What are you watching?

Barry, I bet that like me you are learning about the new Windows 8.1? ...Should we have switched to Mac instead? ;):D

_____________

Samsung Galaxy S5 is out, and iPhone 6 is getting a bigger screen (4.7") finally! ...And then the new HTC One M8.

* Yesterday I applied a protective screen to my smartphone (costed me ten bucks - only for one), and I completely f*cked up!
Ten bucks gone forever to the garbage bin!
It seems that you need a university course to apply one of them screens!

Next time Amazon; it's cheaper, you get more than one, and it is perfectly fit for your particular model (I had to cut mine universal one - big pain in the a$$).

** Do you guys put a protective screen on your tablets (iPads), laptops, and PC's screens? ...Mac's screens.
 
GAME of THRONES, Season 3, Episode 2 ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Spoiler alert ...
.
.
.
.
.
Looks like we've seen the last of good King Joffrey. :eyebrow:
 
I hate learning Windows 8.1!!! So to go to something radically different would bother me. (although I do some work on the Mac). But I have been too busy to watch anything but the late late show this week!!!!
 
I just emailed a friend from Brazil (woman doctor and audiophile), and we both miss MSN. ...And I've never text in my entire life!

I know that you are a very busy man Barry; so am I. Time is precious and it flies so fast!
But everything we do, as dissimilar as it can be, or similar (audio and cinema hobby), it's very good because we can teach each other what we have learned from our own side.
...Like that virus @ many sites; Google, Yahoo, etc., for example. And hackers penetrating iPhones and Blackberries.

Crime is no more what it used to be; it's not just above us but it's also technologically under ground. ...From flamenco music in a Barcelona's bar to a gypsy caffe in Northen Ireland. ...Hackers work from everywhere.
 
Last night I revisited this ::



The director David Fincher ('The Social Network', 'Zodiac', 'Se7en', 'The Game', 'Panic Room', 'Fight Club', 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button') re-fabricated this already made flick based on the book.
On Blu-ray, watch the opening introduction, and then plunge into this dark world. That's what I'm talking about; the visuals, the music score, the tones, the characters, the compositions, the VISUALS. ...This guy is a true pro (Fincher).
 
NorthStar said:
Last night I revisited this ::



The director David Fincher ('The Social Network', 'Zodiac', 'The Game', ...) re-fabricated this already made flick based on the book.
On Blu-ray, watch the opening introduction, and then plunge into this dark world. That's what I'm talking about; the visuals, the music score, the tones, the characters, the compositions, the VISUALS. ...This guy is a true pro (Fincher).
Click to expand...

I've seen both the American and European versions. The latter, directed by Niels Arden Oplev, was about equally as good.
 
Over the weekend I watched "2 Guns" which was pretty entertaining as senseless shoot-em-up movies go. The chemistry between Denzel and Whalberg was pretty good.

I also watched the second part of The Hobbit, which was great except for the same reasons I criticized the first part. They are making stupid changes where there is no need to change the story from the books, but oh well, directors liberties I guess. TLOTR movies were a bit closer to the books. Another grat movie to demo an HT setup, nothing like Orcs stomping thru the living room.

A little trivia, What movie has the most amount of on-screen deaths of all time? The Return of the King with 836.

​

3rd one I watched was Walking With Dinosaurs, a cheap knockoff of the Ice Age type plot. Good animation, lousy story.
 
Yes Bill (in reference to post #886 just above Brian's post), I also have the first original extended Swedish version, which I also prefer (on Blu). ...But I love Fincher's artistic style; immensely.
And last night, with the blood moon, I was in the mood.

* You have to re-watch that opening again, with the visuals and the music; just wow! ...Talk about true art composition; visually and auditory! And crank that master volume up, to reference level; then you'll see and hear what I'm really talking about. :)
 
For pure fantasy entertainment of the highest caliber, it is tough to beat LOTR EE trilogy and The Hobbit (1 and 2 so far).

On Blu-ray they shine big time (picture & sound), and 'The Hobbit' (1 & 2) in 3D is spectacular!

I'm a huge fan (must have close to 100 discs, if not more - BDs & DVDs), and I've never read the books. ...So I cannot personally compare and complaint. :)
 
Bob, the books are great reading, the type most can't put down once started. I still have my original set from early 70s and have reread them umpteen times. Just finished the Hobbit again as I am trying to catch all the story changes and recently restarted TLOTR Fellowship book. They are so old that they are disintegrating in my hands as I read.
 
I know Brian, many friends told me. ...I started reading by the beginning (The Hobbit) a long time ago but never finished it.

I read a lot, few books (I like true stories) but mostly Audio mags for the last 40 years+ (I used to have a dozen subscriptions).
Also, my time was spent playing music and writing and drawing and planting.
Plus, I'm big on the outdoors; I spent most of my life outside in the forests and mountains. ...And at night I sleep (because I worked physically all my life and to the max, so I was extremely tired at the end of each day).

Some people are huge readers (my Dad, RIP, and my brother Claude), others are artist painters, sculptors, musicians, gardeners, etc.
I love cinema though; history, world cinema, and watching movies under their best light.

There is an advantage for me in this particular case because I did not read 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' books, so I cannot criticize the films.

Knowledge comes from all levels, and not one level is superior or inferior; it's all relative.

I don't feel that I'm behind; I'm just where I'm at. And that's a fantastic world, the one of the LOTR and the Hobbit. ...'Cinematically'. ...Among many other passe-temps.

P.S. Brian, did you see 'Nebraska'? ...It is extremely simple, in black and white, and I like it for that, and more.
...No dragons, no giant robots, no CGI, no pulsating subwoofer music, just simple people living in a simple life.
 
NorthStar said:
For pure fantasy entertainment of the highest caliber, it is tough to beat LOTR EE trilogy and The Hobbit (1 and 2 so far).

On Blu-ray they shine big time (picture & sound), and 'The Hobbit' (1 & 2) in 3D is spectacular!

I'm a huge fan (must have close to 100 discs, if not more - BDs & DVDs), and I've never read the books. ...So I cannot personally compare and complaint. :)
Click to expand...

I'm a big Tolkien fan. At least, I've read The Hobbit, LoTR, and Silmarillion many times. (OTOH I've never been able to get into the endless compilation of his works edited by his son, Christopher Tolkien.)

Since my first readings of the LoTR in the late '60s I have found the people sharply divided into two classes: those who love the work, and those just can't get into it. As for the movies, I think it's likely an entirely different matter, i.e. some will like them who shouldn't waste their time on the books.


As for movies, as I purist I find some changes to Tolkien's story quite annoying. There are many differences, some more egregious than others. E.g. those who know the book are typically at odds with the screenwriters treatment of the Faramir character which portrays his personality inaccurately as well as adding extraneous events. There was an interview with screenwriter, Philippa Boyens, who say that these changes were necessary because Tolkien wasn't a professional writer :weird:, (like herself), and didn't understand how an audience would interpret the original portrayal of Faramir. Such arrogance, Ms Boyens, to suggest you know better than one of the most read authors of the 20th century
 
But! How truly important is it to perfectly replicate the books in moving pictures???

Because, each reader/viewer/writer/director has his own vision, interpretation, and nothing that is bifurcating from a fantasy (illusion a la Harry Potter) should be judged on its own merit and respect, in regards to a previous version (book or film) and from a different person (viewpoint). ...I think.

We can spend a lifetime discussing this subject, but at the end nobody is trying to perfectly replicate the imperfection. ...In movies as in live music. Each person who is touching a piece of creation (art) is adding a personal touch to the final product and its reproduction, be it at the theater, at home, or live.
The director and the recording engineers are the ones with their own decisions, and according to the time spent on a project, the love, the passion, the determination, and the ultimate goal (happy accidents).

No? A musician with a song or a director with a film; he is his own interpreter. How can we criticize fairly the critics?
 
NorthStar said:
But! How truly important is it to perfectly replicate the books in moving pictures???

Because, each reader/viewer/writer/director has his own vision, interpretation, and nothing that is bifurcating from a fantasy (illusion a la Harry Potter) should be judged on its own merit and respect, in regards to a previous version (book or film) and from a different person (viewpoint). ...I think.

We can spend a lifetime discussing this subject, but at the end nobody is trying to perfectly replicate the imperfection. ...In movies as in live music. Each person who is touching a piece of creation (art) is adding a personal touch to the final product and its reproduction, be it at the theater, at home, or live.
The director and the recording engineers are the ones with their own decisions, and according to the time spent on a project, the love, the passion, the determination, and the ultimate goal (happy accidents).

No? A musician with a song or a director with a film; he is his own interpreter. How can we criticize fairly the critics?
Click to expand...

The whole point behind these books is the tons of back story, languages, and geography that was developed to make it all that much more real. There is absolutely no point in some of the changes they made, like when Bilbo gets away from Gollum and loses his buttons, wrong. When Gandolf turned the 3 Trolls to stone, didn't happen that way and no need to alter it. The barrel scene was wrong. Bilbo went down to the Dragons Lair and came back up before they all went to slay him. Too many to list here and if you read the books and then watched the movies, you would be scratching your head trying to figure out just why they thought it would be better if they show it happen completely different than the book.
 
Yeah, I like Bruce Dern from all the way back in Silent Running with Huey, Louey, and Dewey

Odd film but I got the deeper meaning about his kid and him bonding and all the things the kid learned about him.
 
NorthStar said:
But! How truly important is it to perfectly replicate the books in moving pictures???

Because, each reader/viewer/writer/director has his own vision, interpretation, and nothing that is bifurcating from a fantasy (illusion a la Harry Potter) should be judged on its own merit and respect, in regards to a previous version (book or film) and from a different person (viewpoint). ...I think.
...
Click to expand...

In fact I have no disagreement at all with this point of view. Its common practice of course that screen writers and directors take liberties with authors' works -- sometimes for the better.

With Tolkien fans, perhaps more than others, take exception to changes to the "sacred text". I can't really say why they are this way nor do justify they anal character -- read the books yourself and you might gain some insight.

It's worth noting that Tolkien himself refined his story over several decades, making significant changes, especially to the set of condensed stories that comprise The Silmarillion. I might suggest that this final version represents a sort of perfection that can't be improved upon.
 
Shadowfax said:
The whole point behind these books is the tons of back story, languages, and geography that was developed to make it all that much more real. There is absolutely no point in some of the changes they made, like when Bilbo gets away from Gollum and loses his buttons, wrong. When Gandolf turned the 3 Trolls to stone, didn't happen that way and no need to alter it. The barrel scene was wrong. Bilbo went down to the Dragons Lair and came back up before they all went to slay him. Too many to list here and if you read the books and then watched the movies, you would be scratching your head trying to figure out just why they thought it would be better if they show it happen completely different than the book.
Click to expand...

Yes, and with Peter Jackson's own readings of the books and interpretations and with his team of other advocates (interpreters - one woman in particular; I forgot her name), his elaborate films come also with tons of baggage; many other informative discs about EVERYTHING.

Like I said Brian; it is a very fortunate accident that I did not read all the books, not even one. But I did check some interesting facts from the special features (Blu-ray discs), so I'm aware of some of the stuff like the changes made for the films, and some of the free interpretation, and some of the stuff omitted, and other added. After all he took some liberties in creating his movies the way he saw them fit, with hos own personal touch. He tried to replicate the stories from the books as best as he could but adapted for films at the theater, and then at home (Extended Editions).

Yes, I read several comments on several forums about some scenes that were not accurate compared to the books, missing parts, and free ones.

If we are doing an elaborate analysis from the films versus the books we would probably be able to write an encyclopedia just on the LOTR and the Hobbit alone!

There are several type of viewers; which type should we respect more, the ones who read all the books of the films they watched or the ones who didn't? Of course neither one, it's all a balancing artistic act.
Should films be made only when they are original (true art form - pure creativity), or are we allowed to make films based on books and live facts?
And then, no two people would ever make the very same film. Of course not; no one has the exact same vision as the next person standing or sitting beside him/her.

That's why most films based on books are loose (loosely based on a true story, or a fantasy story). ...Picasso, where did he get his inspiration?

And the writers; did they saw the things that they wrote exactly the same as the readers who read their books? Ha!
To be or not to be, that is the question.
 
Shadowfax said:
Yeah, I like Bruce Dern from all the way back in Silent Running with Huey, Louey, and Dewey

Odd film but I got the deeper meaning about his kid and him bonding and all the things the kid learned about him.
Click to expand...

You got it! ...And that, we can all relate to our relationship with our own father, and our own son, in that pure and simple magical way.
 
Feanor said:
..., take exception to changes to the "sacred text".
Click to expand...

Yes Bill; how many interpretations do we have of the sacred scriptures from 2,000-3,000+ years ago?
How many commandments are there really, and to who exactly they applied?
That's why we have wars from the beginning of times.

I can't really say why they are this way nor do justify they anal character -- read the books yourself and you might gain some insight.
Click to expand...

Yes, very good to expand my 'horizontal' knowledge.

It's worth noting that Tolkien himself refined his story over several decades, making significant changes, especially to the set of condensed stories that comprise The Silmarillion. I might suggest that this final version represents a sort of perfection that can't be improved upon.
Click to expand...

Fifty years from now there will be other films made on The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit books. ...Perhaps better versions, or perhaps worst; who knows.
The books are the bible. ...The films; someone's interpretation. ...The writer; the true imaginary director/creator/composer.
...The reader; the fantasy interpreter, the dreamer of words.. ...The film watcher; the imaginative illusionist, the visual witness, and/or enchanted or disenchanted. ...From sound and moving picture.

* Bill, is there a film(s) in the works about The Silmarillion?

__________________

<<>> Test: Three words; Index of refraction - What does it mean?
 
NorthStar said:
Yes, and with Peter Jackson's own readings of the books and interpretations and with his team of other advocates (interpreters - one woman in particular; I forgot her name), his elaborate films come also with tons of baggage; many other informative discs about EVERYTHING.

Like I said Brian; it is a very fortunate accident that I did not read all the books, not even one. But I did check some interesting facts from the special features (Blu-ray discs), so I'm aware of some of the stuff like the changes made for the films, and some of the free interpretation, and some of the stuff omitted, and other added. After all he took some liberties in creating his movies the way he saw them fit, with hos own personal touch. He tried to replicate the stories from the books as best as he could but adapted for films at the theater, and then at home (Extended Editions).

Yes, I read several comments on several forums about some scenes that were not accurate compared to the books, missing parts, and free ones.

If we are doing an elaborate analysis from the films versus the books we would probably be able to write an encyclopaedia just on the LOTR and the Hobbit alone!
...
Click to expand...

I believe people have actually done written encyclopaedic comparisons of the films to the book. I could find links no doubt ...

Personally I acknowledge Jackson's artistic right to interpret Tolkien's works. My objections to his changes, (additions/deletions), are purely personal. But I know that most Tolkien fans also object, though not necessarily to same things nor to the same extent because -- as you say -- people don't illustrate the same text in the same way in their minds' eyes.

Yes, Bob, it is fortunate that you have not read the books to the extent that it allows you to appreciate the films on their own merits. We Tolkien fans are thus less fortunate because we are biased by our knowledge of the "sacred text". However most of us agree that books are greater than the films; Christopher Tolkien, (J.R.R.'s son and literary executor), was ultimately correct when he said that they had to be read and cinema could never really do them justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top