|
Vintersorg posted:I'm sorry but... how poor are you? Who doesn't have a DVD player when you can get them for like 25 bucks?? I think most of us here have converted to blu by now. Surely you must understand the leap from VHS to DVD. I know people who still have VHS. The primary problem isn't the cost of buying the player but the cost of replacing all of their movies. I've tried to explain that you could probably get any DVD nowadays for $5 or so with some good shopping but for some that would still be a few hundred dollars, and considering they don't have really nice TVs, they don't really care about the visual improvements.
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Rawk Hawk posted:You have to remember that Bard has, like, six lines in the entire book. He can be just as much The Hero of the Battle by leading the resistance. Yes, and of those lines, a pretty important one is slaying Smaug, which comes into major impact later on and is used as justification for the human's part in the war. They're not going to change it. Most of the changes in the films "good" or "bad," were in the interest of making them more cinematic. You may disagree with them but they were not pointless. The were an attempt by Jackson to make the film more cinematic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
The arrow wasn't magical. However, hiterto unknown, Bard's bow was secretly forged in ages long past specifically to slay Smaug.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:My understanding was that nothing mortal could last long there. They find peace, yes, but they find it very quickly. That seems unlikely unless Sam got a pretty depressing ending after he went off to join them. I got the exact opposite impression, that it was a comfortable and timeless place where one could pass on in their own time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
As much as I love Tolkien, his legacy really has become sort of a blight. So few people are willing to deviate from his concepts and when they do it is often intentional subversion of the same concepts instead of something different. Even intentional subversion has gotten tiresome because there are only so many times you can do "It's like Tolkien but darker/reversed/ect" before it gets tiresome. It is in no way his fault and no way diminishes what he wrote, I just really wish we could move away from it a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
A FUCKTON OF WEED posted:SPOILER THAT poo poo, GOD DAMNIT! True fans wouldn't need it spoilered as they would know it is completely accurate to the original story. Combination Riding Cats were the optimal method of transportation for dwarves and hobbits.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
TO be honest I couldn't remember half the loving dwarfs in the book. If the movie can do better than more power to it.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
It's really easy to forget that for a lot of people, the films were one of their first encounters with the character. "Aragon's tragic destined romance with his elf lover" helps round out his character and flesh out the scenes with Eowyn. I know people hate romance and think it should be banned from all films aside from romantic comedies, but LotR is not a film which is hurt by playing up the romantic aspects because they are incredibly important to some of the central characters. It isn't why I watch LotR but I also read the books beforehand. Ending with the Aragorn/Arwen wedding without spending a fair amount of time on it would have been one hell of a failure. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jun 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:I don't think Tolkien would have written in more Arwen, because most of the story focuses on the perspective of Hobbits. In fact — it's been a year or more since I've read tehm so my memory may be hazy — isn't the only time we divert from the perspective of a Hobbit character the chapters where Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are chasing after Pippin and Merry? Iirc that's the only time in the entire books we aren't looking at things from the perspective of a Hobbit. No, there's quite a few chapters without Hobbits. Merry and Pippin leave the Fellowship on a regular basis and there's a ton of chapters just about Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli going on adventures or raising the Army of the Dead or what-have-you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
The Hobbit: Revolutions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
What the hell. How do you make The Hobbit into three films? I'm frankly amazed it was two.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The last two, or at least that's what I would do. It'd be pretty easy to imagine Frodo just settling down in the Shire and smoking pipeweed for the rest of his days which is Good Enough for most audiences. But it would have kind of missed one of the most important parts of the story and just made it 'and Frodo was awesome forever, the end!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
The complaint I hear most is "it looks like television' and I think people have trained themselves to think of television as looking cheap, to the point where anything resembling it instantly looks cheap. I don't really have a boat in the race though. I just see whatever's cheapest. 3D doesn't really improve the viewing experience for me and I doubt 48 would significantly either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
What I've seen of 48 looks more realistic to me. Watching a movie, I am always aware I am watching a movie. It never looks real, it looks like a movie. I don't mean that in a bad way, but I will never, ever, mistake viewing a movie as anything but a movie. It has an artificial feeling. (Again, I don't mean that in a bad way.) 48 is weird when I view it primarily because it doesn't look like a movie to me, it doesn't have that sense of artificial reality.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:In recent cinema, defying that cliche has become as cliched as the cliche itself. If the scene's first priority is to make sense for the character, it'll be good no matter which stereotype it conforms to or avoids, and if the scene's first priority is to conform to or avoid a stereotype, it'll be bad no matter how much sense it makes. No, it really hasn't. The only people who think that are people who see something that defies the cliche and instantly go "Oh god, ANOTHER (X)" when they ignore the ten billion times the cliche gets used between those points. You're right that it's important for it to make sense for the character but far too many writers tend towards the "I'm doing something stereotypical and mildly offensive but it totally fits the character, guys" route. It isn't enough nor is ever enough for an author to go "it makes sense for the character," because the author created that character. If they created a character who has to be stereotypical, it still is their fault for creating that character. If you have a character acting in a certain way that reinforces harmful or stupid stereotypes you drat well better have a good thematic reason for it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 18:03
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The situation is rather less clear in the case of an adaptation, however. This is true. It can be difficult to run into a problem where conveying the author's intent goes hand-in-hand with conveying something problematic. I think at that point it really depends on what you're doing and why. The Shining isn't at all true to Stephen King's intent and drastically changes the motivations of certain characters, but it's also hard not to argue that the changes work better for the specific story it is trying to tell.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
dpbjinc posted:Wait, how does he fit in, or affect the story in any way? Didn't absolutely nothing of note happen before the company got to the trolls, I.E. a very long way past Tom's forest? He actually influenced the story a lot. He's the impetus for Frodo willingly putting on the ring the first time and he's responsible for Merry getting his anti-Witchking sword. Edit: Nevermind, you mean the Hobbit. He doesn't show up in the Hobbit at all.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
I really loved the first few minutes, but everything that involved Gandalf sitting around and speaking about how VERY SERIOUS everything is just fell flat to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
ChickenMedium posted:Compromise is a very sensible thing in very many instances. Compromise in art is almost never a good thing. This isn't really true at all. Much of the best art out there involves compromise and the tempering of ideas. This is why even singular products like novels have beta readers and editors and so-on. Untempered ideas can be good, but they often suffer from the creator not having someone to balance them out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Recursive Expanse posted:Tolkein was his own editor, and he was a merciless one at that. The compromise on Tolkein's part was getting it published in the first place. If he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming and told it was good enough by his contemporaries (only slightly exaggerated), then he would have never finished it. Look at how long he worked on the Silmarillion in it's different forms, and it still wasn't finished. This. Also Tolkien made plenty of compromises and changes and reconsiderings based on things people he respected told him. You only have to read his published letters to see plenty examples of them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
If the Hobbit trilogy does well there is absolutely no way that LotR doesn't get a theater re-release, and they'd probably use that chance for 3D, some CGI cleanups and maybe some scene editing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:And to be fair, it was also communicated that Bombur was a bit on the tubby side. It was so subtle about that though!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Aww, you're not going to mention Lord of the Rings: The Third Age? It's hilarious!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Which I find even more astonishing because for a movie like this, I'm so hyped up/excited for it that I know I'm just going to be completely uncritical of the film the first time I see it. I probably won't really be able to judge it on its merits as a film until I've seen it a second time, so for people to HATE it before they've even seen it knocks me for a loop. It's not like George Lucas is making it! No, but there are some things to be cautious about. The decision to stretch it to three movies is pretty worrying. Even with the additional material that's something that could really hurt the pacing and overall design of the films. I don't know if it'll be bad or not but I can't say I blame people for being cautious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The problem is that people look at the length of the Hobbit and the length of the Lord of the Rings and say "Wait a second, if they made 3 movies out of 3 books, how are they going to make 3 movies out of 1 book and it still be good? They must have added in stupid poo poo OMG ITS GONNA BE TERRIBLE" The Hobbit is a full story, but 3 films is still pretty exceptional. There is no 'downtime' but there's still places where pacing can be screwed up pretty easily and where content can be stretched out further than it needs to be. 2 films felt reasonable enough. 3 films feels like it gives Jackson and friends a lot more change to pace things badly, something they've had a problem with before.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:The length ok the book it the dumbest complaint for how long the movie should be. This is a dumb argument too because time in the book is also spent on descriptions and other content which is instead instantly communicated visually to the audience. The audio book being 11 hours long in no way means the movies need to be that long to be accurate. It doesn't mean they need to be shorter necessarily either but seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 19:22
|
|
the other books.
|
He really should have the ring on one of those fingers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
I admit I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who couldn't finish the first film and sort of only halfheartedly watched the second because my little sister wanted to see it but my real feeling is just that Peter Jackson doesn't care about the dwarves. They are there because they are there in The Hobbit but Jackson has genuinely little interest in them or their story and he'd much rather be filming the big dramatic action sequences or the Tolkien Lore elements. He treats them like they're mostly a comedic sideshow to the main events and the only ones he seems interested in are the ones he ties to the main event. He wants to be doing elves and goblins and seems to have only cursory interest in anything else. If you had someone who seriously and wholeheartedly wanted the dwarves, Bilbo and their quest to be the centerpiece of the story, a lot of the problems wouldn't have happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 10:47
|
|