Golem is...
-
@ajstringham wow. I've met very few people who have seen the movies but not read the books. I know lots who have read the books but not seen the movies.
Although this is the one (and ONLY) time where I feel that the movie actually is better than the book. I would never, ever make that recommendation. But J.R.R. Tolkien is actually not a good writer. He's a good story maker, but not a good writer and the writing is plainly... bad. He'd do poorly on any college level creative writing project. He's confusing and droning and boring and meandering. The movies actually clean it up a lot and trim the fat. He was clearly a man without an editor which he desperately needed.
-
How can you not have read the books and see those movies by now! We go through them at least once a year and watch them. Can't wait for the last of the Hobbit movies in December. Which means we will start in November with the Hobbit 1 and 2 before we go see 3. And then finish watching all the Lord of the Rings after that.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
How can you not have read the books and see those movies by now! We go through them at least once a year and watch them. Can't wait for the last of the Hobbit movies in December. Which means we will start in November with the Hobbit 1 and 2 before we go see 3. And then finish watching all the Lord of the Rings after that.
Now the Hobbit series is the predecessors to the LOTR series, right?
-
@ajstringham Right, it follows Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's Uncle) through his journey with a band of dwarfs.
-
You hear some of this story referenced in LOTR (the book Bilbo is writing is about these adventures).
-
@ajstringham said:
@Minion-Queen said:
How can you not have read the books and see those movies by now! We go through them at least once a year and watch them. Can't wait for the last of the Hobbit movies in December. Which means we will start in November with the Hobbit 1 and 2 before we go see 3. And then finish watching all the Lord of the Rings after that.
Now the Hobbit series is the predecessors to the LOTR series, right?
Correct, it is the prequel and was written first.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
You hear some of this story referenced in LOTR (the book Bilbo is writing is about these adventures).
@coliver said:
@ajstringham Right, it follows Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's Uncle) through his journey with a band of dwarfs.
That's what I thought. Awesome. I look forward to watching those next!
-
@Minion-Queen said:
You hear some of this story referenced in LOTR (the book Bilbo is writing is about these adventures).
He's actually writing "The Hobbit". Also known as "There and Back Again."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
@Minion-Queen said:
How can you not have read the books and see those movies by now! We go through them at least once a year and watch them. Can't wait for the last of the Hobbit movies in December. Which means we will start in November with the Hobbit 1 and 2 before we go see 3. And then finish watching all the Lord of the Rings after that.
Now the Hobbit series is the predecessors to the LOTR series, right?
Correct, it is the prequel and was written first.
So LOTR and The Hobbit pulled at a George Lucas and did 4-6 first and then 1-3? LOL
-
@ajstringham said:
That's what I thought. Awesome. I look forward to watching those next!
You almost had a chance to watch them first. Only a few more months until that series is completed. Although they are not doing as good of a job with those as with LOTR. The pacing is much poorer.
Although huge bit of awesome that the brown wizard is also Doctor Who Number 7!
-
@ajstringham said:
So LOTR and The Hobbit pulled at a George Lucas and did 4-6 first and then 1-3? LOL
The movies were made out of order, not written out of order like GL did.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
So LOTR and The Hobbit pulled at a George Lucas and did 4-6 first and then 1-3? LOL
The movies were made out of order, not written out of order like GL did.
Still, I find it kind of funny.
-
@ajstringham Also somehow they are turning a small novel into a trilogy. I regrettably haven't watched any of The Hobbit movies yet but I just find it strange that a fairly short book could be fluffed up to three movies.
-
@coliver said:
@ajstringham Also somehow they are turning a small novel into a trilogy. I regrettably haven't watched any of The Hobbit movies yet but I just find it strange that a fairly short book could be fluffed up to three movies.
Yes, it feels seriously slow. There is way too much movie for far too little storyline. One long movie would have been perfect.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@ajstringham Also somehow they are turning a small novel into a trilogy. I regrettably haven't watched any of The Hobbit movies yet but I just find it strange that a fairly short book could be fluffed up to three movies.
Yes, it feels seriously slow. There is way too much movie for far too little storyline. One long movie would have been perfect.
Each LOTR movie is 3.5 hours with like half an hour of credits! It's nuts!
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@ajstringham Also somehow they are turning a small novel into a trilogy. I regrettably haven't watched any of The Hobbit movies yet but I just find it strange that a fairly short book could be fluffed up to three movies.
Yes, it feels seriously slow. There is way too much movie for far too little storyline. One long movie would have been perfect.
Each LOTR movie is 3.5 hours with like half an hour of credits! It's nuts!
They actually dropped a lot of the story, or subplots rather, from the LOTR trilogy that made the books readable. They also picked up on them strangely throughout part of the movies without the foreshadowing that was in the books.
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@ajstringham Also somehow they are turning a small novel into a trilogy. I regrettably haven't watched any of The Hobbit movies yet but I just find it strange that a fairly short book could be fluffed up to three movies.
Yes, it feels seriously slow. There is way too much movie for far too little storyline. One long movie would have been perfect.
Each LOTR movie is 3.5 hours with like half an hour of credits! It's nuts!
Yeah, they had to trim a lot. Those books are crazy long.
-
@coliver said:
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@ajstringham Also somehow they are turning a small novel into a trilogy. I regrettably haven't watched any of The Hobbit movies yet but I just find it strange that a fairly short book could be fluffed up to three movies.
Yes, it feels seriously slow. There is way too much movie for far too little storyline. One long movie would have been perfect.
Each LOTR movie is 3.5 hours with like half an hour of credits! It's nuts!
They actually dropped a lot of the story, or subplots rather, from the LOTR trilogy that made the books readable. They also picked up on them strangely throughout part of the movies without the foreshadowing that was in the books.
Yeah, the pacing is much improved but some of the important details are messed up.
-
Its funny - I thought the LOTR was boring as well - sure the fight scenes were awesome, but in general I'll be asleep 45 mins in.
Now Surprisingly, The Hobbit series has held my attention better.
-
@Dashrender said:
Its funny - I thought the LOTR was boring as well - sure the fight scenes were awesome, but in general I'll be asleep 45 mins in.
Now Surprisingly, The Hobbit series has held my attention better.
I don't call them boring, but I haven't sat and watched one start to finish without stopping yet. I watched 2 hours of The Two Towers and then took a break and then watched the second half. These things need intermissions! LOL
