jurassic World will be played Thursday around the football games

I just looked at the description for Jurassic World. Way, way different than that surprising teaser from a couple years ago with Sam Neill and Willem Defoe. This one has Chris Pratt, and the plot line looks... less than exciting.

 

[Kyyle23]

I just looked at the description for Jurassic World. Way, way different than that surprising teaser from a couple years ago with Sam Neill and Willem Defoe. This one has Chris Pratt, and the plot line looks... less than exciting.

 

pretty sure that was just a fan trailer. At this point Jurassic Park is what it is for me. They decided to continue the story and keep all of the movies as canon. Thats fine, i would have preferred a total reboot and try and keep the movie close to the original book, but whatever. I kind of like that the Park is up and running exactly like they wanted it to originally, and things are advanced beyond an island with a bunch of mysterious dinosaurs in the woods.

[NorthSideSox72]

pretty sure that was just a fan trailer. At this point Jurassic Park is what it is for me. They decided to continue the story and keep all of the movies as canon. Thats fine, i would have preferred a total reboot and try and keep the movie close to the original book, but whatever. I kind of like that the Park is up and running exactly like they wanted it to originally, and things are advanced beyond an island with a bunch of mysterious dinosaurs in the woods.

The trailer was shown in theaters. I don't think it was a fan trailer. Also the dialogue was clearly about the material at hand. Definitely not a fan thing. I think you and I talked about this a long time ago - it may have been a studio idea-float type thing.

 

It's odd, looking at stories, it appears they put the trailer out as a potential JP addition... then later changed it to be hunting something not a dinosaur as a seperate movie called The Hunter.

 

The trailer still exists here.

 

[Brian]

I think that 15 sec teaser for the Jurassic World trailer was nice. Cool shots and the piano music of the theme. Interesting choice for director as well.

[Kyyle23]

The trailer was shown in theaters. I don't think it was a fan trailer. Also the dialogue was clearly about the material at hand. Definitely not a fan thing. I think you and I talked about this a long time ago - it may have been a studio idea-float type thing.

 

It's odd, looking at stories, it appears they put the trailer out as a potential JP addition... then later changed it to be hunting something not a dinosaur as a seperate movie called The Hunter.

 

The trailer still exists here.

 

to be honest, i would have been pretty disappointed if that Dafoe/Neill movie was JP4. Dragging out Alan Grant for the 3rd time to save the day just wasnt necessary.