The Hobbit

[X]

[Blah, Blah, Blah .... Trolling, trolling, trolling ... Some other nonsense]

I give you back your thread and will be done with this subject.

I turn my back and when I come back on the boards, I'm greeted with some classical old school trolling.

1) We're all entitled to have our own opinions of the books and movies. While you might consider it some sort of masterpiece, I think it's perhaps the best example of over written, over bloated, crap. The concepts are great, but you don't need several pages of story dedicated to the description of a Hobbit's feet. It read more like a paid by the word job than a well edited book. Raise your hands if you tried to get though Lord of the Rings and failed multiple times...

2) It was never said that it was a faithful scene for scene shot of the books. Even before the first movie came out, it was said several times that it was a interpretation of the books because the pacing doesn't work for films (Or books for that matter) and they wanted to put a larger presence of ladies in the film. No problems there!

3) Aragorn was middle age for his people ... If they aged slower, he would look younger than someone that was 70 from a human or even an elfen race.

We're all people that know how to read and obviously don't have a problem with the way the films are being done. We have access to all the notes and information that you decided to spew and the consensus is that we don't care. We don't care that changes were made. You point out obvious things to people that would know the books and then expect your ramblings to be seen as sage advice.

It doesn't.

It seems like a petty little rant from someone that wants desperately for people to not like what they don't like. Thems the breaks sometimes.

I will close by saying grow the hell up. This isn't about you. Stop trying to make it about your needs and wants.


PS. Who the hell is Mark Fisher and why should I give a damn about anything they have to say?

[Meds]

Opinions are awesome but as posted above this is a fun forum not a preaching forum. Rhen, detailed opinions, thanks for the comparrisons but remember you speak for yourself as I speak for myself (see Dr Who anywhere lol).

Ok back to Hobbit news where's Pete.

[QuadShot]

Wow. Cool thread. I think it's great that Rhen has such a passion for his beliefs. However dude, shouldn't take anything here so personally. You're a purist. That's cool. But, unless you're like, 12, you should know this about yourself and not see movies adapted from "classic" novels. Stick with the popcorn flicks. Less likely to pop a capillary that way! I read the LoTR and I agree with X (ok, no one faint), it is very tough to get through. Too many words of description, but that was Tolkiens style. Rhen, I challenge you to show us any movie converted from a classic novel that was 100% the same AS the novel. Can't be done. I for one (or for two depending on my psychological state at the moment!) LOVED Peter Jackson's version of LoTR and I (or we) are looking very forward to the Hobbit. Rhen, take some sage advice from an old man (no, not Rick Moyer, me!)...enjoy this forum for what it is. A great place for fellow geek types to get together and chat about our love for geeky topics and NOT be admonished for our opinions. I truly don't think people here had anything against the fact that you hated the movies, it was the way in which you fired back - like we were all stupid and wrong and you're opinion is the only one that counts. Let me ask you this: what's your feelings on corn dogs?

Oh, and Meds, you're wrong about Peter Jackson being the only one capable of making the Hobbit. There is ONE other who would be an awesome director/producer of this film. One who's potential has yet to be tapped. An awesome guy, if you will, of limitless potential. ME! :) Ohky...peace out! :)

[Meds]

Lol Al you kill me :D

[KingIsaacLinksr]

You make some good points Rhen, but if you added those to the movies, would that make it anymore interesting?  No, it would actually make them fairly 2-dimensional and dull.  

Even one of my favorite characters, Faramir has a rather dull part in the books.  He is not challenged by the Ring and is just so perfect and so noble.  Woopee.  In the movie, he is the underdog of the brothers, who has the crummiest luck of life and yet still holds to his values and lets the ring go not just because its what is expected of him due to his line, but because he believes its the right thing to do.  It makes him a sympathetic character.  

We watch Aragorn come to terms with his destiny, the drama, the self-doubt and the insecurity of it all.  That is far more interesting than a guy who yells "I will kill you all if you touch my precious!!!!".  Not to rag on the character too much though.  I like both interpretations of Aragorn, but for the movie, the book-literal translation would have fallen flat on many people, and lets face it.  The women in the theater need emo-guys (See Twilight....;))

Arwen's role in the books is pretty...small.  The relationship btw IS in the book to a degree in the back of it, though true she wasn't leaving per say, it still made her an interesting character.  According to the book, she would show up for a couple minutes in the first book and a couple minutes in the last book.  Yay.  End of story.  Boring and uninteresting.  I LIKE the fact that they gave the females a far more numerous and interesting role in the book.  

You have purist views and I by no means am saying you need to change.  But your post goes towards the real nitpicky and you basically threw out any room for interpretation or understanding as the posters here in this thread would be trying to convey.  Book-to-movie translations are never perfect, but the spirit of the movie comes really close to the intention of the book.  

It follows the drama of Sam and Frodo as they try and destroy the ring.  It follows the drama of the Return of The King.  Man overthrowing the dark lord and his legions.  And so many other themes it would fill this entire thread.  All of this was really brought out well.  Maybe the characters aren't perfect, but it works.  And I'll just go back to what X said earlier.  

I am not saying that characters need to be flawed to be interesting, but it sure helps.  

And btw, thanks to you, you actually got Al and X to agree on something.  I finally recovered after my fainting a few minutes ago to post this.  :P

King

[billybob476]

Can't believe I missed out on this heated debate until now. I'll agree with X here. Put me in the camp of "tried to read it and failed". I got through Fellowship once (probably on my 8th or 9th attempt) and moved on to Two Towers where I crapped out yet again. Maybe I just don't enjoy the genre enough but I just can't do it.

For many people the movies are how they know LOTR. Sure, there are differences, sure there are valid reasons to dislike those differences. But isn't it up to the individual to decide what they like?

It's likely I'll never read the Return of the King. Does that mean I should be denied ever experiencing the story?

I read the Hobbit in high school and maybe once more since then. I'm looking forward to seeing what is done with it.

[Jobydrone]

I don't see the guy trolling, I see him making an extremely detailed effort to explain his rather off the cuff previous post about how Peter Jackson ruined LOTR.  Nowhere does he call anyone out specifically, and nowhere was he insulting or inappropriate, except maybe making a poor choice with the last line of his post.  

Why this had to be made personal by accusing him of trolling and insulting him I don't understand.  Believe it or not it is possible for people to disagree without hurting each other's feelings or being cruel and insulting.

[billybob476]

I don't see the guy trolling, I see him making an extremely detailed effort to explain his rather off the cuff previous post about how Peter Jackson ruined LOTR.  Nowhere does he call anyone out specifically, and nowhere was he insulting or inappropriate, except maybe making a poor choice with the last line of his post. 

Why this had to be made personal by accusing him of trolling and insulting him I don't understand.  Believe it or not it is possible for people to disagree without hurting each other's feelings or being cruel and insulting.

Correct, this thread has been quite civil. Let's endeavour to keep it that way.

[Bryancd]

I have no problem with what he put's forawrd, it's here where it went south for me:

"Don't ask me to be happy about Peter Jackson getting his hands on The Hobbit. I have already read about what kind of abortion that is going to be. He is even going so far as to add his own made up plot characters not in the book.

I give you back your thread and will be done with this subject."

[X]

I don't see the guy trolling, I see him making an extremely detailed effort to explain his rather off the cuff previous post about how Peter Jackson ruined LOTR.  Nowhere does he call anyone out specifically, and nowhere was he insulting or inappropriate, except maybe making a poor choice with the last line of his post.  

Why this had to be made personal by accusing him of trolling and insulting him I don't understand.  Believe it or not it is possible for people to disagree without hurting each other's feelings or being cruel and insulting.

Joby, to me, classic trolling is exactly what he did. It's going to a message board and creating a debate by making statement designed to get a reaction. It had the exact reaction that would be caused in the days of old when the word first came about. I don't think anyone at all insulted him, but that's not the point. He said what he had to say and got a response to those statements. I can only read what's on the screen and reply to what I infer from those words.

As for cruel, I don't think anything said was cruel. Hell, given some of the exchanges on this board about some beloved subject, I think it was pretty civil. I know full well how these debates can go and when things you are passionate about are involved, expect passionate responses.

Again, you might not have seen the comments as trolling, but I did and I responded to it as I would to any trolling comments. You could be right or I could be right. We don't know because we don't know the motivations behind the post. The one thing we can be certain of given the responses to them is that they were inflammatory. I responded to that.

After a few more posts, there was a detailed post on things, but even then, it was subject to inaccuracies and interpretations. Opinions were stated as fact and that creates yet even more debate. Hopefully no feelings were hurt, but in the end opinions were voiced and I voiced mine.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion and I'm not going to get mad if they don't. My opinion is just that, my opinion. If someone takes offense to that, that's fair. However, isn't it only fair that myself or others could have taken offense to what was said and responded passionately?

I also don't think that anything anyone said is offense worthy. I mean you should have a nice brass pair and thick skin when you post some of the ideas that were said. Had I done something similar, I would not only accept responses, I'd expect them.

[X]

I have no problem with what he put's forawrd, it's here where it went south for me:

"Don't ask me to be happy about Peter Jackson getting his hands on The Hobbit. I have already read about what kind of abortion that is going to be. He is even going so far as to add his own made up plot characters not in the book.

I give you back your thread and will be done with this subject."

Yeah ... that did sort of come of as an edict from on high, but that's only what I got from it.

[X]

Let me clarify. To me the whole series of posts felt like people sitting at a table talking about something and sharing the latest news. They someone comes by and proceed to pee on them and then tells them they have permission to carry on while they are all setting there drenched and wondering what the hell just happened.

[Jobydrone]

"It seems like a petty little rant from someone that wants desperately for people to not like what they don't like. Thems the breaks sometimes.

I will close by saying grow the hell up. This isn't about you. Stop trying to make it about your needs and wants."

Chris, the above part of your quote was what I was referring to as unnecessary and insulting, and I guess whether we believe the guy was trolling or expressing his opinion on the subject at hand is a matter of opinion.  

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Let me clarify. To me the whole series of posts felt like people sitting at a table talking about something and sharing the latest news. They someone comes by and proceed to pee on them and then tells them they have permission to carry on while they are all setting there drenched and wondering what the hell just happened.

Yeah, I'd agree with this assessment.  Classic trolling move.  And if it wasn't designed to be trolling, well, it sure did come out of the blue.  

Not all trolling contain insults or similar.

King

[Jobydrone]

Let me clarify. To me the whole series of posts felt like people sitting at a table talking about something and sharing the latest news. They someone comes by and proceed to pee on them and then tells them they have permission to carry on while they are all setting there drenched and wondering what the hell just happened.

I do see your point here, but I think he tried to explain himself mostly admirably and was subsequently shat upon for doing so. (to continue the evacuatory metaphors)