The ComingSoon.net Forums  

Go Back   The ComingSoon.net Forums > THE STUDIO > Current Movies, DVDs & Blu-rays

View Poll Results: How would you rate this film?
1 0 0%
2 0 0%
3 0 0%
4 0 0%
5 1 4.17%
6 2 8.33%
7 2 8.33%
8 11 45.83%
9 6 25.00%
10 2 8.33%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-20-2012, 09:01 PM   #151
PsYkOoOoO
Exceptionally Normal
 
PsYkOoOoO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Singapore.
Posts: 22,627
Send a message via AIM to PsYkOoOoO Send a message via MSN to PsYkOoOoO
Default

People either really hate this or really love this, it seems. How divisive. As long as there is always an option to watch 24 FPS, I don't care what format they film it in.
__________________
W.
PsYkOoOoO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:43 AM   #152
Deexan
Yes, have some.
 
Deexan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: High-voltage laser containment system
Posts: 11,541
Default

I for one really enjoyed the film. I consider myself a Tolkien purist but The Hobbit is the one major work of his that I don't mind them taking certain liberties with. Tolkien himself, long after LOTR was released, considered going back and making massive changes to it but was dissuaded by a friend because it would no longer be 'The Hobbit'. I'd like to think that a lot of what PJ and his team have added to the tale would in some way have garnered his approval (rabbit sled none-withstanding.)

The opening hour and 'riddles in the dark' were pitch perfect and a true joy to watch. The Pale Orc didn't make much of an impression and the less said about the Goblin King the better, so if I had to pick out a major weakness it would be the villains; however, knowing that the 2 proper villains are yet to be seen in their fullness that didn't bother me all that much. The fleeting glimpses of the Necromancer and Smaug were well done and their much greater threat gives me full confidence in the next two parts.

As for the 48fps, I saw it at a 48fps IMAX screening and didn't have any problems with it whatsoever. I still prefer IMAX footage, though, and I am seriously flummoxed by Jackson's apparent refusal to film in that format...Middle-Earth is surely the ideal canvas for the giant screen experience? He has missed a major trick in my opinion. I think I read that he disapproved of IMAX images no longer being in the standard widescreen ratio but I may be confusing him with somebody else. Either way, Nolan's movies have shown that all it does is add to a movie rather than detract from it.

A solid 8/10 from me.

Bring on The Desolation of Smaug.
__________________
I'm not alone. I'll never be.
And to the bone, I'm evergreen.
And if you want to see me cry,
play Let It Be or Nevermind.

Last edited by Deexan; 12-21-2012 at 11:45 AM.
Deexan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 12:44 PM   #153
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deexan View Post
I for one really enjoyed the film. I consider myself a Tolkien purist but The Hobbit is the one major work of his that I don't mind them taking certain liberties with. Tolkien himself, long after LOTR was released, considered going back and making massive changes to it but was dissuaded by a friend because it would no longer be 'The Hobbit'. I'd like to think that a lot of what PJ and his team have added to the tale would in some way have garnered his approval (rabbit sled none-withstanding.)

The opening hour and 'riddles in the dark' were pitch perfect and a true joy to watch. The Pale Orc didn't make much of an impression and the less said about the Goblin King the better, so if I had to pick out a major weakness it would be the villains; however, knowing that the 2 proper villains are yet to be seen in their fullness that didn't bother me all that much. The fleeting glimpses of the Necromancer and Smaug were well done and their much greater threat gives me full confidence in the next two parts.

As for the 48fps, I saw it at a 48fps IMAX screening and didn't have any problems with it whatsoever. I still prefer IMAX footage, though, and I am seriously flummoxed by Jackson's apparent refusal to film in that format...Middle-Earth is surely the ideal canvas for the giant screen experience? He has missed a major trick in my opinion. I think I read that he disapproved of IMAX images no longer being in the standard widescreen ratio but I may be confusing him with somebody else. Either way, Nolan's movies have shown that all it does is add to a movie rather than detract from it.

A solid 8/10 from me.

Bring on The Desolation of Smaug.
Don't forget Bolg for he looks plain nasty.
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 02:47 PM   #154
Fanible
FanFreakinTastic
 
Fanible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oh, hi yo
Posts: 16,155
Send a message via AIM to Fanible
Default

48fps was indeed weird to get used to at first. While I don't think it detracted from the movie for me, I also found it completely unnecessary as it didn't add anything. I did not feel more immersed at all. It just seemed like an overly expensive BBC production. The best I can say is that it was interesting seeing a big budget movie in such a way.

Then again I also found the 3D to be underwhelming. I saw this in both IMAX 3D (24fps) and HFR 3D (48fps, non-imax). Oddly enough, I found the opposite of what it was suppose to do to be true. My eyes began to become more strained attempting to watch this in HFR 3D than in regular 3D. It may have something to do with the IMAX's advantage of using two projectors instead of one, I'm not entirely sure. I just kept thinking that experiencing HFR probably WOULD have, in fact, been better in 2D (brighter image, and more peripheral vision).

In the end, like said, the 48fps didn't seem to add anything to the experience for me. You're better off seeing it in regular IMAX 3D, and I agree with Deexen that this movie would have been amazing had Jackson chosen to shoot it with IMAX cameras instead of pursuing the increased frame rate.
__________________
My movie addiction is life controlling

Last edited by Fanible; 12-21-2012 at 02:51 PM.
Fanible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 03:51 PM   #155
IanTheCool
Executive Lego Producer
 
IanTheCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 14,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedVader 2004 View Post
Don't forget Bolg for he looks plain nasty.
Which one was Bolg?
IanTheCool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 04:35 PM   #156
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

We have only seen pics of him. He is the son of Azog. We have not seen him on film unless he was in the Battle Story and we missed him. Bolg if the character in real make up. I think he is played by the actor who Played The Mountain in Game Of Thrones
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 04:40 PM   #157
Deexan
Yes, have some.
 
Deexan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: High-voltage laser containment system
Posts: 11,541
Default

Do we know who is playing Beorn? I'm fascinated by how they will handle him.
__________________
I'm not alone. I'll never be.
And to the bone, I'm evergreen.
And if you want to see me cry,
play Let It Be or Nevermind.
Deexan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 05:18 PM   #158
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

Mikael Persbrandt
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 12:15 AM   #159
Daniel
Flawed Design
 
Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,108
Send a message via AIM to Daniel
Default

Well, colour me pleasantly surprised. I went into this kind of expecting to dislike it for a few reasons: I am kind of over Lord of the Rings. I saw them all in theatres, then the extended editions later on. I played through Battle for Middle Earth 1 and 2 on PC and enjoyed some XBOX carnation of the series, but I let the dust settle on the series once and for all. That being said, I was pretty underwhelmed about the first installment of the Hobbit series, especially when such a small book was being stretched out to three films.

Additionally, the reviews of the 3D High-frame rate made me really miffed that I got "tricked" into seeing it today. Basically, the organiser of our party told us what time the movie was, and when I bought my ticket online I was grumbling to myself.

Well, turns out Debbie Downer ended up being a no-show to the party. I loved the high frame rate in 3D, and as for the movie? Well, I found this one part of the trilogy better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy in its entirety. Not once was I ever bored in the slightest, and I rather liked the story of the dwarves fighting for a home (with Bilbo and Gandalf in tow), and found this plot to be much more compelling than anything I saw in the LOTR series. Additionally, Gollum's performance here was better than anything else we saw in the original trilogy as well. I felt the pale orc was more menacing a villain than any we have seen in the LOTR movies before, and there were so many brilliant scenes that I really can't just pick one that stood out about the rest. Maybe the Goblin caves escape scene. The pacing of this one was impressive, especially being that this was a three-hour romp. Honestly, this movie kind of pointed out just how boring Dark Knight Rises was, since I was thoroughly squirming throughout that film.

I have to say I also find Bilbo to be much more interesting and likable than Frodo and Samwise combined, and seeing how things in this trilogy unfold (knowing how they ultimately end up) was very cool for me.

9/10
__________________
Only fear can make you feel lonely out here

Last edited by Daniel; 12-24-2012 at 05:29 AM.
Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 03:14 AM   #160
Ewok Droppings
Starfleet Captain
 
Ewok Droppings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alpha Quadrant
Posts: 14,837
Default

Gonna have to agree - not sure why all the haters, this movie was really good I thought.
__________________
The flat Earth myth is one of the greatest errors in modern history.
Ewok Droppings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 09:31 AM   #161
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Well, colour me pleasantly surprised. I went into this kind of expecting to dislike it for a few reasons: I am kind of over Lord of the Rings. I saw them all in theatres, then the extended editions later on. I played through Battle for Middle Earth 1 and 2 on PC and enjoyed some XBOX carnation of the series, but I let the dust settle on the series once and for all. That being said, I was pretty underwhelmed about the first installment of the Hobbit series, especially when such a small book was being stretched out to three films.

Additionally, the reviews of the 3D High-frame rate made me really miffed that I got "tricked" into seeing it today. Basically, the organiser of our party told us what time the movie was, and when I bought my ticket online I was grumbling to myself.

Well, turns out Debbie Downer ended up being a no-show to the party. I loved the high frame rate in 3D, and as for the movie? Well, I found this one part of the trilogy better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy in its entirety. Not once was I ever bored in the slightest, and I rather liked the story of the dwarves fighting for a home (with Bilbo and Gandalf in tow), and found this plot to be much more compelling than anything I saw in the LOTR series. Additionally, Gollum's performance here was better than anything else we saw in the original trilogy as well. I felt the pale orc was more menacing a villain than any we have seen in the LOTR movies before, and there were so many brilliant scenes that I really can't just pick one that stood out about the rest. Maybe the Goblin caves escape scene. The pacing of this one was impressive, especially being that this was a three-hour romp. Honestly, this movie kind of pointed out just how boring Dark Knight Rises was, since I was thoroughly squirming throughout that film.

I have to say I also find Bilbo to be much more interesting and likable than Frodo and Samwise combined, and seeing how things in this trilogy unfold (knowing how they ultimately end up) was very cool for me.

9/10
I thought Bilbo made Frodo look wimpy for Bilbo never used a Blade but not once did he really drop Sting really and his scene at the Trees helping Thorin was Boss.
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:01 AM   #162
nine1wing
Executive Producer
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 425
Default

Hey guys never read the books so I was wondering if u could answer some questions. Why isn't the ring evil, why isn't the eye from lotr attached to it, y doesn't it effect bilbo like it did frodo,was that a future nazgul that attacked the brown wizard? Ummmm was that pretty much it for golem in this trilogy? Technically couldn't liv Tyler been in this one cause it was only 60 years earlier? I got more questions but my mind is racing lol. Ok I thought this was a very very good movie but.......not better than any of the lotr. Loved the actor that played bilbo him and the part was excellent, the whole scene with him and golem was great, really digging the new music, did this movie have some negatives sure, but I don't know the book. The rock throwing was pointless, I felt it was needed because of the fact this movie had very little action, also felt that the enormous fall on the bridge was reaaaaaallllly cheesy, the goofy brown wizard, I guess to sum it up this movie was no where close to the feel of seriousness as the lotr. Last thing that bugged me Spoiler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!is what happens at the end, and that's what I loved about stryder/aragorn he wouldn't go out like a *****. But......on that note I'm sucked in and ready for more of this story and world. Solid 8
nine1wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:20 AM   #163
IanTheCool
Executive Lego Producer
 
IanTheCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 14,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nine1wing View Post
Hey guys never read the books so I was wondering if u could answer some questions. Why isn't the ring evil, why isn't the eye from lotr attached to it, y doesn't it effect bilbo like it did frodo,was that a future nazgul that attacked the brown wizard? Ummmm was that pretty much it for golem in this trilogy? Technically couldn't liv Tyler been in this one cause it was only 60 years earlier? I got more questions but my mind is racing lol. Ok I thought this was a very very good movie but.......not better than any of the lotr. Loved the actor that played bilbo him and the part was excellent, the whole scene with him and golem was great, really digging the new music, did this movie have some negatives sure, but I don't know the book. The rock throwing was pointless, I felt it was needed because of the fact this movie had very little action, also felt that the enormous fall on the bridge was reaaaaaallllly cheesy, the goofy brown wizard, I guess to sum it up this movie was no where close to the feel of seriousness as the lotr. Last thing that bugged me Spoiler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!is what happens at the end, and that's what I loved about stryder/aragorn he wouldn't go out like a *****. But......on that note I'm sucked in and ready for more of this story and world. Solid 8
Sauron had not yet come back into full power, so his connection to the ring wasn't very strong. This is why Bilbo was able to use it with much less consequence than Frodo. Yes, that was a Nazgul who attacked the other wizard. I guess they're trying to bring them back into the fold. And that is probably all we'll see of Gollum unless they add extra stuff later on with him in it.
Technically Liv Tyler could have been in it, but don't you think they had enough fan-service cameos at that point?
IanTheCool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:23 AM   #164
Deexan
Yes, have some.
 
Deexan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: High-voltage laser containment system
Posts: 11,541
Default

From what I could gather it was the Witch-King himself that attacked Radagast but I could have been mistaken.

Arwen would probably have been in Lorien during the time of the Hobbit (where she first met a young Aragorn) but I wouldn't have been surprised if PJ decided to crowbar her in to the scenes at Rivendell too.
__________________
I'm not alone. I'll never be.
And to the bone, I'm evergreen.
And if you want to see me cry,
play Let It Be or Nevermind.
Deexan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 05:06 PM   #165
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

I like to think maybe The Ring kinda chooses who its serves and Bilbo maybe became something the confused the ring which was his overall goodness but like any slave The Ring had to obey Sauron when he awoke. I also liked to think Bilbo may have been a Stronger Hobbit then Frodo in his prime. Bilbo kinda always did what Gandalf said while Frodo seemed to exercise poor unlucky judgement.
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 09:09 PM   #166
carnage4u
The Bad Man
 
carnage4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 4,176
Default

Saw it this past weekend. Movie ranged from ok/meh to pretty darn good

Only part I really disliked was the mountain giants. I thought some of the action was a bit too "cartoonish" at times, (especially with the goblins)
__________________
Carnage4u

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -- Terry Pratchett
carnage4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 02:24 AM   #167
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

I would have rather that the Giants looked somewhat like D/D Stone Giants they were just grey.
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 09:13 PM   #168
Dracula
Bloodgod
 
Dracula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 15,831
Default

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey(12/14/2012)
When it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to divide his big screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” into three films instead of the two films that were originally announced there was a wave of backlash across the internet. When I heard this plan it didn’t really change my feelings about the project at all because, frankly, I thought the whole idea of making a film of “The Hobbit” was misguided from the beginning. Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy was an astounding achievement, an instant classic which changed Hollywood filmmaking and delivered on almost every level. Going back and making a prequel based on Tolkein’s generally insubstantial first novel seemed to serve no purpose other than to be an anti-climax incapable of matching up to what’s come before. The whole thing just seemed like a waste of Peter Jackson’s time, audiences’ money, and the original trilogy’s reputation. I strongly considered boycotting the film altogether, but as the film’s release approached my stance softened a little. I began to think that maybe, just maybe, Jackson had something up his sleeve which would make this movie worthwhile after all, and with nothing better to do the day of the film’s release I took the plunge.

One of the reasons I was still curious to see the film was in order to check out the new format that was being used to display it in certain theaters: 48 FPS (frames per second) projection. The format was supposed to improve the 3D experience and also to give a generally sharper picture by upping the frame rate, what they didn’t say was that it would make the characters on the screen actively move faster throughout the film. For the entire film it looked like everything was moving in fast forward and I half expected their voices to sound like The Chipmunks. On top of that, the presentation gave the whole movie a very soft, almost video-like look which made a lot of the visual effect (particularly the green-screen effects) look actively more fake in relation to the actors. Before the film the audience was told by an usher that the presentation we were about to see was intentional and that our eyes were supposed to adjust to it after ten or fifteen minutes. That wasn’t really true for me, the whole thing just made the film look downright bizarre, I absolutely hated it.

The one thing that the 48 FPS presentation did do as advertised was make the 3D look slightly better, at least on a technical level. Most notably, the jitteriness that seemed to exist along the edges of 3D effect in most films was gone. Is this slight improvement to the 3D worth all the side effects of the 48 FPS presentation? Of course not. I wouldn’t wish this presentation on any 3D movie, but to add insult to injury I found the 3D in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey to be particularly lackluster. Jackson does little with his compositions to really take advantage of the 3D presentation other than add gratuitous dimensionality to some very busy shots that seem to have been composed for 2D. It pales in comparison to what Ang Li was able to do with the format in Life of Pi and in general it just seemed like an unneeded imposition on the iconic visual style of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I implore anyone who’s thinking of seeing the film to see it in regular old 24 FPS 2D, and it’s a shame that I’ve had to waste so much space talking about all this nonsense rather than the movie itself which has more than enough problems of its own.

I’m not going to waste time summarizing The Hobbit, which is one of the more famous fantasy novels of all time. I somewhat recall reading it when I was seven or eight, and do have some fond memories of it. Seeing adapted now I remember just how different a story it is. For one, the stakes are a lot lower in The Hobbit. Throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy there was a sense that the whole world depended on the mission at hand and that gave everything a whole lot of weight. You could tell that trilogy was written after the life or death conflict which was World War II, and by contrast The Hobbit feels more akin to a light-hearted African safari conducted by entitled colonials. It’s also got some really juvenile humor in it at times, particularly egregious is an early scene where the party of adventurers stumble upon a group of trolls and trick said troll into being turned to stone upon exposure to sunlight. The scene fails firstly because it’s predicated on a precarious fairytale logic in which sunlight-allergic trolls will try to slow cook a group of dwarves that close to sunrise and secondly because it trades in “humorous” moments like a troll blowing his nose onto a person. Such material might have worked if this had being made to look like a light-hearted adventure distinct from The Lord of the Rings, but it doesn’t. Instead it adopts many of the decisions that were made for the original trilogy and which are largely unsuited to this very different story.

Many will cite the fact that this project was split into three installments as the main reason for its downfall, but I think that’s overly simplistic, the problems here run a lot deeper than that. However, the film’s padded nature is at least part of the problem. For instance, there were many people disappointed that the character of Tom Bombadil wasn’t included in even the extended cut of The Fellowship of the Ring, but Peter Jackson was right to leave him out, that chapter of the book did nothing to advance the plot and was incongruous to the tone of those films; it had no business in the movie. In this film Jackson not only fails to cut out a comparable character named Radagast, but actually expands the character’s role. That and other additions wouldn’t have been so awkward if Jackson had found a truly seamless way to integrate it, but instead he jams it into the narrative through stories told by characters that turn into strange flashbacks. On top of all that he fails to cut out such ephemera as the middle earth folk songs sung at certain intervals by the travelers and a cool looking but completely tangential encounter with a pair of rock giants.

What makes the film’s length particularly jarring is that Jackson never utilizes the extra time he’s given in order to better establish his characters. I can barely differentiate any of the thirteen dwarves that make up the quest party aside from Thorin, and even he is only noteworthy for being the band’s leader. By contrast, we felt a much closer kinship to the fellowship members in The Fellowship of the Ring and did so in significantly less time. Even Gandalf seems much less interesting than he did in the previous films and his powers seem increasingly dues ex machina-like in its ability to get the group out of any situation at the last minute. In retrospect I better understand why he was supposedly killed off in Fellowship, somewhat de-powered in Towers, and at least separated from the ring bearers in Return. Beyond that we get a lot of walk-on appearances by actors from the previous films like Ian Holme, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee, but all of these seem more like pandering cameos than legitimate additions to the story. Bilbo himself fares slightly better than his supporting players, and Martin Freeman gives the characters some degree of charm, but he’s still nowhere near as interesting as Frodo and he would have probably benefited great from the addition of a second hobbit companion along the lines of a Sam Gamgee.

Those who are more interested in seeing an effects driven action vehicle may or may not be more impressed than those looking for an epic adventure, but even in that department this generally feels second rate when compared to the original trilogy. Peter Jackson does occasionally bring a sly touch to the proceedings like a goblin king with a beard of blubber, and the film’s opening prologue/battle scene is at least conceptually sound. Otherwise the battles here seem overlong and a little cartoonish, almost like something you’d expect to see in a Pirates of the Caribbean film rather than a prestige action film from an A-list action director. To be fair, I might have enjoyed these scenes more if they hadn’t been in that ridiculous 48fps format, in fact that terrible presentation may have damped my experience with the entire film. Still, I feel like there’s no technical presentation in the world which can completely ruin a film that’s truly solid to begin with and ultimately it’s Peter Jackson’s own fault that the film was presented that way in the first place.

All in all, I think this film comes down to the same problem that every other franchise seems to run into when it concludes a main trilogy but then can’t help but find a way to keep going long after it had reached a logical conclusion. George Lucas waited fifteen and nineteen years respectively in order to make disappointing fourth installments to his Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises and if Peter Jackson did anything right in this whole ordeal it’s that he only waited nine years to do the same. That people weren’t eagerly anticipating this for decades is pretty much the only the only reason that this won’t be received with the same level of bile. Like Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull before it, this doesn’t necessarily exude horribleness but it comes with a distinct whiff of the “why couldn’t you just leave well enough alone?”
** out of Four
__________________
Check out my review blog
Dracula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 09:44 PM   #169
JBond
Beyond
 
JBond's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Sol
Posts: 70,250
Send a message via AIM to JBond
Default

Yerp.
__________________
The due date for Round 151 of the CS Film Club is Monday, April 7th, 2014.

59 out of 64 Hugo Award winners completed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Cooper View Post
What are you trying to prove exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neverending View Post
I have no idea.
JBond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 01:34 AM   #170
Knerys
1701
 
Knerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Qo'noS
Posts: 32,622
Default

Actually LOTR was written more from his experiences from WWI, though parts were written during WWII. Not that I disagree with your assessment of the film. It's pretty spot on. Nice job.
__________________
"I have been and always shall be your friend."

Last edited by Knerys; 12-27-2012 at 01:38 AM. Reason: Autocorrect can die.
Knerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 03:00 AM   #171
PsYkOoOoO
Exceptionally Normal
 
PsYkOoOoO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Singapore.
Posts: 22,627
Send a message via AIM to PsYkOoOoO Send a message via MSN to PsYkOoOoO
Default

Reads more like a one-star review.
__________________
W.
PsYkOoOoO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 06:34 AM   #172
Dracula
Bloodgod
 
Dracula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 15,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knerys View Post
Actually LOTR was written more from his experiences from WWI, though parts were written during WWII. Not that I disagree with your assessment of the film. It's pretty spot on. Nice job.
Well, I'm sure his WWI combat experience had an effect on his writing, but The Hobbit was written some seventeen years after that war was over whereas LOTR was being written while WW2 was still going on. What's I'm really likening the trilogy to is the size and scope of WW2, it was a conflict between an extreme evil which was actively being spread across Europe and actively threatened The Shir... I mean England, and I feel like that's the reason the War of the Ring seems to have a lot more weight than the adventure in The Hobbit.

Of course we are talking about an author who hated allegory and probably would deny any connection, but the point is that the stories feel different in this way.
__________________
Check out my review blog
Dracula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 09:07 AM   #173
DarthVader 2004
Executive Producer
 
DarthVader 2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 13,914
Default

Oddly enough most books and storys in fantasy do have some real life infuences. War between good and evil I am sure has generated many fantasy books. TLTWTW actually uses war as part of its story.
DarthVader 2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 11:10 AM   #174
Ewok Droppings
Starfleet Captain
 
Ewok Droppings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alpha Quadrant
Posts: 14,837
Default

Exactly, kind of like Game of Thrones is patterned after the Kardashians.
__________________
The flat Earth myth is one of the greatest errors in modern history.
Ewok Droppings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 12:53 PM   #175
Knerys
1701
 
Knerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Qo'noS
Posts: 32,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracula View Post

Of course we are talking about an author who hated allegory and probably would deny any connection, but the point is that the stories feel different in this way.
Very true. Fair enough.

But I don't disagree current events affected his writing. Just that the root of the stories started with his experiences in the trenches.
__________________
"I have been and always shall be your friend."
Knerys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Contact Us - ComingSoon.net - Superhero Hype! - Shock Till You Drop - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ComingSoon.net is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. © All Rights Reserved.