We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 106
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    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.
    Its an action movie. Of course the director is entitled to make any changes that he or she feels are necessary to make it more enjoyable to the audience. Whether or not that decision is cynical is purely a matter of opinion.

    If you had directed the film we would have ended up with three hours of a group of dwarves sitting around a fire and eating seed-cake. I'm sure you would have enjoyed that, but most cinema-goers would not.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Floin View Post
    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.
    Exactly. While watching the film, I found it impossible not to cheer Thorin on, and hope that he sticks Azog in the gut. And if that does eventually happen in the second or third film, I'm sure I will feel the urge to cheer loudly.

    Although I can't help wondering if PJ has something up his sleeve and we will end up watching Azog smash Thorin's skull in during the final battle instead...
    Last edited by Alcidas; Dec 18 2012 at 03:27 AM.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    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 Just because you do not understand the nature of history and how to interpret a historical document does not make the person who points that out to you a pseudo-intellectual. Try reading something about the subject.
    Enough already. You're just using that to try to claim intellectual backing for an opinion that's really no more than an excuse and that, kiddo, leaves you wide open to that charge of pseudo-intellectualism. It's neither big nor clever, so if you've got any sense at all you'll drop the point rather than digging yourself any further into that hole.

    Its an action movie. Of course the director is entitled to make any changes that he or she feels are necessary to make it more enjoyable to the audience. Whether or not that decision is cynical is purely a matter of opinion.
    It's an action movie because they wanted to make it more like LOTR and thus hop on that bandwagon again, making another shedload of $$$. Sure, the director is entitled to make changes but that doesn't immediately excuse unsubtle or inartistic ones, any more than it did with the LOTR movies.

    If you had directed the film we would have ended up with three hours of a group of dwarves sitting around a fire and eating seed-cake. I'm sure you would have enjoyed that, but most cinema-goers would not.
    Come off it, there's more than one way to skin that cat. It didn't have to be such long movies and it certainly didn't have to be three of them, either (the original plan was for two, as I recall).

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Enough already. You're just using that to try to claim intellectual backing for an opinion that's really no more than an excuse and that, kiddo, leaves you wide open to that charge of pseudo-intellectualism. It's neither big nor clever, so if you've got any sense at all you'll drop the point rather than digging yourself any further into that hole.

    I'm not using it "to claim intellectual backing" for my opinions. Historical method is not "my opinion". It is simply the way historians go about doing their business. You only think it is "pseudo-intellectual" because you do not understand it. I could go on and on explaining it to you, because it is quite a detailed topic, so there is no hole that I am digging myself into.

    Besides, the fact that you consider that someone who cites a reference in order to back up their assertions to be a "pseudo-intellectual" simply shows that you really have no idea about how to make a reasoned argument, backed up by facts and the considered opinions of other scholars.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It's an action movie because they wanted to make it more like LOTR and thus hop on that bandwagon again, making another shedload of $$$. Sure, the director is entitled to make changes but that doesn't immediately excuse unsubtle or inartistic ones, any more than it did with the LOTR movies.

    Its an action movie because they chose to make it an action movie. When someone produces a film, it is their creation. YOU may or may not like it, but it is childish to accuse the director of cynicism or greed just because you do not. Whether or not the changes are "inartistic" is subject to debate.

    As another poster has pointed out, it is the role of Azog that is important, not what the name of the character may or may not be. That is analyzing the film on its own merits. All you are doing is whingeing that it was not made exactly the way that you would have liked it to be.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    I'm not using it "to claim intellectual backing" for my opinions. Historical method is not "my opinion". It is simply the way historians go about doing their business. You only think it is "pseudo-intellectual" because you do not understand it. I could go on and on explaining it to you, because it is quite a detailed topic, so there is no hole that I am digging myself into.
    I'm not saying anything about the historical method itself, I'm saying that you're simply using it as an excuse. Big difference.

    Besides, the fact that you consider that someone who cites a reference in order to back up their assertions to be a "pseudo-intellectual" simply shows that you really have no idea about how to make a reasoned argument, backed up by facts and the considered opinions of other scholars.
    Any fool can cite a reference, what that doesn't do is demonstrate its relevance.

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28

    Just for kicks

    And this just for the heck of it, from the Atlantic Wire

    " Welcome to the Box Office Report where we're so happy Peter Jackson's plot was foiled by you meddling kids. Thank the skies for meddling kids.

    1. The Hobbit (Warner): $84.8 million in 4,045 theaters

    Peter Jackson's evil plot to take our money and hypnotize us into submission was foiled. His villainous plan was foiled by you, the people, the ones who chose to go on and live your life instead of submitting and paying $45, or whatever a ticket costs in your town, to watch three hours of deleted scenes from a book. His goal was to make $100 million week one so he can build a giant laser and destroy the moon to throw the world into total and complete chaos. Now his plan is approximately $16 million behind schedule. We're not out of the woods yet, but it's still progress. Be proud, everyone. "

    Full article here

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/enter...million/60035/
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    I'm not saying anything about the historical method itself, I'm saying that you're simply using it as an excuse. Big difference.

    I am not using it as an excuse. I am only using it to point out that the author did not intend the account given in Appendix A III on Durin's Folk to be interpreted as an objective description of reality. It surprises me that you have failed to grasp such a simple point, unless, (perish forbid) you are yourself guilty of what you have accused other posters in here of, and failed to read the post to its end before commenting on it.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Any fool can cite a reference, what that doesn't do is demonstrate its relevance.
    Perhaps, but only an idiot would accuse his interlocutor of pseudo-intellectualism for citing a reference.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gibraltar where the apes are smarter than the people!
    Posts
    255
    It's an action movie because they wanted to make it more like LOTR and thus hop on that bandwagon again, making another shedload of $$$. Sure, the director is entitled to make changes but that doesn't immediately excuse unsubtle or inartistic ones, any more than it did with the LOTR movies.
    Transformers is an Action Movie.
    Skyfall is an Action Movie.
    Mission Impossible is an Action Movie.

    The Hobbit and LOTR aren't action movies.
    "HA! Guybrush Threepwood! That's the stupidest name I've ever heard!" - "Hey! What's your name then? " - "Mancomb Seepgood."

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    I am not using it as an excuse. I am only using it to point out that the author did not intend the account given in Appendix A III on Durin's Folk to be interpreted as an objective description of reality. It surprises me that you have failed to grasp such a simple point, unless, (perish forbid) you are yourself guilty of what you have accused other posters in here of, and failed to read the post to its end before commenting on it.
    Understanding doesn't require acceptance on your terms. I don't have to accept it as anything more than what it is, a transparent excuse.

    Perhaps, but only an idiot would accuse his interlocutor of pseudo-intellectualism for citing a reference.
    Then it's just as well that's not what I said, isn't it? It's claptrap because you haven't demonstrated its applicability, and the repeated insults make it very obvious what sort of game you're playing.

  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Susuwatari View Post
    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*


    Heh, I thought that stuff on his head was lichen. At least, I HOPE that's what the makeup people were going for.
    The females were kind of obvious to me, but then I was kind of looking for that--just to see how PJ would handle it (and he did basically what I kind of expected, given the treatment of the main plotline dwarves).

    According to the given lore, females should be indistinguishable from males.. so I really should not be able to pick them out of the crowd at all.... Terry Pratchett does a good job with this (in his usual humorous fashion) in how he he handles his dwarves in the Discworld book--but that's an aside.

    The only dwarves who looked acceptably "Dwarvish" were really Balin and Dwalin.. and Balin looked more fairy-tale dwarvish than what I consider LotR dwarvish... and the donut beard thing? WTH? Right along with the bit of axe stuck in the head of one of them (forget which)--an idea stolen from Norse mythology.

    Thror looked suitably dwarvish and regal--and I was actually almost shocked at the resemblance between the interior of the Lonely Mountain and Moria in LotRO. Looks like they were done by the same artist. Can't wait to get a full look at Smaug, though I suspect he won't be a wyrm, but more of a "traditional" western dragon similar to Draigoch... he should actually be more snake-like if we go by Tolkien's sketches.

    Do I dislike the way PJ did what he did in some places? Yes.... does it break the movie for me, no.

    And, no, it was bird poo (yech). Rather tastless and unhygenic I thought... and don't get me started on the rabbit sled. Radagast should be "foolish" (from the perspective of someone like Gandalf) but that doesn't mean that he is a clown or scatter-brain or a nitwit. Underneath it all, he IS a Maia--and while he might be more interested in and like animals more than people, he shouldn't be a putz or a joke.
    Last edited by Kosomok; Dec 18 2012 at 03:05 PM.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Floin View Post
    The Hobbit and LOTR aren't action movies.
    What should we call a movie like this that has more than its fair share of fights, chases and hair's-breadth escapes, then? Seriously.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,038
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    What should we call a movie like this that has more than its fair share of fights, chases and hair's-breadth escapes, then? Seriously.
    I think of it as an adventure story that was turned into a movie with a big emphasis on action. What the name for that is depends on how you feel about it, I guess.
    “All that is gold does not glitter,
    Not all those who wander are lost;
    The old that is strong does not wither,
    Deep roots are not reached by the frost."

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gibraltar where the apes are smarter than the people!
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    What should we call a movie like this that has more than its fair share of fights, chases and hair's-breadth escapes, then? Seriously.
    Adventure. Epic fantasy. Epic Drama. Or just 'Epic.' Yes, the word is so overused that I can just picture a 10,000 foot wall just made from the four letter &&&&&, but that's what it is.

    LOTR has it's fair share of action, but only when the action was needed. Or were the big important battles going to be cut down for extra dialogue? In a film which has it's dialogue/action ration at 5:2.

    Sure, I won't call it the Godfather, but I will always put the category 'action' under &&&&&& (but fun-to-watch) Jason Stathan movies.

    Action is a part of almost every movie in existence, even if it's just for a short while. LOTR has some pretty huge scale battles, if PJ ignored that, then the film wouldn't have been very fun to watch. Besides, he skipped battles in the movies too... and added some. The scourge of the shire; the battle before the one at the Black Gate (I can't recall its name, only that the Host of the West was cut down significantly for that battle.) Why? Because they were anti-climactic, too stretched out. Instead, he focused on Sam and Frodo's journey through Mordor, and that itself has a lot of credit for the discredit the category 'action' comes with it.

    I don't know about you, but battles in books are a mess 3/4 of the times. The only battles I have ever enjoyed (or at least, immersed my self in) were the battles of Blackwater in Clash of Kings and Unumbered Tears (which is possibly harder to read than the Red Wedding... bloody Morgoth.)

    Seriously, perhaps you did not intend that discredit. But how could you call LOTR or the Hobbit action movies when you have scenes like this:



    This:



    And this:



    Sure, the Hobbit is a tad faster paced than LOTR, but so it was in the book. Unless PJ wants to flood us with back-story and flashbacks (which I would thoroughly enjoy, but I cringe just to think of it on cinema.)
    "HA! Guybrush Threepwood! That's the stupidest name I've ever heard!" - "Hey! What's your name then? " - "Mancomb Seepgood."

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,735
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, PJ make the best movies. The Lotr trilogy & the Hobbit is on my top of all time list
    "I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."
    http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, PJ make the best movies. The Lotr trilogy & the Hobbit is on my top of all time list
    You need to get out more

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    You need to get out more
    They are pretty great movies. The LOTR trilogy is in my top 10 favorite. When I watch those I get glued to the screen and just love it. I found with the Hobbit it was a lot more "movie like" with all the action and humor. Just didn't give the same affect (although it was a great movie as well).
    Co-Founder of TEAM F. Turined R9 champ. Mashedtaters R9 Reaver
    Perma-Retired Pre SoM- R9 Hnt. R8 Reaver

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    You need to get out more
    Meh, im having a good time. The movie was great, whats the point of making a movie if you're just going to do every inch of detail in the book and nothing more. what is the difference then? Then I might aswell save myself the money and just keep reading the book

    I've been reading the Hobbit many times, one of my fave. I know what the book says, but I love the universe and seeing it expanded doesnt really bother me that much

    adding Radagast was fantastic.
    What would be epic about just a random goblin coming at the end of the last movie, being the grandson of the "mighty" orc who died long time ago. I like the turn of events where he's the villian chasing the heroes.
    I dont really see why he would say that about the Witch King cause Glorfindel saw him ride of ---> prophecy said by Gandalf himself in the movies, to that I say..derp
    "I should call that a heavy loss, if it was not a wonder rather that in his great age he could still wield his axe as mightily as they say he did, standing over the body of King Brand before the gate of Erebor, until the darkness fell."
    http://gladdenhistory.wikispaces.com/

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    Meh, im having a good time. The movie was great, whats the point of making a movie if you're just going to do every inch of detail in the book and nothing more. what is the difference then? Then I might aswell save myself the money and just keep reading the book
    What I was getting at was that I don't think the LOTR movies (still less this latest one) are anything to be on the top of anyone's 'best movies ever' list. Not even if it were best fantasy movies ever, because (as one example) I think Pan's Labyrinth is hands down a better movie.

    If someone said they thought LOTR was the best book ever, then likewise I'd suggest to them that they could do with reading an awful lot more widely. I wouldn't even call it the best fantasy novel, because personally I think there's better (Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast, for one).

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    716
    Peake seems to have more female characters in his book than Tolkien but they all seem to come to tragic endings, keep Gormenghast a secret, lest Fran Walsh starts adapting it.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    I dont really see why he would say that about the Witch King cause Glorfindel saw him ride of ---> prophecy said by Gandalf himself in the movies, to that I say..derp
    HA! Nice catch. I don't remember how in depth Gandalf went about it in the movie but I'm sure they said the prophecy and how no man can kill the witch king. Did they even go as far as saying how Glorfindel saw him ride off?

    Speaking of Glorfindel...I really wish he was in the movie. There isn't enough about him in any book as far as I"m concerned and I've always been interested to learn more (even if it was expanded by PJ) about him. He seems like a bad &&& warrior!
    Co-Founder of TEAM F. Turined R9 champ. Mashedtaters R9 Reaver
    Perma-Retired Pre SoM- R9 Hnt. R8 Reaver

  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Alcidas View Post
    Yep I actually really liked Azog! First thing I thought when I saw him (after the flashback scenes at Azanulzibar) - Abu Qatada!!!

    I think the reason for having Azog lead the Orcs instead of Bolg is that this will allow a climactic fight scene between him and Thorin at the end of the film. Because Azog is already thought to be dead, Jackson can then kill him off in the fight scene. You know the audience will love a fight scene where Thorin kills Azog.

    So, how do we explain the fact that he is still running around although he is supposed to have been killed by Dain Ironfoot outside Moria?

    Well, we all know that that story about Azog being killed is based on what is recorded in the annals written by the dwarves. And we all know that dwarves love telling stories about their own exploits, and are not averse to a bit of embellishment. So maybe, just maybe, when Dain rushed up and cut off the head of an orc that he thought was Azog, he actually got another big orc instead, and the head that the dwarves put up on a stake to celebrate the death of Azog belonged to a different orc. After all, the heads of dead orcs are not really able to step up and say,

    "Ahem, you know, I am not really Azog, as you chaps seem to think. I'm actually his first cousin once removed, Bozog, hence the family resemblance."
    Except Thrain wasn't killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar. He was killed in Dol Guldur. Nain was killed at Azanulbizar. Azog wasn't at the Battle of the Five Armies, his son Bolg was. Where does it say Dwarves like to embellish things? Dwarves aren't Scottish either, laddy.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0520a0000002d6d61/01001/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthaur View Post
    Peake seems to have more female characters in his book than Tolkien but they all seem to come to tragic endings, keep Gormenghast a secret, lest Fran Walsh starts adapting it.
    *Perches on the mantelpiece, hooting in dismay at the mere thought*

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    28

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Then it's just as well that's not what I said, isn't it? It's claptrap because you haven't demonstrated its applicability, and the repeated insults make it very obvious what sort of game you're playing.
    Your exact words in an earlier post were

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Enough already. You're just using that to try to claim intellectual backing for an opinion that's really no more than an excuse and that, kiddo, leaves you wide open to that charge of pseudo-intellectualism.
    So thanks for admitting that you are an idiot.

    By the way, the only reason you do not realise that it is applicable is because you simply do not understand what historical method is. So, as I have emphasised earlier, go read the reference I sent you and you will understand the point. Hopefully.
    Free Miniature Printables for 28-32mm Scale

    http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.com/

 

 
Page 4 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