Movies to ???

Walter said:
http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2015/10/hollywood-news/

The Kingkiller Chronicle series, by Patrick Rothfuss, is going to become a TV series, with a movie and video game deal in the package.

I like the books -- don't love them. They're more interesting to me than any other current fantasy novels. But the prospect of turning any book I like into a movie fills me with dread. Yet the author (of course, the man who stands to benefit from the venture being a success) sounds optimistic, and gave them a hard sell (of course he would!). So.. I dunno, maybe?
Click to expand...
Uff. I don't know how to take this one. Rothfuss seems like a trustful person, but for now, the idea doesn't convice me too much... We'll have to see!

Regarding the topic of adaptations, I feel the same as you. But, it's what cinema has become nowadays (with few exceptions): a world of remakes, sequels and best sellers' adaptations.

Aazealh said:
Maybe he should focus on finishing his "trilogy" (that'll end up being a dodecalogy) first...
Click to expand...
Tell it to Martin. :ganishka:
 
Walter said:
http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2015/10/hollywood-news/

The Kingkiller Chronicle series, by Patrick Rothfuss, is going to become a TV series, with a movie and video game deal in the package.

I like the books -- don't love them. They're more interesting to me than any other current fantasy novels. But the prospect of turning any book I like into a movie fills me with dread. Yet the author (of course, the man who stands to benefit from the venture being a success) sounds optimistic, and gave them a hard sell (of course he would!). So.. I dunno, maybe?
Click to expand...

That's interesting news. I share the sentiment about film adaptations of books I've enjoyed, though. I thought The Name of the Wind was one of the best books I'd read in a long time, but I didn't feel the same way about The Wise Man's Fear. It's been some years since I read them, but as I recall I just didn't think the second one had the same quality I liked so much in the first. It was like some inspiration had gone out of it. It wasn't bad, but I just didn't think it was as good as the first one. I tried reading The Slow Regard of Silent Things, but had trouble getting into it, so didn't get very far in it at all. I want to go back and give it another try, though.
 
JMP said:
I thought The Name of the Wind was one of the best books I'd read in a long time, but I didn't feel the same way about The Wise Man's Fear. It's been some years since I read them, but as I recall I just didn't think the second one had the same quality I liked so much in the first. It was like some inspiration had gone out of it. It wasn't bad, but I just didn't think it was as good as the first one.
Click to expand...

I'm actually finishing up my second readthrough of the series now. And indeed, Wise Man's Fear is the lesser of the books by a long shot. It's disjointed and awkwardly long. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Rothfuss spent years (!) revising it before publication. It reads like a first or second draft.

The first book was a fun, cohesive read that not only introduced readers to a new world, but felt like a fresh way of telling a fantasy story through the eyes of an unconventional fantasy protagonist — a bard (among other things of course). Book 2 is a sprawling monster, overly long and yet because it's segmented like a road trip, no one section feels very well realized. It's less a story, and instead, merely backstory set loosely to narrative.

I tried reading The Slow Regard of Silent Things, but had trouble getting into it, so didn't get very far in it at all. I want to go back and give it another try, though.
Click to expand...

I found that one very difficult to read. But at least it's short :void:

It's also somewhat incoherent to me, and I imagine, most readers. The vast majority of Slow Regard of Silent Things is essentially nonsense without knowing the role that character — and what she finds — will play in the next (and supposedly final) book. I think it'd have been better served integrated WITH that book as interspersed chapters. But I'm guessing that while writing, those chapters became bloated, and Rothfuss felt they deserved their own place — in a completely separate book.
 
Aazealh said:
Trailer for Warcraft: The Movie

In a manner not too dissimilar to Star Wars 7, I'm kind of excited about this in spite of my better judgment. And that's despite the fact my fondest memories of the franchise are from Warcraft II.
Click to expand...

It looks better than I thought it would.

Hopefully it stays centered around Orcs vs Humans, WarCraft's roots. WCII was definitely my favorite game of the franchise, it had a gritty feel to it and I liked the lore.

WarCraft III and WoW are just a bit too cartoony for me.
 
^ that sequel was pretty awful.

Kong Skull Island - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAbI4w95cTE

I'm not completely sold by the trailer but it looks like it'll be similar to the recent Godzilla (same producers) and it does look cinematic. But the story?

new Blair Witch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_RoFMWKw8k

The sequels the franchise has had so far could never hold a candle to the original. Although this looks like it's got plenty of gas in the jump-scare department (not a fan of that kind of horror next to straight out gore), it looks like a semi rehash.
 
Warning - the trailer gives away too much, you might want to stop it around the mid 1 min mark.

Passengers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BWWWQzTpNU

The film looks gorgeous but I can't get a 100% behind it ... nice nod to The Shining and Sunshine from whatever the trailer shows.
 
Eluvei said:
https://twitter.com/GhostInShell

I'm on the fence about this. The director can make some cool looking stuff...
Click to expand...

Ehhhhh I don't know. As much as I like these actors, I don't think they're pulling it off. Those clips are lacking the cyberpunk vibe they should exude.
 
Yeah... and if it's a hit they're totally making that stupid Hollywood Akira adaptation and casting Dane DeHaan or some shit. Cannot support.
 
Aazealh said:
Those clips are lacking the cyberpunk vibe they should exude.
Click to expand...

Yeah... They did film some scenes in Hong Kong though, so if they don't exaggerate with the environmental CGI it can still look accurate enough. :iva:

Griffith said:
Yeah... and if it's a hit they're totally making that stupid Hollywood Akira adaptation and casting Dane DeHaan or some shit. Cannot support.
Click to expand...

I can respect that. To be honest the only Ghost in the Shell adaptation I really love is the 1995 movie, which I like more than the manga (I know, now I sound like the people that hate Puck after they watch the '97 series and finally find a scanlation with watermarks online). So I guess that plays a part in my giving it a chance, the original isn't special to me.

A producer apparently said Mamoru Oshii and Kenji Kawai are involved with it, and there are pictures of them on set, so maybe it's not too bad. Or maybe they called them up and took pictures with them before kicking them out so they could fool suckers like me into putting it in the "Movies to ???" thread... :puck:
 
IncantatioN said:
Blade Runner sequel news - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blade-runner-sequel-finds-director-778162

The good - Harrison Ford will reprise his role. Denis Villeneuve (Enemy, Prisoners) in talks to direct it.

The bad - there's a sequel.

I guess if Denis is confirmed it'll make it all the more interesting.
Click to expand...

Walter said:
I don't even think that's necessary, and Ford's been over the hill for YEARS.

Nevertheless, news of a sequel is just plain bad, to me. Blade Runner stood alone just fine. The PC adventure game was a nice follow-up that was consistent with the movie without stepping on its toes (and also didnt have to involve Ford).
Click to expand...

Official teaser for Blade Runner 2049 is out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDscTTE-P-k&feature=share

Denis, the cinematography in the teaser are a plus. Honestly I still feel the same way even after watching this ... can't feel excited about it but it's one of those films I'll have to watch when it releases. Opening weekend or not, isn't important. Last weekend I watched La La Land and it just confirmed my thought on Ryan as being such a wooden actor, he's definitely over-rated albeit the love for him within the industry and who knows if this might be perfect for him ... his expressionless face might just be one of those things that triggers the argument over whether he's a replicant or not.
 
IncantatioN said:
Official teaser for Blade Runner 2049 is out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDscTTE-P-k&feature=share
Click to expand...

I was impressed by how they evoked the atmosphere of Blade Runner with the slow camera work, grand settings, and just a touch of Vangelis :guts: Still, I hardly see why this has to exist. Just hope it's not terrible.
 
Hmm. I was fully ready to dislike this completely just for existing, but honestly I really like the look and feel of that teaser. I might be willing to view this as more of a Mad Max: Fury Road-esque homage than a legitimate sequel (even if that is what it's supposed to be).
 
Rupert Sinclair said:
Hmm. I was fully ready to dislike this completely just for existing, but honestly I really like the look and feel of that teaser. I might be willing to view this as more of a Mad Max: Fury Road-esque homage than a legitimate sequel (even if that is what it's supposed to be).
Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to view the Blade Runner trailer yet, but isn't Fury Road a pretty authentically legitimate entry in the canon? I mean, it's by Miller and is arguably the best film in the series (true fans know The Road Warrior is supreme, but I digress =). The proliferation of Interceptors aside, I also think it makes sense as a vaguely timed sequel in the anthology of the character where Max is that much madder from longterm isolation in the wasteland, judging by his initial appearance.

Also, doesn't it seem like they're more trying to make this a direct throughline sequel than that with Ford and all? I mean, its very existence ruins the ending of the last movie unless they get really out there with it (check for Hideo Kojima's name in the writing credits).
 
Griffith said:
I haven't had a chance to view the Blade Runner trailer yet, but isn't Fury Road a pretty authentically legitimate entry in the canon? I mean, it's by Miller and is arguably the best film in the series (true fans know The Road Warrior is supreme, but I digress =). The proliferation of Interceptors aside, I also think it makes sense as a vaguely timed sequel in the anthology of the character where Max is that much madder from longterm isolation in the wasteland, judging by his initial appearance.

Also, doesn't it seem like they're more trying to make this a direct throughline sequel than that with Ford and all? I mean, its very existence ruins the ending of the last movie unless they get really out there with it (check for Hideo Kojima's name in the writing credits).
Click to expand...

Yes to everything. I suppose what I meant was more that I'll try and appreciate it personally on it's own merit rather than making to much out of it being an unnecessary sequel to one of my all time favorite movies. Time will tell, and I wouldn't be surprised if I have to eat those words during/after the actual film. But so far I like what I see. It's probably a good thing Ridley Scott isn't the director this time (oh how times have changed).
 
Here's the official synopsis on Apple's website

Blade Runner 2049 said:
Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...

The Force Awakens said:
The story begins thirty years after the events of Star Wars: Episode VI Return of the Jedi. The First Order has risen from the ashes of the Galactic Empire and is opposed by General Leia Organa and the Resistance, both of which seek to find the missing Jedi Master Luke Skywalker.
Click to expand...

:azan:
 
Rupert Sinclair said:
Hmm. I was fully ready to dislike this completely just for existing, but honestly I really like the look and feel of that teaser.
Click to expand...

MOAR ORANGE AND TEAL!

get

get
 
I can't say I saw much to like about that Blade Runner 2049 (this is like a bad 90's video game or comic series title btw =) trailer to get me past the total lack of necessity of this venture. I didn't think it looked much like Blade Runner, or anything special besides, and between Ryan Gosling's Acting Range and Harrison Ford's old grizzled persona these days not being a great fit for Deckard in my eyes... I'm just not seeing it. Gosling actually fits the Deckard mold better than Ford now, so perhaps we'll find out he's a replicant copy or something (still annoyed they're stepping all over the ending to do something that's probably pointless).
 
I have yet to see the original Blade Runner. I want to watch it and also have a few questions from this passionate community.

Has it aged well? I ask this in part because sometimes I have a hard time appreciating a film in it's own time.

What version is the one I need to watch or which do you feel strongly about?

I viewed Apocalypse Now in it's director's cut last year. I was blown away. So if you have the regular version over the directors cut, tell me why. If you think vhs is where I need to go, be honest.
 
Salem said:
I have yet to see the original Blade Runner. I want to watch it and also have a few questions from this passionate community.

Has it aged well? I ask this in part because sometimes I have a hard time appreciating a film in it's own time.

What version is the one I need to watch or which do you feel strongly about?
Click to expand...

Blade Runner has aged phenomenally well. Maybe I've not got a good eye for these things, but when I watch it now it looks like most of it could have been shot yesterday. Absolutely beautiful.
The Final Cut is generally accepted to be the definitive and best version you can get, as aspects like the ending and other major things change quite significantly between versions. Thankfully, that version is very readily available if you'd like to purchase it. Basically, if you're watching a cut that has a classic detective movie-esque voice over explaining everything, you're watching the wrong version for stupid people who need everything explained to them or they'll lose the plot. At least, that's how I feel.

If anyone has an argument that another version is superior to the Final Cut though, I'd be quite interested to hear it.
 
Salem said:
Has it aged well? I ask this in part because sometimes I have a hard time appreciating a film in it's own time.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty singular film experience that I think holds up as well today because it wasn't really "of its time" either (another reason a sequel bugs me). Though, the pacing is relatively slow compared to today's standards, so don't expect to be on the edge of your seat with action. This is more slow-burn thinking Sci-Fi punctuated with action, but the real action is in the ideas. Although, those ideas may seem a lot more common these days; HBO just spent 10 hours casually ruminating on them for instance.

Salem said:
What version is the one I need to watch or which do you feel strongly about?

I viewed Apocalypse Now in it's director's cut last year. I was blown away. So if you have the regular version over the directors cut, tell me why. If you think vhs is where I need to go, be honest.
Click to expand...
Ruhe Strom said:
The Final Cut is generally accepted to be the definitive and best version you can get, as aspects like the ending and other major things change quite significantly between versions. Thankfully, that version is very readily available if you'd like to purchase it. Basically, if you're watching a cut that has a classic detective movie-esque voice over explaining everything, you're watching the wrong version for stupid people who need everything explained to them or they'll lose the plot. At least, that's how I feel.

If anyone has an argument that another version is superior to the Final Cut though, I'd be quite interested to hear it.
Click to expand...

I've actually only ever seen "The Director's Cut," which is, as I understand it, basically a proto-Final Cut made in consultation with Scott, though not directly by him, with some technical issues; certain effects and scenes they fix in the Final version. I've been waiting to have a perfect Final Cut viewing, but I have to admit I kind of like the rough edges of the Director's Cut out of a natural skepticism of "special" editions with CGI fixes, etc. But, as Ruhe testifies, I've heard nothing but good things, that the Final Cut is basically just the Director's Cut perfected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top