Well, I tried to watch LOTR.

The only change I truly was confused about was Faramir.I get that they needed to make the One Ring much more powerful, especially over Men to increase the tension, so I kind of grudgingly accept that Faramir had to be much more influenced by it's power and want to take it back to his father.However, WHY and HOW does he suddenly have a change of heart, right after watching Frodo almost give it to the Nazgul?That was the weakest part of all three movies, IMO.However, I thoroughly approve of the trilogy as a whole and imagined many of the characters exactly as they were portayed, like Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn, and Legolas.

quote:

---

Well, I tried again. And it still sucks. Poorly done, very disjointed, lousy effects, terrible costuming, way to many strage and unneeded noises. Got as far as Weathertop but that whole enactment was so really bad I gave up.

---

I'm sorry, Jar, but you are clearly a complete and total crackhead.Please also remember that since you chose to watch the film when it came out on network TV, it has been chopped up, edited for format and content and also for length, and perhaps that "disjointed" thing you feel is due to the commercial breaks?Network TV is no way to watch any movie.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-27-2004 10:11 AM

quote:

---

Or the Lemony Snicket novels.

---

I disagree that the Lemony Snicket books are written in the older style. They are a modern affectation of the older style, a parody of it.

quote:

---

It may well be a problem related to watching it on tv, but I hate going to movie theaters, don't own a DVD player except for the one that came with my latest computer and I've never used, and my only tv is a 30 or so year old Magnavox 13" portable.

---

Um, Jar?Why do you think you have any business criticizing the visual or pacing aspects of a film that you are viewing on a crappy little 30 year old television, chopped up and edited for network TV?Maybe you are joking?

quote:

---

Maybe I'm too used to the clear distinction drawn in fantasy games, but I couldn't understand or see the difference between orcs, Uruk-hai, and goblins, or if there even was one.

---

Orcs and goblins are technically the same thing in Middle Earth, however there are some local variations.The Moria orcs were kind of crouchy and thinner, like insects in a way, and sounded more screechy. They climbed the walls and ran kind of like gibbons.The Mordor orcs are close, but more squat and heaver of build and they had deeper voices.The Uruk-hai were quite different from the orcs, being much more massive and taller, like football or rugby players, and move much more upright, like humans. They are a cross between orcs and humans, so that makes sense. Their voices are also very low, and they roar instead of screech.

quote:

---

I cannot remember a single movie I've gone to I enjoyed since the great days of the drive-in.

---

Hmm, that explains a lot.You don't like movies at all.

quote:

---

Well that's the only place I am ever likely to see it.

---

Then I suggest that you not make judgements about something you haven't seen in the manner it was intended to be viewed.Besides, you haven't even seen it in any manner.

quote:

---

Anyway, the things that I criticized would be exactly the same on the big screen.

---

That's is completely untrue.Those "uneccesary sounds" were probably confusing because you couldn't see what was happening on your tiny screen, the widescreen format was reduced to full screen so you couldn't even see the whole intended picture, and your little tiny mono speaker wouldn't properly reproduce the THX or Dolby surround sound, multiple speaker sound the film was designed to have.You can't possibly appreciate the costumes when the images on your screen are only a couple of inches high and not on a modern television with a flat screen or high quality picture definition.The special effects? Did you notice any flaws in the rendering of the size and height differences between the hobbits and Gandalf, for instance? I sure didn't. That had never been done before to such a seamless degree, so how can you possibly say that the effects (the few you saw) were terrible?The pacing? How can you criticize the pacing of a movie that you didn't watch but a few minutes of, that was edited for length by the network, and was also chopped up with many commercial breaks?

quote:

---

And where do you get off calling my entertainment center crappy?

---

Because it is.

quote:

---

Like movies, hate theaters.

---

No, I don't think you like movies, otherwise you would use your DVD player on your computer to watch them and not view them on network TV where they have been chopped up and changed.The point is, I don't think you have much right to criticize a movie that you haven't seen.

Netflix - Watch TV Shows Online, Watch Movies Online

Jar, you pay $17.99 per month to Netflix and they send you as many movies on DVD per month, up to I think 6 at a time, as you want. That means that they send you 3 DVD's, as soon as you are done with the first you send it back to them in the prepaid envelope they give you and then they send the next one you have chosen on your list. You keep going as fast or slow as you want. They even have a cleaper option for those who don't want to watch that many films in a month, and a more costly option to watch more.If you get 6 from them in a month, you are pretty much breaking even compared to renting from Blockbuster, plus there is the great added convenience that I don't have to drive to the video store, spend a bunch of time looking for the movie I want to see, debating over which ones to get, remembering to take it back to the store so I don't get late fees, etc.I also get a much, much wider selection than is available at any walk in rental place, especially of documentaries and foreign films. I can finally see all of those old classics that I have been meaning to but haven't gotten around to.Since you say you like movies but hate movie theaters, I really think you should look into it.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-28-2004 14:10 AM

quote:

---

I can't compare it to Blockbuster or other such ventures because I've never rented a video. I did borrow a copy of "Behind the Green Door" once from a friend but that was many years ago and in another live.

---

Wow, you have said that you like movies, but everything else you say about how often you view them strongly suggests to me that you are, in fact, very indifferent about movies.Do you sort of live under a rock or something?

quote:

---

I'll tell you what I'll do though. Just for the fun of it, if they have a website that lists the films available, I'll wander over and see if there's anything I think I'd like to see.

---

Here you go:Netflix - Watch TV Shows Online, Watch Movies Online

quote:

---

One question, will I need speakers on my computer to use the DvDs?

---

No, but the sound will be better if you have them.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-29-2004 07:53 AM

While I agree that a lot of movies are the equivalent to fast food, film is also a medium that has produced a great deal of fabulous art that is just as great as any literature, painting, scupture, play, or musical piece.

quote:

---

And I did find the Netflix website and the Browse area. Lots of titles but I found nothing that struck my fancy.

---

Nothing that struck your fancy?Nothing?Essentially, every film in the world that is available on DVD is listed there.That must mean that you don't like cinema.Great cinema combines the best of visual, vocal, musical, and storytelling art, which are all things you mentioned enjoying in your list.Seriously jar, you are allowed to not like cinema but I am really confused when you say you like it.This is because you do not show any characteristics of someone who likes it, nor has any meaningful experience with it at all.

quote:

---

I do like movies. And I sincerely believe that at least one good movie has been made on average since the form began. The average may even have been slightly higher than one a year.

---

Jar, what do you base this opinion upon, exactly?What characteristics does a film have to possess to be considered "great" in your estimation?What are some examples?If you, for most of your life, have not viewed but a handful of films, how could you possibly be informed enough to have an opinion?

quote:

---

I definitely do not enjoy what the theaters have become, the seats uncomfortable,

---

Huh? The seats I enjoy in several of the newer theaters in my area are large, have high backs which support my head, and they lean back.Much more comfortable than the ones from 20 years ago.There are even cup holders in the arms.

quote:

---

the patrons rude,

---

This I have to heartily agree with, although I tend to try to go to see films either at the earliest showing of the day during the week, when the theater is mostly empty, and a week or two after they open, so the crowds will be smaller.

quote:

---

the increased screens creating the theatric equivalent of a feedlot.

---

Why does it matter how many screens there are? How does this change your experience during the viewing of the film?Have you even been in a movie theater that was built less than 10 years ago, jar?

quote:

---

Remember, this thread started with my comment on one film, LOTR. IMHO it sucks. It is you and others which expanded the thread to the genre as a whole. And looking at the genre as a whole I would say that it is approaching the quality and reliability of a McDonald's Hamburger, not particularly good, not well served and valued accordingly.

---

I have been thinking about this thread, and also about how you, jar, said that you like to listen to music and because of this interest of yours, you have what you called a "killer" sound system.Well, lets, for the sake of argument, pretend that one of your very favorite symphonies of all time is Beethoven's 9th.Now, imagine that somebody started a thread here in the Coffee House forum saying that they just attempted to listen to Beethoven's 9th symphony on the radio but they were disgusted by how terrible it was.When you ask them how they listened to it, you found out that they used a portable, 30 year old transistor radio with a single, low quality by today's standards speaker. The radio program that broadcast the symphony paused the music every 10 minutes or so to play commercials. They also edited the symphony down to play in the time slot alotted to the show. To prevent the need for listeners to constantly adjust the volume of their radios, the station also evened out all of the dynamics of the symphony, so it was pretty much the same loudness for the duration of the broadcast.Of course, in talking to this person, you found out that they actually turned the radio off only a few minutes into the broadcast, but judged the entire symphony to be utter garbage anyway.Moreover, you then found out that this person really doesn't like classical music, having only gone to one or two performances in his life of at least 50 or 60 years.What would you think of this person and his opinions?Why would this person start a specific thread to share his opinion with the rest of the community?