Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Xantalos]

Hey guys what's happeni-
...
Nope

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Next thing you'll be telling me I didn't like Dwarf Fortress because the interface was obtuse and the graphics uninspiring. Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that the movie was good and you should enjoy it. That'd be awfully hypocritical, especially as I've not actually seen the film yet. I'm saying that Zrk2, and apparently you, need to get over your own egos and accept that your opinions are not universal metrics of truth.

You actually are being extremely hypocritical, Mr. Fault-By-Association Fallacy. The only thing I said was that the movie was drivel, which it is.

[Bauglir]

Aw, hell, you got the post quoted in time. Sorry about that. I posted without thinking matters through.

EDIT: Seriously, wow. You got that in under a minute, apparently, if I understand the cutoff for not displaying an edit timestamp.

[SalmonGod]

The movie does not detract from the book in any way.

I disagree with this.  Like I said before, it seems to me like when books get film adaptations, the film tends to supercede the book's cultural legacy. 

The typical counter-argument would be that the film raises interest in the source material.  I've heard this since the first controversies arose with Fellowship in 2001, and I've paid close attention to how it's held up since then.  My experience is exactly the opposite.  Those who haven't read the book don't feel like they need to, because seeing the movie was good enough for them.  For those who have read the book, movie depictions seem to have a stronger presence in memory than books.  I have trouble thinking about LotR without seeing it through Peter Jackson's visuals, and that alone bothers me.

Yeah, I can still read the books and appreciate them for what they are on my own terms, but the movies have made it so that's all I can do anymore.  They have damaged my ability to share that appreciation with anyone else, because to attempt to do so in pretty much any fashion inevitably ends in controversy due to the films.

[Bauglir]

Well, actually, I'll say that the movies were responsible for getting me into the books. Very different experiences, the books vs the movies, but I enjoyed both for what they were. Still, anecdotal evidence either way.

[Mephansteras]

Eh, I still had fun with the movie. Sure, I object to a lot of stuff they did, but it was still fun to watch.

I do hope the third is better, though.

[XXSockXX]

The movie does not detract from the book in any way.

I disagree with this.  Like I said before, it seems to me like when books get film adaptations, the film tends to supercede the book's cultural legacy. 

I'm a bit undecided on this. I first read LOTR almost 10 years before Fellowship came out, it was also pretty much the first fantasy book I read, so I don't feel the movie supercedes the books for me. Visually a bit maybe, but then I liked the visuals a lot and they were heavily based on existing illustrations and such, with some of the best Tolkien illustrators involved in the production. The stuff I didn't like as much, like for example elves having single-edged blades, doesn't pop up in my head when I re-read the books.
Also Tolkien is such a classic - fantasy as we know it wouldn't exist without him - that his cultural legacy is way too important to be forgotten.
On the other hand there are a huge amount of people who discovered the books through the films and an even bigger amount who has just seen the films (and probably would never have read the books in the first place.) Before the films came out, a lot of people I know had not read the books or only heard of them. So yeah, it might very well be that the films supercede the books in public memory. Public memory is also very short-time, there are many many books that used to be very popular and are now just "cult classics", known only to people who are deeply into that genre.
For example, recently someone mentioned Elric of Melniboné in another thread. That series was hugely popular a few decades ago, with RPGs and everything, but I think it has become a bit forgotten, with the promised movie never appearing. It's not as important a classic as LOTR, but still was influential at it's time. There is also stuff like Conan, which would probably be forgotten without the 80s movies.

[Supercharazad]

I enjoyed the book. I also enjoyed the movies.

Yeah, the movies could have been better, but they were still good and I fully intend on seeing the third when it comes out.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Just read through this whole thread (can't believe I've missed it thus far) and it's nice to see that there's a lot of people with the same opinion (most other places people just seem to praise it, then again I haven't really checked actively for any tolkien nuts).

I went in to see it with as little expectation as possible. I knew beforehand it'd probably be a travesty against the things I love the most but was determined to try and enjoy it for the cheap fantasy action it was intended to be. The first part while worse than the LotR ones imo (which I really did enjoy despite their many flaws) still had a few redeeming qualities that made it overall an ok experience. I just couldn't do it though. I found myself unable to bear watching over and over throughout the film, for real covering my ears and closing my eyes for the worst parts, the love scenes in particular. I literally felt sick as I left the cinema.

I can't say I fully grasp why I reacted this way and I wish I wasn't as stubborn since I really would have liked to enjoy it for what it was. The visuals really are amazing for the most part. Anyone at all that can relate to this? I'm feeling kind of silly tbh, especially with how bitter I get whenever the subject comes up with friends/relatives/etc but I just can't help it :<

[XXSockXX]

I don't know. Most of the criticism is very valid, but I seem to be completely unable to feel a good honest nerd rage about it. I may have been more upset about some of the changes in Fellowship than I am now about the Hobbit movies, no matter how stretched it seems to make 3 of them. I seem to be getting old, I just don't care that much anymore.

[WillowLuman]

My two strong opinions about the film are summed up thusly:
-They cut some of Bilbo's best moments in favor of OC cheese, dwarf cheese, and cheese in general.
-Smaug was amazing.

[Manveru Taurënér]

...
-Smaug was amazing.

He certainly was, at least visually and in presentation. Not really fond of how silly he seems in the prolonged chase but still get that they wanted to give him some more time in the spotlight. What I really don't get though is why they'd spoil the fact that he has a weak spot on his belly before the dwarves even get close to the mountain? For anyone not familiar to the story it makes it painfully clear waaay too early how he'll be defeated. That and changing his awesome armor-bling, although I guess they might've had issues making it look good, what do I know

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

What I really don't get though is why they'd spoil the fact that he has a weak spot on his belly before the dwarves even get close to the mountain? For anyone not familiar to the story it makes it painfully clear waaay too early how he'll be defeated. That and changing his awesome armor-bling, although I guess they might've had issues making it look good, what do I know

One minor thing about that weak spot that gets to me: wouldn't Smaug at least try to put something there?  With that much stuff on his trove, you would think he would have found something in all the years he was there.

[Antioch]

What I really don't get though is why they'd spoil the fact that he has a weak spot on his belly before the dwarves even get close to the mountain? For anyone not familiar to the story it makes it painfully clear waaay too early how he'll be defeated. That and changing his awesome armor-bling, although I guess they might've had issues making it look good, what do I know

One minor thing about that weak spot that gets to me: wouldn't Smaug at least try to put something there?  With that much stuff on his trove, you would think he would have found something in all the years he was there.

I do agree the gold and diamond belly of smaug in the book was way more awesome than the "some random dude shot of a scale" explanation.

[Xantalos]

What I really don't get though is why they'd spoil the fact that he has a weak spot on his belly before the dwarves even get close to the mountain? For anyone not familiar to the story it makes it painfully clear waaay too early how he'll be defeated. That and changing his awesome armor-bling, although I guess they might've had issues making it look good, what do I know

One minor thing about that weak spot that gets to me: wouldn't Smaug at least try to put something there?  With that much stuff on his trove, you would think he would have found something in all the years he was there.

It's implied he didn't notice.