Originally posted by Flaming_MMO
That is a question I cannot answer.  I am sure there are some out there, but they probably would not post much to begin with.

you lost me mate- sorry was being slow, gotcha now.

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Flaming_MMO
That is a question I cannot answer.  I am sure there are some out there, but they probably would not post much to begin with.

you lost me mate

 

 Lol, I forgot to hit the quote button.  Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Rhoklaw
Far as I'm concerned, Peter Jackson is a brilliant director and while his movies may be more action oriented then the books portrayed, you can't tell me the movies didn't do the books justice. The amount of detail Peter went to with environment, costumes and story flow is probably as good as your going to get. Christopher is a pompous brat and I hope he chokes on his wad of money.

I think Tolkein was wrong about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but correct (in his prediction) regarding The Hobbit.  Jackson added combat, took songs out, and added entirely new story elements to add even more combat into it.

Originally posted by evilastro

Originally posted by Flaming_MMO

His opinion is meaningless to me.  Did he ever even write a book?  Did any of the Tolkien kids/grandkids take up J.R.R.'s legacy and start writing more books in the Lord Of the Rings universe? 

I would take his opinion seriously if he was like Brian Herbert (Frank Herberts son) who actually continued writing more Dune books (and still writes them) after Frank Herbert died.

 Christopher was the editor of all his fathers posthumous work. Notably he put together The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth and The Children of Húrin from his fathers old notes. He also helped his father prepare LOTR.

While I think his opinions on the movies is silly, he is undoubtably the most knowledgeable living person regarding his fathers work.

The Silmarillion is awesome in general imo: When comparing to the LOTRs makes the LOTRs sort of fractal sub-story.

(That innuendo joke was well played earlier).

Originally posted by grimfall

Originally posted by Rhoklaw
Far as I'm concerned, Peter Jackson is a brilliant director and while his movies may be more action oriented then the books portrayed, you can't tell me the movies didn't do the books justice. The amount of detail Peter went to with environment, costumes and story flow is probably as good as your going to get. Christopher is a pompous brat and I hope he chokes on his wad of money.

I think Tolkein was wrong about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but correct (in his prediction) regarding The Hobbit.  Jackson added combat, took songs out, and added entirely new story elements to add even more combat into it.

Anyone seen it?  I saw a terrible review, stretched out insanely.  Now I read the book at about 12 which was a long tim ago, have no urge to see the film.  Dam the last prequels I can think of- shit they were.

Originally posted by Panther2103
The movies had plenty of story involved in them, they had a majority of the action scenes of the books because of the fact that if they made the movie exactly how the book was page for page, it would have been 15 hours long for one book if even that short. So they take the parts of the books, explain the story in a faster manner, and have the major action scenes. I don't see the issue. It wasn't marketed as an action film. I think the hobbit had maybe 4 or 5 actual action scenes that lasted more than 30 seconds. They always have been very slow, and that turns quite a few people I know off of the films. The environments in the films, and the way all of the characters look and act are exactly how I expected them to be in movie form. 

+1

There are things not in the movies that were in the books that I miss, but all-in-all, the movies did the story well. I was pleased.

Originally posted by Thornrage

Originally posted by Panther2103
The movies had plenty of story involved in them, they had a majority of the action scenes of the books because of the fact that if they made the movie exactly how the book was page for page, it would have been 15 hours long for one book if even that short. So they take the parts of the books, explain the story in a faster manner, and have the major action scenes. I don't see the issue. It wasn't marketed as an action film. I think the hobbit had maybe 4 or 5 actual action scenes that lasted more than 30 seconds. They always have been very slow, and that turns quite a few people I know off of the films. The environments in the films, and the way all of the characters look and act are exactly how I expected them to be in movie form. 

 

+1

There are things not in the movies that were in the books that I miss, but all-in-all, the movies did the story well. I was pleased.

They could have been awful.  The first film, the horse chase was amazing, then got a bit CGI heavy for me. 

Originally posted by fascism
and  then he drove away in his new BMW to his mansion and it was ok

explain?

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by fascism
and  then he drove away in his new BMW to his mansion and it was ok

explain?

he's rich?

Originally posted by fascism

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by fascism
and  then he drove away in his new BMW to his mansion and it was ok

explain?

 

he's rich?

Oh, Jackson.

He is an 88 year old man, many old people don't want to accept that movies generally look different than in the 50s-90s.

Movies in the past contained just as much action scenes...they just looked very differently.

And there is the fact that he is disappointed he didn't get money for not writing the books and not directing the movie. That poor guy isn't even a billionaire...I'd sue the hell out of New Line Cinema too.

Originally posted by Shorun

He is an 88 year old man, many old people don't want to accept that movies generally look different than in the 50s-90s.

Movies in the past contained just as much action scenes...they just looked very differently.

And there is the fact that he is disappointed he didn't get money for not writing the books and not directing the movie. That poor guy isn't even a billionaire...I'd sue the hell out of New Line Cinema too.

So you blame it all on Cameron and Terminator 2.  That is a bit of a leap.

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Shorun

He is an 88 year old man, many old people don't want to accept that movies generally look different than in the 50s-90s.

Movies in the past contained just as much action scenes...they just looked very differently.

And there is the fact that he is disappointed he didn't get money for not writing the books and not directing the movie. That poor guy isn't even a billionaire...I'd sue the hell out of New Line Cinema too.

So you blame it all Cameron and Terminator 2.  That is a bit of a leap.

 

Lol 

Originally posted by KingJiggly

Originally posted by Scarfe

Originally posted by Shorun

He is an 88 year old man, many old people don't want to accept that movies generally look different than in the 50s-90s.

Movies in the past contained just as much action scenes...they just looked very differently.

And there is the fact that he is disappointed he didn't get money for not writing the books and not directing the movie. That poor guy isn't even a billionaire...I'd sue the hell out of New Line Cinema too.

So you blame it all Cameron and Terminator 2.  That is a bit of a leap.

 

Lol 

Glad someone was with me on that

To me the tl;dr version of the article is:

Tolkien wanted to create a book that few people would read. The publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers. Jackson made a movie of it to appeal to moviegoers. This goes against what Tolkien wanted in the first place, but is a perfect fit for what he eventually wrote.

Originally posted by ET3D

To me the tl;dr version of the article is:

Tolkien wanted to create a book that few people would read. The publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers. Jackson made a movie of it to appeal to moviegoers. This goes against what Tolkien wanted in the first place, but is a perfect fit for what he eventually wrote.

but no good book is designed for film, but the best films come from good books, if you want me to list- no can't be bothered, can if you want but really don't wanna.

well if you are going to force me: -

Shawshank redemption

Godfather

Jaws

Mrs Crimble's big day out

A night at the museum

Davey Locklace licks her face

Shaving Ryan's Privates

I could go on... do I need to?