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.

LotR is not easy reading. I love it but it is pretty poorly paced. By comparison, the Hobbit is a much more enjoyable if less introspective read. No one can deny that LotR is very serious and, while there are glints of that in the Hobbit as well, this can be very intimidating depending on why you're coming to the books. I'm surprised no one has brought up the Silmarillion. Tolkien shines most in these stories, as we can see especially from the Children of Hurin.

As for Pan's Labyrinth . . . it seemed to me the kind of movie that I would have been really impressed with back in middle school, maybe even high school. I'm not saying it was bad. It was just not the great firework show of imagination that it is often made out to be. Del Toro's films almost always leave me feeling this way--underwhelmed, that is. Hellboy (first one, not the steaming pile of gak called Golden Army or whatever--which was more like Pan's Labyrinth, btw) overcame this by having a charming and genuine sense of intimacy. After watching Pan's Labyrinth, however, I felt like someone who has just heard a sermon in church and finds himself, although he cannot say quite why, utterly repulsed by it. The violence was at points overdone but that wasn't it and I don't think that would be it for most people who find the movie distasteful. In anycase, it's worth watching for sure. It does make me nervous about what del Toro will do with the Hobbit.

The Lord of the Rings was excellent, but boring though at some points. Although if you want a really boring and difficult read, try the Silmarillion: I've tried reading it 7 time but I can only get to chapter, 8 or so before my mind begins to crumble and I have to go into the fetal position for a week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Children of Hurin is great, I just finished reading it and I loved it!

Albatross wrote:[quoteIG_Urban]...I was always upset they completely took out Tom Bombadil...

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

IG_Urban wrote:I am refering to facial expressions,

Gay facial expressions.

tone of voice,

Gay tones of voice.

use of lighting,

Gay lighting.

film style,

Gay film style.

camera angles

Gay camera-angles.

ok buddy. you want a cookie?

When using the internet as a source, such as saying there are pages of discussion, one must always remember this is the same place that also has pages devoted to people who literally believe they are Na'Vi, a fictional species that is only several months old.

IG_urban wrote:ok buddy. you want a cookie?

No thanks. I WOULD like you to explain 'homoerotic camera-angles' to me, though.

and the same place where the majority of all global business takes place....whats your point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

IG_urban wrote:ok buddy. you want a cookie?

No thanks. I WOULD like you to explain 'homoerotic camera-angles' to me, though.

Don't put words into my mouth. Not once did I mention anything having to do with "'homoerotic camera-angles' ".

IG_Urban wrote:I will literally have you over to my house, we will watch the movies, and I will itemize all the times that Peter Jackson just makes it so homoerotic it's laughable. If I keep getting pushback on this, which is only my opinion, I will watch all the of the movies, which I own and enjoy (they're not Michael Bay movies at least), and mark the times at points when I think it gets a little homo erotic.

Also homo-eroticism is NOT outwardly gay.

I am refering to facial expressions, tone of voice, use of lighting, film style, camera angles, use of music, use of makeup...all of the things that you learn about when you study film and story-telling, that are little.

You alluded to the fact that certain camera-angles can be a contributing factor in the presentation of homo-erotic subtext. I was teasing you about it. It's the OT, it happens.

A lot.

If you take yourself too seriously on here, people just take the piss even more, I've found. Relax a bit.

sorry, man. I come from Honda Tech, and VWvortex. I am used to having shields at maximum....

Yeah IG_urban, most of us are just pulling your chain. We disagree with your position of course, but it's all in good fun usually.

GG

IG_urban wrote:…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.

You’ve changed your story. Your first post claimed “And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:As for Pan's Labyrinth . . . it seemed to me the kind of movie that I would have been really impressed with back in middle school, maybe even high school.

It’s a film that actually goes over most people’s heads. There is an examination of fantasy and the power of fantasy that is fascinating and missed by most of the movie-going audience.

I was pretty underwhelmed with both Hellboy movies, by the way. Gorgeous to look at, fun characters and then a whole lot of blah. Del Toro’s other film, The Devil’s Backbone, is a very good movie, though, taking a similar setting to Pan’s Labyrinth, but using a ghost story instead of a fable.

The violence was at points overdone but that wasn't it and I don't think that would be it for most people who find the movie distasteful. In anycase, it's worth watching for sure. It does make me nervous about what del Toro will do with the Hobbit.

As I’ve asked Fraz, why do people keep assuming that a director cannot adapt to the movie? Hellboy is very different to Pan’s Labyrinth, about the only similarity is in art design, and it is a style that will likely carry across to The Hobbit quite well.

you're really going to keep this going, man?

how have I changed my story?

@Lord of battes: Until Children of Hurin was published, the Silmarillion was the only source we had for Turin's story (not counting Unfinsihed Tales and the History of Middle Earth, which most folks found more off-putting than th Silmarillion!). One thing that bogs people down with the Silmarillion are the names. But that was Tolkien's forte, of course. A love of names and naming will get you much more mileage out of any of his books.

@sebster: I got the point of Pan's Labyrinth--or rather, I got the point that you're making. It was intriguing but pushy. I didn't think it was much more subtle than a M. Night Shyamalan movie and not even that pretty to look at it. It was actually fairly grotesque. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument where I'm "against" the movie and you're "for" it because the movie was ok, certainly a cut above a lot of what's in American theaters, but not especially insightful. Further, the style (grotesque is the best word I can think of for it) is exactly what I fear will seep into the Hobbit as it is del Toro's trademark (see Da Bos's comment earlier about not wanting to see any clockwork outside of a clock). That will be terribly out of place in Tolkien's story. It is comforting to hear the Weta guy say that they won't make a lot of changes in the aesthetic. Comforting . . . but not very plausible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to add to Da Boss's sentiment, I wouldn't mind seeing some clockwork in the toys of Dale. But no creepy stuff.

IG_urban wrote:you're really going to keep this going, man?

how have I changed my story?

Seriously?

You said; “And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy”
Later you said; " I find the whole thing hilarious."

Finding something hard to enjoy and finding something hilarious are opposite statements. Why do I have to point that out twice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@sebster: I got the point of Pan's Labyrinth--or rather, I got the point that you're making. It was intriguing but pushy. I didn't think it was much more subtle than a M. Night Shyamalan movie and not even that pretty to look at it. It was actually fairly grotesque. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument where I'm "against" the movie and you're "for" it because the movie was ok, certainly a cut above a lot of what's in American theaters, but not especially insightful. Further, the style (grotesque is the best word I can think of for it) is exactly what I fear will seep into the Hobbit as it is del Toro's trademark (see Da Bos's comment earlier about not wanting to see any clockwork outside of a clock). That will be terribly out of place in Tolkien's story. It is comforting to hear the Weta guy say that they won't make a lot of changes in the aesthetic. Comforting . . . but not very plausible.

It's cool you don't want to get stuck in a debate on good movie/bad movie. I really like the film so I can't approach from any other angle, but I do recognise the conversation is unlikely to go far if sides are declared.

You're right that it isn't subtle, but I'm not sure subtlety is always a virtue. When looking at fascism subtlety is not needed, it's a particularly brutal thing. The difference to, say, Shyamalan, is in the sophistication of the message, and in the originality of that message. Maybe I've missed a bunch of movies, but I'd never seen one that said 'fascism is a fantasy, a puerile one about power and violence and being a hard man, and it'd be comical if people didn't believe it, and cause the fascists to gain power. Fantasy is also a powerful defence mechanism, here a girl is using fantasy to escape the horrible world of the fascist. But she also gains power from her fantasy, she survives and maybe her fantasy even allows her to do real world things that would be impossible.'

You should try The Devil's Backbone, there's no creature design as its a ghost story, and might show you another side of del Toro's work. It's still brutal, but the the art design is far more restrained.

sebster wrote:As I’ve asked Fraz, why do people keep assuming that a director cannot adapt to the movie? Hellboy is very different to Pan’s Labyrinth, about the only similarity is in art design, and it is a style that will likely carry across to The Hobbit quite well.

And what about Peter Jackson? He made 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Dead'! I think we can all agree that he seemed to make a decent fist of LOTR.

sebster wrote:

IG_urban wrote:you're really going to keep this going, man?

how have I changed my story?

Seriously?

You said; “And the movies, mainly the first and last, were so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy”
Later you said; " I find the whole thing hilarious."

Finding something hard to enjoy and finding something hilarious are opposite statements. Why do I have to point that out twice?

STREEEEETCHing it...

Finding something hilarious and finding something hard to watch are two different things man. Not opposites. I can find something hard to watch, and find it hilarious for the same reason. Just drop it.

I expect the split to come after Smaug's death. You could have 2 movies, the Hobbit, and the Battle of Five Armies. With a little work, you could very easily stretch that into a tight 90 minute popcorn flick. Preferably it would be available in 3d.

Albatross wrote:And what about Peter Jackson? He made 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Dead'! I think we can all agree that he seemed to make a decent fist of LOTR.

Oooo! Don't forget "Meet the Feebles"!

On second thought, maybe we should...

The Hobbit will be a 12+ age rating so people needn't worry about it being grotesquely violent.

The book is a children's story, it has a different tone to LoTR, less serious overall.

We hope. We'll see.

IG_urban wrote:STREEEEETCHing it...

Finding something hilarious and finding something hard to watch are two different things man. Not opposites. I can find something hard to watch, and find it hilarious for the same reason. Just drop it.

In some contexts they can both exist. In the context of 'I found this movie had homo-erotic qualities and... ' they're very different things. Finding it funny is pretty healthy, there's a long list of movies that can have gay undertones put into them and making fun of them for it can be pretty entertaining.

That's a really different thing to finding gay undertones where none exist and being bothered by it.

never said it bothered me....kind of ruined the atmosphere created by the actors, director, and movie magic, yes.

http://truebeauty.ytmnd.com/

IG_urban wrote:never said it bothered me....

But you did; "...so fill of moist homo-eroticy they were hard to enjoy"


Seriously dude, just say 'I overstated my original position'. Stop pretending you didn't say something that's in plain text for anyone to see, it's ridiculous.

Albatross wrote:

IG_Urban wrote:I am refering to facial expressions,

Gay facial expressions.

tone of voice,

Gay tones of voice.

use of lighting,

Gay lighting.

film style,

Gay film style.

camera angles

Gay camera-angles.

That is all I really have to add... hmmm...

I am looking forward to seeing what Del Toro does with this concept, though. I like what I have seen of his work, although it borders on the edge of being terribly depressing, and that is coming from a guy that enjoys watching documentaries about war and the like.

Gitkikka wrote:

Albatross wrote:And what about Peter Jackson? He made 'Bad Taste' and 'Brain Dead'! I think we can all agree that he seemed to make a decent fist of LOTR.

Oooo! Don't forget "Meet the Feebles"!

On second thought, maybe we should...

NEVER!!!

Modquisition on. Lets move on from the gay thing he said/she said now please or I will close the thread. Seriously, the issue can be in another thread but you're committing the cardinal sin of being BORING with this tet a tet.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Hobbit will be a 12+ age rating so people needn't worry about it being grotesquely violent.

The book is a children's story, it has a different tone to LoTR, less serious overall.

Tolkien was going to rewrite 'The Hobbit' to bring it into line with LOTR, which means he was looking at a darker and longer version. As I understand it, this movie duology is going to be based around a more grown up version of 'The Hobbit' and not the original work which the man wrote for his children. Either way it would be nice to see wargs instead of those odd monsters that the orks rode on in 'The Two Towers' film. I wonder if Legolas and Gimli will appear in the film as Legolas is from Mirkwood and Gimli's father is one of the dwarfs that go with Bilbo to the Lonely Mountain? Gimli would probably have traveled with the dwarf army that came to support Thorin.

If they do have Gimli he won't be played by John Rys Davies, who said he's not going to be in the Hobbit films. This makes me doubt Gimli will have a prominant role.

GG

I would hope he wouldn't have a prominent role.
It was ~70 years before most of the events of LOTR after all.

On the Pan's Labarynth stuff, I did really enjoy it, and I'd agree that it's a great exploration of fantasy. Visually, it's similar to a lot of Del Toro's other work, and I don't mind that at all, because I find his style entertaining.
My reservations come from the fact that the Hobbit isn't like that at all, at least in my head. It's classic fantasy, not steampunkish, not wierd and disconcerting. I want this to be a kids movie, in the same way the Hobbit is a kid's book.
The Hobbit has a very dear place in my heart as it's one of the first fantasy books I ever read and it set me off down this nerdy path I've enjoyed so much, and I also used to read it to my little sister when we were kids, and that's one of the reasons I think we've always been so close.
So I really hope Del Toro doesn't mess it up too much!