Printable View
So I finished watching the trilogy tonight, and I thought it drug on a bit. It could have been summed up in two movies.
And I thought the blond chic (the king that died in the last battles daughter) would have been a better fit for Viggo than LIv Tyler.
And why the hell did frodo drag up and go on a boat ride at the end? and why didn't they take Bilbo Baggins on the eternal boat ride before he was an old crusty fucker?
Any thoughts?
It is not that clear in the book but if I got it well, the boats loaded with elven all go within a couple of months, by this time, Bilbo is already old. In the book though, they do not depict him as somebody senile or anything and in the movie he looks a bit coo-coo at the end. As for Frodo, they do bring him as a gift for the very dangerous mission he got stuck with (the ring) and because after the wound he received, he would be stuck forever with a part of "mordor" in him, which doesn't belong to the mortal world at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
My question toward the lord of the ring has always been this: WHY ohhh why dince the beginning they didn,t think about loading the eagle king with Frodo, Sam, the ring and a huge keg of booze, make him ride the sky escorted by the other eagles speedlight and drop the stupid ring from the airs in the volcano? Sounds easier than cross the whole world, including the MOria, by feet and that to have to fight armies of evil men, orcs, storms, devils etc, no? Plus it is much faster;)
Still, Tolkien did the hell of a job with this literature masterpiece, I just always wondered about that very question.
Yeah I fucking loved these reads as a kid but looking back they are a bit silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessIt is not that clear in the book but if I got it well, the boats loaded with elven all go within a couple of months, by this time, Bilbo is already old. In the book though, they do not depict him as somebody senile or anything and in the movie he looks a bit coo-coo at the end. As for Frodo, they do bring him as a gift for the very dangerous mission he got stuck with (the ring) and because after the wound he received, he would be stuck forever with a part of "mordor" in him, which doesn't belong to the mortal world at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
My question toward the lord of the ring has always been this: WHY ohhh why dince the beginning they didn,t think about loading the eagle king with Frodo, Sam, the ring and a huge keg of booze, make him ride the sky escorted by the other eagles speedlight and drop the stupid ring from the airs in the volcano? Sounds easier than cross the whole world, including the MOria, by feet and that to have to fight armies of evil men, orcs, storms, devils etc, no? Plus it is much faster;)
Still, Tolkien did the hell of a job with this literature masterpiece, I just always wondered about that very question.
I'm having the same problem with V right now. Great show, probably the best on telly right now, but all this 5th column rebellion and sneaking around is just stupid. Joshua is Anna's most trusted advisor and is always alone with her and her deputy guy. Why doesn't he just blow them both up? Problem solved.
Hahaha, friggin EPIC!!! I didn't know such video existed, that made my day :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark TKO
Bilbo: LOTR is the first "big" novel that I've ever read. To this day I think that the mythology, the history are absolutely awesome, the guy even created a language that you can learn if you're a total nutter (the elven), the only thing that really doesn't stick is the ending and why they had to go by feet if they had the Giant Eagles but for the rest, mythology wise and for the moral and how the personality of each character unfold is remarkable.
Perhaps the eagles were migratory and out of the region during the first part of the journey.
That would be as stupid an explanation as the all powerful Tom Bombadil who could control nature and was immortal not being able to take care of the ring because he was too forgetful....Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
The best thing Peter Jackson did was to remove that entire Old Forest/Old Man Willow debacle from the film, oh and the poetry and singing of course.
The LOTR is a lot like the Bible imo, epic is scale, fantastic characters and history but full of some fucking weird shit.
I couldn't read it now, it would just ruin my childhood memories when I could overlook such gaity.
I'm guessing Jackson will ditch the sing songs from the Hobbit movie too. If the dwarves start singing 'chip the glasses, crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!', the film will bomb.
They had best change the name of most of the dwarves as well, or at least remain silent on the topic. Fili, Kili, Dori, Nori, Oin and Gloin, Bifur and Bofur, Bomber (HattontheHammer) etc will make for a shit film.
I'm rather dreading it to be honest, it could be great, but it also turn out to be a Phantomn Menace type disaster.
I don't think it could bomb quite that badly, Phantom Menace took all of the Star Wars Mythology and pissed all over it from the ground up.
it was fucked before it producers/screenplay/directors and actors had a chance to fuck with it... undeveloped characters, making Darth Vader into a little goody two shoes who should stick to watching cartoon netowrk, making the force 'medichlorines' parasite little things in your cells instead of a mythical ancient power... you could go on and on and on... all of this was written into it... from scratch.
As soon as the story was written it was fucked. But Tolkien has already taken care of that.
Jackson is never going to get that luxury, the source material is done and dusted, set in stone, he cna omit and play up certain things but he can't bastardise it completely like phantom menace did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboThat would be as stupid an explanation as the all powerful Tom Bombadil who could control nature and was immortal not being able to take care of the ring because he was too forgetful....Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
The best thing Peter Jackson did was to remove that entire Old Forest/Old Man Willow debacle from the film, oh and the poetry and singing of course.
The LOTR is a lot like the Bible imo, epic is scale, fantastic characters and history but full of some fucking weird shit.
I couldn't read it now, it would just ruin my childhood memories when I could overlook such gaity.
I'm guessing Jackson will ditch the sing songs from the Hobbit movie too. If the dwarves start singing 'chip the glasses, crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!', the film will bomb.
They had best change the name of most of the dwarves as well, or at least remain silent on the topic. Fili, Kili, Dori, Nori, Oin and Gloin, Bifur and Bofur, Bomber (HattontheHammer) etc will make for a shit film.
I'm rather dreading it to be honest, it could be great, but it also turn out to be a Phantomn Menace type disaster.
I hate so much the last Star wars that I still haven't seen the last one.. and apparently it is the best of the 3... I can't stand Jar Jar Bing and the stupid jokes they make during the whole thing (especially when they are in the sea with the pathetic joke about the fishes). As for LOTR, Tom Bombadil has another problem: He's more or less bound to the forest where he lives. He's mighty powerful because he knows a lot of the songs that were used during the creation and can easily control a lot about the nature but he's bound to the place where he comes from. He's also quite mad on the side after all these thousand of years of living alone with his babe and because he's older than the ring itself, which means that possibly, he has no clue of all the where about that happened, he's just there disconnected from reality.
Do you not agree with me though that the The Fellowship of the Ring would be a better book without Bombadil in it at all? Some stupid dancing leprachaun in bright yellow boots singing 'Hey Nonny Nonny' no wonder Jackson kept him the fuck out of the films. Awful, awful character.Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboThat would be as stupid an explanation as the all powerful Tom Bombadil who could control nature and was immortal not being able to take care of the ring because he was too forgetful....Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
The best thing Peter Jackson did was to remove that entire Old Forest/Old Man Willow debacle from the film, oh and the poetry and singing of course.
The LOTR is a lot like the Bible imo, epic is scale, fantastic characters and history but full of some fucking weird shit.
I couldn't read it now, it would just ruin my childhood memories when I could overlook such gaity.
I'm guessing Jackson will ditch the sing songs from the Hobbit movie too. If the dwarves start singing 'chip the glasses, crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!', the film will bomb.
They had best change the name of most of the dwarves as well, or at least remain silent on the topic. Fili, Kili, Dori, Nori, Oin and Gloin, Bifur and Bofur, Bomber (HattontheHammer) etc will make for a shit film.
I'm rather dreading it to be honest, it could be great, but it also turn out to be a Phantomn Menace type disaster.
I hate so much the last Star wars that I still haven't seen the last one.. and apparently it is the best of the 3... I can't stand Jar Jar Bing and the stupid jokes they make during the whole thing (especially when they are in the sea with the pathetic joke about the fishes). As for LOTR, Tom Bombadil has another problem: He's more or less bound to the forest where he lives. He's mighty powerful because he knows a lot of the songs that were used during the creation and can easily control a lot about the nature but he's bound to the place where he comes from. He's also quite mad on the side after all these thousand of years of living alone with his babe and because he's older than the ring itself, which means that possibly, he has no clue of all the where about that happened, he's just there disconnected from reality.
Trouble with the Hobbit is that it's full of these kind of character disasters.
The talking trolls at the start who argue over how to cook Bilbo. The dogs and cats that walk on two legs and lay out the cutlery and do the dishes in Beorn's home.
The 14 dwarves with the ridiculous names and their singsongs.
I'm just worried there is too much awful material that could bomb on film.
The spiders in Mirkwood could be fun, and I imagine the Battle of Five Armies will be specactular though.
The trouble is though the goblins, wargs and wood elves in the Hobbit are more like the Lion, Chronicles of Narnia type child fare than they are the fearsome Urak Hai and tall, handsome noble Elven race of the LOTR books which were aimed at an older audience.
I'm just a bit dubious about Jackson's ability to carry it off, especially after the Lovely Bones, which was a disaster.
I do agree on the Bombadil Idea. He's kind of a mad hatter with a colorblind tastes to dress. Not exactly interesting neither convincing as a super being older than any (or almost) creatures of its universe. I just like the idea that a greater power is here but can't do nothing due to his inability to adapt and being part of all another reality though, but this character could be warped off the LOTR and it would be just better. I wonder what would happen to him with the human's ages coming though because he definitely doesn't fit in the portrait.Quote:
Originally Posted by BilboDo you not agree with me though that the The Fellowship of the Ring would be a better book without Bombadil in it at all? Some stupid dancing leprachaun in bright yellow boots singing 'Hey Nonny Nonny' no wonder Jackson kept him the fuck out of the films. Awful, awful character.Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessQuote:
Originally Posted by BilboThat would be as stupid an explanation as the all powerful Tom Bombadil who could control nature and was immortal not being able to take care of the ring because he was too forgetful....Quote:
Originally Posted by boozeboxer
The best thing Peter Jackson did was to remove that entire Old Forest/Old Man Willow debacle from the film, oh and the poetry and singing of course.
The LOTR is a lot like the Bible imo, epic is scale, fantastic characters and history but full of some fucking weird shit.
I couldn't read it now, it would just ruin my childhood memories when I could overlook such gaity.
I'm guessing Jackson will ditch the sing songs from the Hobbit movie too. If the dwarves start singing 'chip the glasses, crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!', the film will bomb.
They had best change the name of most of the dwarves as well, or at least remain silent on the topic. Fili, Kili, Dori, Nori, Oin and Gloin, Bifur and Bofur, Bomber (HattontheHammer) etc will make for a shit film.
I'm rather dreading it to be honest, it could be great, but it also turn out to be a Phantomn Menace type disaster.
I hate so much the last Star wars that I still haven't seen the last one.. and apparently it is the best of the 3... I can't stand Jar Jar Bing and the stupid jokes they make during the whole thing (especially when they are in the sea with the pathetic joke about the fishes). As for LOTR, Tom Bombadil has another problem: He's more or less bound to the forest where he lives. He's mighty powerful because he knows a lot of the songs that were used during the creation and can easily control a lot about the nature but he's bound to the place where he comes from. He's also quite mad on the side after all these thousand of years of living alone with his babe and because he's older than the ring itself, which means that possibly, he has no clue of all the where about that happened, he's just there disconnected from reality.
Trouble with the Hobbit is that it's full of these kind of character disasters.
The talking trolls at the start who argue over how to cook Bilbo. The dogs and cats that walk on two legs and lay out the cutlery and do the dishes in Beorn's home.
The 14 dwarves with the ridiculous names and their singsongs.
I'm just worried there is too much awful material that could bomb on film.
The spiders in Mirkwood could be fun, and I imagine the Battle of Five Armies will be specactular though.
The trouble is though the goblins, wargs and wood elves in the Hobbit are more like the Lion, Chronicles of Narnia type child fare than they are the fearsome Urak Hai and tall, handsome noble Elven race of the LOTR books which were aimed at an older audience.
I'm just a bit dubious about Jackson's ability to carry it off, especially after the Lovely Bones, which was a disaster.
Beside the name of the dwarves which I wouldn't mind too much (to be authentic to the book), there is a couple of potential aspects that could drive the hobbit into something disastrous but I am more than certain that Jackson will be able to overcome that and to make it a dark prelude to what's coming.
The films are good, but I think a little overrated. They are better than a lot of films, but given the choice between the Godfather 1 and 2 or TLOTR's 1 and 2, the Godfather wins every time. Some of the battle scenes bore me because I am not a fan of heavy CGI usage and it all gets a little earnest for me and some of the characters around those battles don't hold my interest. I think a lot of the scenes with Gollum are very good. Frodo gets annoying after the first film, which is understandable, but Sam is the real trooper who gets the hard work done. I wasn't too keen on that treebeard chap either nor a lot of the hair do's in the film. They all looked a bit daft. There should have been more Gandalf with scenes showing him walking around the countryside looking pensive.