Posts: 1,576
Threads: 66
Joined: Jul 2007
12-22-2011, 09:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2011, 09:31 AM by FireIceTalon.)
Can't wait. December next year seems like an eternity.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Posts: 1,913
Threads: 47
Joined: Jun 2003
If it is as boring as the lord of the rings trilogy I will skip it.
Posts: 2,388
Threads: 68
Joined: Feb 2003
(12-22-2011, 10:12 AM)eppie Wrote: If it is as boring as the lord of the rings trilogy I will skip it.
Well, if you thought the LotR trilogy 'boring', then you should definitely skip The Hobbit. No accounting for taste, I guess.
Looks pretty epic to me, but, I loved the LotR movies, too.
I'm afraid to ask what you *do* like, and no, I don't want to know.
--Mav
Posts: 386
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2004
12-22-2011, 04:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2011, 04:06 PM by Crusader.)
I loved the LOTR movies. But then LOTR was one of my favorite books. I intentionally didn't watch trailers, nor do I plan to do so now. I can't wait though! And let's face it, in the 'serious story fantasy' genre there is not much to pick from movie-wise. Harry Potter and Chronicles of Narnia are more for kids (although I did see all the HP movies). Luckily halfway next year a game of Thrones will also start season 2 to fill the gap. 
Former www.diablo2.com webmaster.
When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout.
Posts: 1,913
Threads: 47
Joined: Jun 2003
(12-22-2011, 01:57 PM)Mavfin Wrote: [quote='eppie' pid='192635' dateline='1324548765']
I'm afraid to ask what you *do* like, and no, I don't want to know. Afraid to ask?? Why? I didn't think I was that scary.
No, I mean these lord of the rings movies for me were the same as the star wars trilogy. And I mean falling asleep in a cinema while watching.
I am just not too much into trolls and scifi.
Also the LOTR book was more difficult to get through than Anna Karanina.
But yes, this is indeed just my taste and opinion.
Posts: 2,388
Threads: 68
Joined: Feb 2003
(12-22-2011, 04:29 PM)eppie Wrote: But yes, this is indeed just my taste and opinion.
And I'm OK with that. Your taste is yours. I'm sure some of your movies would most likely be on my 'no way!' list, too. 
--Mav
Posts: 1,576
Threads: 66
Joined: Jul 2007
(12-22-2011, 01:57 PM)Mavfin Wrote: (12-22-2011, 10:12 AM)eppie Wrote: If it is as boring as the lord of the rings trilogy I will skip it.
Well, if you thought the LotR trilogy 'boring', then you should definitely skip The Hobbit. No accounting for taste, I guess.
Looks pretty epic to me, but, I loved the LotR movies, too.
I'm afraid to ask what you *do* like, and no, I don't want to know.
There is a surprising number of people who actually dont like LOtR, at least online it seems. I am not one of them, I think it is one of the best trilogies ever and can't see any real good reason not to like them, but to each their own I guess.
The Hobbit is going to be two parts, the second part I am assuming will come out December 2013. This is really long overdue. I have a feeling this will be better than the books, because it is going to cover the 60 year time period that took place between the Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Posts: 785
Threads: 50
Joined: Feb 2003
(12-22-2011, 10:12 AM)eppie Wrote: If it is as boring as the lord of the rings trilogy I will skip it.
The problem with the movies was the ridiculous bullshit Peter Jackson crammed into them. And mucking up the story, big time.
But epic CGI battles, yay /puke
Sorry 
take care
Tarabulus
"I'm a cynical optimistic realist. I have hopes. I suspect they are all in vain. I find a lot of humor in that." -Pete
I'll remember you.
Posts: 1,576
Threads: 66
Joined: Jul 2007
(12-22-2011, 07:57 PM)NuurAbSaal Wrote: (12-22-2011, 10:12 AM)eppie Wrote: If it is as boring as the lord of the rings trilogy I will skip it.
The problem with the movies was the ridiculous bullshit Peter Jackson crammed into them. And mucking up the story, big time.
But epic CGI battles, yay /puke
Sorry
take care
Tarabulus
As someone who has seen all the movies and read the book, I didn't see that at all. Movies are rarely exactly the book anyways, and even if they were, this wouldn't be plausible with something as grand and epic as LOtR. I think Tolkien would approve of the films.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Posts: 1,926
Threads: 92
Joined: Feb 2003
(12-22-2011, 04:05 PM)Crusader Wrote: And let's face it, in the 'serious story fantasy' genre there is not much to pick from movie-wise. Harry Potter and Chronicles of Narnia are more for kids (although I did see all the HP movies).
Well, "The Hobbit" is definitely not what I would call a 'serious fantasy story'. Never do you think there is a chance something truly bad will happen. It looks as if (based on the trailer) the mood they are approaching is much more like LOTR. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a definite departure.
The original story is a lark.
Posts: 5,139
Threads: 299
Joined: Feb 2003
(12-22-2011, 10:55 PM)vor_lord Wrote: Well, "The Hobbit" is definitely not what I would call a 'serious fantasy story'. Never do you think there is a chance something truly bad will happen. It looks as if (based on the trailer) the mood they are approaching is much more like LOTR. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a definite departure.
The original story is a lark.
The original story was intended as a children's story, so yes, that is a fair assessment.
Like you I'm OK with it being taken more seriously in the movie.
---
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
I hope this one is a lot more mature, and with a darker theme, the the Trilogy was.
Posts: 1,036
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2003
12-24-2011, 04:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-24-2011, 05:47 AM by Rhydderch Hael.)
FireIceTalon Wrote:NuurAbSaal Wrote:The problem with the movies was the ridiculous bullshit Peter Jackson crammed into them. And mucking up the story, big time.
But epic CGI battles, yay /puke
Sorry
take care
Tarabulus
As someone who has seen all the movies and read the book, I didn't see that at all. Movies are rarely exactly the book anyways, and even if they were, this wouldn't be plausible with something as grand and epic as LOtR. I think Tolkien would approve of the films. The big problem I have with the LotR movies was Jackson's ham-fisted execution of storytelling. It was as if he had this underlying notion that people were going to see the movie only once— so he better lay out every single action and consequence in plain view, lest somebody sitting in the theater failed to get the point the first time they saw it.
There are at least two points in the trilogy where Jackson has a character stop the story and recount everything that has happened, is happening, and what it'll mean if it continues to happen.
Jackson was eager to show you all of his cards rather than invite you to guess at what they might be. "Here! The King of Hearts: he has the sword, but he does not want it! He never wanted it!"
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.
Posts: 785
Threads: 50
Joined: Feb 2003
(12-24-2011, 04:42 AM)Rhydderch Hael Wrote: FireIceTalon Wrote:NuurAbSaal Wrote:The problem with the movies was the ridiculous bullshit Peter Jackson crammed into them. And mucking up the story, big time.
But epic CGI battles, yay /puke
Sorry
take care
Tarabulus
As someone who has seen all the movies and read the book, I didn't see that at all. Movies are rarely exactly the book anyways, and even if they were, this wouldn't be plausible with something as grand and epic as LOtR. I think Tolkien would approve of the films. The big problem I have with the LotR movies was Jackson's ham-fisted execution of storytelling. It was as if he had this underlying notion that people were going to see the movie only once— so he better lay out every single action and consequence in plain view, lest somebody sitting in the theater failed to get the point the first time they saw it.
There are at least two points in the trilogy where Jackson has a character stop the story and recount everything that has happened, is happening, and what it'll mean if it continues to happen.
Jackson was eager to show you all of his cards rather than invite you to guess at what they might be. "Here! The King of Hearts: he has the sword, but he does not want it! He never wanted it!"
Re: FIT quote first. Too bad ignore doesn't save you from quotes. Don't bother replying to my posts, I usually don't see the replies and really couldn't care less. No surprise that you "didn't see it".
---
The one scene to end them all:
Frodo standing in Osgiliath (Faramir was changed into a douche to get Frodo there in the movie, for no reason at all), under the spell of the ring, showing The One Ring to the head of the Nazgul. Who takes a look, is all "meh" and flies off.
Even the undead Slimer army isn't as bad as that.
/supernerdrage
take care
Tarabulus
"I'm a cynical optimistic realist. I have hopes. I suspect they are all in vain. I find a lot of humor in that." -Pete
I'll remember you.
Posts: 1,576
Threads: 66
Joined: Jul 2007
12-24-2011, 06:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-24-2011, 06:14 PM by FireIceTalon.)
(12-24-2011, 04:44 PM)NuurAbSaal Wrote: (12-24-2011, 04:42 AM)Rhydderch Hael Wrote: FireIceTalon Wrote:NuurAbSaal Wrote:The problem with the movies was the ridiculous bullshit Peter Jackson crammed into them. And mucking up the story, big time.
But epic CGI battles, yay /puke
Sorry
take care
Tarabulus
As someone who has seen all the movies and read the book, I didn't see that at all. Movies are rarely exactly the book anyways, and even if they were, this wouldn't be plausible with something as grand and epic as LOtR. I think Tolkien would approve of the films. The big problem I have with the LotR movies was Jackson's ham-fisted execution of storytelling. It was as if he had this underlying notion that people were going to see the movie only once— so he better lay out every single action and consequence in plain view, lest somebody sitting in the theater failed to get the point the first time they saw it.
There are at least two points in the trilogy where Jackson has a character stop the story and recount everything that has happened, is happening, and what it'll mean if it continues to happen.
Jackson was eager to show you all of his cards rather than invite you to guess at what they might be. "Here! The King of Hearts: he has the sword, but he does not want it! He never wanted it!"
Re: FIT quote first. Too bad ignore doesn't save you from quotes. Don't bother replying to my posts, I usually don't see the replies and really couldn't care less. No surprise that you "didn't see it".
---
The one scene to end them all:
Frodo standing in Osgiliath (Faramir was changed into a douche to get Frodo there in the movie, for no reason at all), under the spell of the ring, showing The One Ring to the head of the Nazgul. Who takes a look, is all "meh" and flies off.
Even the undead Slimer army isn't as bad as that.
/supernerdrage
take care
Tarabulus
You have me on ignore, yet replied to one of my posts (after entering a thread that I created to boot). Personally, I think you're full of it: you read every single one of my posts, and cannot resist replying when I make a post replying to something you said 
And you are wrong about that Frodo scene (or more likely, you left out important details deliberately to try and prove your weak point).
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
Posts: 1,920
Threads: 227
Joined: Feb 2003
For some odd reason, I loved these movies [Lotr saga] when they first came out! I scooped up the extended versions and watched them twice. Recently, I started watching them again and got so bored, I cannot even put into words how... lets just say I had to shut off the movie at the half-way part and never started it up again. I honestly don't know what changed between Lotr's release, and now. Having said that, I'm fairly cautious of The Hobbit since Peter Jackson and his script writing wife took the reins again. Will it be everything Lotr was? It might, and that is what I'm afraid of. Maybe since it's "new", I can get the same feeling I did the first few times I watched Lotr - I hope... If not, I'll probably end up leaving the theater before the credits roll. My 2-cents.
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." -Albert Einsetin
Posts: 7,955
Threads: 286
Joined: Feb 2003
I understand the need for "scenes" to be different for the medium of film, or stage. Storytelling in books can be much richer. You don't overlook the important stuff, because the author points it out for you. In film, or on stage, if your eyes stray to examine one thing, or you are momentarily distracted, you might miss observing or hearing something important. Reading is active, while attending a film or play is passive.
The film story needs to stand on it's own, with or without first having been a novel. A good story with a richly defined universe can result in a great movie, or garbage. Just look at what's been done to "Batman" -- most of it I loath to the depth of my soul, and others (e.g. Frank Miller, The Dark Knight Returns) I really like immensely.
If done properly in the spirit of the tale, the Hobbit should mainly be an adventure story for children and adolescents. A deft marketer, (e.g. Disney), would add enough material to make it accessible, and enjoyable for adults.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png) ![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)
|
