Weekly Ketchup: Familiar Names Return for X-Men: Days of Future Past

X-Men comes out the same day as The Hobbit Part 3, so it should be interesting to see which movie does better. I'm not really rooting for any of them because
A) A 3rd Hobbit film feels like a cash grab and I would gladly have accepted just two movies, but PJ had to go ruin everything and now we have to wait another 6 months to watch the rest of it.
B) First Class wasn't the best movie in the world, and I don't really mind a sequel but if I don't say something that evens out with my view on There and Back Again it'll make me look like I glorify the Hobbit too much. :P
But in reality, I'll most likely see both films anyway.

Nov 30 - 07:20 PM

John Noto

How dare PJ include more source material in an effort to give Tolkien fans a most satisfying Hobbit experience.

Dec 1 - 10:57 AM

no one wants to watch flashbacks that have nothing to do with the hobbit for 3 hours.

Dec 2 - 08:22 PM

Janson Jinnistan

What a sad, sheltered little boy. Out here in the real world, it's actually one of the most anticipated films of the year. By "someone", I presume.

Dec 3 - 11:28 AM

@Janson
In the real world, people want to watch serials in chronological order. So because "Part 3"--which will probably be cancelled anyway because it's such a stupid idea--is supposedly full of flashbacks about the dwarves and other stuff that has nothing to do with Tolkien's first novel >>>THE HOBBIT<<< , it should have been filmed and released first. But it hasn't. So it shouldn't be part of the Hobbit Trilogy.

Two movies was just fine, and I'm hyped about them, but the third movie is just a way to make it feel like LOTR nostalgia by making the series a trilogy. (Man, what is it with trilogies these days?) Oh and also to make more money. So that "someone" is being fooled and robbed of his good, hard-earned money to see a movie in a series that is ALREADY IN POST PRODUCTION and therefore has ENDED.

So where does part three fit in? Nowhere. No one cares about how Gandalf first met Bilbo or what Smaug's childhood was like... And I'm certainly not interested in watching Gollum go crazy in a cave over the course of 500 years.

If you're going to make three films out of the Hobbit, just make them all two hours and not three so you can have more room for context that appears in the BOOK and less room for stuff that doesn't even exist (like Tauriel). WE DON'T NEED TO SEE EVERY SINGLE GOBLIN WHOSE NAME APPEARS IN THE HOBBIT! Show, don't tell, you say? Well in this case, just have Gandalf explain how Thror died! We don't need to see it!

God, PJ is just milking the crap out of this book. He's adding stuff from the appendices you say? PFT! Appendices my ass! They're nothing but a bunch of timelines and language notes. Who cares about that? And don't just say "blehhh the more Middle-earth the better :P".

Well I say, how are a bunch of flashbacks or whatever going to fit in the 3-act film structure? Beginning, middle, and end? There's nothing in the appendices or flashbacks or the 60-year gap between Hobbit and FOTR that can sustain a runtime of more that 45 minutes.

There is no anticipation from this milked cow from me anymore. Two films, yeah way to go, I'll see them, but if it ends abruptly without completing the whole Hobbit book's story, and if I have to wait another 6 months to see the rest of it, I'm just gonna snap.

Dec 3 - 05:50 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Atta boy! Look at you reading and stuff.

"is supposedly full of flashbacks about the dwarves and other stuff that has nothing to do with Tolkien's first novel"

Supposed by who?

"So that "someone" is being fooled and robbed of his good, hard-earned money to see a movie in a series that is ALREADY IN POST PRODUCTION and therefore has ENDED."

All of the films were shot together, and the three-film format was planned back even when Del Toro was slated to direct.
"just make them all two hours and not three"

The Hobbit looks to be about 2 hours 40 minutes. I doubt this trilogy will be anywhere near the total running time of LOTR.

"He's adding stuff from the appendices you say?"

Did I?

"Two films, yeah way to go, I'll see them, but if it ends abruptly without completing the whole Hobbit book's story, and if I have to wait another 6 months to see the rest of it, I'm just gonna snap."

But you sound like you got it so together already.

Dec 3 - 07:13 PM

"Supposed" by everyone, including PJ himself.

Actually, no, the Hobbit was planned as two films since 2006. Do your research, fool.

I know how long the movie is. I'm saying that if it were to be three movies based solely on the book, then two hours would have sufficed.

When I mean "you" when talking about the appendices I was using it to identify the majority of idiots who think flashbacks and a bunch of useless shit from the appendices was a good idea.

Yeah, in fact I really am pretty mad about the series being a trilogy. What a cash grab Jackson is pursuing. I hope he never makes the Silmarillion. LOTR were good, Unexpected Journey will probably be good, Desolation will also be good, but I think they should have kept it as "There and Back Again" and finished the story in that movie. Three is just crap...

Dec 3 - 07:52 PM

X-men would be wise to move its release date. Even if it ends up being the better film X-men has never been nearly as big as Lord of the Rings. Hobbit could end up crushing it.

Also, early reactions for the hobbit have been pretty postive, so it looks like the decision to turn Hobbit into 3 films didn't end up having as much effect on the quality as we thought.

Dec 1 - 10:58 AM

Bradly Martin

Oh no I think as films the Hobbit will be rated and should be rated very high because Peter Jackson is a fantastic film maker, as far as watching the story The Hobbit unfold I think the concern is what we will really be getting. Because a 200 page book being a 9 hour film epic seems so Odd you know?

Dec 1 - 10:47 PM

Christopher Kulik

I'm actually holding in my hand a VHS copy of THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN, encased in one of those giant old ugly Warner Home Video clamshells (1983, not the 2001 re-release on VHS). It's a relic that's for sure--good little film, don't get me wrong, some good suspense, nice '40s Texas atmosphere. But it's also kinda routine.

Now, as far as the remake of the FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR is concerned: as a huge fan of the original, I'm all for it. Why? Oh, man, the original has DATED BADLY. Definitely nostalgic value, with some nifty special effects, but it can't exactly transcend its decade, thus I'm all in for a remake.

Nov 30 - 07:49 PM

Captain Terror

Nice, I don't have the TTDS VHS but I do have the original one-sheet hanging in my dining room. (Yes, dining room)

Recently heard Shout Factory is releasing a BluRay in '13!

Dec 2 - 04:43 AM

Christopher Kulik

Hey, if you want the VHS tape you could have it! Still plays great! Unless you really want the Blu-Ray of course.

Shout! Factory needs to get on Fox's ass to release the BATMAN show, that's what I've been waiting for forever. Even with Warner Bros. officially now given merchandising rights, still no sign. Are they gunning for a 50th anniversary release you think?

Dec 2 - 04:38 PM

Top news & the Cinderella adaption are the only interesting news this week. But Disney, when do you plan in enlightening us with the Mulan adaption?

As for that "The Town that dreaded sundown", never heard of it, don't care about it, & doesn't look interesting, so blah.

Nov 30 - 09:49 PM

I'd rather Disney focus on their animated fantasy films. Even the computer animated ones, Brave and Tangled, were way better than any live action fantasy based on fairy tales or classic books that we've gotten recently.

Dec 1 - 12:19 AM

Unless their animated films are hand-drawn, then I'll gladly focus on them. If not, then I'll look forward more to their live-action ones.

Dec 1 - 07:58 PM

Computet animated fantasy films by Disney: Tangled, Brave.

Live action fantasies by Disney: Alice in Wonderland, The Sorcerer's Apprentice

To each his own, but I think Disney has had a much better track record with their animated fantasies (whether hand drawn or CGI) than their live action ones.

Dec 2 - 08:37 AM

Ahem, Brave is PIXAR.

And I hope you're not implying that Alice in Wonderland was bad (it's not Burton's best, but unlike the wonderful 2D one, his had a PLOT).

Dec 2 - 04:02 PM

Lance Reeder

Alice in Wonderland 2D had a plot, the same one the classic book had. Difference is the plot for the 2D was classic, the plot for the 3D one was crap, Depp's Hatter excluded...and PIXAR is Disney.

Dec 2 - 06:13 PM

Val Mordas

Disney owns everything. I came home yesterday and found out Disney owns my house. They plan to install mouse ears on it next week.

Dec 3 - 05:16 PM

Really? Then do elaborate Lance what the plot for the 2D Alice in Wonderland was, exactly.

Dec 4 - 06:48 PM

George Voulcan

Flight of the Navigator made a pretty big impression on a lot of kids. I just saw it again after god know how many years and it's actually not that bad a movie at all. I can't believe it didn't do better at the box office. Probably it's structure was the problem. The kid really doesn't get into the ship until more than halfway through the movie. I hope the remake is good.

Nov 30 - 10:48 PM

George Voulcan

I hope the director keeps the florida setting. Anything by the ocean would be great.

Nov 30 - 10:49 PM