Music & Movies

It's all nice and squishy. I was sitting on it!

**Laughs his head off and falls under the chair**

::looks around, clear throat loudly:: I think that if LOTR hadn't cut out so much(and I think it cut out too much), it would've been 4 or 5 hours long.
As for Star Wars: The last half an hour or so of that movie was awesome, I wanna see it again. Unfortunately, one of the previews out there shows most of a very good scene, which is a spoiler, I think. I didn't see it until I after I saw the movie, though.

I've got to say I disagree (re: cuts to LOTR). I think if you look at what was cut, very little of it detracts from the main story. I think if Tolkien were writing now, an editor would tell him to cut out a lot of the Farmer Maggot and Tom Bombadil stuff, which were the main things taken out in the movie.

I enjoyed the movie as a completely different work than the book. If the book had been written the same as the movie (no Tom Bombadil, sketchy account of elves) I wouldn't have even finished Fellowship of the Ring, let alone the rest.

Yes, but it changed the feel of the movie; The movie seemed to go straight from one fight on to the next.

Star Wars looked pretty good on the digital screen. Dialogue was crap, but hell, we certainly expect that from Lucas, who seems these days to be trying to win the fuck-you-fans award. What was worse was some of the editing -- there was actually some decent meat in the story that just got squashed by the hyperboles that always followed.

High point: animation of Yoda's face
Low point: cartoon-esque stopped crescendo in soap opera "torment" scene between Anakin and Padme

what I really hated in the orginal star wars movie was the last scene from the last movie where it shows owan and yoda taking about how their was still two more with the force. It lead me to believe that there was going to be another movie.

What the hell are you going on about, Crab? Episode 2 was awesome! The actors who portrayed Padme and Anakin weren't the best around, but that's not the end of the world(certainly better than 95% of all action movies out there). George Lucas was focusing on building the story that led up to the original three.
And if the hyperboles you're referring to are the action sequences that often follow the emotional scenes, what's wrong with those? I don't think they squash any meat.

Natalie Portman (who played Padme) is an incredible actress and did an amazing job with the gosh-awful lines she was given. (watch her in Beautiful Girls, a great movie).

No no I wasn't calling the action hyperbole at all -- thank god for the action! But you'd have a subtler, more telling insight into Anakin's character and foreshadowing how a good boy could go so bad, then immediately followed by turning him into a whining, puling, shrieking snot that made it totally unbelieveable Obi-Wan or Padme could have tolerated him for more than a day.

I see. Well I guess that may be attributed to sub-par acting, or different types of writing. Lucas once said the Star Wars trilogy was not meant for movie stars(although they've all had backgrounds, I think star wars has been the biggest thing they've all done). The movie rocked, and I think Lucas is in no way trying to win the "fuck-you-fans award".