Anyone going to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Trailer looks really good. I'll be finishing the book tomorrow night.

Sonofanump;1020116 wrote:Anyone going to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Trailer looks really good. I'll be finishing the book tomorrow night.

Ill go to it. But Im a bit worried with Daniel Craig getting the nod. The Swedish versions of the films are amazing, and sooooo well done with Blomkvist being kind of a little bitch. Daniel Craig is gonna 007 the role and I dont think that will work as well. I think they are going to Americanize it too much, which is a shame. I hope Im wrong. But itll be tough as hell to make these films better than the original adaptions of the Swedish films.

I just snagged The Tree of Life. I've heard good things.

Anyone see it?

Laley23;1020121 wrote:Ill go to it. But Im a bit worried with Daniel Craig getting the nod. The Swedish versions of the films are amazing, and sooooo well done with Blomkvist being kind of a little bitch. Daniel Craig is gonna 007 the role and I dont think that will work as well. I think they are going to Americanize it too much, which is a shame. I hope Im wrong. But itll be tough as hell to make these films better than the original adaptions of the Swedish films.

Did you watch it dubbed or with sub titles?

Sonofanump;1020148 wrote:Did you watch it dubbed or with sub titles?

Sub Titles. Not ideal, but they were so well done you get over it.

Have you seen them?

Laley23;1020152 wrote:Sub Titles. Not ideal, but they were so well done you get over it.

Have you seen them?

No, I will be finishing the book tomorrow night, so I'll watch the English movie second, finish the second two books third and fourth, then watch the three Swedish flims last. I see that all three are on Netflix in sub titles.

Sonofanump;1020159 wrote:No, I will be finishing the book tomorrow night, so I'll watch the English movie second, finish the second two books third and fourth, then watch the three Swedish flims last. I see that all three are on Netflix in sub titles.

Yep. Thats were I watched them.

Anyone see the sitter? No work today I wanna go see a movie

SportsAndLady;1020188 wrote:Anyone see the sitter? No work today I wanna go see a movie

Yeah, I saw it. I just thought it was alright with a couple of funny parts.

SportsAndLady;1020188 wrote:Anyone see the sitter? No work today I wanna go see a movie

No but I have yet to hear anything remotely positive about it. Waste your money elsewhere.

lol BD, did you really see it? There was so much better stuff out to see.

Commander of Awesome;1020530 wrote:No but I have yet to hear anything remotely positive about it. Waste your money elsewhere.

lol BD, did you really see it? There was so much better stuff out to see.

Yes, I watched it but I didn't pay so I didn't mind going. Ha

Yeah that movie was average at best

Trailer for "The Hobbit". Glad to see Ian McKellen back as Gandolf.

[video=youtube;JTSoD4BBCJc][/video]

GoPens;1022596 wrote:Trailer for "The Hobbit". Glad to see Ian McKellen back as Gandolf.

[video=youtube;JTSoD4BBCJc][/video]

Good call.

The Hobbit is basically a shortened version of LOTR. Not excited for it, should have come out first. Doubt I'll see it.

Commander - Are you exactly like Sleeper? Do you enjoy ANY movies? You come off as so cold and hostile. You belittle almost EVERY movie title that someone tosses out? Is it really that are for you to find entertainment / things entertaining? I pray not.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1022787 wrote:Do you enjoy ANY movies? You come off as so cold and hostile.

I don't think he does. But I agree the hobbit should have come out first.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1022787 wrote:Commander - Are you exactly like Sleeper? Do you enjoy ANY movies? You come off as so cold and hostile. You belittle almost EVERY movie title that someone tosses out? Is it really that are for you to find entertainment / things entertaining? I pray not.

lol cold and hostile? I'm not intending to come off that way, nor am I trying to shit on something that you may like. I'll try and keep this is mind moving forward so I dont get your panties in a bunch but not agreeing with everything you say and think every movie is great bc it has a great book or big budget attached to it.

I do think I tend to be negative towards a lot of films coming out today but I think its with good reason. I feel majority of movies being produced today are lacking in quality when compared to films of past generations. I blame CGI and would love for just one year for Hollywood to be able to use it. It's annoying that terrible films like Spiderman 3, or the sitter get tons of publicity and marketing behind it yet great films like Drive (to use a recent example) have almost no marketing and is out of the theaters in 2 weeks. The Blind side is up for an Oscar (LMAO what a joke that movie was terrible) yet Blue Valentine isn't? How is that even possible? Blue Valentine was probably the best movie out that year. Hollywood is in a rut and uses CGI as a crutch, great storytelling is hard to come in a movie anymore along with decent acting or character development. Some of my friends call me a movie snob, which I can see and agree with, but even objectively I think most would agree majority of the big budget movies are shit.


I dont doubt the Hobbit will be decent, but lets be honest. If you've seen The Lord of the Rings, you've already seen this movie.

Commander of Awesome;1022750 wrote:The Hobbit is basically a shortened version of LOTR. Not excited for it, should have come out first. Doubt I'll see it.

So is "Attack of the Clones" a shorted version of "A New Hope", "Empire Strikes Back" & "Return of the Jedi"?

Sonofanump;1022846 wrote:So is "Attack of the Clones" a shorted version of "A New Hope", "Empire Strikes Back" & "Return of the Jedi"?

I'm not following.

Commander of Awesome;1022886 wrote:I'm not following.

You are implying that "The Hobitt" is the same content but condensed version of the "LOTR" trilogy.</SPAN></SPAN>

Sonofanump;1022888 wrote:You are implying that "The Hobitt" is the same content but condensed version of the "LOTR" trilogy.

Yeah I get that. Both are about a hobbit (bilbo/frodo) traveling across the land to throw a ring in a volcano. I wouldn't call that a stretch. Attack of the Clones is not a condensed version of the original Star Wars. I get what you're trying to get at, but its a horrible example.

Commander of Awesome;1022901 wrote:Both are about a hobbit (bilbo/frodo) traveling across the land to throw a ring in a volcano.

Unless they've completely changed the hobbit, it's about dwarves trying to get their treasure back from a dragon. Bilbo finds the ring along the way but has no idea of it's significance other than it makes him invisible. In the first lord of the rings Gandolf leaves to research the ring because he doesn't know what it is at first.

Speaking of the LOTR and hobbits, I saw this gem elsewhere:

Head over to google maps and ask for walking directions from "The Shire" to "Mordor."

^ "The Shire" takes me to The Shire, Wisconsin. "Mordor" takes me to Mordor Place, Texas.