Sorry for the interruption, but we'd really appreciate it if you watched some of our videos!
All videos are written, performed, and edited by the Agony Booth staff, so they're just like the
recaps you know and love, only without all that annoying reading!
10/27/2013 11:26:12 PM
i bought this wretched movie and it's second part only to see how shitty it wasit took me 2 weeks to watch the damn things 2 FUCKING WEEKS! I COULD HAVE WATCHED ALL 12 STAR TREK MOVIES ALL 7 HARRY POTTER MOVIES AND ALL 6 STAR WARS MOVIES IN THAT TIME AND BEEN FAR MORE ENTERTAINED FOR IT!!!!!!!!
10/27/2013 11:21:51 PM
i bought this wretched movie and it's second part only to see how shitty it wasit took me 2 weeks to watch the damn things 2 FUCKING WEEKS! I COULD HAVE WATCHED ALL 13 STAR TREK MOVIES ALL 7 HARRY POTTER MOVIES AND ALL 6 STAR WARS MOVIES IN THAT TIME AND BEEN FAR MORE ENTERTAINED FOR IT!!!!!!!!
10/28/2013 1:37:18 AM
so i made a mistake..... at least i bothered to correct it you won't get that from most politicians they would make you think that there are somehow 13 Star Trek films in order to save their own hides at least i fixed my error when i noticed it and i will readily admit to said mistake
10/28/2013 1:51:28 AM
and not to joke but Twilight tends to make even the smartest of people a bit..... dumb
10/5/2013 8:46:45 PM
I love enward
11/23/2012 7:27:43 PM
"Twilight - Breaking dawn part -2" waiting was long, but movie is worth.
11/18/2012 11:08:10 PM
You forgot to mention that it was the Weinsteins who first did the "Split the movie into two parts because fuck the moviegoing public" with Kill Bill.Why is it that it's the side characters that are the most interesting in these films? What's more, why are they so interesting and the principals so fucking boring? It's not because of the actors.
11/19/2012 12:02:35 AM
Because Bella's a cipher, an author's surrogate, and a blank slate for the impressionable reader to imagine herself as. If you don't know somebody, but you want to like them, your mind will naturally fill in the blanks of your knowledge in whatever way is convenient; typical fantasy. The more substance Bella has, the more likely there's going to be something about her that the viewer won't want to identify with, and the harder it would be for a reader to see herself in Bella. Therefore, Bella "works" because she's so uninteresting - there are so many blanks to her that you can make her into almost anything you want without contradicting anything.Side characters, on the other hand, typically represent personalities or ideas either contrary or complementary to the protagonists. Usually, they're a "type" - arrogant type, dumb type, sweet type, funny type, attractive type, aggressive type, shy type, whatever type of character the author feels is needed to help the story along. This at the very least gives these characters one dimension of personality, and occasionally more. They don't have to bear the weight of the story and be the everyreader's avatar (again, the wider an audience the character is expected to appeal to, the less substance they typically have), so they're free to do their own thing, be interesting, and actually feel like more believable people.This isn't just a Twilight thing. Character/supporting actors tend to play more interesting characters precisely because they're not expected to appeal to the audience's narrow collective ideals of what it would like to be (assuming the audience is supposed to identify with the main character). Instead, they can be quirky, funny, scary, or just plain off-the-wall weird. Interesting. Things that lead characters rarely even attempt to be.
11/19/2012 1:15:54 AM
To be honest, I don't even find the side characters in Twilight all that interesting. Charlie, sure... the girl played by Anna Kendrick, sure... Jacob was somewhat interesting for one movie or so before he turned selfish and whiny. But they were interesting mainly because of what the actors brought to the roles.Edward's whole vampire family? Or Jacob's werewolf clan? I mean, can anyone even tell any of them apart?
11/19/2012 1:32:31 AM
Having only seen bits and pieces of the movie, as well as many video reviews and vlogs, I can't point out any interesting characters myself (though I do love what I'm hearing about Michael Sheen). I'm speaking mostly in generalities, and based heavily on what I've heard of these films, the supporting characters sound like they may be the only interesting ones. I HAVE seen enough of the big three to notice that there seems to be nothing there.
11/19/2012 1:11:12 AM
I don't know, I think the original cut of Kill Bill was over four hours, and it was only at that point that they decided to split it into two films. Would you really be able to endure over four hours of Kill Bill all in one sitting? Though I guess you could argue the whole thing could have been cut down to less than 3 hours.Harry Potter definitely started the trend of "last book = two movies". It may have worked for Potter but the way it's being applied to other franchises is stupid. Why is it always the last book that gets split up? Why not split up the book with the most material? And why does it always have to be one or two movies per book, anyway? Why not combine the books with the least amount of story?
11/19/2012 1:45:33 AM
Assuming the "Whole Bloody Affair" Kill Bill was structured in the same way as the separate cuts, I imagine the second half would have been boring as hell, especially as the audience would have reached the exhaustion point long before Beatrix found Bill, and many would have already gotten restless by the Pai Mei scene. There's a reason good filmmakers almost never put the best fight scene at the mid-way point. And aside from some useful cutting of the Hanzo scene, and maybe the scene with Bill's surrogate father, I wouldn't want to have seen ANYTHING cut from those movies. QT did a good thing by trying to force in so much, and the Weinsteins did a good thing in insisting they be cut into two movies. And they deserved two trips to the theatre given the spectacular production they delivered.Even a 2 1/2 hour cut would have probably felt too rushed to be enjoyable, and would have just played into those critics (and skeptical moviegoers) who felt it was nothing but a brainless action movie. Because if they had cut out O-Ren's backstory, cut out Elle's introduction, cut out Hanzo, cut out Budd, shortened the Pai Mei scenes, cut out Beatrix and the assassin, cut out Beatrix and Bill at the wedding hall, cut out Bill's father figure, and severely cut the Beatrix/Bill scene, you just MAY have gotten it down that short. And you would have been left with nothing but fight scenes and the bare minimum of plot. It may have made for the greatest Extended Edition ever, but it would have been a very shallow moviegoing experience.
11/17/2012 7:21:06 AM
Bella's a jabroni! Renesme break her back, she make her humble! Edward's a jabroni! Renesme #1! Bella #10! Ptooey!Sorry, couldn't resist... :-)
11/17/2012 2:08:47 AM
Oh my god the plots all sound so...fucking...boring!
11/16/2012 5:07:21 PM
Oh god... if there's going to be a reboot with younger kids... twilight babies :P
11/19/2012 1:18:42 AM
I guarantee you there are people trying to figure out how to extend the Twilight franchise. The big question is whether Stephenie Meyer is going to accept the dump truck full of cash that they're backing up to her house as we speak.
11/16/2012 1:12:15 PM
Myer isn't even original where the imprinting is concerned. In the Elfquest comic book series the elves go through a thing called Recognition where they have this irresistible urge to mate with another in order to produce a superior offspring. In the first arc Cutter, leader of the Wolf Riders, Recognizes with Leetah, who wants nothing to do with him. This leads him in conflict with Rayek, Leetah's beau.Myer is such a hack. I'm just sorry that they are talking about a fifth Twilight movie to milk this franchise.As for stretching out books to multiple movies, I have decided I will not see The Hobbit in theaters. Fuck Peter Jackson for stretching one book out into three films. Bad enough he decided to do two!
11/16/2012 2:04:46 PM
I don't know when it comes to Peter Jackson, because in his case it's not about the money at all but about that it's his passion project and he wants to incorporate stuff from "Silmarillion." that this will be his last chance to exspand on middle-earth and show as much of it as possible. I'll wait till I've actually seen the movie, which I will, in Cinema, because I am not about to deprive myself of an exsperience just because of pride. It's always cool being able to say. "I was there." regardless of things. And yeah, Elf Quest is definetely way more superior in this concept as it actually also explores the draw-backs of it. It also establish that the elfs is another species entirely so there-fore their very culture and nature is that different. More than ones does an elf meet the recognision with some-one they never wanted to stay with, but then it helps them form a bond between the two tribes in the end, ones or twice it happens they meet recognition with some-one they can't possible become "life mates." with. Then there's the elfs whom all-ready decided on a life partner meeting recognition with some-one else, and thankfully to their "other species." three-some is fine among them X) So yeah, all of that is explored in Elf Quest, it's just such a much more superior story.
11/17/2012 2:40:14 AM
I don't see the difference between "stretching one book out into three films" and "this will be his last chance to expand on middle-earth and show as much of it as possible," only your feelings are different.
11/17/2012 6:44:08 AM
That and there's a lot more meat inside of the Lord of the rings books and the universe than there is in Twilight.. Lord of The rings has Silmarilion descibing older legends, the origin of the world and several species, prophecies that would first come into play with LotR, cultures, history of these cultures, death of some cultures, re-birth of others... Twilight does not.
11/17/2012 4:58:48 AM
Jackson wanted 2, the studios wanted 3. Not fair to dump it all on Jackson.And I can't blame him for wanting two, considering the bullshit he put up with for Fellowship. Fanboys screaming about Tom "I Add Nothing" Bombadil being cut, because Heaven forbid anything be altered as it moves from one medium to the next. He probably just wanted to shove in a bunch of inconsequential nonsense so people wouldn't complain about him cutting something inconsequential.Instead, they can complain about it being too long!
11/17/2012 6:49:28 AM
For years, I have been one of the loony holdouts who doesn't like the new holy trinity (even if I concede they got most of the stuff in the books right). I have no problem with the omission of Bombadil, or the omission of anything else. None. Whatsoever. I just hate everything Jackson ADDED to the story, all of which in my opinion detract HEAVILY from the work as a whole, most of which actively attempts to make the work seem silly, as if we're supposed to watch the events and laugh at it. It's DRAMA, it's an epic adventure, it's not supposed to be funny. The Moria teeter-totter? Dwarf-tossing? Legolas on a snowboard? Alterations are fine, if you need to trim the original text to keep it to 2 1/2 hours or so; just don't make stuff up and we're fine. If you have to cut for time (and, again, you do), why in God's name are you ADDING new stuff? That's insulting. And it's blasphemy.And seriously, three movies? For the little "Hobbit"? I'm assuming (really, hoping) that Jackson spends that extra 3 hours introducing Silmarillarion-type backstory, and not in making up new stuff ("Hey, let's have Bilbo fall off a cliff for no goddamn reason!") that doesn't even feel like it fits in the story the movie is telling, let alone the books. But I'm also assuming (really, dreading) that they're going to use this to introduce stuff Jackson felt "needed" to be in the story, so that it makes more sense (or feels more conventional) for the ultra-casual audience who couldn't even tell you who wrote the books, but who just shows up expecting an action movie. The Hobbit is a really simple work of fiction. Narratively dense, sure, well-written, absolutely, as good fiction is, but it's a single stand-alone book, and rather conventional in its setup: a regular guy swept up in events far above his understanding, becomes a hero, yadda yadda. That's a standard dramatic trope. It doesn't need new stuff added to it. Keep it simple, if you care at all about the integrity of what is a really fun little novel for kids. I read it when I was eight, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. Any book that can be enjoyed and appreciated by an eight-year-old doesn't need a nine-hour adaptation. Keep it simple. And don't be so presumptuous that you feel you should add your own stuff; tell the classic story and leave your lame fanfic ideas out of it.Jackson should have put his foot down when (and if) the studios demanded a trilogy. After the monster success of LotR, I find it hard to believe any studio would have dared to move ahead without Jackson's name attached. Unfortunately, after what we've seen thus far, it's clear Jackson thinks that Tolkien can be improved upon in many ways. And that's sad. I WANT to love what Jackson has done so, SO much. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much. But there's so much in those movies that just angers me, so much added stuff that doesn't fit the tone of the books, doesn't fit the characters, just feels insulting at their inclusion. A LotR trilogy that cut around the stuff Jackson added would have been a major improvement, and it would have had the added benefit of being shorter, and thus, easier for the plebes to enjoy.I'm still on the fence about even seeing these movies. Most of the time, that means I'll end up waiting until I can see it at home (like I ended up doing with RotK), and not bothering paying top-dollar to see it on the big screen. And I want to love it, so much. It just seems that Jackson doesn't want us purists to share in the experience.EDIT: Wait, this is a Twilight thread. Why are we talking about the Hobbit HERE?Oh well, I've never seen Twilight and I never will. Might as well talk about something substantial.
11/17/2012 7:14:03 PM
Oh don't get me wrong, I don't lay it all at Jackson's feet. But I think it was a stretch (pun intended) to squeeze two movies out of The Hobbit. So what if he could not make all fans happy with the cuts from the Ring books? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows you can't include everything from a novel in a motion picture adaptation. It is a different medium.And honestly, I don't remember Tom Bombadill. At all. Which to me tells me how little of an impact the character had on my adolescent consciousness back then.
Popular Right Now
All articles posted to the agony booth are the sole property of the author(s). Please do not copy/reproduce entire articles without permission. Screencaps from movies and TV shows are used for non-profit, fair use purposes of parody and commentary.
Star Trek and all related images and trademarks are the property of CBS Studios, Inc.
Reviewer icon artwork provided by Tai Porto, Aaron “McKnackus” Rivera, and Magdalen O’Reilly.