{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/7/2013 5:03:51 PM
40
Hunger Games doing a Harry Potter cop out
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games:_Mockingjay_%E2%80%93_Part_1]So they're going to release the final movie in two parts.[/url]
I for one think this is just sad. The only reason they're doing this is because they want to milk the series for all it's worth and they saw how much of a cash cow the last Harry Potter was. Don't even get me started on Twilight doing it.
"But they're being faithful to the books!"
Horse shit, Harry Potter's last two movies were both on the 7th book and they still shit all over what Rowling wrote in the book. The Lord of The Rings Trilogy is a more faithful adaptation and they never had to do the last book in parts, even if the last movie required weed for you to watch all the way through.
I honestly do not understand why people are okay with movie studios cutting the movie up just to sucker you into buying an extra movie ticket and BD set. Please tell me you guys feel the same way, even slightly.
-
9 RepliesI'm OK with it. There will be more substance. And the 7th + 8th Harry Potter movies were outstanding.
-
I dunno, they COMPLETELY forgot Saruman taking over the Shire at the end and that was pretty damn major.
-
>Three films for The Hobbit i think that takes the cake for cash cow more than Hunger Games or Twilight imo. though i only care based on how good the films are, and i think both Harry Potter and The Hobbit films are good enough for me not to care. Plus, more Harry Potter? Wtf are you complaining about? One film would have butchered the last book way more than two.
-
Not fused I haven't been to movie I want in a year or so.
-
The movies are already shit.
-
Well. It doesn't kill me, hurt me, or physically damage the books, so I'm fine with it. I think book adapted movies get more praise and love from book fans when it follows the book well but they can still be good movies nonetheless.
-
It makes me wonder why they even convert books into movies. Why not make episodes for each chapter?
-
6 RepliesWhat's the big deal? Can't you afford two trips to the cinema?
-
4 RepliesMore Jennifer Lawrence? I fail to see the issue.
-
1 Reply[quote]More Jennifer Lawrence? I fail to see the issue.[/quote]
-
3 RepliesEdited by Quantum: 1/4/2014 3:43:04 AM[quote]Horse shit, Harry Potter's last two movies were both on the 7th book and they still shit all over what Rowling wrote in the book. The Lord of The Rings Trilogy is a more faithful adaptation even if the last movie sucked [/quote] ...No. Harry Potter managed to sustain most of the major plot points. LOTR did not. I don't think people realize how different the characters are in the movies compared to the books. Especially the 3rd movie.
-
9 RepliesTom Bombadil. NEVER FORGET.
-
Movies are overrated anyway.
-
1 ReplyYeah I agree. Maybe it's better this way though. From what I remember of reading the book series, they get progressively darker and depressing and at the end, a shit load of people are dead, the rebellion swaps out one evil leader for another, and all the survivors are broken mentally and physically.
-
I -blam!-ing love it the more jennifer lawrence the better!
-
Don't like it? Don't watch it. That's how capitalism (theoretically) works.
-
7 Replies[quote]The Lord of The Rings Trilogy is a more faithful adaptation and they never had to do the last book in parts[/quote] Too bad the Hobbit is the worst of all of them though. One book smaller than all of the LOTR books and spread over three movies? Ok.
-
Well it [i]is[/i] kinda hard fitting a whole novel in just 2 short hours. When you think about it, books are extremely descriptive compare to movies, so to make it better you'd have to make it longer.
-
They announced that quite awhile ago.... Anyway, if it means they cut less from the book and are able to end it without plotholes, then i'm ok with it. -can't get enough of (long-haired) Jennifer Lawerence anyway-
-
I didn't need weed to watch the third LotR all the way through.......
-
1 Reply>implying Deathly Hallows part 2 wasn't GOAT.
-
It's ok
-
3 Replies[quote]GOD BLESS CAPITALISM[/quote] (:
-
1 ReplyI actually like when movies do this. It gives the watcher a chance to get more absorbed into a story with it's lore. Could The Hobbit trilogy be placed in one film? Yes, but parts would be skipped or not covered in detail
-
I don't mind it. My biggest complaint about the series so far is that both movies seemed a bit forced. As if they struggled to fit a lot of content into a two and a half hour movie. And I'm noticing this as a man who never read the books. If they feel that two movies are necessary to complete the story, so be it. If it's all just a money-grab.. well.. so be that too. I won't complain about getting more of something I like. Truth be told.. I think Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead have shown that movie adaptions of long series needs to become extinct.
-
I only watch it when it goes free so I really don't care
