Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[D.B. Barnes]

Here we go.

Strap in!

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

If you want the book why don't you just read the book and leave this thread alone?

A conversation without differing opinions is you talking to yourself. 

[doggans]

A conversation without differing opinions is you talking to yourself. 

I don't know about you, but when I talk to myself, I usually get at least seventeen differing opinions.

[Doctor Who?]

If you want the book why don't you just read the book and leave this thread alone?

A conversation without differing opinions is you talking to yourself. 

That is true but i can't see the point of him talking about a movie that he was never going to like in the first place.  The trouble with Tolkien fans(and the reason so many of them personally hate Peter Jackson)is that they don't understand that what works in a book doesn't always work on film. For instance Strider going around with a broken sword would have gotten the movie laughed out of theaters,likewise a dwarf warrior with a long blue beard would put people more in mind of Monty Python then epic adventure.  The only film version of these books he would like would be Tolkien reading the books to camera.  I don't think the new Sherlock Holmes movies are good so I ignore them and read my books,you don't see me bursting into a thread where people are talking about how much they are looking forward to the new one.  There just are not that many ways to say "this movie is not 100% true to the book,it sucks". Once you say that once there really is no point in repeating yourself.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

There just are not that many ways to say "this movie is not 100% true to the book,it sucks".

this has not been the entirety of his argument. 

)is that they don't understand that what works in a book doesn't always work on film

Only relevant if what he puts on film works.  Thus its a valid debate point. 

[Doctor Who?]

There just are not that many ways to say "this movie is not 100% true to the book,it sucks".

this has not been the entirety of his argument. 

)is that they don't understand that what works in a book doesn't always work on film

Only relevant if what he puts on film works.  Thus its a valid debate point. 

Well I would say winning 16 Oscars and ton of lesser awards counts as working on film.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Its a subjective thing and thus by nature up for debate. 

[Doctor Who?]

Its a subjective thing and thus by nature up for debate.  

Has he even mentioned if he thought something did not work on film?  No,all his post in any thread that talks about these movies is always just him saying it's not the same as the book so it's a bad movie. He never brings up if it worked on film or not.  To me it's pointless to talk about if a film works or not if you are not looking at it as a film.  That is all I am saying,it just gets a little old going into every thread that mentions The Lord of the Rings movies and hearing the same broken record over and over again. I'll shut up now.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

I'll shut up now

Ten bucks says i can make this not come true lol

Has he even mentioned the if something worked on film?

He said that the shire and the hobbits worked. 

[Doctor Who?]

Its a subjective thing and thus by nature up for debate.  

Has he even mentioned if he thought something did not work on film?  No,all his post in any thread that talks about these movies is always just him saying it's not the same as the book so it's a bad movie. He never brings up if it worked on film or not.  To me it's pointless to talk about if a film works or not if you are not looking at it as a film.  That is all I am saying,it just gets a little old going into every thread that mentions The Lord of the Rings movies and hearing the same broken record over and over again. I'll shut up now.

Doc: Fuck off. I'm tired of your spaz-attacks.

Carry on.

my point is that there really isn't any room for a debate or anything else.  I mean no one can say that the books and the movies are different animals,either you are okay with that or you are not.  Once you have said you are not I am not sure how there is supposed to be a debate.  I mean one person says I don't like the movies because they are different from the books,another says I still think they are good movies. Where does it go from there?

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

kay then


What did u mean he misunderstood the gollumn noise?  I thought it was exactly what he was doing. 

[doggans]

I mean no one can say that the books and the movies are different animals,either you are okay with that or you are not.

It's possible to be okay with the movie being different from the books, and still not be a fan of the specific way they're being handled. To use a hyperbolic example, someone might agree that films need to be colorful and visually interesting (a need books don't have), but they'd still be upset if Jackson had changed Gondor to downtown Las Vegas and Faramir into a clown.

[D.B. Barnes]

I mean no one can say that the books and the movies are different animals,either you are okay with that or you are not.

It's possible to be okay with the movie being different from the books, and still not be a fan of the specific way they're being handled. To use a hyperbolic example, someone might agree that films need to be colorful and visually interesting (a need books don't have), but they'd still be upset if Jackson had changed Gondor to downtown Las Vegas and Faramir into a clown.

Arwen the crack whore with mouth sores.

[doggans]

Arwen the crack whore with mouth sores.

I understand that was the first draft title of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

[D.B. Barnes]

Arwen the crack whore with mouth sores.

I understand that was the first draft title of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

picture yourself with a pipe in an alley...