Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
New Yahoo interview: RA on The Hobbit and BotFA EE *Spoilers*
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 6 2015, 8:40pm

Post #1 of 41 (4178 views)
Shortcut
New Yahoo interview: RA on The Hobbit and BotFA EE *Spoilers* Can't Post

Located here: https://uk.yahoo.com/...ve-118295131076.html

Posting it here as the previous thread on his recent interviews is off the first page. I think the spoilers were mentioned in the other interviews.

Has anyone been able to find recent interviews with others in the cast?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I desired dragons with a profound desire"




AshNazg
Gondor


May 6 2015, 10:04pm

Post #2 of 41 (3943 views)
Shortcut
Interesting reading his opinion on Tauriel. He doesn't seem too keen... [In reply to] Can't Post

Obviously, he can't really say if he dislikes something, this answer looks like as close as he will go to saying he didn't approve. It's actually quite refreshing to hear the actor be genuinely critical, instead of just pretending everything was great.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 6 2015, 10:10pm

Post #3 of 41 (3936 views)
Shortcut
It's an honest view, isn't it? [In reply to] Can't Post

He could have done without that storyline - didn't think it was necessary. Equally, he enjoyed watching the way it played out. He seems to be a generous, fair-minded man - it comes out in all his interviews.

I thought it was interesting that the scene with the dwarves kneeling around Thorin was a late addition put in to replace the funeral.


Dwarewien
Rohan


May 6 2015, 10:30pm

Post #4 of 41 (3904 views)
Shortcut
I relate more to the male characters than the female ones... [In reply to] Can't Post

so I found the part about Tauriel interesting. Even though I'm a female fan, doesn't mean they have to add another female character. I relate more to the male characters than the female ones, so I wouldn't have minded if Tauriel (and Legolas) wasn't even in the Hobbit (and I'm not saying this from a "purist" point of view, since I don't care if they change things around, as long as it's interesting). As for the added scenes, I'm looking more forward to the chariot scene than the funeral scene, since the latter is going to make me cry even worse. What happens in the TE is bad enough, so sometimes I wish they would have left the funeral scene out entirely (something tells me I'll be watching the TE more than the EE of BoFA, since the former will be less emotional, even if not by much).Unsure


"Will you follow me... one last time?"


Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 6 2015, 10:58pm

Post #5 of 41 (3878 views)
Shortcut
It's interesting that you say that. [In reply to] Can't Post

"I relate more to the male characters than the female ones"

I read a story yesterday (which I can't find now!) that quoted Cate Blanchett talking about why there's a strong preference among film decision-makers to have men in leading roles rather than women as they think it less likely that male viewers will respond well to a female-dominated cast. She talks about how it is easy for women (and men) to empathise with male characters on screen because we've been having to do it from a young age, given that so much of history is focused on men and we learn their stories as part of historical events - but there isn't much about women's involvement in history. We're used to empathising, understanding or going along for the ride when we're reading or watching a story that is dominated by men, but we haven't been 'trained' the same way with females' stories because there are fewer of them from.

I wish I could find that original story.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 6 2015, 10:58pm)


Bombadil
Half-elven


May 7 2015, 12:28am

Post #6 of 41 (3795 views)
Shortcut
dmouse, ONCE again for the WIN!... [In reply to] Can't Post

MOST "Tookist "
response

Crazy

www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"


glor
Rohan

May 7 2015, 12:32am

Post #7 of 41 (3797 views)
Shortcut
There is an argument that states.. [In reply to] Can't Post

That the reason we don't relate to female leads in film is that they are essentially not women but, actresses playing a part directed by a man and written by a man, as they think women should be according to the stereotypes of our culture.

I am not saying that good writers cannot write a character who is not of their own gender but in film especially, blockbuster/mainstream film females are often reduced to tropes and stereotypes; the hard done by wife, the sexualised action heroine, the evil witch, literally or metaphorically, the comedy girlfriend/sidekick,or the love interest.

Personally I think the reason we don't emphasise with women on film, is that there are so few realistic female characters on our screens. Putting an actress on screen is not the same as putting a genuine female character in a film and most of Hollywood doesn't understand the difference.

No mascara can survive BOTFA


AshNazg
Gondor


May 7 2015, 1:04am

Post #8 of 41 (3771 views)
Shortcut
There's a similar effect with race... [In reply to] Can't Post

There have been a lot of studies looking into this. Movies starring white, male protagonists tend to be more financially successful, apparently because white men are just what audiences are used to identifying with.

That's not to say it can't be done, of course. There are examples like 10 Years a Slave and all the Disney princess movies. But these films tend to have a narrower demographic, and often still display their protagonist as the victim rather than the hero - although modern films are trying to break this trend, there's an all-female Ghostbusters lined up and a Wonder Woman movie among other ideas.

I'm not sure the best way to cater to wider audiences is by throwing in supporting females. Characters like Tauriel, or Marvel's Black Widow seem like a good idea in theory, but both of these examples resulted in controversy with many fans calling their representations 'sexist' - partly due to them being reduced to love interests.

I think the best way to handle female characters is just be honest and make them relevant to what's going on. Give them motivations (that don't revolve around men) give them personality and don't force them into the story for the sake of appeal or diversity. If they couldn't find an appropriate and non-controversial role for Tauriel, then not including her at all would've pleased more female fans than including her as a love interest.

I think Black Widow in the first Avengers film is a good example of a strong female character, although she could have used more screen-time and story involvement. She doesn't serve as some kind of reward or distraction for the protagonist, she has her own story and motives and she's pretty much on the same level as the other heroes. I was looking forward to her sharing the "protagonist" role (rather than supporting) with the other heroes in Avengers 2, but sadly I don't feel that happened.

I'll stop now because I think I've gone off topic. But just think, when have we ever questioned why Bilbo doesn't have a girlfriend, or Thorin or any of the dwarves or Gandalf, even Thranduil and Bard had their love interests removed so that they can concentrate on their role in the story. Yet the only female character we have happens to be doing everything just because she's in love with a prince. Mad


Kim
Valinor


May 7 2015, 2:02am

Post #9 of 41 (3747 views)
Shortcut
"We’re going to see... [In reply to] Can't Post

a big funeral scene at the end with some pretty emotional speeches by Gandalf." Guess I'd better put in my order for tissues now. Unsure



lionoferebor
Rohan

May 7 2015, 3:36am

Post #10 of 41 (3709 views)
Shortcut
Applauds [In reply to] Can't Post

to GLOR:

Quote
Personally I think the reason we don't emphasize with women on film, is that there are so few realistic female characters on our screens. Putting an actress on screen is not the same as putting a genuine female character in a film and most of Hollywood doesn't understand the difference.


and applauds to ASHNAZG:

Quote
I'm not sure the best way to cater to wider audiences is by throwing in supporting females. Characters like Tauriel, or Marvel's Black Widow seem like a good idea in theory, but both of these examples resulted in controversy with many fans calling their representations 'sexist' - partly due to them being reduced to love interests.


Another matter I find somewhat bothersome is the principle of why these characters are added in the first place. The idea that in order to attract a certain type of audience, certain type of characters are needed to be represented in a film... i.e. a female character draws in a female audience.

Apparently this theory does work - otherwise Hollywood probably would've abandoned it some time back - but to what extent? In the case of a film like The Hobbit where a female character was added because the story "lacked a female presence", what percentage of the overall audience were females who saw these films because of the addition of Tauriel? That if she had not been added, they would not have seen it. My guess...is probably not that great. I would like to think the majority of the female audience (including myself) were drawn to theses films because they are based on a great story, not because of the addition of a female character.


dormouse
Half-elven


May 7 2015, 7:55am

Post #11 of 41 (3583 views)
Shortcut
Why these characters are added in the first place... [In reply to] Can't Post

The idea that female characters are needed in order to attract/ interest a female audience is obviously a factor as you say - and it seems to have been Peter Jackson's thinking behind Tauriel - and Guillermo del Toro's too, as the female elf first came up when he was directing. We could call it the 'I don't need a female character but it will draw in the audience' school of thought.

But there's another motivation there as well. Philippa Boyens has made it clear time after time that she herself felt the need of a female character - in the Official Movie Guide she refers to it as 'a very blokey story'. She talks about wanting to write in 'a good strong female character who could have her own story. We didn't just want to create her for the sake of it; she needed to have a purpose in the storytelling, so we looked at a few places where that could happen...' then she describes how they considered using Frodo's mother, or creating a character in Laketown but were drawn to the elves because she and Fran Walsh liked the idea of Gimli's devotion to Galadriel and wanted to develop that storyline in a different way. So leaving aside whether it was a good idea or a bad one, their motivation wasn't increasing the audience figures, it was something they personally wanted to write for their own satisfaction - the 'I do need a female character to deepen my own interest in the story' school.

In a way I suppose that bears out the first idea. There really are women who prefer to have a 'female element'. My mother only ever read or watched stories that had strong female leads or were all female. So I suppose with two female scriptwriters who both come from that side of the fence Tauriel or someone like her was bound to happen, for their own satisfaction. The really interesting question is whether that addition drew girls and women in to see the film who wouldn't have gone otherwise. I think it might have done, given that PB, FW and my mother can't possibly be unique. Maybe that was one reason Tauriel was promoted so heavily on posters and so on, to intrigue women who knew the story and thought it wasn't for them. (That wouldn't have worked on my mother, though - she wasn't interested in elves, dwarves and hobbits either!) As to majorities and minorities, I've no idea. We're all different. I'm a woman and I've never felt that way about The Hobbit or any other story I've enjoyed, as child or adult. The story is what matters to me. It had never occurred to me that there wasn't a female character in the book until people started to talk about it in the context of these films. I didn't need a Tauriel and would happily have gone to see the film without any female lead. But I did like her character and saw echoes in her of other Tolkien stories, and the 'Feast of Starlight' conversation is one of my favourite scenes.


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 7 2015, 12:03pm

Post #12 of 41 (3440 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for posting that [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice interview with some tantalizing info about the EE, but then RA always does good interviews. His comments about using the pick-up time to re-shape the 2nd and 3rd movies rather than just adding stuff was very informative and makes a lot of sense, mostly, I think, because his use of the word "shape" is what clicked with my brain. If I had a king-sized quilt that was almost finished and then decided I wanted to turn it into two twin bed quilts, I couldn't just finish it then chop it in half with scissors and throw each half on a bed; I'd have to pick it apart, re-balance the design on each half and then do a separate binding for each one. Weird analogy, but for me it finally makes sense. Smile

Also enjoyed his comment on the length of the movies - getting twice as much for the price of one. Totally agree!

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


CathrineB
Rohan


May 7 2015, 12:33pm

Post #13 of 41 (3425 views)
Shortcut
Hmmmmmm [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
There were a lot of characters who had to finish of their stories, for example the Tauriel/Thranduil storyline had to finish. Playing a funeral scene on top of that is just overloading the end of the movie so to be honest I wasn’t disappointed that it got cut. The end of the film felt right without it.


I could not disagree more.
While yes there were many storylines to finish I for one don't see how Thranduil/Tauriel's were more important than that of Thorin/Fili/Kili - who have been a part of all the movies. That are a part of the Company the whole story is about. I just don't get it.
I mean yeah they needed a finish the elves too I get it, but not at the cost of the funeral. That's exactly my problem with the final movie. The focus on the wrong characters. It should have been on Bilbo and the Company (and Bard), not the elves.

Thranduil/Tauriel could have been cut down, done different or added in the EE. For me leaving the funeral out gave me the 'something's missing' feeling. Especially in regard of Fili.


lionoferebor
Rohan

May 7 2015, 2:41pm

Post #14 of 41 (3336 views)
Shortcut
Funny you should say this... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I'm a woman and I've never felt that way about The Hobbit or any other story I've enjoyed, as child or adult. The story is what matters to me. It had never occurred to me that there wasn't a female character in the book until people started to talk about it in the context of these films. I didn't need a Tauriel and would happily have gone to see the film without any female lead.


...because I'm the same way. I too had never noticed the lack of a female character in The Hobbit until these films. I guess I was so invested in the story itself it never phased me and still doesn't.

Anyway, what you say of PB & FW motivation behind adding Tauriel is true, but the question is who had the greater say in the addition of the character? The director, the screenwriters, or both?

The thing to remember is this: the film industry is a business whose main goal is to produce cinematic entertainment people will want to see. And like any business - big or small - it has to bring in a decent amount of profit in order to thrive. Considering this which would be greater motivator to add a character like Tauriel: the screenwriter's desire that 'I need this character to deepen my interest' or the director's 'This character isn't necessarily needed, but it will draw in a larger audience' way of thinking? Probably the latter. Though I suppose you could take these two theories and merge them in to the thought of 'create something that interest you and people will come see it.'


Avandel
Half-elven


May 7 2015, 2:53pm

Post #15 of 41 (3332 views)
Shortcut
Perhaps during the interview Richard wasn't thinking along those lines [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
While yes there were many storylines to finish I for one don't see how Thranduil/Tauriel's were more important than that of Thorin/Fili/Kili - who have been a part of all the movies. That are a part of the Company the whole story is about. I just don't get it.
I mean yeah they needed a finish the elves too I get it, but not at the cost of the funeral. That's exactly my problem with the final movie. The focus on the wrong characters. It should have been on Bilbo and the Company (and Bard), not the elves.


E.g., if am an an actor - a person on the "inside" if you will - and someone is having a nice little interview with me and because of that, I am sort of reliving what I went through on set - I can see from THAT perspective, someone who "lived it" LOLLaugh - from RA's perspective, I would guess the funereal is not an exciting scene to film. I mean, what's involved in that - you just lay there (if it's even you and not a dummy) and do some circular breathing or something? to make sure your chest isn't moving and so on. I guess. Unsure For all we know, Richard, Dean, and Aidan were standing off to the side on set watching "themselves".Unimpressed
Because it's one way to be SURE there's no unfortunate movement from the "dead" to amuse the fan community later.Laugh

RA really likes Sir Ian and that's what he mentions - Sir Ian's speeches. Sounds to me as tho discussions were actually held as to what to keep, and why, and Richard was aware of those. So I think RA might have been thinking from a personal perspective, as he wasn't asked to comment on various fan perspectives. Also, I think Richard has too much classHeart and loyalty to "air the dirty laundry".

That said, no-one that I know of has asked some pointed questions (I am glad that Richard was not put on the spot, being a nice man). It's IMO like some big dragon LOL that interviewers tip-toe aroundCool. But I would be interested to hear Richard's thoughts, because re AUJ and interviews, he thought the Company was important. Dean O'Gorman even commented on Richard working to build a relationship with him when he joined the cast.

And Richard is a classy guyHeart, and IMO it was classless to not have all the dwarves at the London premiereFrown. And being a dwarf, he must have heard commentary in the ranks e.g. James Nesbitt commenting to Ken Stott "what are we even doing here?" As Richard told Graham McTavish "we're the only ones who will ever know what is was like" (re the heat, the costume weight, all the work...)

But IMO, it's really not Richard who should have to answer about decisions made re the dwarves. But so many interviews with PJ seem to be SO carefully filtered (don't ask PJ anything that may annoy himUnimpressed) that I wonder if PJ will ever comment about "finding our way into the story through the dwarves".

Well, maybe the EE will help, tho I think the dwarves were important enough - along with Beorn - that they should have been featured in the TEUnimpressed. For me looking back on this Hobbit experience the jarring dwarflessness of BOFA will always be a shadow and I will always feel badly for these incredible actors. Frown

And just sayin' if the Thranduil/Tauriel stuff at the end (which wasn't IMO a collection of the best lines I have ever heard) HAD been firmly edited (which IMO it should have been), there might have been room for some more dwarf/Beorn action. Unimpressed


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


May 7 2015, 5:23pm

Post #16 of 41 (3214 views)
Shortcut
Tauriel lines [In reply to] Can't Post

If they'd cut out a majority of the lines between Tauriel and Thranduil, I think that scene would have been so much better. Just a few looks between the two characters could have said so much more at that point, kind of like what they did with the Bilbo and Gandalf scene. The only difference is that the dialogue they had originally written for Bilbo and Gandalf was probably much better...


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 7 2015, 7:08pm

Post #17 of 41 (3136 views)
Shortcut
Waiting for the Extended Cut and thoughts on Tauriel... [In reply to] Can't Post

First off, hearing tidbits about extended scenes just gets me really antsy. While I enjoyed BotFA in theaters (though not without a few caveats), much like the previous two films, I felt like I wasn't seeing the "real" film. AUJ and DoS didn't really come alive for me until the release of the Extended Editions. December is so far away still....

On the subject of Tauriel, so much is made of the need/desire to bring in a female element to the films and whether that's a good thing or not for female audience members, etc. To be honest, I don't care much for discussions on the subject (not least because I'm a guy and my perspective undoubtedly colors my opinion - for good or ill). I'm fond of the character personally because, well, I like the character - and the actress. I was excited the moment Evangeline was announced due to being a fan of hers from LOST. It never really got more complicated than that for me.

Personally, I think it boils down more to her not being a book character than anything else. But then, such things do not irk me as much as they do others...

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on May 7 2015, 7:10pm)


RosieLass
Valinor


May 7 2015, 9:04pm

Post #18 of 41 (3052 views)
Shortcut
In any other story, I would have loved Tauriel. [In reply to] Can't Post

Tauriel of Desolation of Smaug, I mean. The strong warrior who could take care of herself. Not the lovesick puppy of the third movie.

I won't rehash my complaints about putting her in Tolkien's story, except to say that an adaptation of someone else's work is not the place to be fulfilling your wishful fantasies. Tongue

As far as what draws me to films in general, I do have to admit that I'd much rather *look at* men than women. Scarlett Johansson is beautiful, but Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans make my middle-aged heart go pitter-pat. Heart

Aside from that, however, I don't go to movies to identify with the characters. I go to see a story. If it's interesting and the performances are good, I've gotten my money's worth whether I'm able to see myself in any of the characters or not. But I see so few movies that I'm probably not the best person to be speaking on the subject of what attracts a female audience.

"Being negative only makes a difficult journey more difficult. You may be given a cactus, but you don't have to sit on it."
--Joyce Meyer

A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP
--Leonard Nimoy


Dcole4
Rohan

May 8 2015, 1:10am

Post #19 of 41 (2963 views)
Shortcut
The problem with Tauriel... [In reply to] Can't Post

There's a weird misconception out there, and PJ often re-iterates it, that some fans have issues with Tauriel because she wasn't in the book. This simply isn't true. Most fans have no issue with the addition of a female elf warrior character. It makes sense dramatically to give Thranduil someone to talk to.

The "problem" is that they felt the need to force the strong female warrior character into a tacted on, lazily written love story that is hard to swallow and distracts from the story, rather than serves it. (She fell for him that hard after only talking to him once?). The Tauriel-Kili romance feels shoe-horned in, because it was, it was something they later shot and stitched into scenes they had already filmed. If they had maintained the story that they started (in the two film story, Tauriel's arc was simply a warrior elf who didn't want to be an isolationist like Thranduil, during a time of unrest) I think no one would hold issue.

Haldir in LOTR is an example of them taking a character and making a major change from the book, but it works dramatically, because it adds and propels the story forward.

The Tauriel-Kili story doesn't work, because it always stalls the story, and it distracts from what should have been the emotional core of the story, which should have been Bilbo and the line of Durin. It's a poorly developed romance that screams "studio notes!" It's sad. I love the Tauriel character but thought they totally mishandled her in the re-shoots.


squiggle
Rivendell

May 8 2015, 1:23am

Post #20 of 41 (2953 views)
Shortcut
Tauriel is Cannon in the big budget smash hit movie trilogy version of The Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

I would just like to point out that both the JRR Tolkien story of the Hobbit and this movie version, are interpretations of the same tale.

JRR interpreted from his imagination and other sources what happened first, & this movie trilogy interpreted what happened from JRR's version in general frame, & other sources.

Just as JRR's version was made possible by previous traditions in art and literature, so was this movie version made possible by JRR's tradition in art and literature.

But made 'possible by' is not 'the same as', and this is the artistic continuum.

I liked Tauriel alot in DOS EE and the different elements she added, & felt she was under-utilised or appreciated in Character possibilities in BoTF. In DOS i thought all her stuff had 'swerve' or 'swing', and that could have successfully lead to alot more interesting in BoTF, but i have happily found not to get too pre-set of what is, until have particularly watched the Hobbit EEs.


(This post was edited by squiggle on May 8 2015, 1:26am)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 8 2015, 1:35am

Post #21 of 41 (2951 views)
Shortcut
No, THAT is the misconception... [In reply to] Can't Post

It drives me nutty that I have to correct this so often - but the Tauriel-Kili love story was NOT added in reshoots. What they added in the 3-film restructuring was the love triangle - as in the Legolas part of the love story. Even in the two film version, Kili and Tauriel were a thing.

People are free to criticize this element of the films if they choose, but I cannot stand this misinformation being floated around so often.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


May 8 2015, 2:14am

Post #22 of 41 (2931 views)
Shortcut
This! [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
an adaptation of someone else's work is not the place to be fulfilling your wishful fantasies. Tongue


Soooo. much. this.


**********************************

NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011


glor
Rohan

May 8 2015, 5:00am

Post #23 of 41 (2878 views)
Shortcut
They are there to attract a female audience, is just a Hollywood smokescreen [In reply to] Can't Post

To disguise the real reason why females are inserted into many a blockbuster, eye candy for men.

They are nearly always, young, attractive, and dressed to please men, that's not necessarily overtly sexual. I think the whole film industry uses the politically correct, inclusive mantra of women need females in a film to relate and engage with it, is just the biggest pile of you know what going.

If that was truly the case, why are most of these characters and those cast in these roles, under 30, slim, attractive, etc.?

Simple, it's a "right on' we are so modern and inclusive smokescreen to disguise the fact that a good looking, attractive and often attired in a tight and/or revealing outfit female presence is going to get far more males into the multiplexes that female cinema goers.

(Note: I am not necessarily thinking of Tauriel here,but superhero movies, whose female characters are either beautiful love interests for the heroes, or tightly dressed sexualised action heroines, I mean, Scarlet Johansson in that tight leather suit, isn't there to get women into the cinema, is she? )

No mascara can survive BOTFA

(This post was edited by glor on May 8 2015, 5:02am)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 8 2015, 5:44am

Post #24 of 41 (2854 views)
Shortcut
To be fair... [In reply to] Can't Post

I have trouble naming many superhero movies that don't feature eye candy period, regardless of sex.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 8 2015, 2:26pm

Post #25 of 41 (2697 views)
Shortcut
Yep! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I have trouble naming many superhero movies that don't feature eye candy period, regardless of sex.


If it isn't cheesecake, it's beefcake more often than not.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.