|
drrockso20 posted:When it comes to Middle Earth art these days, my favorite is from an artist over on Deviantart who goes by Turner Mohan, there's a sense of believability to his stuff(but at the same time not held back by "realism" needlessly) while still retaining the inherent fantasy of the setting, especially love the way he draws the Orcs, and he did an absolutely lovely piece for the Blue Wizards
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:I thought the movies were cool. I thought half the movies were half as cool as I should like, and I like the other half of the movies half as well as they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:I thought half the movies were half as cool as I should like, and I like the other half of the movies half as well as they deserve. You may find when confronted with the movies that you may agree with our decision to spare them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Well, between him and the guy who made Fritz the Cat The Lord of the rings cartoon is good
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Still think the Rankin-Bass cartoons were the best of the lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
The movies are worthwhile if only for the Special Features on The Two Towers, which begins with a couple of Tolkien experts explaining that LotR has, by publishers' standards, an extremely odd and unusable structure for a novel and he does all kinds of things that a professional author wouldn't have done, and how brilliant and unique it makes the story seem and how great and wonderful it is that he was so unconventional in his approach. Then about an hour later they have the brass neck to put on Jackson and Walsh and Boyens justifying why they poo poo all over Faramir, on the grounds that they needed to make him conform to modern movie-making techniques and they didn't really have a villain for Frodo and Sam to struggle against, and anyway in the novel Faramir doesn't go on a journey within himself or anything*, so clearly they had to change that. *Offer void for Ruling Stewards of Gondor
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Don't get me started about Faramir. His journey was of hope turned to despair turned to hope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
i will never forgive that they made gimli a comic side kick
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:i will never forgive that they made gimli a comic side kick Gimli was quite funny in the book. He was also very wise and poetic and they didn't put that in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
The best is their interpretation of Denethor as a fat stupid old man who eats grapes in a disgusting way. I hate Peter Jackson just because of that god damned scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:The best is their interpretation of Denethor as a fat stupid old man who eats grapes in a disgusting way. Yeah I recently both re-read the books (for like...the 10th time) and rewatched the movies and while I still think they are as good as any mainstream LotR movies could have been, looking back at them after more than 10 years, some parts are really just bad 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Things the Jackson films hosed up badly: 1) Aragorn french kissing a horse 2) Half of Denethor's scenes 3) All of Faramir's, especially the entire ending sequence in the second film (if the nazgul see frodo has the ring the story is over, duh) 4) The Paths of the Dead looks like a video game sequence 5) So does a big chunk of the Mines of Moria 6) They kinda mangled Galadriel with too much CGI 7) Too many songs in the third movie 8) drawing a blank past that 9) I want to say "nobody tosses a dwarf" but, gently caress it, that was funny Things they got right: 1) Like everything else plus Arwen is dramatically improved They're flawed films but they're better than we had any right to expect from Hollywood. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Yeah arwen was a homerun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
I'm conflicted on a bunch of things. Especially Andruil. I liked Arwen too, but I do remember a lot of backlash against her battle scene thing. I dunno, I don't have a strong opinion on it if I'm being totally honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:I'm conflicted on a bunch of things. Especially Andruil. Arwen was originally going to be at Helm's Deep, and they even filmed Liv Tyler in battle there. Holy poo poo that was a bad idea. The movies aren't perfect, but I think looking back they're as good as we were ever going to get. It could've been an awful lot worse!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
I'm pissed off that elves showed up at helms deep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:They're flawed films but they're better than we had any right to expect from Hollywood. They're nothing at all like the books. I can understand why they made the type of movies they did but it would have been interesting to see someone (not Peter Jackson who lacks any type of subtlety) try to make a more faithful adaptation. It'd be bizarre and fuckin' weird but I'd find that more interesting than generic blockbuster fantasy thriller. e: I just remembered the most egregious line of all: "He's twitchin because he's got my axe in his nervous system!" A line so profoundly stupid and out of place that I can't believe nobody caught it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:They're nothing at all like the books. I can understand why they made the type of movies they did but it would have been interesting to see someone (not Peter Jackson who lacks any type of subtlety) try to make a more faithful adaptation. It'd be bizarre and fuckin' weird but I'd find that more interesting than generic blockbuster fantasy thriller. They put it there so that means they "caught" it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
To be fair, they also cut it (out of the theatrical release).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
It's extra baffling how good the LotR films managed to turn out when you consider how loving godawful the Hobbit movies are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
I didn't really like the hobbit movies but they and lotr are sort of fundamentally similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
And that's kinda the problem. (Well, one of them)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I like to read the Hobbit movies as a cynical parody of the Lord of the Rings movies. The cynicism of their very existence lends itself well to this interpretation, as do the stylistic and structural similarities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Radio! posted:It's extra baffling how good the LotR films managed to turn out when you consider how loving godawful the Hobbit movies are. There's a decent -- not great, but decent -- movie somewhere in the Hobbit trilogy but it's butter scraped over too much bread. The core issue though is that the Hobbit book is about Bilbo defeating a dragon through wit and bravery, and the movies take that away from him because they wanted to sell Action Bard toys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Since we're doing this:Hieronymous Alloy posted:Things the Jackson films hosed up badly: Spending ~20 minutes of your movie establishing Treebeard as an exceptionally un-hasty and considered character who only takes decisions after long and involved discussion and careful pondering and weighing up of pros and cons and whys and wherefores...and then having him change his mind in about five seconds when he sees the destruction around Isengard. Sorry, could you repeat that about needing to follow modern rules of movie storytelling? These are clearly some new rules that I wasn't previously aware of. Ginette Reno posted:They're nothing at all like the books. I can understand why they made the type of movies they did but it would have been interesting to see someone (not Peter Jackson who lacks any type of subtlety) try to make a more faithful adaptation. It'd be bizarre and fuckin' weird but I'd find that more interesting than generic blockbuster fantasy thriller. To be fair, the ridiculously insane success of those movies all-but-guarantees that eventually the Amazon-Netflix-Baidu Conglomerate or whoever will get hold of the rights and do that more faithful adaptation, probably in about 25 years, and they'll do it as a ridiculously gigantic TV series that goes on for 26 episodes before it says anything about Baggins or Shire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Since we're doing this:  Just give me every spoken line in the books, and nothing more. Forget pacing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:
See, that's what I told myself I wanted, all through my youth. And then it occurred to me that that's exactly what Bakshi tried to do, God help him. Verbatim lines of dialogue, regardless of how much better they work in print than on screen. Major exposition not revealed until a giant Council of Elrond infodump which works fine in the book because you can take a protracted breather for mythic backstory several chapters into a novel, but you can't really do that in a movie or in episode 7 of a 13-episode TV series. A complete lack of comic timing or drama, or characterization driven by visuals, one of the few clear advantages of such a medium. But at least he tried. He clearly wanted to preserve everything he could, as close as possible to just "filming the book". So when FotR dropped and I saw the first trailers and there was Aragorn going "Are you frightened? ... Not nearly frightened enough!" I was as ready to rage out as I was excited. I thought Jackson was going to make some kind of sarcastic modernized take with none of the original material intact. I prepared myself for fart jokes and Monica Lewinsky references and a soundtrack by Bono. But then I saw the actual thing and... from the very first line of dialogue ("A wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to", which is nowhere in the text but is perfectly Gandalf), I was ready to believe; and then when his face cracked up and he started laughing at his own pretentiousness I knew I was in the best of hands we're ever going to find. Maybe there's a way to adapt the text without putting it through a food processor to make it palatable in a visual presentation. But it has been tried, and it didn't turn out nearly so well as letting the story breathe and transform and be what it wants to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
I thought Bakshi edited too much, but I guess that's just me. What I'm saying is a 30 hour visual audio book would be fine by me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
I remember a lot of my friends were hacked the gently caress off when Arwen initially spoke in the first movie. Apparently her consonants were too soft and sounded Feanorian (???) but I am not a linguist in any way and mostly just laughed at them for giving a poo poo what her 'th' phonemes sounded like when IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLORFINDEL UGH
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
elise the great posted:I remember a lot of my friends were hacked the gently caress off when Arwen initially spoke in the first movie. Apparently her consonants were too soft and sounded Feanorian (???) but I am not a linguist in any way and mostly just laughed at them for giving a poo poo what her 'th' phonemes sounded like when IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLORFINDEL UGH Nerds are the loving worst lmao Like I get being annoyed that Arwen replaced Glorfindel for the flight to the Ford, but the whole "let's pick nits endlessly in this because it's not up to our impossible standards" drives me loving crazy. Her consonants were too soft ahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Movies are primarily a visual medium and both Lord of the rings films were huge successes in that department
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
webmeister posted:Nerds are the loving worst lmao Harsh truth: Glorfindel was a lame character and one step removed from a deus ex machina and Arwen replacing him is a massive improvement, not just in terms of like gender and poo poo, but also in terms of narrative and character development. Having a major character's love interest not show up till an appendix is not good writing, folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Even Bakshi replaced him with Legolas, just to tighten up the narrative
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Movies are primarily a visual medium and both Lord of the rings films were huge successes in that department Okay Michael Bay
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Harsh truth: Glorfindel was a lame character and one step removed from a deus ex machina and Arwen replacing him is a massive improvement, not just in terms of like gender and poo poo, but also in terms of narrative and character development. Having a major character's love interest not show up till an appendix is not good writing, folks. Yeah I agree, I think it was a good replacement, but I can understand why people didn't like it. It's a lot more understandable than many complaints about the trilogy tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Okay Michael Bay Current Michael Bay films look bad, Bakshi's LotR is a masterpiece
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Harsh truth: Glorfindel was a lame character and one step removed from a deus ex machina and Arwen replacing him is a massive improvement, not just in terms of like gender and poo poo, but also in terms of narrative and character development. Having a major character's love interest not show up till an appendix is not good writing, folks. Yeah, Glorfindel was such a non-entity Tolkein apparently forgot he had killed the bastard once already in his unpublished Silmarils and had to retcon him (don't think retcon is the right word here) for the Lord of the Rings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
elise the great posted:I remember a lot of my friends were hacked the gently caress off when Arwen initially spoke in the first movie. Apparently her consonants were too soft and sounded Feanorian (???) but I am not a linguist in any way and mostly just laughed at them for giving a poo poo what her 'th' phonemes sounded like when IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GLORFINDEL UGH This one actually makes sense if you assume she's putting on an accent to piss off her dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
"Hey dad, remember those guys who raised you, except later on you found out that they straight up drove your mother to her death in the ocean and murdered the rest of your family and they were actually your kidnappers instead of your adopted parents? I'm gonna lisp JUST LIKE THEM and also marry a baby human." Like, no wonder Galadriel doesn't come around to visit. I agree though. Given that I would rather watch an actual Michael Bay movie than a PJ adaptation of the Sil, I'm kinda glad they skipped the opportunity to tie in the inevitably garbage "prequel" adaptation of the fall of Gondolin. Hey kids, remember that throwaway character who met Frodo at the ford? Crowd favorite! Here comes the next trilogy! OTOH if Arwen had been shipped off to the appendices we wouldn't have had that moving scene where Aragorn makes out with his horse, so
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Glorfindel owns, actually. Both of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:38
|
|