Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FITZZ wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Man they better have the "If there's a whip, there's a way" song or I'm going all border patrol on the director.

You may have to prepare to go "all border patrol" then,as that song wasn't in the Rankin/Bass version of "The Hobbit",it appeared in The Rankin/Bass version of "Return of the King."
Catchy little tune though.

And all from a single little line - "Where there's a whip there's a will."

Ahtman wrote:

IG_urban wrote:LOTR is kind of fail

IG_urban wrote:so were the books.....

I can understand them not being your most favoritist thing EVAR, but to call them fail when by almost any measurable standard they are quite successful is a little silly.

mattyrm wrote:LOTR is Kinda fail!?

INFIDEL!!

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:LOTR is Kinda fail!?

INFIDEL!!

Don't forget "Blasphemer!" Or in the words of TBone the Terrible:

yes. kind of fail. Having read The Hobbit many times throughout my life, and loving it, and through the LOTR series quite a few as well, I have to say that they were droll, dry, and cheesy.

I found this revue to very aptly state my position...

"Thank you all for your honesty! Lord of the Rings is a wonderful, complex and fascinating piece of literature - and just so so so boring and hard to read! I have always felt guilty for not enjoying the books, particularly the second one, which I didn't even finish before going on to the third in an attempt to get to the end quicker. I think it's interesting how sometimes you can read a book, appreciate that it is very good but not enjoy it at all. Has anyone else ever experienced this?"

Unlike her, I have read them a few times, like I stated before....but that is where I stand.

And because I can smell the ensuing flames....

I have read the entire collected works of Hawking, Feynman, and Sagan. I have read thousands of books, so I am not a toe head spouting off about how the books "wer liek So BorInG!! omg! there was not akshun or NeTHiNG! wtf?"

Also, it was not Tolkein's disastrously long descriptions either, Stephen King is my favorite author (I can smell more flames...), and he is the King! (hah, puns) of long descriptions.....

It's just so dry....like eating hardtack and washing it down with an early 90's protein shake.





as far as Pan's Labyrinth goes...

""Pan's Labyrinth" is the story of a young girl who travels with her pregnant mother to live with her mother's new husband in a rural area up North in Spain, 1944, after Franco's victory. The girl lives in an imaginary world of her own creation and faces the real world with much chagrin. Fascist repression during the first years of Franco's dictatorship is at its height in rural Spain and the girl must come to terms with that through a fable of her own. Written by Ben McIntosh" IMDB

it was, from the BEGINNING, marketed as a Fairy Tale for ADULTS.

There is some SERIOUS stupidity in this thread, even by OT standards.

what are you referring to, exactly?

@IG_Urban - What am I referring to? Several things:

LOTR is kind of fail, so were the books

That is just risible, man. You DID go on to explain your position a little better, to your credit.

Also:

Someone else wrote:Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross.

but THIS takes the cake:

Someone else also wrote:I can't stand foreign films. I'm one of those people that needs everything in english or I just won't watch it. Subtitles suck, if I want to read for 2 hours I'll read a book.

It's not all aimed at you, don't worry.

Yeah I knew that bashing on LOTR would be risky, but, eh...

The other two I agree wholeheartedly with. I love foreign films, and while Pan's Lab was bit violent (wine bottle jesus christ!), comparing it to terms I would use to describe the Hostel and Saw franchises is a bit too much.

Honestly, I'll agree with Urban here. The LotR trilogy was stuffy and looooooooooooooooooooooooooong. Great book, revolutionized fantasy, and yeah you really have to have read it once to be a nerd. However, I wouldn't try reading it again.

The Hobbit was an amazing book full of character that doesn't get bogged down in world-building like LotR does. With a main character that largely has no idea what's going on, we're able to sympathize and learn with him. From that perspective, what world-building that does get done is fine.

As far as the movie is concerned, I won't hold my breath. However, when an director is enthusiastic about the source material good things can happen (Watchmen). The fact that he's breaking it into two parts means he doesn't want to skimp on the good stuff, which I take as a good sign.

There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.

Frazzled wrote:I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.

I saw this film one time, called ET. It was really cool, a nice little story about an alien, really pleasant kids movie. I heard that director went on to make a film about the persecution of the Jews in Germany called Schindler's List. I haven't seen Schindler's List, but I remain outraged at how much of a pleasant, family film it must have been.

Or possibly directors can make choices based on the desired tone of their films.

WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?

Yeah, I have no idea why this is going to be two movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:THATS
NOT
HOW
IT
WAS
ADVERTISED

Yeah... don't pay attention to advertising. Filmmakers have very little control over advertising, and Spanish productions have even less control of how their films are marketed in the US.

If you want a better idea of what a film is actually about you should probably stick to reading reviews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Dressing it up as a Spanish civil war film is nuts. It doesn't hold up as a Spanish Civil War film, lets get real.

It is a study of Spanish Fascism, more specifically the power fantasy of fascism and the resistance to that. On a greater level it was a study of fantasy itself, and the power that fantasy gives either for good and for evil. What is fascism but a fantasy of power, made terrifying when that fantasy grants real power? In contrast, the girl found the power to survive that situation by building a fantasy of her own.

With that in mind, consider that her fantasies may or may not have given her real power (escaping the bedroom). Consider that her eventual death may have been given release in her return to the faerie world.

It's a really, really great movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.

Very much this. It's why 'I don't like subtitled movies' is alright, but 'Pan's Labyrinth sucked because it was violent' isn't valid.

On the face of it, graphic violence is a much better reason to dislike films than subtitles, but what really matters is that other bit - 'I didn't like it' vs 'it sucked'.

Ahtman wrote:There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.

well, if you want to call me ignorant, which is rude....so be it. But I'll have you know, maybe you should understand your interweb slang before you get all butt hurt.

from UrbanDictionary..

Fail:
either an interjection used when one disapproves of something, or a verb meaning approximately the same thing as the slang form of suck.

Fail:
Another word for "suck", most probably derived from the world of internet gaming.

Fail
A rather annoying word whose use in certain situations has greatly increased recently.
Kind of like the word "gak," "fail" is used by people who don't stop to think of a better word to use, making them pretty much useless to society.

I'll accept that last one, to show that I have no humility, I said it before it was cool, and I will continue to say it.



so..once again, IMHO, LOTR books was a huge, warm, steaming, cup of fail. And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.




I rest my case.



Although, Two Towers was pretty effing good. The Horn of Helm Hammerhand is so epic. It sounds like Gabiriel's God Horn in "Legion" which was kind of good in a Left 4 Dead way...

IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.

Dude got issues...

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Never said I wanted a childrens film, just a movie that was about what they where advertising.

From what I've read its heavily out weighed by the civil war stuff I have zero interest in.

Word.

sebster wrote:

IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.

Dude got issues...

Word.

Lord of the Rings isn't homoerotic, it was written in a simpler and more innocent time, where being gay landed you in prison or being subjected to electro-shock therapy to burn out the sin or just getting kicked to death in a London gutter...

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I don't know. I am kind of iffy on this. Pan's Labyrinth was needlessly violent and gross. I'm very leery about actually paying money to see the Hobbit movies by a director who films people getting their hands broken with a hammer.

I saw this film one time, called ET. It was really cool, a nice little story about an alien, really pleasant kids movie. I heard that director went on to make a film about the persecution of the Jews in Germany called Schindler's List. I haven't seen Schindler's List, but I remain outraged at how much of a pleasant, family film it must have been.

Or possibly directors can make choices based on the desired tone of their films.

WTF is with the scond film? Events in between? No epic Tolkein wordsmithing?

Yeah, I have no idea why this is going to be two movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:THATS
NOT
HOW
IT
WAS
ADVERTISED

Yeah... don't pay attention to advertising. Filmmakers have very little control over advertising, and Spanish productions have even less control of how their films are marketed in the US.

If you want a better idea of what a film is actually about you should probably stick to reading reviews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Dressing it up as a Spanish civil war film is nuts. It doesn't hold up as a Spanish Civil War film, lets get real.

It is a study of Spanish Fascism, more specifically the power fantasy of fascism and the resistance to that. On a greater level it was a study of fantasy itself, and the power that fantasy gives either for good and for evil. What is fascism but a fantasy of power, made terrifying when that fantasy grants real power? In contrast, the girl found the power to survive that situation by building a fantasy of her own.

With that in mind, consider that her fantasies may or may not have given her real power (escaping the bedroom). Consider that her eventual death may have been given release in her return to the faerie world.

It's a really, really great movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:There is a world of difference between a book/film not being someone's 'cup of tea' and being a failure. If it had been stated that the LotR books/film just didn't do it for you no one would blink an eye as that is perfectly reasonable. Saying they are failures on the other hand is just blatantly false as they have been successful by most standards (aesthetically and financially) and frankly such ignorant statements are most likely flame bait.

Very much this. It's why 'I don't like subtitled movies' is alright, but 'Pan's Labyrinth sucked because it was violent' isn't valid.

On the face of it, graphic violence is a much better reason to dislike films than subtitles, but what really matters is that other bit - 'I didn't like it' vs 'it sucked'.

Blah blah blah blah.
Pan sucked. thats my opinion. Everyone has personal taste. Its all about personal taste and it was needlessly violent. You don't like that, I could care less.
Schindler was great. I've watched it and have a copy to show the kids when they are older. Better than the book.

sebster wrote:

IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.

Dude got issues...

lol. google it man. I am one of tens of thousands that agree. Sorry if I am bursting your little nerd bubble.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

sebster wrote:

IG_urban wrote:And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy.

Dude got issues...

Word.

Lord of the Rings isn't homoerotic, it was written in a simpler and more innocent time, where being gay landed you in prison or being subjected to electro-shock therapy to burn out the sin or just getting kicked to death in a London gutter...

funny, because I was talking about the films.

reading helps.

Now you're just trolling.

Frazzled wrote:Blah blah blah blah.
Pan sucked. thats my opinion. Everyone has personal taste. Its all about personal taste and it was needlessly violent. You don't like that, I could care less.

Of course, and if your opinion was 'I was mislead by the advertising and that annoyed me' it'd be cool. But when your opinion is 'I was mislead by the advertising and that annoyed me and I'm holding the director responsible' it's a silly opinion, because directors have very little control over how their films are marketed, particularly how they're marketed in another country.

And it'd be an issue of personal taste to say 'this film was more violent than I like in films'. It's another thing to 'it was needlessly violent' as that gives an objective standard, at which point we have to ask how violent a film exploring fascism, an ideology known for its embrace of brutality, should be. Given the subject matter, it was not that violent.

Schindler was great. I've watched it and have a copy to show the kids when they are older.

So you recognise the silliness of arguing you won't watch a film because you saw the director make a film in a totally different tone, and that tone wouldn't suit this material.

Better than the book.

It was, wasn't it? So there's that, and there's Fight Club next time asked what films were better than the book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IG_urban wrote:lol. google it man. I am one of tens of thousands that agree. Sorry if I am bursting your little nerd bubble.

Did what? I don't like LotR that much.

But when someone reads homo-eroticism into a film where there is none and says it made it hard to watch the movie... well something else is going on. You're either in your teens and eager to prove your manliness by ragging on them gay films, or you're in your twenties and beginning a long and difficult process of self-realisation.

Catty Sebster, I like it.

I just hope he doesn't insert any of the following into the Hobbit:
-Clockwork in anything other than a clock
-Freaky insectoid badies in any scene other than Mirkwood
-Monsters that involve tentacles and or eyes in some wierd way, or anything that looks like that dude from hellboy or the guy from Pan's Labarynth. (Not that I disliked either, but his films are all a bit similar in style (all the ones I've seen) and I'd prefer it if he stayed close to the source material, since I've always loved it.)

I'm a bigger Hobbit fan than LOTR fan, so I have mixed feelings about this. Especially the split. When would even be a good time for a spilt to happen? The story in the books trundles along at it's own pace for ages. I dunno. I just don't see the Hobbit as translating very well onto the big screen- Bilbo is hardly an action hero.

sebster wrote:...Yeah, I have no idea why this is going to be two movies...

There is a lot of background material from the appendices and other writings that they are going to weave into the film. Most Tolkien fans are intrigued by this. Also if they tried to stuff everything into one film it would be 4 hours long. So it makes sense to split it into two films with the first one ending...

GG

Da Boss wrote:Catty Sebster, I like it.

I just hope he doesn't insert any of the following into the Hobbit:
-Clockwork in anything other than a clock
-Freaky insectoid badies in any scene other than Mirkwood
-Monsters that involve tentacles and or eyes in some wierd way, or anything that looks like that dude from hellboy or the guy from Pan's Labarynth. (Not that I disliked either, but his films are all a bit similar in style (all the ones I've seen) and I'd prefer it if he stayed close to the source material, since I've always loved it.)

I'm a bigger Hobbit fan than LOTR fan, so I have mixed feelings about this. Especially the split. When would even be a good time for a spilt to happen? The story in the books trundles along at it's own pace for ages. I dunno. I just don't see the Hobbit as translating very well onto the big screen- Bilbo is hardly an action hero.

I'd agree with all of that.

One point you may not have gotten: they're not splitting The Hobbit into two movies. There will be one movie called "The Hobbit." There will be a second movie, set in the time between The Hobbit and Fellowship. The contents of this second movie are cause for some concern, as we're no longer comfortably in the Tolkien script.

I'd actually feel better with that. At least then the Hobbit will maintain it's integrity as a coherant story. The second one I don't have to go and see.
I wonder what it'll be about though. I mean, not a lot happened, really, between the two. More interesting stuff really happened BEFORE the Hobbit- the fall of the North Kingdom, and all of that.

That is most definitely not what I've been hearing, Janthkin. Everything I've been hearing points towards "The Hobbit" being broken up into two parts, the first of which is dealing with the Dwarves' hunt for their home, and the second picking up right after Smaug's death and the lead-up to the Battle of the Five Armies and the coming of the Eagles.

generalgrog wrote:There is a lot of background material from the appendices and other writings that they are going to weave into the film. Most Tolkien fans are intrigued by this. Also if they tried to stuff everything into one film it would be 4 hours long. So it makes sense to split it into two films with the first one ending...

GG

Interesting, thanks for that. I'm not sure how that'll work, giving a narrative payoff to the journey of the dwarves. I'll admit it's been a long time since I read it, and I have no recollection of the appendices at all.





EDIT - Quoting spoilers screws up the page settings.

Janthkin wrote:One point you may not have gotten: they're not splitting The Hobbit into two movies. There will be one movie called "The Hobbit." There will be a second movie, set in the time between The Hobbit and Fellowship. The contents of this second movie are cause for some concern, as we're no longer comfortably in the Tolkien script.

I don't think this is totally correct. The second film will indeed contain parts of "The Hobbit" especially the parts pertaining to the battle of the five armies.

In regards to the apendix material. I believe they are going to cover the "Necromancer" portion of the story which is the part where, if you recall in "The Hobbit", Gandalf keeps leaving the party to go deal with. The necromancer was a precursor to Sauron, possibly an avatar of some sort.

GG

Gandalf left them at Mirkwood and then rejoined them at the very end.
The Necromancer IS sauron, just not at his full power or whatever.
I wonder if it would actually make for good scenes in a film. Magic and stuff rarely translates well, especially the lower end stuff.
Edited because I was half asleep!

Kanluwen wrote:That is most definitely not what I've been hearing, Janthkin. Everything I've been hearing points towards "The Hobbit" being broken up into two parts, the first of which is dealing with the Dwarves' hunt for their home, and the second picking up right after Smaug's death and the lead-up to the Battle of the Five Armies and the coming of the Eagles.

This is an excellent discussion w/Peter Jackson & del Toro about their plans for these two movies. I'm not sure where the theory of splitting The Hobbit came from, but I haven't seen it from any of the "official" sources.

I think he WAS a weaker Sauron masquerading, they didn't know it until they got into the furrball full on.

Gitkikka wrote:Now you're just trolling.

no, not really. because I get accusations like this below, for stating my opinion.

sebster wrote:

IG_urban wrote:lol. google it man. I am one of tens of thousands that agree. Sorry if I am bursting your little nerd bubble.

Did what? I don't like LotR that much.

But when someone reads homo-eroticism into a film where there is none and says it made it hard to watch the movie... well something else is going on. You're either in your teens and eager to prove your manliness by ragging on them gay films, or you're in your twenties and beginning a long and difficult process of self-realisation.

First off....actually google the whole LOTR=homo thing. There are so many pages dedicated to it. Secondly, I don't like your offensive presumptions. I live in Seattle and go to Art School, man, we are more gay than San Fran, I grew up around it before most of the country brought it into the main stream. I'm 23, and comfortable enough in my sexuality to not only have gay friends (the fact that you insinuated that I am a young meat head out to gay bash is very fethed up), but to notice when a movie is outwardly homo in many ways, and throughout the series...there are hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, etc. I find the whole thing hilarious. Because it IS so blatant.

Please, keep your assumptions that I am an ignorant, intolerant, or confused sexually individual to yourself.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Del Toro gives The Hobbit the same attention to detail, and feeling of magic, that he did Pan's Lab, it is going to rock. Especially if he is going to follow the book closely...I was always upset they completely took out Tom Bombadil...


they better have Bjorn in the Hobbit movie....

IG_Urban wrote:...I was always upset they completely took out Tom Bombadil...

...except you don't care, because LOTR is 'fail', remember?

IG_urban wrote:First off....actually google the whole LOTR=homo thing. There are so many pages dedicated to it. Secondly, I don't like your offensive presumptions. I live in Seattle and go to Art School, man, we are more gay than San Fran, I grew up around it before most of the country brought it into the main stream. I'm 23, and comfortable enough in my sexuality to not only have gay friends (the fact that you insinuated that I am a young meat head out to gay bash is very fethed up), but to notice when a movie is outwardly homo in many ways, and throughout the series...there are hundreds of youtube videos, blogs, etc. I find the whole thing hilarious. Because it IS so blatant.

This is so way off base I really don't know how to respond to it. The only way you can make a gay connection in Lord of the rings is if you want there to be one.

I have seen the movies several times, and the idea that there is some sort of latent homosexual theme never ever came to my mind once, until reading your post. I also did the lotr = homo search you suggested and found hardly anything beyond people mouthing off in forums. The only gay connection you could possibly make, is the fact that Ian Mcellen is gay in real life. But I never saw any "gayness" in his portrayal of Gandalf the grey.

You sound like the people that try to insinuate that Jesus and the 12 apostles were gay.

Anyway it is hardly "blatant" as you put it.

GG