Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Jul 10, 2023 11:56:10 GMT -6
So, that’s my standard for all sequels, from here on out: 1.) As good as or better than the original. 2.) Beloved characters do not die for no good reason, and even then, be careful about it. That's a pretty high standard! No King Kong films after the original in 1933? No Godzilla films after the first one in 1954? No James Bond films after From Russia with Love in 1963? No Star Wars films after The Empire Strikes Back in 1980? Etc.  My standard is for new films— made from this day forward. And Goldfinger is the best Bond. But technically, all they have to do is beat Dr. No, which is a lower bar than either From Russian With Love or Goldfinger. But for me, the new ones have to meet or beat Goldfinger. As for the rest, yep. No Star Wars films after Empire have been worth the billing. Which is why none after the original trilogy are in my collection. For Star Wars, the list of quality is: 1 Star Wars original theatrical release 2 The Empire Strikes Back original theatrical release Distant 3 The Return of the Jedi original theatrical release (for completeness). Very Distant 4 Attack of the ClonesVery Distant 5 Revenge of the SithVery Distant 6 The Phantom MenaceReally doesn’t count, but watchable, if depressing: Rogue OneNegative Infinity: All the rest. Of these, I will only now rewatch the original trilogy, but mostly just the original. Full stop. Empire is great, but it’s a set up for massive disappointment. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 10, 2023 12:21:04 GMT -6
I am that way with the Peter Jackson Middle-earth films. I rewatch the theatrical version of The Fellowship of the Ring, and that's it. I enjoyed the other two in the trilogy back in the day, but they simply do not hold up for me.
But the films of The Hobbit trilogy? Terrible! And each one is worse than the one before. I could not believe the cosmological amount of junk in the last movie of that trilogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by soundchaser on Jul 10, 2023 20:29:56 GMT -6
Just saw it. Loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 10, 2023 21:15:51 GMT -6
But the films of The Hobbit trilogy? Terrible! And each one is worse than the one before. I could not believe the cosmological amount of junk in the last movie of that trilogy. I saw the first one with high hopes, but was lukewarm on it. Somewhat reluctantly, i eventually saw the second one. That was so catastrophic that i didn't bother myself with the last one. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 11, 2023 5:30:18 GMT -6
But the films of The Hobbit trilogy? Terrible! And each one is worse than the one before. I could not believe the cosmological amount of junk in the last movie of that trilogy. I saw the first one with high hopes, but was lukewarm on it. Somewhat reluctantly, i eventually saw the second one. That was so catastrophic that i didn't bother myself with the last one. Recently rewatched the second Hobbit movie, it happened to be on tv at the hotel while on vacation, and I'd almost forgotten how bad it was. I've mentioned here many times how there is a fan edit called the Tolkien Cut that largely fixes the movie by cutting it into one film that holds as close to the book as the existing footage allows. Seeing the original theatrical release again there are moments that are brilliant amongst unwatchable drivel. The Mirkwood sequence is fantastic, for example. All of the extra story stuff with Gandalf and Radagast and The Necromancer doesn't fit. What I think happened is the studio meddled with Peter Jackson's ability to tell the story, due to greed. They thought they could get another billion dollar franchise out of The Hobbit. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2023 6:35:26 GMT -6
What remains mind boggling to me is how it is possible to take as input what is, arguably, one of the greatest fictions ever written, then so comprehensively rewrite it for screen, and then claim it is somehow representative of the original story.
It would, perhaps, have been more appropriate to have sold it as a fan-fiction adaptation (and lengthy expansion) of the Hobbit, as written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, P. Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro. The four of whom apparently know how to write the best stories about Hobbits! (not withstanding theirs was more about Thorin than the actual Hobbit).
Yes, I am still mortally wounded by it... prolly nothing can be done about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 11, 2023 13:38:28 GMT -6
The Hobbit should have been a single, 3-hour film. Turning it into a trilogy of films totaling 9 hours was absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Jul 11, 2023 19:36:27 GMT -6
I've mentioned here many times how there is a fan edit called the Tolkien Cut that largely fixes the movie by cutting it into one film that holds as close to the book as the existing footage allows. I have not seen any of your mentions thereof For those of us with the dumbs, may you kindly point in it's direction? Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jul 12, 2023 23:22:40 GMT -6
I've mentioned here many times how there is a fan edit called the Tolkien Cut that largely fixes the movie by cutting it into one film that holds as close to the book as the existing footage allows. I have not seen any of your mentions thereof For those of us with the dumbs, may you kindly point in it's direction? Thank you Far be it for me to link directly to copyright infringing material, so I will link to a Guardian article on the Tolkieneditor. |
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jul 17, 2023 2:18:09 GMT -6
I enjoyed this film. I rate it below the original three, but far above Crystal Skull. I have no problem with Helena or the Kid character, but I would have liked to see them developed a little more. Now there are a few things about how they handle "the supernatural" in this movie that I don't like. Although far from as bad as in Crystal Skull, I think that the Supernatural should have a certain subtlety that it lacks in both of the two later films compared to how it was presented in the first three. This doesn't ruin the film for me, but its more like "I wish they had done this part differently".
|
|
|
|
Post by ochrejelly on Jul 20, 2023 14:14:23 GMT -6
This is a movie that I will likely watch on a rainy afternoon when it shows up on disney plus or whatever and I have nothing to do and then likely regret my decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 20, 2023 15:19:44 GMT -6
I rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark to wash the bad taste of DoD out of my mind. What a masterpiece of cinema! Spielberg, Lucas, and Harrison Ford at their peak. And Karen Allen is an absolute delight every moment she is on screen, a perfect complement to Ford. Also it was fun to watch with my kid who loved the movie too. It holds up.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 25, 2023 12:59:07 GMT -6
To wrap this up. Dial of Destiny has made $336 million world wide. At the lowest end critics had $400 million as the bottom. So it did even worse than the most pessimistic estimates.
But, Disney only gets half of that, because distributors and theaters take their cut. It cost about $325 million to make, additionally marketing was about $100 million. So it looks like Disney took about a $257 million dollar loss.
What makes me sad is that I love this franchise and wanted so much for it to be successful. I think an ongoing series, say an adolescent Indiana Jones, on Disney+ could be great. I'm one of the few who really enjoyed Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and thought Sean Patrick Flanery made a great young Indy. Then again current Disney is incapable of making a pulpy action show with a heroic male lead. They'd have to inject modern politics into it.
|
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Jul 25, 2023 14:26:28 GMT -6
On the plus side of things, Lego has released new Indiana Jones sets, all from Raiders only! The two I have seen are the Jungle Temple from the beginning of Raiders, complete with rolling boulder  , and the Well of Souls chamber (which includes a mummy!). The JT one is over $100, but the WoS one is less than $50, and I kinda like it better. Very tempted… And Target had a Raiders T-shirt featuring the poster art from RotLA, so I bought one. (They weren’t around back in the day, because those kinds of t-shirts weren’t yet a thing.) |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 25, 2023 16:45:25 GMT -6
And Target had a Raiders T-shirt featuring the poster art from RotLA, so I bought one. (They weren’t around back in the day, because those kinds of t-shirts weren’t yet a thing.) I had a Raiders T shirt not long after it came out. I mean, TSR had D&D shirts in the late 70s (had one, didn't wear it in public, lol ), and they were mass merchandising all kinds of PotA and Jaws stuff even before the insane boom of Star Wars merchandise. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 25, 2023 17:19:31 GMT -6
To wrap this up. Dial of Destiny has made $336 million world wide. At the lowest end critics had $400 million as the bottom. So it did even worse than the most pessimistic estimates. But, Disney only gets half of that, because distributors and theaters take their cut. It cost about $325 million to make, additionally marketing was about $100 million. So it looks like Disney took about a $257 million dollar loss. Wow. A loss of a quarter of a billion dollars. One would think that Disney would care, but I don't think that they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 25, 2023 18:03:10 GMT -6
And Target had a Raiders T-shirt featuring the poster art from RotLA, so I bought one. (They weren’t around back in the day, because those kinds of t-shirts weren’t yet a thing.) I have a Raiders shirt I bought at the attraction at Disney World, but now that I know that Target might have one I will need to go and look. |
|
, and the Well of Souls chamber (which includes a mummy!). The JT one is over $100, but the WoS one is less than $50, and I kinda like it better. Very tempted…
