Last night I saw the end of some Finnish horror film where Santa was trying to kill all the children.
Bloody mental, but I wish I'd seen the whole thing. Was actually a bit scared when I switched the light off.
I've just seen... Page 332
Haha! Sounds great!
They nicked that off Futurama
Watch BRave last night.
Really liked it main character was very well done.
Quote: lofthouse @ December 23 2012, 2:32 PM GMTThey nicked that off Futurama
I expect it's from some old Scandinavian myth. There's some very odd stories about different versions of Father Christmas.
Is this Rare Exports? I keep meaning to watch that. It's meant to be good nasty fun.
Yep. I only saw about the last half an hour. But it was properly sinister and creepy.
Did you think Santa was coming to get you?
Totally.
So I watched LotR: The Two Towers last night and oddly enough I actually enjoyed it. There was a greater sense of adventure, plus introducing characters like the ENTS made it feel like I was watching something from my childhood like Neverending Story. The battle scenes and orcs were more bearable this time round too. Oh and it wasn't actually 3hrs55mins, there was 20 mins off end credits.
Is it just me or does the film look very cheap, cheesy and camp at times? Whereas compared to something like Game of Thrones with 1/10th of the budget it's just slightly distracting.
Full on Panto this guy!
It was much more oriented at getting a kids/PG rating.
So to do that and have as much violence as it did, meant it needed to compromise far more.
Plus Game of Thrones and LOTR are very different source material books.
I understand the GOT and LOTR are VERY different. It's not the material I'm comparing, it's the makeup, set designs and overall direction that cheapens it (but only in some scenes). Peter Jackson does that typical NZ/OZ hand-held closeup fisheye camera effect for reaction shots that definitely cheapens the whole thing too.
I think GOT wanted to be very much Swords and Sopranos; where as LOTR has been the wet dream of every D&D oriented film maker for years (but just too expensive, the Ralf Bakshi version of the first book is ok in a 1970s kinda way). So the idea was to create something mythical and magical. Totally light years away from GOT. I seem to remember the Ents and the stuff with Saruman breeding the Orcs was rather good. Certainly Tolkien like a lot of fantasy writers did violence but not sex.
There's some interesting articles that the author of GOT (whose name escapes me). Was part of a reactionary movement against the high fantasy of Tolkien and Lewis. Who wanted a less magical, more realistic vibe. So the shows maybe reflecting the authors intent more.
Quote: Lee @ December 24 2012, 4:22 PM GMTI understand the GOT and LOTR are VERY different. It's not the material I'm comparing, it's the makeup, set designs and overall direction that cheapens it (but only in some scenes). Peter Jackson does that typical NZ/OZ hand-held closeup fisheye camera effect for reaction shots that definitely cheapens the whole thing too.
They have their faults, but I have to say I never thought looking cheap was one of them.
I think the 3rd one they kinda over stretched themselves with the oliphants.
I mean I sat through all 3 and they were entertaining enough. But in the end they felt a bit lobotomised, and they weren't very clever books to begin with.