Topic: The Lovely Bones (Read 12090 times)

Aurjay · « **on:** 08 Aug 2009, 19:20 »

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2973237785/

Peter Jackson's newest movie. Looks good. Kinda reminds me of "What Dreams May Come" and i loved that movie.

Sox · « **Reply #1 on:** 09 Aug 2009, 07:44 »

I want to see it because it has all the ingredients for a good film. Peter Jackson hasn't let me down yet.
Has anybody spoken to people who've read the book yet? They seem almost angry that this movie is being made.

Aurjay · « **Reply #2 on:** 09 Aug 2009, 14:16 »

I've noticed that any time a book is made into a movie the people that loved the book will almost always hate the movie.

Joseph · « **Reply #3 on:** 09 Aug 2009, 15:31 »

I tried to read the book when it was The New Big Thing and I found it emotionally manipulative and steeped in sentimentality. Is there any indication that the movie will be different?

Sox · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 Aug 2009, 00:53 »

Nope. There is only faith in Peter Jackson.
Part of the reasons I won't read the book are what you said. What've I've had read to me seems to be an exercise in making people cry and it did a real good job of it.

Yayniall · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 Aug 2009, 19:21 »

I read the end of the book with my then girlfriend.
Shit was odd.

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Aug 2009, 08:33 »

I raised an eyebrow at this but Peter Jackson is incapable of making a bad movie, so Woo!

Drill King · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Aug 2009, 09:07 »

:c
:c
:c
:c

I normally am excited for movie adaptations but I feel like this is really a book that will not translate well to film because most of it's wonderfulness comes from the writing. Also it's a pretty quiet and intimate book and peter jackson does not seem to do that well tbh.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Aug 2009, 05:21 »

You think? I enjoyed Heavenly Creatures myself so I'm quite pleased to see him going back to making something more in that vein. Then again I read the first chapter of this book and thought it was awful so for me Jackson's version is unlikely to be any less enjoyable for me.

Inlander · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Aug 2009, 05:32 »

Heavenly Creatures was fantastic but to be honest I thought Jackson's Lord of the Rings films were vastly and ludicrously overrated. The only thing that I could imagine possibly saving this film is some measure of subtlety, and frankly I don't think Jackson's the man for that.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Aug 2009, 06:03 »

I thought the same, but then again I don't care in the slightest about the book and Jackson's films were at least a bit of fun so I'm willing to give him a pass on that one since I was never going to be that impressed with them. And much as I enjoyed Heavenly Creatures you're right, it's hardly subtle and that time he had a good cast making it work which doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he can pull a good film out of it all though.

variable_star · « **Reply #11 on:** 22 Aug 2009, 12:52 »

Quote from: Inlander on 15 Aug 2009, 05:32

The only thing that I could imagine possibly saving this film is some measure of subtlety, and frankly I don't think Jackson's the man for that.

So, so true. That's what grates the most about Jackson's direction, the way he tries to squeeze every ounce of emotion from every scene. Throughout LOTR you're often thinking "Alright, I get it, this is sad. Get on with it."

RallyMonkey · « **Reply #12 on:** 22 Aug 2009, 14:42 »

I would not be able to watch this movie without thinking that the dad was Dirk Diggler.

Toba · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 16:40 »

Quote from: Sox on 09 Aug 2009, 07:44

I want to see it because it has all the ingredients for a good film. Peter Jackson hasn't let me down yet.
Has anybody spoken to people who've read the book yet? They seem almost angry that this movie is being made.

I read the book a few years ago. Saw it in the bookstore for not much money, bought it, read it. I liked it a lot. I'm re-reading the book now, and I can't wait for this movie. Peter Jackson is incapable of fucking up a movie.

LeeC · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 16:55 »

Quote from: Aurjay on 09 Aug 2009, 14:16

I've noticed that any time a book is made into a movie the people that loved the book will almost always hate the movie.

this is why I havnt seen the movie "Kite Runner" read the book. I dont think I could ever read the book again, let alone watch the movie...

Toba · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 19:13 »

Quote from: LeeC on 17 Oct 2009, 16:55

this is why I havnt seen the movie "Kite Runner" read the book. I dont think I could ever read the book again, let alone watch the movie...

So you can't read the book again because it was good or bad? Not sure what you are saying here.

LeeC · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 20:30 »

the book was good, but its one of those things that you just dont want to experience again. Its hard to explain. I suppose "Kite Runner" i special in that way haha.

JD · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 20:33 »

Sort of like how you never want to watch Rambo again? Though for different reasons.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 20:42 »

Rambo: First Blood is actually a pretty good movies with anti-war themes and quite passionate in its depiction of how vietnam veterans, who were sent to serve someone's agenda and were utterly fucked over by war are now being dismissed by the same people they thought they were fighting for.
It is a movie worth seeing more than once, unlike the titular novel/movie.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 21:27 »

Am I the only person here who thought The Lord of the Rings films were works of sublime genius?

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 02:37 »

I really liked them!

Sublime genius is not a thing i'd call them though. They are no Paris, Texas.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 02:40 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 17 Oct 2009, 21:27

Am I the only person here who thought The Lord of the Rings films were works of sublime genius?

Yes.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 04:41 »

I don't get you people at all.

Sox · « **Reply #23 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 06:08 »

I thought Lord of the Rings was incredible and that no other team of people would have been able to pull it off. Almost every criticism I see about those films is from a casual movie goer, but the Lord of the Rings movies are not for casual movie goers. It's a franchise for huge nerds, that catered to huge nerds, directed by a huge nerd. Yeah, there are flaws. But most of those flaws I hear about are merits if you're a huge nerd and a part of the target audience.

I mean, come on. The entire extended cut is like one twelve hour long movie about elves and hobbits. Does that sound like something intended to appeal to people who are not gigantic nerds?

The more I hear about The Lovely Bones (the book) the more I am convinced I will never ever read it, and the less I want to see this movie. However, Peter Jackson said something about finding the book incredibly overwrought with emotional stimuli and that he wanted to go in completely the opposite direction, turning the movie into a cheap thriller/vengeance movie with tripped out visuals.
...honestly now? You want to take a book like this and turn it into the Count of Monte Cristo meets Poltergeist and acid?
If anybody else was saying these things, I'd be apalled by how ridiculous that sounds, but we're talking about Peter Jackson here, if he makes good on that description, it has to be amazing.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #24 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 07:33 »

I'll be honest, I thought Lord of the Rings were pretty fantastic, I just had a couple quibbles with how often he decided to use slow motion to depict the gravity of a scene. And Orlando Bloom was kind of ugh. But other than that, pretty great movies.

Toba · « **Reply #25 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 12:22 »

Quote from: Sox on 18 Oct 2009, 06:08

The more I hear about The Lovely Bones (the book) the more I am convinced I will never ever read it, and the less I want to see this movie. However, Peter Jackson said something about finding the book incredibly overwrought with emotional stimuli and that he wanted to go in completely the opposite direction, turning the movie into a cheap thriller/vengeance movie with tripped out visuals.
...honestly now? You want to take a book like this and turn it into the Count of Monte Cristo meets Poltergeist and acid?
If anybody else was saying these things, I'd be apalled by how ridiculous that sounds, but we're talking about Peter Jackson here, if he makes good on that description, it has to be amazing.

Wow, I did not know he said that. Do you have a link to somewhere I can read this in more detail?

He's right that the book is pretty intensely emotionally written at times, and if the movie is completely true to the book nothing new will be there. I might like a new angle on it like that...

Sox · « **Reply #26 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 20:03 »

He actually loves the book, he just wants to do it differently for a movie. I only ever find things like this out by googling the name of the movie, if that helps.

knives · « **Reply #27 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 22:59 »

Quote from: Sox on 18 Oct 2009, 06:08

I thought Lord of the Rings was incredible and that no other team of people would have been able to pull it off. Almost every criticism I see about those films is from a casual movie goer, but the Lord of the Rings movies are not for casual movie goers. It's a franchise for huge nerds, that catered to huge nerds, directed by a huge nerd. Yeah, there are flaws. But most of those flaws I hear about are merits if you're a huge nerd and a part of the target audience.

I mean, come on. The entire extended cut is like one twelve hour long movie about elves and hobbits. Does that sound like something intended to appeal to people who are not gigantic nerds?

First off to prove your first statement false, that no one else could pull off this story, here you go. Next, unless your definition of 'nerd' is someone who enjoys the Lord of the Rings movies the rest of the quoted part of your statement is also false. For an example of that the action is staged in such a way that it is neither intellectually stimulating nor fun in a threatening real way. The action becomes boring because it functions as a video game without the tension created by possibly losing. That's just one example of how Jackson's movie are very flawed and have a lot to improve upon.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #28 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 23:22 »

Reading comprehension would indicate that when he writes "I thought Lord of the Rings was incredible and that no other team of people would have been able to pull it off. Almost every criticism I see about those films[...]" he is talking about the movie and the production team. That makes the rest of the lil' rant misdirected and unnecesary.

knives · « **Reply #29 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 23:31 »

How so? He said that he felt that the story for the Lord of the rings couldn't be pulled off by a different production team, I showed an example of a movie that while not an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, it was made before the books, it is based on the same source material as LotR so I found it to be comparable. There's nothing misdirected in that. The rest of my counter to his statement also goes with the same logic. As for unnecessary, well you have me beat there.

Sox · « **Reply #30 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 03:34 »

Quote from: E. Spaceman on 18 Oct 2009, 23:22

he is talking about the movie and the production team.

Yes. No other collective would have made the same movie.
I like how your example of another production team that could have made these movies was a relic from the 1920s. Those guys must all be like, 90, by now.

Quote from: knives on 18 Oct 2009, 22:59

your definition of 'nerd' is someone who enjoys the Lord of the Rings movies

Yup.
Or, Lord of the Rings and anything comparable. You don't have to like every adaptation, but as far as I'm concerned, swords and wizards=nerd. I've never seen somebody who isn't a nerd become invested in any part of fantasy culture unless it's a videogame.

Keep flexing that nerd muscle, let's do this again some time.

ackblom12 · « **Reply #31 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 06:08 »

Wait, people didn't think the movie LOTR was a work of genius?

Jesus fucking Christ people.

Inlander · « **Reply #32 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 06:48 »

Logistically, it was undoubtedly brilliant. Artistically it was okay with some decidely groan-inducing moments and some utter mis-steps.

knives · « **Reply #33 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 09:27 »

Quote from: Sox on 19 Oct 2009, 03:34

Quote from: E. Spaceman on 18 Oct 2009, 23:22
he is talking about the movie and the production team.

Yes. No other collective would have made the same movie.
I like how your example of another production team that could have made these movies was a relic from the 1920s. Those guys must all be like, 90, by now.

Dead actually, but age does not disprove my statement. For most people who have seen both movies the '20s film is usually technically equal and always artistically superior. While it it true that the movies would come out noticeably different with any of the major players removed, but that does not mean it couldn't have been greatly improved. All I'm trying to make a point of is that you spoke in obnoxious hyperbole. Saying something like, "Jackson's movies are the most enjoyable to me I've seen so far," would have irked me greatly less so.

Quote from: Sox on 19 Oct 2009, 03:34

Quote from: knives on 18 Oct 2009, 22:59
your definition of 'nerd' is someone who enjoys the Lord of the Rings movies

Yup.
Or, Lord of the Rings and anything comparable. You don't have to like every adaptation, but as far as I'm concerned, swords and wizards=nerd. I've never seen somebody who isn't a nerd become invested in any part of fantasy culture unless it's a videogame.

Keep flexing that nerd muscle, let's do this again some time.

Well by that standard I love the Hobbit book, the Lang movie I showed, Disc World novels, and even get a little enjoyment out of the Harry Potter books. I think that fills your standard for nerd well enough. Correct me if I missed something though. As I fit your criteria and don't like Jackson's films that still proves your initial statement false.

Sox · « **Reply #34 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 10:35 »

No it doesn't. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it wasn't made with beardy wizard people in mind. Are you honestly going to tell me that it got the go ahead because somebody thought it would appeal to frat boys?
I guess you speak for all the nerds. With the exceptions of Khar, Dimmukane and Ackblom.
The target audience, were they guys who play magic the gathering and get sweaty over swords, or people who drink frappachino and watch Gossip Girl?
The LotR movies were made with a great deal of respect for the subject matter. Just about everybody who worked on that movie loved the book. The people who worked on it are mostly self confessed beardies. Peter Jackson readily admits that he is a huge nerd. The movie was put together by fans. For fans.

Fans of LotR are nerds.
Nobody ever said that every nerd has to like Peter Jackson's movies.

Joseph · « **Reply #35 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 10:51 »

I think the issue here is that you (knives) thought Darryl had made some absolute statements about, but if you read what he said, you'll notice he was very careful to avoid doing so.

knives · « **Reply #36 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 12:12 »

Quote from: Joseph on 19 Oct 2009, 10:51

I think the issue here is that you (knives) thought Darryl had made some absolute statements about, but if you read what he said, you'll notice he was very careful to avoid doing so.

I wish this were true and the last sentence here goes a long way towards that.

Quote from: Sox on 19 Oct 2009, 10:35

No it doesn't.
The LotR movies were made with a great deal of respect for the subject matter. Just about everybody who worked on that movie loved the book. The people who worked on it are mostly self confessed beardies. Peter Jackson readily admits that he is a huge nerd. The movie was put together by fans. For fans.

Fans of LotR are nerds.
Nobody ever said that every nerd has to like Peter Jackson's movies.

But to say as he does, A. only nerds can appreciate those movies is roughly equivalent to the switch off your brain excuse, and B. he was making statements early that said that any flaws pointed out to the movie, at least the ones he heard, weren't really flaws. Part of my original post was to provide proof that, at least on an artistic and filmic narrative level, that there are flaws in the Jackson movies.

Joseph · « **Reply #37 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 12:32 »

"Almost every criticism I see about those films is from a casual movie goer, but the Lord of the Rings movies are not for casual movie goers."

"Yeah, there are flaws. But most of those flaws I hear about are merits if you're a huge nerd and a part of the target audience."

Also, he never said that only nerds can appreciate the movies, merely that nerds are the target audience.

Sox · « **Reply #38 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 12:43 »

At no point did anybody say "only nerds can appreciate those movies." I have no idea where you're getting these arguments from because nobody here has made them.
I didn't say the movies were flawless. I said a lot of criticisms that I've heard are to do with the length of the movies and nerdy shit, like hobbits. The stuff that's either fan-service or essential to the plot, the things that are faithful. You don't get to complain about fan-service if you're not a fan. You don't get to say the movie sucks if your only problem with it is that 'elves are gay'. Y'know, arguments you see from casual movie-goers. The 'criticisms' that I dismiss.

Other criticisms are all fair and I never said they weren't. You seem to be arguing like I said "Peter Jackson likes wizards and dragons so it's impossible for these movies to suck from an objective standpoint. Only nerds can like these movies and every nerd does, nobody else is allowed to comment and I'm right forever." If I had said this, then people would be agreeing with you and telling me that I'm an ass.
You know you're incredibly wrong when people step in to support something I have said.

knives · « **Reply #39 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 13:03 »

While I haven't heard any criticisms toward the containment of Hobbits, and I can sympathize with some complaints concerning length, that last post makes more sense, and I apologize for my own jackassery.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: The Lovely Bones (Read 12090 times)

ackblom12