Movies

Light-hearted discussions, forum games and anything that doesn't fit into the other forums.
Tech Corner - Firewalls, AV etc. - Report Bugs - Board Rules
User avatar
Borsuc
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2218
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Unread postby Borsuc » 26 Dec 2008, 14:11

ThunderTitan wrote:Actually i want to see the original so i can compare them... because i did hear the new one was bad...
Rule number #1 if you want to ENJOY your experience: Do NOT compare a movie that is "inspired from" something else with the original thing. Just let it be as it is...
All humans do is to go to a place, bountiful of nature, and live there. Then the human multiplies and sucks all the wonders there. They move to the next. There is one thing that works the same way as that: a virus.

User avatar
Asheera
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4506
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Location: The Shadows
Contact:

Unread postby Asheera » 26 Dec 2008, 14:49

But you still have to compare the movie with a similar one, that's how "good" and "bad" movies are "born".

If there was only one movie, it would have been the best and the worst at the same time.

So my point is that you should compare it with the original since it's the most similar movie with the one you watched (so it's less of a comparison between "apples and oranges"), but do not count the fact that the original was first - that shouldn't affect the "quality" of a movie.

People always say that "this movie is old, so that's why it has low special effects AND a high rating", etc. This shouldn't increase the movie's quality over a new one at all. The comparisons and thus quality measurement should be made for the current timeline.

Let's say there are two movies: one of them is very old but was a great movie fifty years ago. The other is new and is better in all aspects than the old one. However, let's say the old one had a bigger success at its time. This doesn't make the old one better than the new one at all, at least in a comparison between them. Comparisons should be made in the same timeline. In our example, if you had the choice to see the old one or the new one, which would you choose? The new one, of course, since I said it's better in all aspects, even though the old one had a better success fifty years ago. In short, the new one is better.

That's what the ratings are there for, right? To let you know what movies you should watch (of course, tastes differ, but that's something else :P). Therefore, a new movie that is better in all aspects than an old movie, even though it is less 'original' since the other one was 'first', should receive a higher rating than the old movie. It doesn't matter that the old one was first, it only matters that the new one is better and more entertaining. And for sure it doesn't matter what rating and how popular the old one was at its time, when the new one didn't even exist!


That's my opinion about how ratings for a quality should be given to a movie/game, but people just can't resist their nostalgic memories... and this is wrong when comparing two movies/games IMO

(Of course, I'm not saying some remakes are not crappy... there are a lot of sequels that are worse than the originals (and compared in the current timeline, no nostalgia included!))
No matter how powerful one becomes, there is always someone stronger. That's why I'm in a constant pursuit of power, so I can be prepared when an enemy tries to take advantage of me.

User avatar
Borsuc
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2218
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Unread postby Borsuc » 26 Dec 2008, 15:06

What I meant was something like:

"Hey you know, I read the book, and it was totally different! The movie sucked!"

who cares if the actual original piece of work is different as long as the movie is good? Not knowing that the book exists makes the watching more enjoyable to the above people, so why can't they just ignore the 'original' piece when watching? Do they want to not be entertained? What's there to gain apart from less entertainment? Your loss..

I'm not saying you shouldn't compare them. I'm saying you should say it's "crap" just because it's different... as long as such 'difference' is on your taste.

The question is: "If you didn't read the book, would you enjoy the movie?" If the answer is 'Yes' then I can't understand those people :P
All humans do is to go to a place, bountiful of nature, and live there. Then the human multiplies and sucks all the wonders there. They move to the next. There is one thing that works the same way as that: a virus.

User avatar
Elvin
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 5475
Joined: 27 Aug 2006

Unread postby Elvin » 26 Dec 2008, 19:15

You are missing something. If some situations were undoubtedly better presented, more interesting or original in the book and they instead dumb them down in the movie then it's not a matter of it being different. It's a matter if you consider it inferior.

Sure you could watch the movie and enjoy it. Then read the book and see how much better it was or realize that they scrapped the crucial part or changed the meaning that made the story worth reading. I have always been of the reasonable opinion that if you are to change something at least make it better :tongue: Too much to ask?
I, for one, am dying to find out what colour they paint Michael's toenails.
- Metathron

User avatar
Asheera
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4506
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Location: The Shadows
Contact:

Unread postby Asheera » 26 Dec 2008, 19:27

Well I have to agree with both :D in a way...

I mean, sure, if the movie is entertaining (doesn't matter if you know about the book or not), then it's good. But, if the book is better, then of course the book has a higher quality in the story. That doesn't make the movie bad, just that there's something better than it and could have been better made if it followed the book ;)
No matter how powerful one becomes, there is always someone stronger. That's why I'm in a constant pursuit of power, so I can be prepared when an enemy tries to take advantage of me.

User avatar
Borsuc
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2218
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Unread postby Borsuc » 27 Dec 2008, 00:43

Elvin wrote:You are missing something. If some situations were undoubtedly better presented, more interesting or original in the book and they instead dumb them down in the movie then it's not a matter of it being different. It's a matter if you consider it inferior.

Sure you could watch the movie and enjoy it. Then read the book and see how much better it was or realize that they scrapped the crucial part or changed the meaning that made the story worth reading. I have always been of the reasonable opinion that if you are to change something at least make it better :tongue: Too much to ask?
No but look at it like this: if you think that the movie "sucks" because it's not like in the book, then all you're doing is hitting yourself in the foot and not enjoying something. You could just gain that piece of entertainment and simply ignore the book while watching. After all, it's better for you :P
All humans do is to go to a place, bountiful of nature, and live there. Then the human multiplies and sucks all the wonders there. They move to the next. There is one thing that works the same way as that: a virus.

User avatar
Old_Man
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 98
Joined: 17 Aug 2007

Unread postby Old_Man » 27 Dec 2008, 06:25

Books often have much more of a storyline than a movie may have (duh) because a movie is, on average, about 2 or so hours in length and there is a limit too how much of a story you can fit into the movie. If you try and put to much into the movie, then it might be too overwhelming for the viewer and it can totally ruin the movie. Take Lord of the Rings for example. Three movies, each going for about 3 hours or so and it was based on the three books: Fellowship of the Ring; The Two Towers; The Return of the King. Now those movies each had a good storyline and the movies were very successful. It captured a lot of what was in the book and the reader didn't have to imagine what was going on, they could have seen it on the big screen.

Very often have people tried emulating what is in a book and putting it on the big screen and failing miserably. Perhaps because they didn't pull it off well? Perhaps the acting was poor? Perhaps key elements of the story were left out and it didn't do justice to the book? That's up for the audience to decide and those factors can play a role in whether the movie is successful or not. The people who may see it might not like it and then tell their friends not to see it and then they tell their friends not to see it etc etc.

If a person tries to get a book and convert it into a movie, then it has to be done extremely well. They can't leave out any major parts in the story since it might leave the viewer a bit confused afterwards. Usually, if you try to make a book into a movie, it should be better. Who would want to go and see a movie when they could read the book which is much better anyway?

Borsuc, you say that if the movie isn't like the book then all that person is doing is hitting themselves in the foot and not enjoying something. While that might be true (I disagree with it of course), you fail to realise that it is all up to the individual who is viewing it. For example. I have read some Harry Potter books and then went and saw the movies. When watching the movie, I thought about the book because the movie is obviously based upon the book and it is as if my imagination of the Harry Potter universe is coming alive. I can imagine what Harry looks like, the way he speaks, the Hogwarts School and it's surroundings and all that other stuff. Some of the movies sucked because it didn't capture the essence of the book. Does that mean I didn't enjoy it? Of course not. I enjoyed it, but I didn't think it was a good movie. It may have sucked, but it was still enjoying to watch.

There have been many movies that have sucked because it isn't like it is in the book, but many are quite enjoying to watch. That being said, it's all up to the individual who is watching the movie. It's kinda pointless trying to convince people that they are, so to speak "hitting themselves in the foot and not enjoying something" just because they have a different way of enjoying something or telling them to "ignore the book while watching" because it is "better for you". It's all up to tastes and how a person views a film. Watching a movie is entertaining most of the time but that doesn't mean it is a good movie. I have many crap movies, like 'Troll 2' for instance, but that is entertaining. It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen though (and one of the worst movies on IMDB). :P

I hope this all makes sense, and if it doesn't, then my excuse is: I'm sick. :P
I make music because I want to, not because I have to.

If you don't have fun doing something then it's best to move onto something else.

User avatar
Borsuc
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2218
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Unread postby Borsuc » 27 Dec 2008, 15:04

Usually when someone says "that movie sucks" people will take it as "it's not worth watching" when it might be. Especially for those who don't read the book before watching, for example. That's why rating must not be based on a "comparison" with something else, because it's misleading. Fortunately I learned a lot of time ago that ratings = piece of crap and I only go watch if it's my style and all, and based on reviews which explain how the movie is like, NOT how that reviewer gives the rating.

And when I said entertaining I said more in a different sense. Suppose that you didn't read the books -- watching the movie will keep you saying it's good and whatever. Then you discover it's based on a book and you read it. Did the movie change? Of course not, it should still be the same, even though it may not be like in the book (and depending on person, inferior) it doesn't mean next time you watch it's going to be worse than the first time.

if you view it differently and say it sucks only because you read the book, then you're only hurting yourself, no one else loses anything except you. So it's your loss. In this situation, wouldn't it have been better if you didn't read the book? :P (I mean, for watching the movie). It's somewhat illogical for me to say that a movie becomes more crappy even though it doesn't change only because you read a book in the meantime.
Old_Man wrote:I hope this all makes sense, and if it doesn't, then my excuse is: I'm sick. :P
Get some soup! :P
All humans do is to go to a place, bountiful of nature, and live there. Then the human multiplies and sucks all the wonders there. They move to the next. There is one thing that works the same way as that: a virus.

User avatar
Asheera
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4506
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Location: The Shadows
Contact:

Unread postby Asheera » 27 Dec 2008, 15:24

Borsuc, suppose there is a running competition and an Old Man (:P) always wins because the other competitors are even slower. He is considered to be "the best" for now. Some years later, younger people start to participate and, logically, they beat the old champ easily. The Old Man now is on the 100th place! while some others took the lead. Is the Old Man worse? You bet, since he is not the best anymore, and that's what worse means: less good (and being not the best anymore implies that he's less good)

So yes, in that example, after reading the book, the movie did get "worse" for you, but is not less entertaining, if you get what I mean. ;)
No matter how powerful one becomes, there is always someone stronger. That's why I'm in a constant pursuit of power, so I can be prepared when an enemy tries to take advantage of me.

User avatar
Borsuc
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2218
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Unread postby Borsuc » 27 Dec 2008, 16:15

No. I think you're confusing terms. "worse" is not the same as "the worst", which is positional (means a certain position that changes, not himself).

You used "the best" and "worse" while you should have used "the worst". So it doesn't get any 'worse' at all. :P

Maybe it might not be "the best" or "the worst" or other indicative positional references. But it's not worse.
All humans do is to go to a place, bountiful of nature, and live there. Then the human multiplies and sucks all the wonders there. They move to the next. There is one thing that works the same way as that: a virus.

User avatar
Asheera
Round Table Knight
Round Table Knight
Posts: 4506
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Location: The Shadows
Contact:

Unread postby Asheera » 27 Dec 2008, 16:34

Huh?

Let's say there are ten different movies:


A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J


A is the worst, while J is the best. Likewise, A is worse than B, and B is worse than J. J is better than C, and C is better than both A and B.

Need I explain more? Best, better, worse and worst are all pretty much in the same 'category'. "The Best" simply means that it is better than any other, while "The Worst" means that it is worse than all the others.


But why are we arguing over the English definition of some words again? :D
No matter how powerful one becomes, there is always someone stronger. That's why I'm in a constant pursuit of power, so I can be prepared when an enemy tries to take advantage of me.

User avatar
Borsuc
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2218
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Unread postby Borsuc » 27 Dec 2008, 22:45

I don't see the problem in your example. All you have is that A is worse than B, and that is true at all times because they DO NOT change.

Even if B will be "the best" later on because C doesn't exist anymore, it's still better than A in the same way.

For example, you may have:

A -- B

and add C between

A -- C -- B

A is still worse than B. Add D before A.

D -- A -- C -- B

A still worse than B (in the SAME way), even though it is not the "worst" anymore. A is the same way, and B the same. It's just that it is not "the worst" anymore but it doesn't mean it has improved.
See? :P


This is basically the stuff between what I call a "positional/indicative" factor (1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, etc...) and a "relative" factor (i.e compared to X, Y is ...). I'm not sure if I used the correct words so please ignore any stupidity in the wording I used.

The first one, which signifies 'place', is somewhat absolute (or if you want, relative to ALL), so it can change when something 'new' appears because everything gets updated since they are dependent on everything else.

In the relative case, A is worse than B above. But if you add C, it is worse than C too, though not as big difference as between A and B. However, this doesn't change the A<->B relationship, it merely adds a NEW relationship, but the original ones stays the same, because that relationship is not relative to all like in the other case.

Anyway I think I'm just babbling too much on insignificant stuff :P
All humans do is to go to a place, bountiful of nature, and live there. Then the human multiplies and sucks all the wonders there. They move to the next. There is one thing that works the same way as that: a virus.

User avatar
Kalah
Retired Admin
Retired Admin
Posts: 20078
Joined: 24 Nov 2005

Unread postby Kalah » 28 Dec 2008, 00:12

Hmmm.... which one do I watch on the plasma screen first... The dark knight, Once upon a time in the west, The assassination of Jesse James, The inside man, Stardust or No country for old men? Or do I crack open the Babylon 5 complete collection and start there? Or maybe I should watch The West Wing again? Hmmm..... lots to choose from here..
In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Goodwill.

User avatar
Old_Man
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 98
Joined: 17 Aug 2007

Unread postby Old_Man » 28 Dec 2008, 01:07

I heard that 'No Country for Old Men' is quite a good movie. :)
I make music because I want to, not because I have to.

If you don't have fun doing something then it's best to move onto something else.

User avatar
Veldrynus
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2513
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Inside your head!

Unread postby Veldrynus » 28 Dec 2008, 01:28

Once Upon a Time in the West...

I wonder, why is it, that the best films of the most american genre, the western, were directed by an italian guy?
Veldryn 15:15 And Vel found a dirty old jawbone of a walrus and put forth his hand, and took it, and in his unholy rage, he slew thirty four thousand men and children therewith.

User avatar
Kalah
Retired Admin
Retired Admin
Posts: 20078
Joined: 24 Nov 2005

Unread postby Kalah » 28 Dec 2008, 04:18

Not so strange, really, when you think about how USA has no real self; it's a blend of lots of different things. Many different cultural genres come together to create something "American". Even Charlie Chaplin was British.
In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Goodwill.

User avatar
Zamolxis
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1406
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: still too foggy to tell

Unread postby Zamolxis » 28 Dec 2008, 10:50

Old_Man wrote:I heard that 'No Country for Old Men' is quite a good movie. :)
Oh, I so want those 2 hours of my life back. I watched it with a group of 5-6 friends and everybody hated it. It started promising, but eventually led nowhere. It's a long (and rather slow) movie about a sick man. That's it. Except for his method of breaking in and killing, there nothing interesting or original about it. But that's not worth more than 4mins of your life watching a YouTube short movie - definitely not 2h.


@Kalah: From that list, I would go for Stardust or Babylon 5. In general, I would go for a movie with some sort of special effects as a first one on a new larger screen. :p
'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former' - Albert Einstein

'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind' - same guy

User avatar
darknessfood
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 4009
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Unread postby darknessfood » 28 Dec 2008, 13:27

Saw Bad Santy yesterday.I never heard of it, but it was quite entertaining!
You can either agree with me, or be wrong...

User avatar
Veldrynus
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 2513
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Inside your head!

Unread postby Veldrynus » 28 Dec 2008, 15:36

Zamolxis wrote:
Old_Man wrote:I heard that 'No Country for Old Men' is quite a good movie. :)
Oh, I so want those 2 hours of my life back. I watched it with a group of 5-6 friends and everybody hated it. It started promising, but eventually led nowhere. It's a long (and rather slow) movie about a sick man. That's it. Except for his method of breaking in and killing, there nothing interesting or original about it. But that's not worth more than 4mins of your life watching a YouTube short movie - definitely not 2h.
After you have seen tonns of movies, heavily loaded with disgustingly cliched and highly predictable, marketing-oriented Actiooon, AND after you HAD to watch, hundreds of confusing artsy films filled with self-serving, snobbish intellectual masturbation, you will be able to enjoy films like "No Country for Old Men", but not before that.
Veldryn 15:15 And Vel found a dirty old jawbone of a walrus and put forth his hand, and took it, and in his unholy rage, he slew thirty four thousand men and children therewith.

User avatar
Zamolxis
Archangel
Archangel
Posts: 1406
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: still too foggy to tell

Unread postby Zamolxis » 28 Dec 2008, 16:09

Well, I'm not that masochistic to watch tons of highly predictable, full of clichés movies, nor "hundreds of confusing artsy films filled with self-serving, snobbish intellectual masturbation", so yes - that might explain why I didn't get to that level of masochism of having "No Ctry 4 Old Men" among my fetishes. And I don't get why would anyone wanna do that to themselves... ;|
'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former' - Albert Einstein

'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind' - same guy


Return to “Campfire”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests