posted
first, it's David Eddings, not Robert Eddings. and about Eddings, he reuses the same story for every series he writes. second, to have the opinions you did of tWoT, you obviously could have never read any of them. there are many reasons to dislike them, but none of the ones you gave are valid. not even as opinions.
IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
haha tWot!
sounds like Twat!
that strain thing is the scientific way of saying your about to blow an o-ring rite? see you explain that to your doctor!*
*CaptainMike wrote the previous post pretending he was 12. He is not 12.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
theres a 12 year old in each of us trying to get out.
you have to bind their limbs or theyll hit your ribs.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
gimme a sec while i go do that, then. brb.
IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
ok, i'm back. the 12 year old is now safely bound. thanks for the warning, O Captain Mike Captain (btw, that name works on SOOOOO many levels).
IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
good levels right? levels that are good for me?
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
very good levels that are very good for you.
IP: Logged
posted
EdipisReks, if you think that LOTR trilogy is the supreme work of fantasy then you quite obiviously have not read the Silmarillion. The depth of charater, motivation and story in there far outweighs Tolkiens other works.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Books. Good books. But not the only books.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
To quote Terry Pratchett (roughly, since it's from memory):
quote:If, when you're 10 years old, you don't think The Lord of the Rings is the best book ever written, then there's probably something wrong with you; if, when you're 40 years old, you still think it's the best book ever written, then there's defintely something wrong with you."
Edy, I see where you're coming from but you need to chill out a bit. I've re-read all your posts and I've boiled them down to the following:
1. You don't like the films. Well, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to quibble except to point out that so far yuou've only seen one of three, and don't seem desposed to give the others a chance.
2. They shouldn't have been made, because TLotR is sacrosanct. I refer you to the words of Mr. Pratchett.
3. They shouldn't have been made, because no-one could ever get them 'right.' Now, I'm not quite sure how to handle this one, except in a few specifics I'll tackle in the next few sections. But your stance reminds me of some prat over at the Flameboard who said that there shouldn't be gun control because it doesn't completely work. Absurd. Yet they remained all for drug controls even though those work even less.
4. The casting is all wrong. JRRT didn't provide detailed facial descriptions of his characters. It's left up to you to imagine them. If you expect a movie version to somehow emulate your own imagination, then you're living in Cloudcuckooland. On the other hand, maybe you had your own ideas about which actual acturs should play the roles; well, we all played the game of Fantasy LotR Cast - I saw Connery as Theoden, Patrick Stewart as Gandalf, Richard Briers as Bilbo, among others - yet we remain aware of the realities of Hollywood. They may not be available; they may want too much money; they may not want to move to New Zealand for a year; and, most likely, remember that most actors are ignorant at best and semi-illiterate at worst: many of them had probably never read the books and didn't see it as the prestige project it was.
5. Each scene was done all wrong. Again, JRRT didn't provide detailed stage plans for everything. It's up to the director's interpretation. I'm encouraged, however, that you at least admit that movies can't be made exactly like the books. As for your examples. . .
a) The Battle between the West and Sauron. I'll agree, I'm a bit puzzled about this one and the changes that were made - sticking to the original version wouldn't have made that much difference surely? But it doesn't work to the detriment of the whole film.
b) Arwen replacing Glorfindel. This was done for purely star=pleasing reasons, yet I see what they intended. Glorfindel is a non-character, he serves no other purpose in the trilogy. In Bakshi's version he was replaced by Legolas for similar reasons. Yet Glorfindel has more character development than Arwen! In the end, it doesn't really matter. I'm still worried about what other, more obtrusive, lengths Jackson might go to to increase Liv's screen time, however.
c) "I can accept the cutting out of the Old Forest." Thank God for that, I didn't want to have to go through all that again!
d) "Since when did Eomer look like a dirty hippy?" My currewnt connection precluded viewing the trailer, so I can't really comment here. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'look' of the Riders of Rohan closely matched the faux-Celtic look of Braveheart and Battlefield Earth: it just seems to be trendy right now.
e) "Since when was �owyn unattractive?" Again, no comment, except to say that Miranda Otto, who I've only seen in The Thin Red Line, didn't strike me as unattractive. But then you don't seem to like Liv Tyler either, so I'll just chalk that down to different tastes.
6. "Since when did modern blockbuster movies have really fakey 3d effects?" Well, others have answered this quite adequately. But I didn't notice people complaining about the awful FX in Spiderman, easily the worst film this year.
But in the spirit of reconciliation I'll end by saying I agree with you on your assessment of Eddings. And as for Weiss & Hickman. . . ugh. First trilogy was good, second one not so goo. Then it just became this franchise. Thank God for the Internet, it gave a home to third-rate fan fiction that authors might otherwise have licensed to increase their revenue.
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: EdipisReks, if you think that LOTR trilogy is the supreme work of fantasy then you quite obiviously have not read the Silmarillion. The depth of charater, motivation and story in there far outweighs Tolkiens other works.
i've read the Silmarillion several times.
IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
Vogon Poet, i knew all of that. i've just read the books too many times to have any opinion other than the one i have. i accept change a lot, but i'll never change on that stance. thanks for not cutting my head off by "d00d teh LTOR moovees r0x0rs moore tan teh inything!!!!!!".
the Death Gate Cycle is good, by the way.
IP: Logged
posted
Edipis: "first, it's David Eddings, not Robert Eddings. and about Eddings, he reuses the same story for every series he writes. second, to have the opinions you did of tWoT, you obviously could have never read any of them. there are many reasons to dislike them, but none of the ones you gave are valid. not even as opinions."
David is his evil twin... David, Robert; MarkR, SeanR. Whatever...
I'm sorry Edipis but what you said is just rediculous... "there are many reasons to dislike them (no argument there), but none of the ones you gave are valid. not even as opinions."
WTF!?! opinions are opinions - you can't validate them. You might disagree with my opinions, but you can't dismiss them out of hand cause you didn't like what I said.
Who are you to allow what I say or think or feel or type to be valid or not. I say my points are QUITE valid.
The plot is plodding. The ideas are NOT original. As a few have said, they are rehashed... I've even had someone trying to convince me that the book(s) ARE worthwhile because they are similar to the Lord of the Rings in that they start out as a journey etc. etc.
I HAVE indeed read the first three books - and that was enough torture for me. They made me feel so physically sick that, as I said I had to sell them.
They have WAY too much padding... what was said in Book one - could have been said in about one or two chapters - at the very least a much smaller book.
I look forward to reading those books... (I mean I read at least THREE of them)... I was NOT impressed.
And I'm sorry... but I have seen so many uber-nerd wannabes reading those books simply for the fact that they are these monstrously large books. And that they look 'intellegent' standing at a bus stop or sitting at lunch reading these slabs of paper.
If they wanted to look really intellegent - they should be engrossed in the complete works of Shakespeare or a Thomas Hardy novel (now THERE's long winded for you).
Just because you don't like what I say Edipis, you can't dismiss it out of hand - well YOU can, but you can't invalidate what I have said. My opinion is as very much important as your own. Such words as chosen by you are like the typical newsnet flamer/bitcher attacking the person. Ugh.
That said, I must say I hold the Lord of the Rings DEARLY in my heart. I was VERY worried about what Peter Jackson was going to do with Middle Earth. From Cate Blanchette's first word I was spell-bound. He has done the book(s) justice from what a person COULD do giving the nature of the work and given the type of media he is working with. Just thank Varda that someone like Speilberg didn't get a-hold of the rights.
"I've replaced swords with walk-talkie-palantiri"
Nothing can beat what your mind creates. And Middle-Earth is a very special place to me. Peter Jackson has come very close to what your mind could conjure up. He is a TRUE fan and is not in it SOLELY for the money. The actors are true fans. Christopher Lee has read the books each year since 1954/55 and met the good Professor. With someone like that in your cast and lauding praise on the production(s). I'd say Peter Jackson has the tick of approval.
Well done Peter and well done New Zealand!
Andrew
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Christopher Tolkien didn't want the films to be made. and i'm sorry. as long as you insult tWoT, your opinion on the matter WILL NOT BE VAILD SO THERE! it's the characerizations that make the books, man, the characterizations. and the plot is hardly plodding in the first few books (and at no point is it Thomas Hardy plotting: like Hardy, however, the ploddiness doesn't really detract). considering that i've been reading this series since it started 10 years ago and i've read it at least 4 times (it might be more, i forget), i don't think i've been reading it for the "geek factor"
IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
