1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Hobbit,

    Count me as enjoying the movies immensely...that they still hold up a few years later is a good sign but also a testament to the source material.

    The naked truth is that movie adaptations - especially re: fantasy - will likely fall short 999 times out of a thousand for at least someone.  There's nothing strictly wrong with being a purist, but I think it's still wise to temper one's expectations and accept the deficiencies of the medium.

    Suffice it to say (glibly) that the eye (nee, the camera eye) will never take the place of our imaginations....
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Hobbit,

    Do I have to mention the numerous hideous attempts to adapt the ahead-of-his-time fantasy genius of Frank Baum's Oz series...?

    Sure, the original film is a golden age classic, but that's in spite of itself.


    Poor Tintin is likewise doomed....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Hobbit,

    Again, I can respect the purists' point-of-view.

    The problem lies in cutting through the dissonance which, frankly, would just end up confusing less-informed viewers.

    The task is thankless in itself without having to appeal to such a large disparate audience, from people who have never read the book to people who know every word by heart.

    Add to that the almighty dollar - the garganutan sums of money invested and reaped (which still couldn't save New Line) and "license" becomes the rule and not the exception.


    Again, I'll use the upcoming example of Tintin - world-renowned, beloved by hundreds of millions, a rich, intricate history and culture - there's simply no way that everyone will be completely satisfied with the results.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: The Hobbit,

    I thought the absence of Tom Bombadil was a MASSIVE omission

    The significance of a man who isn't affected by the Ring can't be understated as part of the story.  It establishes a canvas onto which the various extents of human corruption over powerlust can be painted.

    Otherwise, I thought the extended editions were beautiful and I can't wait to see the extended edition Blu-Rays, whenever those finally come out.

    I'm also very excited for the Hobbit - Ian McKellan is one of the best actors I've ever seen and I'm glad he reprised his role as Gandalf.  I also loved the Hobbit, which I initally read in 5th grade.  I also re-read Lord of the Rings once every few years (I'm long overdue this time around, but I've read them four times) and I also appreciate the use of language and the extent to which Tolkien filled his world with language, cultures, motivations, politics, geography, etc.
     

Share