Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Absolutely Horrid
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Bombadil
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 12:02am

Post #126 of 148 (388 views)
Shortcut
Bomby will say it.. again.. [In reply to] Can't Post

People who can make Movies?
DO.
...
People ... who can"t
Become
Critics......


sharpened_graphite
Rivendell

Feb 8 2013, 12:45am

Post #127 of 148 (347 views)
Shortcut
Agree on the "bouncing like a rubber ball", that was implausible! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not saying that the movie is perfect either. Just don't like the disdain with which the word "effects" is being thrown around sometimes. You've just outlined some of my issues with it too by the way. We need a proper criticisms and complaints thread as well perhaps? Not for one sentence troll posts and "absolutely horrid" sort of remarks but genuine, thought out stuff. That'd be actually a good read, and in some ways, more valuable than praise.

EDIT: To JWPLatt in lieu of double posting: I loved Prometheus but thought that it was the most joyless movie I've seen. Beautiful visuals, what I thought was a decent script, but all done with no intent whatsoever of "entertaining" the audience, which on one hand makes for very honest movie, on the other hand makes it all somewhat depressing and unrewatchable. Tho' perhaps hardcore sci-fi should be this way, who knows.

I know of the complaints about the Stone Giants sequence which is why I thought about bringing it up as an example. It IS sort of extraneous to the core story but could still make a lovely "abstract" short film about a storm in the mountains. Doesn't work as danger for the characters, and perhaps totally superfluous to the story, but still beautifully done.


(This post was edited by sharpened_graphite on Feb 8 2013, 12:52am)


imin
Valinor


Feb 8 2013, 12:55am

Post #128 of 148 (349 views)
Shortcut
Does this apply to everyone? [In reply to] Can't Post

as in most of us on here have written reviews - critically appraised the movie - been critics - does this mean we can no longer make films? Tongue


MasterOrc
Rivendell


Feb 8 2013, 1:37am

Post #129 of 148 (333 views)
Shortcut
Sure it's not the... [In reply to] Can't Post

mushrooms? Obviously your a big Nicolas Cage fan? Evil Your post really has me laughing....


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Feb 8 2013, 3:58am

Post #130 of 148 (328 views)
Shortcut
Insults and rude comments have been deleted or edited out of this thread [In reply to] Can't Post

Sadly, all of them were made by regulars here and none of them by the original poster.

Was the original post a little rough around the edges, to the point of even being crass? Yes. But the poster didn't insult anyone, and still hasn't, despite being insulted him/herself.

Is this person a troll? Who knows? That's something only time will tell. What's disappointing is how many people here took the bait. If someone comes here with the intention of purposely trolling, and *you* take the bait, who's really the one to blame? Tongue

Has this person been trolling on another site? Don't take someone else's word for it - it's easy enough to google, which we did and didn't find any evidence. We Admins weren't born yesterday, you know - we're way ahead of you on stuff like that. But, even then, everyone deserves a chance based on how they treat people here, not someplace else.

May I remind everyone that if you really think someone is trolling, please contact an Admin and then move on.

Lastly, to those of you who rose to the occasion with a serious reply, good humor and/or *gasp* even welcomed this person - BRAVO!!! If ever someone really *is* trolling, that's exactly the way you should respond because it drives them crazy. If someone isn't trolling, it's exactly the way you should respond to welcome a new member of our community.


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





(This post was edited by Altaira on Feb 8 2013, 4:11am)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Feb 8 2013, 4:03am

Post #131 of 148 (319 views)
Shortcut
Thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile

After all, even Trolls can be reasoned with.WinkSly

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Feb 8 2013, 4:04am)


Starling
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 6:36am

Post #132 of 148 (298 views)
Shortcut
Well, when you are swimming with sharks, [In reply to] Can't Post

if you wear your stilts, you are in a good position to see any fires, and then you can use your spoon to put out the flames.
Surely this is obvious?


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 7:45am

Post #133 of 148 (281 views)
Shortcut
Though I think we may disagree on some of which parts were most difficult to like, I agree here. [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved the movie. I really loved and enjoyed it, despite the fact that there were parts that bothered me, in some cases quite badly. I have complained about those parts, and will again, but I have also praised the many things which I found literally wonderful about this film, and I will do that again also (though not tonight, dear hearts lol). In the end, for me and evidently many othes, the wonderful parts outweighed the objectionable ones. Others are entitled to think otherwise, though I do find it unfortunate when people make such extreme statements. There are so many movies that came out this year along that were almost categorically "worse" films than this one, and some of them even managed to get relatively high praise, so to suggest that the film is just "the worst garbage ever,". . . there were a number of things to dislike, but none of them were as odious as all that.

In Reply To
I admit - I enjoyed the movie. I didn't let the parts I didn't like as much or might have done differently ruin it for me and instead enjoyed it for all the wonderful moments. I am such an awful person for this. I'm so sorry. I really wish I could hate the movie. But I like it. Shame on me. Shame on me.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 8:21am

Post #134 of 148 (277 views)
Shortcut
I don't agree that it is definitively not a classic, though I do agree with some other points. [In reply to] Can't Post

Time proves a classic, not merely critical reception. Many critics have been hostile in their time to works that were later love. This film, despite all of its flaws and shortcomings, has some very beautiful moments ( including much of that prologue you disliked. . . which meshed wondefully with the very to the letter of the book, beautiful and haunting choral of Far Over Mountains Cold) and some wonder inducing moments: enough for it to garner the love of many (many non-Tolkien fans who did NOT love the Rings movies for their weight and depth loved the Hobbit), and to be deemed a classic by many. There are many other films which are considered classic which do not offer as much. I don't see that the opening clashed with The Unexpected party. Even fairy-folktales that are trimmed and altered for the consumption of children are generally a fascinating merging of the grim and the whimsical, the magnificent and the comic. There really shouldn't be anything funny about the coming of a great dragon, and there shouldn't be anything serious about juggling dishware (unless it is a family heirloom! lol). I also object to the notion of film as a mathmatical equation. Life is not and neither is film. Film is art, and it needn't put everything in a perrfect, clinical fitting in order to be a good or even great work. That can be beautiful, or it can be cold and barren.

I do agree with you on several key points.

In my view there is much to complain about in PJ's films, particuarly as adaptations of the source material, but also just as films. (I would agrue PJ's verion is not even suitable for the target audience of the book)

"So the question then is why is not a classic film?
Well it is almost exaclty split 50/50 between an adaptation of the book and stuff PJ made up.

Claims that he was drawing on the appendix ect had some limited credibility before we had all seen the film, but it has vey little now we have as nothing has survived even close to intact from the appendix without huge alterations in service of the stuff PJ has made up.

Those additions PJ has made, particuarly the very artificial insertion of Azog into the story to give it more impetus is pretty disasterous
. "

Tis ^ I agree with, almost to the letter. I really couldn't agree more. I think Balin and the intensity of the moment salvages the Azanulbizar scene (and I agree, the graphic depiction of the fate of Thror was over the line for a movie which was not only inevitably going to draw many children, but which has ample evidence that the film makers were FULLY aware of that fact and filled parts of the movie with material quite specifically catered towards 4 to 10 year olds [no one else, save the odd man-child/woman-child is that amused by snot in soup and bird sh*t in hair]), but it is a far less powerful tale than the one the appendices give, and some of the changes made to the history of Arnor and Angmar for The Council scene are superflous and aggravating. The council scene itself is visually beautiful, well acted and at times compelling, but there are flaws, and, as I have lamented, while there are moments when the engagment between Gandalf and Galadriel is wonderful in it's intimacy, there are times when she very wrongly comes across too much as his supervising director (more service, no doubt, to Phillipa Boyens' wildly untested theory that Galadriel is the single most superbadass being ever to walk in any corner of Middle-Earth anywhere ever, since Ulmo and Orome were last here). And Bolg would have been a better choice than Azog. And while I thank GOD that we got to see Gandalf display his power and magic in a properly awesome display in Goblin Town (that part was wonderful, as, to my thought, was the balance of humour and malice given in the performance of Barry Humphries), the chase did turn a bit too much towards an Indiana Jones mad reel. And, I agree, Thorin's didn't put up much of a fight, especially considering he was wielding Orcrist. . . it is even more bizzare because the sword clearly had a powerful, forcefully repellent effect when he wielded it against the crushing blow of the massive Goblin King).

That said, with the exception of the fact that the five minutes of Frodo was about two minutes too long, I was mesmerized and filled with wondrous joy by the first hour of the film (and anyone here will tell you, I am not part of the Peter Jackson butt kissing department. . . I speak up whenever he does something I don't like! [I am looking at you Lindir, getting a damn cameo for doing absolutely nothing of interest while Glorfindel gets the cold shoulder again. . . and don't get me started on book scenes of Gandalf in full Wizard awesome mode that were left from the films. . . or the neglect of any commentary about the relation of The Three, The One and the passage of the Elves. . . I could go on]), and found that the majority of the rest of the film shifted for me between enjoyable and extremely enjoyable. In retrospect, I could have done without the stone giants (surprising, as I wanted them, until I saw they were actual, full on walking mountains), and I'd have liked a slightly more impressive (and book blue) visualization of the pinecone scene, but overall, I loved far more than I disliked in this film. It is certainly a classic in my esteem, though a flawed one, as many are.


In Reply To
the first is that there is certainly a perception that it is very hard on ToRn to offer any sort of complaint of PJ's Tolkien based works without what has occured here happening: 3 pages of people shouting down the OP, calling them a troll (I was accused of this myself in the past), or making silly statements that imply thinking PJ did a less than stellar job means you dont think anyone invovled with the film did anything right or were any good.

There is a good reason ToRn has a reputaion as being the home of PJ fan boys who will not tolerate any negativity about their favourite films- this thread rather indicates why that reputation persists, even if it might not be strictly true.


The second point is the problems with the films themselves.

I would agree that the OP post was not the most diplomatically worded OP ever, but that does not make the points or post, or opinion invalid either.
In my view there is much to complain about in PJ's films, particuarly as adaptations of the source material, but also just as films.
Which brings me to TH.

It is in my view a very average film that could have been a timeless classic film.
But somehow it is not, I think even the most vervant PJ fan here would not claim TH was the greatest film of all time, or even one of the greatest childrens films of all time. (I would agrue PJ's verion is not even suitable for the target audience of the book)

So the question then is why is not a classic film?
Well it is almost exaclty split 50/50 between an adaptation of the book and stuff PJ made up.

Claims that he was drawing on the appendix ect had some limited credibility before we had all seen the film, but it has vey little now we have as nothing has survived even close to intact from the appendix without huge alterations in service of the stuff PJ has made up.

Those additions PJ has made, particuarly the very artificial (in practise, feel and look) insertion of Azog into the story to give it more impetus is pretty disasterous.

During these parts PJ tries to recreate a tone suited to his LotR's film, but he has to sit it alongside whimsical moment like the Crack the Plates song. And it does not work well at all I would say, as the two tones clash from the off.

And that is leaving aside the way Azog just pops up whenever the script needs him without otherwise any rymne nor reason, nor the subpar pulp fantasy book dialogue.

I also think the opening prolgue was a mistake- I do think having old Bilbo narrate was a good idea, this is in keeping with the narrators voice present throughout the book and the conceit Tolkien got it all from the Redbook- but all the Erebor and Dale stuff, whilst pretty and bombastic is completely the wrong mood to begin TH with, Bilbo is an unsuitable narrator for that information, and its irrelevant because all the information divulged in it comes out in the telling of the story later anyway.

Its main purpose seems to be to have a big opening to the film wih some action and lots of effects. That seems to fit in with PJ's view, expressed throughout his LotR's work that his audience is largely a bit dim and will stop watching if something effects laden and blatantly exciting doesnt happen right away.

In fact its this thinking (beyond needing filler to stretch it to a trilogy) which seems to be behind the inclusion of Azog and much of the other more ridiculous unnecessary action scenes- dwarf/troll fight-bunny sled/warg chase/ -stone giants fairground ride, everything in the Goblin Town escape- Thorin proving he cant fight worth tuppence to Azog/ Bilbo killing a warg and orc, proving he is a much better fighter than Thorin, who is truelly pathetic..

For me the obvious way to deal with the difference in tone between TH and LotR's was to have Bilbo narrate the tale to a young Frodo and Sam.

This is in keeping with the book as we know Sam has been listening to Bilbo's tales all his life. And more importantly it allows for the difference in tone as it can be explaind as Bilbo telling the tale suitably for a child audience. It would also have been much shorter. And the opening sequence is far to long, as especially as nothing of any relevance beyond 'oh look its Frodo!- doesnt he look older?' happens in most of it. And as to altering the final line for no good, or even apparent reason, of the opening famous, iconic paragraph I am at a lost for any reasonable explanation. The only thing I can think of is that PJ deliberetly wanted to stick two fingers up to people like me who think his handling of Tolkien's dialogue and language throughout the adaptations has been nothing short of disgraceful.

Now these are just a few initial points, I could of course go on to give reasons and explainations for many more things about the film I thought were poorly handled or detrimental to Tolkiens original tales. (And people on here always complain those who are negative dont give thought out reasons, so I have offered some).

The point I suppose is that there should be room on any forum for a wide variety of view to be able to be expresed and debated without it becoming accussations of trolling and other unpleasantness right from the off.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


pettytyrant101
Lorien


Feb 8 2013, 1:36pm

Post #135 of 148 (260 views)
Shortcut
the prologue [In reply to] Can't Post

My main problem with the prologue is that its wastful in tems of time.

There is nothing in it in terms of information that cannot to be gained form everything that follows as the story is told. Yes it looks very nice and very dramatic but it slows up the entire start of the film needlessly.
Many critics complained the opening was far too long- and they are right it is I think, but not if you take the prologue back out- it works just fine without it, better I would say. And the exciting flashback could easily have relpaced all the shouty bits in the Unexpected Party scenes.
Everything from the transition to Bilbo leaving is good adaptation of the book - I could have done without a few of the excesses but overall its definetly recognisably an adaptation of the book- which is more than can be said for what follows in the film.

And its a shame PJ doesnt seem to know how to script a scene with multiple characters discussing something without it breaking down into everyone just shouting 'rhubarb' at each other until someone important stands up and tells them whats going to happen -Gandalf in this case- Elrond in Council scene in FotR.

As an ageing and life long fan of Doctor Who I am all for scaring the living daylights out of children - but there are ways to do it that do not involve having to show onscreen violence the way PJ does, but you have to be a bit clever and subtle about it- neither traits PJ seems to exhibit in any quantity in his Tolkien based work- there are 6 beheadings, 10 impalments and 5 dismemberments in the Goblin Town escape alone, right there on screen in a film based on a book aimed at roughly 7 year olds, its hardly subtle- I think that is more than in the entire LotR's trilogy which is supposed to be the adult one- and we havent got to the big battle in TH yet!


Rostron2
Gondor


Feb 8 2013, 4:37pm

Post #136 of 148 (247 views)
Shortcut
Amen, Bomby. [In reply to] Can't Post

I could do twenty threads just like theirs on all their favorite films, and pick them apart for cliches and plot holes, but I don't. It's not constructive.

Let's start with Del Toro's films over on the Off-topic forum, and pick them apart, and see what they do. Or Nolan's...


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 4:56pm

Post #137 of 148 (235 views)
Shortcut
* Buwahahahaha! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


SirDennisC
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 7:06pm

Post #138 of 148 (242 views)
Shortcut
O.o you wouldn't dare! [In reply to] Can't Post

Laugh

I don't think you'd ruffle too many feathers dissing Nolan anyway. Wink

Besides, it's not as if anyone has insulted you personally here... the same cannot be said of the OP.

(For the record, Radagast's make-up has hit the fandom on the GDT front more than a few times already.)


Escapist
Gondor


Feb 8 2013, 7:41pm

Post #139 of 148 (217 views)
Shortcut
Awesome! [In reply to] Can't Post

I hope you are able to work out your issues with your pants Angelic


Rostron2
Gondor


Feb 8 2013, 9:01pm

Post #140 of 148 (219 views)
Shortcut
Yeah Nolan [In reply to] Can't Post

*shuts mouth* :)


Bombadil
Half-elven


Feb 8 2013, 9:06pm

Post #141 of 148 (213 views)
Shortcut
Bomby.. years ago was the Go-to guy about LoTR.. [In reply to] Can't Post

At work
... Many people walked up to me
and Congratulated me
when
Return of the King
swept the Oscars?

( like bomby... was the guy that WON?)

BUTT...."Mister all -Knowing"
( smartest guy in any room?)

walked up and said "We got up and left
when they left out the old forest and
jumped..Bree?
I refused to see
' either of the next two.."

Well
talk about being
".. Prepared to be disappointed?


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 10 2013, 2:02am

Post #142 of 148 (190 views)
Shortcut
I disagree, in part. You are right that most of the information is elsewhere told, However, many of the finer details are left out. [In reply to] Can't Post

It is one thing to know that Thorin was the grandson of a mountain King, and they were wealthy, and a great dragon drove them out. It is another to see it, and I think, in the maain, the extended Erebor flashback did that better than a series of them at various points in the film might have done. Also there were many nuances and little details, as I mentioned. I do not think we have seen the last of one of the rings (or Rings) on Thror's finger. There is also the matter of The Arkenstone, Dale of olde, and Thranduil's unwillingness to lend aid (at least as perceived by Thorin, as being realistic, there was little the Elves could have done).

I only think it would have been a waste of time if it had no other value save in doing things which other parts of the movie already do. I think it provided more than information. It gave a proper atmosphere and context for the dwares having had a great kingdom, and having been driven from it by a mighty dragon.

As to the notion that Peter sometimes lacks subtlety, and that the violence was more extreme in some places than that in Fellowship. . . well. . . agreed. lol

In Reply To
My main problem with the prologue is that its wastful in tems of time.

There is nothing in it in terms of information that cannot to be gained form everything that follows as the story is told. Yes it looks very nice and very dramatic but it slows up the entire start of the film needlessly.
Many critics complained the opening was far too long- and they are right it is I think, but not if you take the prologue back out- it works just fine without it, better I would say. And the exciting flashback could easily have relpaced all the shouty bits in the Unexpected Party scenes.
Everything from the transition to Bilbo leaving is good adaptation of the book - I could have done without a few of the excesses but overall its definetly recognisably an adaptation of the book- which is more than can be said for what follows in the film.

And its a shame PJ doesnt seem to know how to script a scene with multiple characters discussing something without it breaking down into everyone just shouting 'rhubarb' at each other until someone important stands up and tells them whats going to happen -Gandalf in this case- Elrond in Council scene in FotR.

As an ageing and life long fan of Doctor Who I am all for scaring the living daylights out of children - but there are ways to do it that do not involve having to show onscreen violence the way PJ does, but you have to be a bit clever and subtle about it- neither traits PJ seems to exhibit in any quantity in his Tolkien based work- there are 6 beheadings, 10 impalments and 5 dismemberments in the Goblin Town escape alone, right there on screen in a film based on a book aimed at roughly 7 year olds, its hardly subtle- I think that is more than in the entire LotR's trilogy which is supposed to be the adult one- and we havent got to the big battle in TH yet!


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Feb 10 2013, 2:23am

Post #143 of 148 (191 views)
Shortcut
the prologue had to be in there because [In reply to] Can't Post

it set-up later events and locations, characters ect... like the one in the beginning of FOTR.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!


billzy2
The Shire


Feb 10 2013, 5:08am

Post #144 of 148 (199 views)
Shortcut
Movies and critics [In reply to] Can't Post

 I'd like to stop being a critic and make a movie. Have you got a spare $400,000,000 on ya.



aarondirebear
Bree

Feb 12 2013, 7:59pm

Post #145 of 148 (152 views)
Shortcut
agreed. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this disgusting "film" is even remotely decent. Can you even call this garbage a film? Absolutely not! It's a disgrace to Tolkien's classic. A shameless cash grab trilogy, solely for the purpose of merchandising through cheap Lego toys and Denny's meals.
And speaking of which, WHY is it a trilogy? There is simply nowhere near enough material to justify THREE THREE HOUR LONG "films" even with the added stuff from the appendices, which only causes an unbalanced tone and useless exposition.
Just awful. -5/10, and that's being kind. One of the worst "films" ever made, save for The Last Airbender.


indeed. With the amount of filler they invented, they had no right to cut and/or abridge the amount of canonical scenes that they did.
\
Be wary, you are going to get a lot of flack on here for daring to disagree with the movie. So it might benefit you to act less angry because, apparently, that is a thing,

PS: You forgot Dragonball Evolution.

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien


aarondirebear
Bree

Feb 12 2013, 8:03pm

Post #146 of 148 (151 views)
Shortcut
weong [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
were magnificent (minus the overuse of Frodo). Short of seeing the Dragon in his fullness, one could hardly have asked for a more well delivered Erebor scene. The Unexpected party was VERY true to the book, and was chillingly wondrous in its use of the Lonely Mountain song.


Um, how about getting the sequence of events a hundred percent wrong? Did you and I watch the same movie? They totally BOTCHED Erebor. They had Thorin and other dwarves at the main gate through which, in the book, NOT A SINGLE DWARF ESCAPED. They were all eaten or turned to ash. The only survivors of Erebor were those who a) were outside or b) knew about the secret passage (i.e., Thrain and Thror). Furthermore, they added a cheap scene with the elves in order to create a false conflict that did not exist in the book.

So yes. There are MANY ways that scene could have been handled better. While other people were going "ooh, ahh", I was too distracted by how WRONG it was to care about "teh epics".

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien


aarondirebear
Bree

Feb 12 2013, 8:10pm

Post #147 of 148 (140 views)
Shortcut
Quite [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But I have to admit, It's actually nice for me to see someone bashing this movie. It really seems like a lot of people on this board are willing to turn a blind eye to all the films faults simply because it is The Hobbit. While I enjoy the film a lot, I feel it has huge cinematic shortcomings that most "non fans" can pick up on right away. Usually, people around here are lambasted for expressing their distaste with the film. I'll give the OP props for turning the tables.

His points are valid as far as I'm concerned. The way he expressed those points is another story. Gotta give it to him. He made a successful thread.


Amen to that, though I couldn't personally care less about the "way" points are expressed since I believe in brutal honesty.

I am a fearless Tolkien Purist and darn proud of it.

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien


aarondirebear
Bree

Feb 12 2013, 8:21pm

Post #148 of 148 (237 views)
Shortcut
So [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I really wish people wouldn't take this so seriously. The admins should delete this thread and ban this user immediately, IMO. Others have reported this same user trolling other forums.


So you accuse him of being a troll for using caps, then you capitalize IMO? It's called EMPHASIS. Did it ever occur to you that he doesn't know how to use bold tags? No, you just jumped straight to the accusations of trolling.

I think you just want to censor any and all dissent against Jackson.

[insult edited out of this post]

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien

(This post was edited by Altaira on Feb 12 2013, 8:52pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 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.