We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 106
  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Oh, stop making excuses. Saying 'differences... will always happen' is a catch-all that says nothing about whether the changes are good or bad, inspired or trashy, and when we have PJ needlessly messing with something fundamental (the Witch-king's fate) that's not funny. The WiKi was supposed to have got away when the armies of Angmar were defeated, they didn't pursue him because Glorfindel foresaw that he wouldn't return to Angmar, that his fate still lay far off, and that no man would kill him. Remember that bit? That turns out to be rather significant later on, yes? So for 'serious' you can read 'major', because that's what it is.

    The Azog thing should break something for you, lore if nothing else seeing as he got his head cut off, in canon. Let me guess... he was dead and then he got better? 'Twas but a scratch?

    YMMV all right... particularly if you're tolerant of lazy writing and the sort of generic fantasy that tended to creep into the LOTR movies whenever PJ felt like being all 'creative'. Like in the extended editions when they had Saruman hurling a fireball at Gandalf, as one infamous example.
    Excuses? For what, enjoying the film? I have no more need to do that than I have need to apologize for it. No point wasting much time discussing your other points, since all they boil down to is you having an opinion (which you're certainly entitled to), and your apparent expectation that everyone *else* should share it. You're wrong, no matter how you spin it.
    The navigation throughout the LotRO site is horrible. You can quote me on that.
    [color=green]You say "[i]Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn[/i]" like it's a bad thing...[/color]

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And you still haven't read that page, by the looks of things. (Hint: it refers to something that's not from The Hobbit at all, so why you're blathering about 'young adult fantasy' etc. is beyond me). Oh, and Azog was killed off in the account of the Battle of Azanulbizar that was in the Appendices to LOTR so again, not in The Hobbit and again, it's LOTR that PJ is actually messing with.

    So let me guess, it was TL;DR?
    Still missing the point, unsurprisingly. I have read the page. And the Hobbit many times. I liked the movie. I recognized the parts of the movie that were departures from or additions to the book. I still liked it.

    Regardless, in a discussion about turning books into movies, especially young adult fantasy, one will always lose me if they describe differences as "serious". That's starting to venture into lending the situation far more gravity than I'm willing to agree to. Because while I can get very into my fiction, it suspends my disbelief (so to speak) to blur the line between fantasy and reality to that point. Even in LOTRO, there are few things that I will take seriously (and even that is usually on principle)--though I've spent around a year of my life logged in and there are things which will affect my enjoyment much more than a 3-hour movie.

    YMMV, and you're welcome to have your opinion on what changes you liked or didn't like. But when I say "You lost me at "serious."--they really did. Anything after that word is discounted by me as being way too intense for the subject. Why should you care what I think, anyway?
    Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Golledhel View Post
    The movie was pretty good, regardless of what the critics said.

    Changing Bolg into Azog really wasn't such a huge deal. The plot remains mainly the same, it's just a different name. Even though it does break canon.
    They probably found it better to make it be Azog instead of Bolg. Otherwise they would have had to introduce Dain earlier. But then it wouldn't make much sense for Bolg to have a vendetta against Thorin, it would be directed at Dain. They could have had Thorin kill Azog instead, and then have to explain Bolg's existance. How they did it was probably easier, and maybe cheaper.


    Radagast should not have been added. They completely destroyed his character. A hobo with a bird's nest on his head and bird poo running down his face... And that sleigh... ugh.
    Plus now we don't have an explanation as to how Gandalf came across the key.


    Bilbo's fall into Gollum's cave was softened by the mushrooms, but also by a rope he was holding on to while he was falling.

    They did pay some attention to detail, though. They even had Bilbo losing his buttons! And goblin town looked awesome.


    As for Bilbo seeing the ring fall from Gollum's pocket. He didn't. The audience did. Bilbo simply noticed the ring accidentally on the floor by Sting's light. Notice the classic "glimpse down for half a second then look at the item" action.
    This QFT.

    I just want to say the hobbit was A LOT BETTER keeping the lore than Lord of the Rings, I think the hobbit is by large the best J.R.R Tolkien movie.

    Think Azog is bad....

    Just look at Lord of the rings trilogy lore departures, elves looking like pansies en helms deep, rivendell like a doll house, gondorian soldier helmets...lotr trilogy sucks!

    Go see the hobbit best movie about J.R.R tolkien!

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    The whole argument that we know that Azog has been killed before the events of the Hobbit is not really justifiable. Here is a post that I have written about the role of the narrator and why making changes to some of the lore is not just justifiable, but may even be considered a positive

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.co....bit-movie.html

    For those who disagree (and I am sure there will be many) please do me the courtesy of reading through the entire argument and reflecting on it before reacting angrily.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
    Still missing the point, unsurprisingly. I have read the page. And the Hobbit many times. I liked the movie. I recognized the parts of the movie that were departures from or additions to the book. I still liked it.
    You seem to have failed to notice that both that page and what I've been saying have to do with things that PJ got not from The Hobbit but LOTR, but which he's casually gone and changed as well? Including something very significant about the Witch-king, of all people. He's hardly a minor character like Azog.

    Regardless, in a discussion about turning books into movies, especially young adult fantasy, one will always lose me if they describe differences as "serious". That's starting to venture into lending the situation far more gravity than I'm willing to agree to. Because while I can get very into my fiction, it suspends my disbelief (so to speak) to blur the line between fantasy and reality to that point. Even in LOTRO, there are few things that I will take seriously (and even that is usually on principle)--though I've spent around a year of my life logged in and there are things which will affect my enjoyment much more than a 3-hour movie.
    We're not talking about just the The Hobbit as the source material for the movie (as you should have realised already!). As that page which was linked to points out (but which it seems you've still not managed to read all the way to the end), the movie messes with some 'serious' LOTR lore, changing stuff about the Witch-king. (Saying that he was actually taken out during the fall of Angmar and then buried (in some magical tomb which couldn't be opened, blah blah blah, pile that generic fantasy ever higher why don't you, PJ) which is absolutely not what happened - the WiKi got away, in the original, because Glorfindel foresaw that pursuing him would be futile). It's not from any 'young adult fantasy', as you've already been told. It was in that exact same passage that Glorfindel also came out with the line 'and not by the hand of man will he fall', which turned out to be ever-so-slightly significant in ROTK. So yeah, 'serious' is the word.

    YMMV, and you're welcome to have your opinion on what changes you liked or didn't like. But when I say "You lost me at "serious."--they really did. Anything after that word is discounted by me as being way too intense for the subject. Why should you care what I think, anyway?
    Because of the way you responded to gradivus' post. And because to be frank, it seems we only 'lost' you because you don't take much losing, seeing as some others here understand perfectly well what the problem is. Lazy writing by PJ & Co., basically.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    While you are simply missing his point, which is that these are, after all, only storybooks, and that any deviation from them in the film version can hardly be considered "serious" by a mature adult.
    The particular point at issue about the Witch-king *is* a substantial change to how Ring-wraiths are portrayed in LOTR. And sorry, but whatever else LOTR is hardly a 'storybook'. Unless your copy happens to have pictures on every page and really big print, that is?

    Really, its not as though he made a film about the Gospel story and left out the Crucifixion.
    Huh. Even in the Gospels, when someone gets their head cut off they stay dead

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    We're not talking about just the The Hobbit as the source material for the movie (as you should have realised already!). As that page which was linked to points out (but which it seems you've still not managed to read all the way to the end), the movie messes with some 'serious' LOTR lore, changing stuff about the Witch-king. (Saying that he was actually taken out during the fall of Angmar and then buried (in some magical tomb which couldn't be opened, blah blah blah, pile that generic fantasy ever higher why don't you, PJ) which is absolutely not what happened - the WiKi got away, in the original, because Glorfindel foresaw that pursuing him would be futile). It's not from any 'young adult fantasy', as you've already been told. It was in that exact same passage that Glorfindel also came out with the line 'and not by the hand of man will he fall', which turned out to be ever-so-slightly significant in ROTK. So yeah, 'serious' is the word.
    And you are still missing his point.

    None of that stuff happened. Not Peter Jackson's version. Not yours.

    These are storybooks. So chill.

    And yeah, "serious" is not the word.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The particular point at issue about the Witch-king *is* a substantial change to how Ring-wraiths are portrayed in LOTR. And sorry, but whatever else LOTR is hardly a 'storybook'. Unless your copy happens to have pictures on every page and really big print, that is?


    Huh. Even in the Gospels, when someone gets their head cut off they stay dead
    No my version does not have pictures on every page.

    You see, I was intelligent enough, even as a child, to understand the difference between fictional accounts and those that are not. Something you clearly seem to have some difficulty with.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    You seem to have failed to notice that blah blah blah blah blah
    I'm starting to think that you're a little out of touch with reality, if it's that difficult to understand why I refuse to take the differences between some dead guy's book and some guy with a beard's movie seriously.

    If you like the movie, fine. If you don't, fine. If you're disappointed that it wasn't what you'd hoped, fine. If you're going to go online to insult people for not caring about what you didn't like...good luck with that.
    Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Frisco View Post
    I'm starting to think that you're a little out of touch with reality, if it's that difficult to understand why I refuse to take the differences between some dead guy's book and some guy with a beard's movie seriously.

    If you like the movie, fine. If you don't, fine. If you're disappointed that it wasn't what you'd hoped, fine. If you're going to go online to insult people for not caring about what you didn't like...good luck with that.
    LOL!

    This girl joined my guild once, and she told me that I had made a "serious" mistake because my character was called "Alcidas of Edhellion" and that Edhellion did not really exist.

    I did try pointing out that Rivendell and Lothlorien did not really exist either, but I just could not get the point across.

    Maybe its the same one...
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    LOL!

    This girl joined my guild once, and she told me that I had made a "serious" mistake because my character was called "Alcidas of Edhellion" and that Edhellion did not really exist.

    I did try pointing out that Rivendell and Lothlorien did not really exist either, but I just could not get the point across.

    Maybe its the same one...
    Not entirely true! Lothlorien is an apartment complex in Arizona, and Rivendell is a housing subdivision in Oklahoma City.

    I almost rented a house on Brandywine Rd. in Columbus, Ohio.

    Didn't see any elves or hobbits anywhere, though.
    Work like no one is watching, dance like you don't need the money...

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    The whole argument that we know that Azog has been killed before the events of the Hobbit is not really justifiable. Here is a post that I have written about the role of the narrator and why making changes to some of the lore is not just justifiable, but may even be considered a positive

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.co....bit-movie.html

    For those who disagree (and I am sure there will be many) please do me the courtesy of reading through the entire argument and reflecting on it before reacting angrily.
    The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs only ended because Azog was finally dead. It had all been about revenge on him for the way he'd mutilated and killed Thror (hence hacking his head off and leaving it on a spike with that coin-purse shoved in his mouth). The Longbeards were supposed to be the most honourable of all Dwarves (the whole long, bloody, costly war had been fought for nothing more than honour) and to pretend they'd fake something like that after having just given up would be an even bigger change than the one you're trying to excuse. You'd also have to explain just where Azog had been for the one hundred and forty-two years between the end of the war and the Quest of Erebor. The movies tend to make things seem like they happen a lot closer together than they actually do in the books.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Golledhel View Post
    The movie was pretty good, regardless of what the critics said.

    Radagast should not have been added. They completely destroyed his character. A hobo with a bird's nest on his head and bird poo running down his face... And that sleigh... ugh.
    It was absolutely the right call to include Radagast in the movie, and I'm glad they did. Radagast doesn't appear in the actual book, but he is involved in the battle against the Necromancer at Dol Guldur and Peter Jackson will show that in the trilogy.
    No, Radagast was great in the film!

    And calling the villain for Azog instead of Bolg is of absolutely no consequence. The end result is the same; he will come to a grisly end at the Battle of Five Armies. I enjoyed the movie, and I loved how they included Azog in the storyline.

  14. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    The whole argument that we know that Azog has been killed before the events of the Hobbit is not really justifiable. Here is a post that I have written about the role of the narrator and why making changes to some of the lore is not just justifiable, but may even be considered a positive

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.co....bit-movie.html

    For those who disagree (and I am sure there will be many) please do me the courtesy of reading through the entire argument and reflecting on it before reacting angrily.
    The blog raises a good point--but it is a peripheral point, at best, outside of textual criticism.

    Yes, from a (fictional) historical analysis viewpoint, we cannot be sure of the truth of the history provided in LotR and its Appendices--but this is beside the point (and a poor excuse for lazy story-telling or gratuitous changes to the extant material).

    IOW, while we do not know the "true" history, we do know the story--as a retelling of that story, we might expect the movie to hew to the existing story, with exceptions for limitations of pacing or production technology or budget. We CAN understand (though not necessarily applaud) why certain changes are made--the primary example I raise here, in that regard, is the much higher visibility of Arwen in the LotR movies vice the books. There are sound dramatic and marketing reasons for that change.

    I object to the use of Azog because it is gratuitous and unnecessary. While you can make the argument that the dramatic mechanism of the chase adds a certain tension to the story that the original lacks, there is no good reason to name the character Azog rather than simply make him Bolg or an agent of Bolg. IOW, it is a change in something that many members of the audience could care less about one way or the other (because they do not know the story or remember the name Azog ITFP)--but there IS a substantial part of the audience who is bothered/troubled by the use and the lack of attention (and authorial/editorial ego) that it displays. Why UNNECESSARILY agitate that part of your audience?

    I am far more irritated by the lack of Dwarvish facial hair (and the apparent highly visible presence of detectable dwarf women in the Erebor lead-in)--but I CAN excuse that because of the necessity of differentiating the characters and allowing fuller play of emotional expression for the characters--in other words, there ARE some sound reasons for those changes. Not really so sure about the dwarf women bit, other than it reduces the alien nature of the dwarves and allows a greater emotional connection/sympathy to them resulting from the dragon attack.

    Given that, however, I find the treatment of Radagast far more objectionable than the Azog thing--bird poo running down the side of his head? Really?

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The War of the Dwarves and the Orcs only ended because Azog was finally dead. It had all been about revenge on him for the way he'd mutilated and killed Thror (hence hacking his head off and leaving it on a spike with that coin-purse shoved in his mouth). The Longbeards were supposed to be the most honourable of all Dwarves (the whole long, bloody, costly war had been fought for nothing more than honour) and to pretend they'd fake something like that after having just given up would be an even bigger change than the one you're trying to excuse. You'd also have to explain just where Azog had been for the one hundred and forty-two years between the end of the war and the Quest of Erebor. The movies tend to make things seem like they happen a lot closer together than they actually do in the books.
    I guess you have some difficulty understanding historical method, and how historians analyse their textual sources. Not surprising, for someone who finds distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction an intellectual challenge.

    If you like, I can send you some references.

    In fact, you might want to start with this one

    Halpern, B. (1988) 'The First Historians: the Hebrew Bible and History'

    Amazon link
    http://www.amazon.com/First-Historia...5782099&sr=1-2

    Baruch Halpern does an excellent job of addressing the question of just how a historian can use a text in a critical and rational way. Very relevant for you actually, since you seem to think that what you read in a book written by some old guy is just acceptable as reality. I mean, in terms of the subject matter, that is.

    Cheers
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  16. #66
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosomok View Post
    I am far more irritated by the lack of Dwarvish facial hair (and the apparent highly visible presence of detectable dwarf women in the Erebor lead-in)--but I CAN excuse that because of the necessity of differentiating the characters and allowing fuller play of emotional expression for the characters--in other words, there ARE some sound reasons for those changes. Not really so sure about the dwarf women bit, other than it reduces the alien nature of the dwarves and allows a greater emotional connection/sympathy to them resulting from the dragon attack.
    The way I saw it, they illustrated one of the few circumstances in which Dwarf women would probably be seen, that is when they're running in all haste from an attack on their home. I thought they got the proportion of males to females about right, i.e. roughly 3 to 1 (or maybe even fewer females than that...it was a pretty brief scene but I didn't notice that many females). The Dwarf-lasses DID have beards from what I could tell...not as prominent as the men but still there.

    Kili having more of a 5 o'clock shadow than a beard was a little jarring to me, but oh well. The cynic in me says that they probably wanted to replace some of the male eye candy from the LOTR film trilogy and thus decided to keep Aidan Turner looking more human and gruff but not TOO gruff. Whaddyagonnado. *shrug*

    Given that, however, I find the treatment of Radagast far more objectionable than the Azog thing--bird poo running down the side of his head? Really?
    Heh, I thought that stuff on his head was lichen. At least, I HOPE that's what the makeup people were going for.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0c2140000000fb565/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosomok View Post
    The blog raises a good point--but it is a peripheral point, at best, outside of textual criticism.

    Yes, from a (fictional) historical analysis viewpoint, we cannot be sure of the truth of the history provided in LotR and its Appendices--but this is beside the point (and a poor excuse for lazy story-telling or gratuitous changes to the extant material).

    IOW, while we do not know the "true" history, we do know the story--as a retelling of that story, we might expect the movie to hew to the existing story, with exceptions for limitations of pacing or production technology or budget. We CAN understand (though not necessarily applaud) why certain changes are made--the primary example I raise here, in that regard, is the much higher visibility of Arwen in the LotR movies vice the books. There are sound dramatic and marketing reasons for that change.

    I object to the use of Azog because it is gratuitous and unnecessary. While you can make the argument that the dramatic mechanism of the chase adds a certain tension to the story that the original lacks, there is no good reason to name the character Azog rather than simply make him Bolg or an agent of Bolg. IOW, it is a change in something that many members of the audience could care less about one way or the other (because they do not know the story or remember the name Azog ITFP)--but there IS a substantial part of the audience who is bothered/troubled by the use and the lack of attention (and authorial/editorial ego) that it displays. Why UNNECESSARILY agitate that part of your audience?

    I am far more irritated by the lack of Dwarvish facial hair (and the apparent highly visible presence of detectable dwarf women in the Erebor lead-in)--but I CAN excuse that because of the necessity of differentiating the characters and allowing fuller play of emotional expression for the characters--in other words, there ARE some sound reasons for those changes. Not really so sure about the dwarf women bit, other than it reduces the alien nature of the dwarves and allows a greater emotional connection/sympathy to them resulting from the dragon attack.

    Given that, however, I find the treatment of Radagast far more objectionable than the Azog thing--bird poo running down the side of his head? Really?
    Good points there. I didn't like the lack of Dwarven facial hair either. In fact, I would have preferred Thorin with a more bulbous nose as well, but what the heck.

    Radagast I really did not like. Too goofy for my taste. The bunny-sled was funny though.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    I guess you have some difficulty understanding historical method, and how historians analyse their textual sources. Not surprising, for someone who finds distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction an intellectual challenge.
    I can understand historical method just fine while questioning its applicability.

    And its not about movie fans having a go at book fans. Its about people who appreciate film as a separate medium of expression, simply pointing out that a film producer is entitled to re-interpret his subject matter in a slightly different way.
    But not to be beyond criticism for an exploitative change just because it's a movie. We're talking action movie tropes here, lots of extra fight scenes to pad things out (because of the need to fill three movies to earn more $$$ and keep the merchandising bandwagon really rolling for as long as possible, and because the kiddies love cool fight scenes, superfluous or no), hence the need to introduce a villain. Crowd-pleasing but way obvious, aside from the cheapness of not even coming up with an original villain for the job but recycling an extremely dead one.

    TL;DR: making a blockbuster movie is a limited excuse for being lazy or cheesy. Or greedy, which is what has led to The Hobbit ending up bloated into three long movies and needing shedloads of padding.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    I can understand historical method just fine while questioning its applicability.

    No you don't. Here is your earlier comment...

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The Longbeards were supposed to be the most honourable of all Dwarves (the whole long, bloody, costly war had been fought for nothing more than honour) and to pretend they'd fake something like that after having just given up would be an even bigger change than the one you're trying to excuse.
    That clearly demonstrates that you do not even begin to understand how historical documents need to be analysed. You seem to think that a naive reading of an ancient text is sufficient to get at the historical reality behind it. That is simplistic, and simple-minded.

    Nobody is accusing anyone of "faking" anything. It is simply the nature of historical documentation. This is something that you clearly do not understand.

    As I said, go read Halpern's book, the first two chapters. It will give you some idea about what I am talking about.
    Last edited by Alcidas; Dec 17 2012 at 08:02 PM.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    But not to be beyond criticism for an exploitative change just because it's a movie. We're talking action movie tropes here, lots of extra fight scenes to pad things out (because of the need to fill three movies to earn more $$$ and keep the merchandising bandwagon really rolling for as long as possible, and because the kiddies love cool fight scenes, superfluous or no), hence the need to introduce a villain. Crowd-pleasing but way obvious, aside from the cheapness of not even coming up with an original villain for the job but recycling an extremely dead one.

    TL;DR: making a blockbuster movie is a limited excuse for being lazy or cheesy. Or greedy, which is what has led to The Hobbit ending up bloated into three long movies and needing shedloads of padding.
    That is just your opinion. Nothing more.

    Considering the fact that you lack the sophistication necessary to discuss a film beyond the level of "He changed it! That is not what happens in the book!", your opinion on the matter is worth about as much as that of the seven-year old who complains that the Spider-Man action figure you just bought him does not look exactly like the character he saw in the movies.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    That is just your opinion. Nothing more.

    Considering the fact that you lack the sophistication necessary to discuss a film beyond the level of "He changed it! That is not what happens in the book!", your opinion on the matter is worth about as much as that of the seven-year old who complains that the Spider-Man action figure you just bought him does not look exactly like the character he saw in the movies.
    Oh, please. It's a cynical change to provide a villain to prop up an action-movie interpretation of The Hobbit as three lengthy movies, each needing its due quota of violence and spectacle in order to fit the mold in which PJ's chosen to recast the material. It's hardly a marvel of cinematic inventiveness, it could hardly be more obvious.

  22. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    That is just your opinion. Nothing more.

    Considering the fact that you lack the sophistication necessary to discuss a film beyond the level of "He changed it! That is not what happens in the book!", your opinion on the matter is worth about as much as that of the seven-year old who complains that the Spider-Man action figure you just bought him does not look exactly like the character he saw in the movies.
    Radhruin_EU's opinions are some of the few good reasons to even read this forum. Pseudo-intellectualism, E-peenery and sophomoric insults are not. Just my opinion. Nothing more.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Susuwatari View Post
    Heh, I thought that stuff on his head was lichen. At least, I HOPE that's what the makeup people were going for.
    Sadly, no. It was bird poo from the bird nest in his head.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0b20c0000000b3969/01007/signature.png]Minarfin[/charsig]

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gibraltar where the apes are smarter than the people!
    Posts
    255
    Radagast should not have been added. They completely destroyed his character. A hobo with a bird's nest on his head and bird poo running down his face... And that sleigh... ugh.
    Plus now we don't have an explanation as to how Gandalf came across the key.
    This is what I like to call the Bobba Fett syndrome.

    What character? Radagast is hardly mentioned, and I don't think he even appears within LOTR or the Hobbit. Perhaps in the Unfinished tales, but the only thing that distinguishes him from 'generic Tolkien char #2' is his brown robe.

    People have made their own canon as to what Radagast is like. I've seen him twice in video games. Once in LOTRO (my favourite interpretation) and once in War in the North, which made him a little goofier.

    The same with Azog. He exists in name only, what was important about him was his role not the character itself. The character was a four-word orcish name. Nothing more, nothing less.
    "HA! Guybrush Threepwood! That's the stupidest name I've ever heard!" - "Hey! What's your name then? " - "Mancomb Seepgood."

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post
    Radhruin_EU's opinions are some of the few good reasons to even read this forum. Pseudo-intellectualism, E-peenery and sophomoric insults are not. Just my opinion. Nothing more.
    You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Just because you do not understand the nature of history and how to interpret a historical document does not make the person who points that out to you a pseudo-intellectual. Perhaps, if you gained a slightly deeper understanding of the subject, it might occur to you that that is just an instance of someone pointing out something to you that you did not understand.

    To me, pseudo-intellectualism is the mindless exchanging of meaningless trivia about a literary text, accompanied by incessant whining about anyone who dares to suggest that any modification to the film version is potentially of value. Of course, that is just my opinion.
    Last edited by Alcidas; Dec 18 2012 at 04:37 AM.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload