zslane

I enjoyed Godzilla vs Kong, but I didn't love it. I think, for me, I am too aware of all the (easily implemented) ways this movie could have been so much better. Yes, the fights were great, but I really wish they had stuck with Gareth Edwards' conception of these Titans as colossal animals. The increased anthropomorphism made a lot of the fight choreography look like something out of the WWE than something consistent with the 2014 movie. With every movie it seems to me that they take another step closer to these creatures behaving like people, a throwback to when they were portrayed by men in rubber suits. For instance, apex predators don't have "honor". They kill any and all who challenge their position at the top. But the Legendary Godzilla is slowly becoming the scaley samurai of the Toho films, and it undermines any of the realism Gareth Edwards worked so hard to inject into this Monster-verse seven years ago.
 
In addition, I think the movie would have been much better without the Goonies trio. There are far better ways to show us what the bad guys are up to. And on a broader level the movie did not benefit from shoe-horning the Russells into this plot. They were not necessary for any kind of continuity with any of the previous movies. I kinda feel they were there just to put Millie Bobby Brown and Kyle Chandler on the movie poster.
 
 

When it comes to game rules, copyrights only exist for a specific written text of rules. So if you completely re-write the rules to any game you are not in copyright violation. Copyrights do not protect ideas or game mechanics. When it comes to game mechanics, the only IP framework that can potentially cover them is a patent, and patents for game systems are extraordinarily rare. I seriously doubt that any of the material you are using was previously patented by anyone.
 
I am confident that you are safe from any legal challenge, at least in terms of how the judgment would go. If you think anyone is litigious enough to take it to court (even though they would lose), you would still have to consider the cost of legally defending your work.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion but I'm glad you're in the minority. 
 
I've really enjoyed the last 10 years for the most part and I'm pretty interested all the tv and movie projects coming up.    They are a mixture of the most popular characters currently out there, new characters and some fringe characters being given a chance to shine.  This hardly seems random, but actually a pretty smart strategy IMO.

I don't know how you got that impression. I don't for a moment think Jackson's changes were arbitrary. I already explained what I feel his reasons were, and yes you are right, I disagree with those reasons rather strongly. I also disagree rather strongly that it couldn't have been done any other way, as if Jackson had a choir of angels directing his hand when writing the script, and that what we got was adapted cinematic perfection.
 
I still enjoy the movies, particularly the extended editions, as I've pointed out repeatedly. That does not, however, make me blind to (what I feel are) numerous unnecessary blunders on Jackson's part. In most respects his achievement is nothing short of astounding, and I give him tremendous props for pulling it off as he did. However, where he changed/compromised/updated the original story under the auspices of "adaptation" I feel he sometimes went too far astray and did not do the original story justice.

I don't see the big problem with that. And I'm pretty confident that audiences wouldn't have had a problem with it either. It's these unnecessary deviations from the canon that just bug me. Farmer Maggot gets so little screen time it is a wonder Jackson left him in the film at all, or that his actions weren't handed off to some other character, like Grima Wormtongue, in some misguided attempt at foreshadowing (and bringing him full circle at the end in case he chose to do the Scouring). Yet Jackson decided that it was important to retain a relatively unimportant and forgettable character like Farmer Maggot anyway. So Farmer Maggot stays, but Glorfindel gets the cut from the cinematic history of Middle Earth as re-written by Peter Jackson.

Preach it, brother.
 
I get that Jackson didn't want to introduce a character who would suddenly appear, do something heroic, and then just disappear from the story, but I still don't like swapping out Glorfindel for Arwen, or transferring the power of her father (who had Vilya at his disposal for such things) to her.
 
As an aside, Tolkien organized the complete work into six "books", adding further confusion. Moreover, he submitted the material to Unwin over several years, not all at once, so the publisher couldn't have released it as a single volume in any case.

I don't know how you got that impression. I don't for a moment think Jackson's changes were arbitrary. I already explained what I feel his reasons were, and yes you are right, I disagree with those reasons rather strongly. I also disagree rather strongly that it couldn't have been done any other way, as if Jackson had a choir of angels directing his hand when writing the script, and that what we got was adapted cinematic perfection.
 
I still enjoy the movies, particularly the extended editions, as I've pointed out repeatedly. That does not, however, make me blind to (what I feel are) numerous unnecessary blunders on Jackson's part. In most respects his achievement is nothing short of astounding, and I give him tremendous props for pulling it off as he did. However, where he changed/compromised/updated the original story under the auspices of "adaptation" I feel he sometimes went too far astray and did not do the original story justice.

It is always interesting to me how vastly differently people experience the same movie. James Whitbrook of io9 says this about the fights: "...the hits come so few and far between to justify slogging through the rest of it."
 
So which is it? Are there plenty of kaiju fights? Or are they rare, few and far between? I guess it comes down to one's expectations. If you're only expecting one (big) battle, then maybe it feels like this movie delivers plenty of fights, but if you were expecting wall-to-wall kaiju action then maybe it felt too sparse.
 
This is (one of many reasons) why I don't pay much attention to reviews (of anything, not just movies). There's no way to calibrate other people's assessments/opinions with my own to arrive at any useful conclusions about whether I will like it or not. In fact, as misleading as trailers typically are, I can usually tell if I'm going to like a movie much more from a trailer than anyone's review.

I don't know how you got that impression. I don't for a moment think Jackson's changes were arbitrary. I already explained what I feel his reasons were, and yes you are right, I disagree with those reasons rather strongly. I also disagree rather strongly that it couldn't have been done any other way, as if Jackson had a choir of angels directing his hand when writing the script, and that what we got was adapted cinematic perfection.
 
I still enjoy the movies, particularly the extended editions, as I've pointed out repeatedly. That does not, however, make me blind to (what I feel are) numerous unnecessary blunders on Jackson's part. In most respects his achievement is nothing short of astounding, and I give him tremendous props for pulling it off as he did. However, where he changed/compromised/updated the original story under the auspices of "adaptation" I feel he sometimes went too far astray and did not do the original story justice.

The love between Aragorn and Arwen is well documented in the source material, so clarifying it (for audiences) is not really a case of diverting from the canon, but rather just devoting a bit more attention to it (in the main narrative). That's not much of an adaptation sin, in my view.

The love between Aragorn and Arwen is well documented in the source material, so clarifying it (for audiences) is not really a case of diverting from the canon, but rather just devoting a bit more attention to it (in the main narrative). That's not much of an adaptation sin, in my view.

The love between Aragorn and Arwen is well documented in the source material, so clarifying it (for audiences) is not really a case of diverting from the canon, but rather just devoting a bit more attention to it (in the main narrative). That's not much of an adaptation sin, in my view.

Indeed.
 
In the books, Arwen was less involved in the War of the Ring than, say, Galadriel, but she was given more to do in the movies, which is irksome. In fact, if the goal was to have another strong female character in the movies, in addition to Eowyn, I would have just eliminated Arwen completely and instead showed the defense of Lothlorien and Galadriel at her most fierce.

But st least he finished it...which GRRM has yet to do.  

The love between Aragorn and Arwen is well documented in the source material, so clarifying it (for audiences) is not really a case of diverting from the canon, but rather just devoting a bit more attention to it (in the main narrative). That's not much of an adaptation sin, in my view.

*cough* Glorfindel *cough*
 
That guy can't get any love from anyone. Bakshi replaced him with Legolas in the War of the Ring back in the 70's and now Jackson with Arwen. I also didn't like the fact that the movie depicted her as causing the deluge that swept away the Ringwraiths instead of Elrond and Gandalf. It made her seem way more powerful that she was (in the "books").
 
I think it was this exactly. Eowyn was certainly the strong female character of the "books". Unfortunately, she doesn't really appear until the second "book". I suspect the thought was they felt they couldn't wait that long to show a strong female character.
 
*I used "books" and "book" in quotes because Tolkien never intended for there to be three books. He submitted it to the publisher as 1 book who then broke it up into 3 books (probably for length).

Indeed.
 
In the books, Arwen was less involved in the War of the Ring than, say, Galadriel, but she was given more to do in the movies, which is irksome. In fact, if the goal was to have another strong female character in the movies, in addition to Eowyn, I would have just eliminated Arwen completely and instead showed the defense of Lothlorien and Galadriel at her most fierce.

Yes, but that Sam/Golem tragic "made for Hallmark" romance really seemed forced, though it did prelude the, apparent now, trend of EVERY media must have gay characters.

This is very true. However, there were a number of changes Jackson made to the story that can't be blamed on meddling executives and/or the people controlling the money. To the extent to which the movie is a less-than-perfect adaptation, much of the blame rests squarely on Jackson's shoulders and his mistaken (IMO) belief that he was improving on Tolkien's story, using justifications like "audiences expect certain movie clichés and I felt obligated to satisfy them".
 
Cutting out the "extra endings" would not have improved the movie IMO, though perhaps transitioning between them more smoothly might have. Nor would making the movies shorter (I've already voiced my belief that the extended editions are superior to the theatrical versions). In my view, the one thing Jackson could have--and should have--done to make those movies "more perfect" was to not stray from the original story (at least those parts of it he chose to tell).

This is very true. However, there were a number of changes Jackson made to the story that can't be blamed on meddling executives and/or the people controlling the money. To the extent to which the movie is a less-than-perfect adaptation, much of the blame rests squarely on Jackson's shoulders and his mistaken (IMO) belief that he was improving on Tolkien's story, using justifications like "audiences expect certain movie clichés and I felt obligated to satisfy them".
 
Cutting out the "extra endings" would not have improved the movie IMO, though perhaps transitioning between them more smoothly might have. Nor would making the movies shorter (I've already voiced my belief that the extended editions are superior to the theatrical versions). In my view, the one thing Jackson could have--and should have--done to make those movies "more perfect" was to not stray from the original story (at least those parts of it he chose to tell).

For me the movies were pretty good, especially for the year they were made.   Were they perfect?  No.  But translating something from one medium to another is never perfect and regardless of who makes it they will have to appease executives and the people controlling funding. 
 
For me the show met one of my major requirements.  Would I have recognized it if I never saw the opening titles?  And I would have.
 
When I am discussing movie adaptations I usually ask "so, what is your opinion of the movie Starship Troopers".  If they thought it was a good adaptation, then their opinion is basically worthless and I move them into the "idiot cousin that no one ever listens to nor loans them a dollar ever".  

Canon of what? I think Patty Jenkins (to say nothing of WB execs) is delusional if she believes WB has enough of a "cinematic universe" to even make canon a relevant notion.

I happen to be in the camp that feels the extended versions of all three LotR movies were improvements over the theatrical releases. Sometimes longer is better. However, due to their excessive running time, I don't think I would have wanted to sit and watch them in a theater.
 
Originally Snyder intended to release this new version of JL as six ~45min episodes, not unlike what we're getting with Falcon and The Winter Soldier. But I guess that didn't fly with the suits at WB and so it was "trimmed down" to a single ~4hr movie. Given the chapter structure of the narrative, I think the six episode format could have worked very nicely, but WB wanted to release it all at once and then move on with other things (like Godzilla vs. Kong) and not have JL contending with newer content for people's attention for six weeks.
 
Add to that the rather perfunctory manner in which Ann Sarnoff drove a proverbial stake in the heart of the prospect of continuing the "Snyderverse" in some form (even if only on HBO Max) and you can clearly see just how little ATT/WB wanted to continue breathing life into this mess.

To everyone comparing the run time of the Snyder cut Justice League to that of Return of the King, I have to point out that the two movies aren't comparable. ROTK was the third and final chapter in a continuous story which a great many fans were already heavily invested in. JL was a stand-alone movie about which there was already much doubt due to the mixed reception of Man of Steel and the heavy criticism of Batman vs Superman. A studio would have every reason to fear that a three-plus-hour run time for JL would dissuade many fans from seeing it.

I can almost guarantee you that Feige will not bother with any characters that appeared in Agents of Shield who didn't appear in one of his MCU movies first (ala Phil Coulson and Peggy Carter). They have the taint of "ruined by Jeff Loeb" on them. Besides, Feige doesn't need any of those characters. He has the entire stockpile of characters from the Marvel vault at his disposal, and he knows he can pretty much make any of them interesting/popular if he puts the effort in.