The Hobbit movie
Discussion
Halb said:
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
Actually I was enjoying it...I thought you'd say something like, 'try the fish'.
Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
I just had a thought... Is it perfectly fine to troll on a Hobbit thread? :scrathchcin:Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
Actually I was enjoying it...I thought you'd say something like, 'try the fish'.
Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
I just had a thought... Is it perfectly fine to troll on a Hobbit thread? :scrathchcin:Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
- lights match off ChiCos arse. burns hand.
Y282 said:
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
Actually I was enjoying it...I thought you'd say something like, 'try the fish'.
Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
I just had a thought... Is it perfectly fine to troll on a Hobbit thread? :scrathchcin:Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
- lights match off ChiCos arse. burns hand.
Halb said:
Y282 said:
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
ChiChoAndy said:
Halb said:
Actually I was enjoying it...I thought you'd say something like, 'try the fish'.
Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
I just had a thought... Is it perfectly fine to troll on a Hobbit thread? :scrathchcin:Geeks have sense of humour as well you racist!
- lights match off ChiCos arse. burns hand.
matchmaker said:
Anyway, trying to get back on topic..................
Loking forward to the film. I read the book when I was 5 (LOTR when I was 8) and still have my original copy 48 years on. I still regularly read both The Hobbit and LOTR.
I find Tolkein very Hobbit forming.
Sorry, couldn't resist it
oh god, he's started punning on the tolkein thread. perhaps we should add an elf warning?Loking forward to the film. I read the book when I was 5 (LOTR when I was 8) and still have my original copy 48 years on. I still regularly read both The Hobbit and LOTR.
I find Tolkein very Hobbit forming.
Sorry, couldn't resist it
- i'm not awake yet, i'll try a better one later.
Halb said:
But PJ is the maestro here, not Tolkien!
Agreed. I read innumerable 'dungeons and dragons' type books growing up, and the lord of the rings was definitely not amongst my favourites.The hobbit, however, I thoroughly enjoyed!
LOTR is as popular now as it is, as very little alternative (similar) reading material was available at the time it was written.
PJ achieved more with his movie than tolkein did with his storyline in book format, IMHO
Mobsta said:
greed. I read innumerable 'dungeons and dragons' type books growing up, and the lord of the rings was definitely not amongst my favourites.
The hobbit, however, I thoroughly enjoyed!
LOTR is as popular now as it is, as very little alternative (similar) reading material was available at the time it was written.
PJ achieved more with his movie than tolkein did with his storyline in book format, IMHO
oh gosh- so much i want to say, The hobbit, however, I thoroughly enjoyed!
LOTR is as popular now as it is, as very little alternative (similar) reading material was available at the time it was written.
PJ achieved more with his movie than tolkein did with his storyline in book format, IMHO
LOTR is stunning in its own right, quite outside of being a "dungeons and dragons" book.
Mobsta said:
LOTR is as popular now as it is, as very little alternative (similar) reading material was available at the time it was written.
PJ achieved more with his movie than tolkein did with his storyline in book format, IMHO
I don't believe the LOTR was popular back in the fifties due to lack of genre, nor was that an issue when in the 60s the genre took off, and the genre is huge now and it's still massively popular. The reason is it's just that good, routinely voted as one of the best. It's not for everyone though.PJ achieved more with his movie than tolkein did with his storyline in book format, IMHO
Sadly PJ buggered it senseless with moronic add-ons, and polished a gem into a MTV generation turd. But I reckon the since the Hobbit is more a child's book, I think his damage won't be as thorough this time.
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/
You have to remember that the LOTR is a massive book, with approx 800,000 characters, all with odd names, and from unpronounceable places that you will have to flick back a few pages to find out. Despite it having an awesome story, (much better than, say, Home Alone, or that film with Sandra Bullock on the bus), it is hard enough to cram I to the 10 hours of extended film, never mind the shorter theatrical release, (designed to sell popcorn, and the likes, bit to get them out as fast as they come in), so some things will be missed out, or changed under the guiseof artistic license. I still think the LOTR film was probably as good a representation of the book as you'll get. At the very least Tom Bombaf
kingdil wasn't in it, which was a blessing, and Samwise still came across as the hero, rather that the whiney little git Frodo.
kingdil wasn't in it, which was a blessing, and Samwise still came across as the hero, rather that the whiney little git Frodo.ChiChoAndy said:
You have to remember that the LOTR is a massive book, with approx 800,000 characters, all with odd names, and from unpronounceable places that you will have to flick back a few pages to find out. Despite it having an awesome story, (much better than, say, Home Alone, or that film with Sandra Bullock on the bus), it is hard enough to cram I to the 10 hours of extended film, never mind the shorter theatrical release, (designed to sell popcorn, and the likes, bit to get them out as fast as they come in), so some things will be missed out, or changed under the guiseof artistic license. I still think the LOTR film was probably as good a representation of the book as you'll get. At the very least Tom Bombafkingdil wasn't in it, which was a blessing, and Samwise still came across as the hero, rather that the whiney little git Frodo.
still maintain sean astin was the weak link in the casting though. terrible.kingdil wasn't in it, which was a blessing, and Samwise still came across as the hero, rather that the whiney little git Frodo.I thought he was one of the better ones. The worst by far was Sean 'yes, the full Monty was funny, and Game of Thrones is good, but don't mention Ronin' Bean. Liv Tyler annoyed the nipples off me, and the one with the wonky mouth who went to Lost was worthy of a poke in the eye, but apart from that, I thought the rest were well suited. I was surprised when Aasti'n, (I tried to make it more LOTR'ish), was cast, but he's a decent actor I though, and did Samwise very well. Frodo, on the other hand, whiney little st... He should have been someone else. He was pantaloons.
t... He should have been someone else. He was pantaloons.ChiChoAndy said:
I thought he was one of the better ones. The worst by far was Sean 'yes, the full Monty was funny, and Game of Thrones is good, but don't mention Ronin' Bean. Liv Tyler annoyed the nipples off me, and the one with the wonky mouth who went to Lost was worthy of a poke in the eye, but apart from that, I thought the rest were well suited. I was surprised when Aasti'n, (I tried to make it more LOTR'ish), was cast, but he's a decent actor I though, and did Samwise very well. Frodo, on the other hand, whiney little st... He should have been someone else. He was pantaloons.
you leave liv tyler alone. she's perfect, you hear me? PERFECT.t... He should have been someone else. He was pantaloons.Some angles she is angelic.. Others, and she looks a bit odd, plus her mouth is like something from the muppet show. Personally, I think Marissa Tomei should be cast in every film that requires a brunette. I'd be fap happy then, (heads off to watch the wrestler, or more precisely, parts of the wrestler. My .mp4 file of it is like a pervy book. I open it, and it flops to just the right part!)
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff