Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

SoulSurfer · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2005 07:22 AM by SoulSurfer.)

one big problem is....Mos Def is playing Ford, i\'m still reserving judgement but it dont think that can be good, i just love the book and old tv show too much to see big changes i think

isoFlux · 02-10-2005, 07:33 AM

Douglas Adams did a lot of work on the movie, and had a LOT of do\'s and don\'ts layed out. and the director is sticking to them to the letter. he is going to stay true to the concepts Douglas Adams set up for the movie in the first place. that, i think, is something that few book -> movie translations can boast. i wont be sure untill ive seen it, but i have quite high hopes for this one Smile

the books will always be the best, and the TV show was funny and quirky, but i am totally looking forward to the movie. it doesnt really \"change\" anything, really. those books are whatever you want them to be, and some director tweaking the story here and there for a movie shouldnt change your \"digestion\" of the books in their own context.

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2005 07:55 AM by =D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD.)

isoFlux Wrote:Douglas Adams did a lot of work on the movie, and had a LOT of do\'s and don\'ts layed out. and the director is sticking to them to the letter. he is going to stay true to the concepts

Good news! Old Dougie was a Mac enthusiast aswell, bless him!

isoFlux Wrote:And some director tweaking the story here and there for a movie shouldnt change your "digestion" of the books in their own context.

Lol, Punisher and SoulSurfer each has a Voodoo doll-version of Peter Jackson which they routinely torture every evening, just for leaving out Tom Bombadil. So don?t be heart broken when the nay-sayers arrive en masse!

The_Punisher · 02-10-2005, 08:49 AM

No, it\'s not for leaving out Tom Bombadil. Bombadil was an aside to the story that really had no purpose.

What I\'m mad about is Jackson cutting out the most important parts in the third one.

SoulSurfer · 02-10-2005, 09:26 AM

god yeah i\'m with you pun, and the extended edition of return of the king was a joke, a joke i tell you

=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2005 06:34 PM by =D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD.)

Remove thumbs from butts, insert humour, empathy, zeitgeist.

My poiiiint, chaps: even if the people behind a film uses years and years of time, all their dedication and sweat to get an impossible, maniac feat like LOTR off the grounds, there will always be a surly teen somewhere thinking \"its the worst film ever\" (compared to fucking what!?) because of someones hair having the wrong colour or something compared to the book.

Face it; you are sad, sad nerds. LOL!

PS don\'t go ballistic, i\'m only a bored loser having a laugh.

viper · 02-10-2005, 07:40 PM

SoulSurfer · 02-10-2005, 09:34 PM

To be honest i think we were very lucky with the LOTR trillogy, i\'m glad they waited all these years for when graphical technology was up to the task of making the world that tolkien created, the first two movies are amazing pure masterpieces, they stick to the book well there entertaining well acted and with amazing battles and effects. What i dont understand is why he vered off from the book in the third, as the thrid movie goes its also good (by no means my favorite the two towers is my favorite of the movies) but it was good. When i got the Return of the king extended edition though thats when the dissapointment set in, if he was going to stray from the book he should have just left stuff out like he did in the theatrical rotk, i\'m probably just bitter because i was hoping for 45 mins of the shire being scoured at the end but just got 10 mins of saruman dieing in the wrong place at the wrong time and 35 mins of extended battle sequences and people walked (or thats what it seemed like)

**ElvenKind** · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2005 10:10 PM by ElvenKind.)

LOTR was good indeed but like all books2movies it had some annoyances of some importancy :

It was Frodo's birthday aswell, actually his "Coming of Age" wich was quite important.
Frodo didn't leave the shire for quite a few years after Bilbo's "disappearance".
Merry and Pippin encounter. No no no!
What is the elf princess doing rescuing Frodo form the wraiths? This was not the case in the book.
Strider never took a dive off a clif due to some suicidal wolf beast.
Why does Faramir bring Frodo to the ruined city? He never did that, he was the smart one.
Etc.

Still, it was a good three movies. Well done with the time available. Jackson is right about not making 3 movies - each 5 hours long, just to get some more detail. Nevertheless it's our \"duty\" as Tolkien fans (read fanatics) to piss and moan about what *we* missed in the movies. Allthough, *that* doesn't make the three movies \"worst ever\". Not even close. I liked them alot even though I admit to having said \"Why the **** did he leave out that?\" Big Grin

Anyways, I'm actually more worried about Constantine. The producer seems to have gone off a cliff already with the trailers for the movie :

Where is the trenchcoat?
Whats with the crusifix looking crossbow?
Why oh why did they pick Mr. Matrix for the lead?
Constantine is blonde!
Etc.

Hellblazer was an underground icon. Now, I'm afraid they'll hollwood it to hell.
[Image: 1067364876_nstantine3.JPG]

Links :
Wallpaper 01
Wallpaper 01
Cover Pages from Hellblazer

The_Punisher · 02-10-2005, 10:22 PM

I\'m not mad because he changed it, I\'m mad because I know he could have done better. The first two movies were awesome. But why fuck it up on the last one?