[Dilmah G]

Yeah I have, and they were scriptless weren't they?

[BloodEagle]

Films based on video games are just as good as films based on books. They generally suck (Eragon, for example) and try to sqeeuze an extra dollar from the fans. There are a few exceptions, thank the gods (For example, the Lord of the Rings).

I must be the only person who loathes those movies.

[Mongoose]

I must be the only person who loathes those movies.

Yup.

[General Battuta]

I must be the only person who loathes those movies.

Yup.

Yep.

[Vidmaster]

Escape from City 17 is awesome.

WHERE IS PART 2 ?

[Dilmah G]

Didn't it say they were making one on the video description?

[Mikes]

I kind of liked the Wing Commander movie

I think it holds some kind of record as one, if not the worst movie ever at Rottentomatoes.com

I really hated it as it first came out as i was expecting something that fit at least somewhat into the continuity of the games... and well that it certainly didn't and ripped off the cheesiest cliches from other movies left and right... Blair is a pilgrim with mystical powers? seriously! lol.

However... watching it again recently one has to admit,... that while it is totally trashy, features horrible dialogue and totally overdoes the 2nd world war naval warfare analogies... you can also occasionally tell that Chris Roberts did pour some lifeblood into this...  it's just that his vision is quite wierd and propably appeals to few other people than himself lol... but still... it really isn't quite as horrible as some other movies. Or, let me rephrase that, there is much worse crap out there than this one LOL.

I guess it has to do with expectations. If you know you are watching a trashy B-movie you may be surprised if it isn't quite as bad as you expected, but i guess most people were hoping/expecting Wing Commander to be at least a somewhat good movie and were utterly disgusted when they discovered the trash they got served heh.

[Blue Lion]

I must be the only person who loathes those movies.

I've never seen them, so I dunno.

[Flipside]

The special edition LOTR far outclassed the cinema versions, but I enjoyed them all.

[BloodEagle]

The special edition LOTR far outclassed the cinema versions, but I enjoyed them all.

I'm a stickler for sticking to the story. The first one was alright (despite cutting out Tom), but the rest have no excuse.

[Mongoose]

The special edition LOTR far outclassed the cinema versions, but I enjoyed them all.

I'm a stickler for sticking to the story. The first one was alright (despite cutting out Tom), but the rest have no excuse.

They have the excuse of being movies...that is, not being books.  There's no way to make a one-to-one transfer from the latter to the former while managing to convey everything that made the latter great.  Shortcuts have to be made, storyline progression has to be rearranged, and yes, elements that just wouldn't work have to be excised.  It's an unavoidable consequence of switching from one medium, which has a certain set of general rules, to another, which has its own set of rules that are often at odds with the first set.  Just as one example from the books, something like the Scouring never would have worked in cinematic form, given its status as a largely-independent series of events set after the main story's climax.

(Now, that isn't to say that I didn't have issues with a few of the unnecessary changes Peter Jackson made, but I was overwhelmingly pleased with how the vast majority of the films turned out.)

[Flipside]

As someone who's read the Silmarillion, I still found the movie enjoyable, despite the complete omission of vast tracts of historical dialogue from it, maybe I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if I hadn't.

I'll agree that some of the alterations made to the major battles irked me a little, but the thing is, the story was more an interpretation than an actual word-for-word conversion.

I'd have liked to see some more cleaning up at the end, more confirmation of the friendship between Gimli and Legolas in particular, and the fact that Gimli established a new Dwarf-Home in Helms-Deep, and then became the only member of that race to travel West, because Legolas refused to leave Middle Earth without his friend, I think that would have made a better ending in a way.

[Mongoose]

I'd have liked to see some more cleaning up at the end, more confirmation of the friendship between Gimli and Legolas in particular, and the fact that Gimli established a new Dwarf-Home in Helms-Deep, and then became the only member of that race to travel West, because Legolas refused to leave Middle Earth without his friend, I think that would have made a better ending in a way.

I'm not really sure that that would have worked any more than the Scouring would, to be honest, at least not in terms of what the movies were trying to accomplish.  Peter Jackson has stated a few times that his primary focus in the films was on Frodo's quest with the Ring, and the War of the Ring that accompanied it.  Anything ancillary to those elements, such as Tom Bombadil or the Scouring, was game for being cut.  I think that what Legolas and Gimli did afterwards definitely falls into that category, as the only reference to it outside of the appendices is a single sentence about the Glittering Caves.  Hell, even with everything that was cut after Sauron's defeat, I heard a few people who hadn't previously read the books say that they felt as though ROTK had "five or six endings in a row."

[NGTM-1R]

I'd have liked to see some more cleaning up at the end, more confirmation of the friendship between Gimli and Legolas in particular,

Movies encourage, and demand, a sort of conservation of narrative. (This is why movies about bad books are better than the books, usually. I'll have to find that slacktivist post and the stuff it linked to again.) The "Or shall I get you a box" scene rather artfully compressed all that into something simple.

[BloodEagle]

The special edition LOTR far outclassed the cinema versions, but I enjoyed them all.

I'm a stickler for sticking to the story. The first one was alright (despite cutting out Tom), but the rest have no excuse.

They have the excuse of being movies...that is, not being books.  There's no way to make a one-to-one transfer from the latter to the former while managing to convey everything that made the latter great.  Shortcuts have to be made, storyline progression has to be rearranged, and yes, elements that just wouldn't work have to be excised.  It's an unavoidable consequence of switching from one medium, which has a certain set of general rules, to another, which has its own set of rules that are often at odds with the first set.  Just as one example from the books, something like the Scouring never would have worked in cinematic form, given its status as a largely-independent series of events set after the main story's climax.

(Now, that isn't to say that I didn't have issues with a few of the unnecessary changes Peter Jackson made, but I was overwhelmingly pleased with how the vast majority of the films turned out.)

It doesn't have to be 1:1, but, damn it, don't go changing things that don't need to be changed. Don't take a minor character (if that) and, not only expand said character's role, but devote half a movie (or what seems like it) to said character. I don't recall enough of the movie(s) to go into greater detail, but that was one of the smaller changes that Peter Jackson made.

---

I'd have liked to see some more cleaning up at the end, more confirmation of the friendship between Gimli and Legolas in particular, and the fact that Gimli established a new Dwarf-Home in Helms-Deep, and then became the only member of that race to travel West, because Legolas refused to leave Middle Earth without his friend, I think that would have made a better ending in a way.

I'm not really sure that that would have worked any more than the Scouring would, to be honest, at least not in terms of what the movies were trying to accomplish.  Peter Jackson has stated a few times that his primary focus in the films was on Frodo's quest with the Ring, and the War of the Ring that accompanied it.  Anything ancillary to those elements, such as Tom Bombadil or the Scouring, was game for being cut.  I think that what Legolas and Gimli did afterwards definitely falls into that category, as the only reference to it outside of the appendices is a single sentence about the Glittering Caves.  Hell, even with everything that was cut after Sauron's defeat, I heard a few people who hadn't previously read the books say that they felt as though ROTK had "five or six endings in a row."

There's a good reason for cutting out Tom's mini-arc: it was designed to set the mood/scenery/whatever in the book, and you don't need to devote that much time for that purpose when working with a visual medium. I still disagree with cutting it.

[Mongoose]

It doesn't have to be 1:1, but, damn it, don't go changing things that don't need to be changed. Don't take a minor character (if that) and, not only expand said character's role, but devote half a movie (or what seems like it) to said character. I don't recall enough of the movie(s) to go into greater detail, but that was one of the smaller changes that Peter Jackson made.

Care to elaborate on exactly whom you're talking about?  I have a fairly good guess, but if it's that person, then I largely disagree with you on how broad said person's role in the movies actually was.

There's a good reason for cutting out Tom's mini-arc: it was designed to set the mood/scenery/whatever in the book, and you don't need to devote that much time for that purpose when working with a visual medium. I still disagree with cutting it.

Care to tell me how you think a mass-market audience would have reacted to a completely-random, pace-derailing aside about a crazy man skipping about through the forest and singing nonsense songs?

(We seem to have drifted wildly off-topic here, but I don't think there's much else that can be said about the original topic anyway.)