Ok buddy you wanted to pick a fight you just did.
Quote
Originally posted by: JamesEightBitStar
Hey, find a newborn baby and ask him to eat crap, and see if he agrees that it's crap. If the newborn baby decides he likes eating crap, that must mean the baby is right and that my perception of food has changed, right?
WTF that is the kinda short sight idoit comment that i would expect from an individual like you. why the f*ck would you give a baby crap, and secondly what the f*ck does that have to do with a TV show. seriously man if you are try to compare the too think of something a lil more accurate. I understand that you frustrated with media nowadays but if you want to be takin seriously use a better comparison.
Quote
No offense man, but the "your perception has changed" is the biggest hunk of complete bull I've ever heard. I watch the old and new Star Wars movies back to back--there is a huge and definite difference in terms of storytelling style. I play the old Zeldas and the new Zeldas back to back. There are HUGE differences in the gameplay. The games didn't just re-write themselves magically to fit my "perceptions."
Wow so your telling me that you havent grown up since you were ten, man that really explain alot about your character. "WHY CAN IT BE MY WAY, I WANT IT LIKE THIS NOT LIKE THAT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" f*ckin grow up, and let your balls drop. you preception changes as you grow older, its just a fact, you are a different person now then you were when you were ten, why cus people change. wow you played all the zelda back to back man you need to get out more, thats alot of game play. and as for Starwars, you'll you will never beable to watch the PT movies from the POV that you watched the originals, the reason why you still like the originals is cus they captured your attention when you were little. the PT will never do that cus you watched the for the first time after you had matured.
Quote
And what, exactly, do you base this on? Ralph Bakshi did an LOTR movie that was more-or-less an accurate adaptation. Granted, his only covers up to the Battle of Helm's Deep (he ran out of money before he could finish it) but it told the story (and told it well, in my opinion) in about the same length of time it takes to watch Peter Jackson's first LOTR movie.
well lets see i have read the book once a year since i was hmm 10. i have done projects on the book, for school i have done biographies on tolkien, i know the boks inside out. that what i base my assertion on. as for ralph Bakshi's version, yes i personally liked it, however all the stuff he did with the orcs the half cartoon half constume shit was stupid, also not finishing is a big indicator on how good some people thought the movie was. and dont tell me that it did a good job of portraying the books, because he never finished the hard part of it. the fellowship and the first half of TTT are the easiest parts to adopt from the book cus there is lots of imagery. but ROTK had alot of events that happen quickly and close together, that dont take much time in the book but take alot of time in the movies. But man you can't compare his version to PJs version why cus they were made in different times, by different people, in different mediums, and with different bugets.
Quotei was accounting for that man but your right it wouldnt be 30 hrs long a direct tranlation of the books into a movie would be at least 15hrs. rent the bbc versions of books the total air times adds up to 13 hours, that is with larger portions of dialog cut out. the lotr movies add up to 10 hrs. hmm.. thats 3 full hours. on top of that 20-30% of the films were scene without dialog showing middle earth. you cannot expect people to go and see a 15 hr movie, the current versions were really pushing the lengths as it was. also i am sure you can read that you can read a peice of dialog faster then a person can say it. espeically when they have to act it out.
Secondly, most of the reason the books are so long is because of Tolkien's detailed descriptions, and because of dialogue. In a visual medium, the length of both would be drastically reduced--after all, it's much quicker to SHOW people a vivid landscape than it is to tell them about it, and generally when you hear people actually talking, it's much faster then reading them on a page.
There is, simply put, no basis for the "it would've been a 30 hour movie" claim.
Quote
That's why many of these revivals are abysmal failures, right?
Besides that, "butchering my childhood" and "making the shows I like so they appeal to kids of today" are pretty much the same thing, just one is saying it in a sugar-coated way.
i need to get out, buddy trust me i get out and i do alot of shit that doesnt include watching the Starwars movies back to back, or playing all the zelda game in a row. I can have a good time without playing a video game or watching a movie.
hmm. abysmal revivals yeah so thats why lotr gross over a billion dollars, and made history but winning so many awards, that is why spiderman is a good movie right, or why shows like beasties were good, yeah man that is why these revivals are failures.
you are a very shortsight and selfish individual, if entertaining the youth of today is the raping of your childhood, then so be it. man i feel like beating the shit out of you for being so selfish.