logo Sign In

Is the Hobbit prequel trilogy suffering the same problems as the Star Wars prequel Trilogy? — Page 5

Author
Time

Heero Yuy said:

why are you being such a dishonest, emotional argument making coward?


I'm just trying to fit in with the rest of you.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Then I'd advise not taking cues from the apologists and autists from TF.N like you've been doing in your posts. I'm the one being level headed, objective, and analytical here. Demonstrably you've not been anything of the sort.

Do better next time. 

Author
Time

Easterhay said:



Lucas won't be releasing any Star Wars films, OOT or otherwise, anyway, so that's another stupid question you've asked today.

 You realize the website's purpose is to get the Originals released???  I hate the movie Forrest Gump, but I wouldn't go to Forrest Gump Message Boards and shit all over their fans. 

Author
Time

CO said:

Easterhay said:



Lucas won't be releasing any Star Wars films, OOT or otherwise, anyway, so that's another stupid question you've asked today.

 You realize the website's purpose is to get the Originals released???  I hate the movie Forrest Gump, but I wouldn't go to Forrest Gump Message Boards and shit all over their fans. 

 Eh, I don't really mind differing opinions. We don't want this place to become a mindless circle jerk like Lucas apologists are trying to turn TF.N into, do we? 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Heero Yuy said:

 Eh, I don't really mind differing opinions. We don't want this place to become a mindless circle jerk like Lucas apologists are trying to turn TF.N into, do we? 

 I don't mind different opinions on the SW movies, but the reason were all here is to get the OOT released.  Honestly, if someone comes in here to shit all over the OOT, then whats the point of the site?

The better analogy would be if someone went to TFN and didn't like ANY SW movie, and just started ragging on the 6 movies.  The point is everyone goes there to talk about SW movies, but the problem with TFN is they wanted EVERYONE to love the 6 movies and ran off any OOT fans who didn't like the PT.

We are all here to get the OOT released, and that was the original point of the site.  Now if someone wants to tell us how much they love Episode I, they have every  right to do it.

Author
Time

I've noticed this place has gotten a bit more hostile in the last day or two.

*glares at the jawa*

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

...I think laying claim to a term (talking about "mannequin" skywalker here) three years after it had already been invented, regardless of whether you've heard the phrase before, would be hard to defend in a court of law! Easier to simply accept that you didn't come up with the term but perhaps you're just on the same wavelength as the person who first thought of it...

That's why I suggested more realistic possibility of parallel evolution. Though as George Harrison found out sometimes one picks up on things without remembering it :-D

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

I'm not sure about playing games. What I am sure about is that you made a sweeping and wholly incorrect remark before and you've yet to address that; instead you're attempting to move on to discuss something else, something which isn't even apropos to this thread. And you have the gall to call people out on making "irrelevant" points.

Lucas won't be releasing any Star Wars films, OOT or otherwise, anyway, so that's another stupid question you've asked today.

 What is the point of this argument attacking? We're here to discuss the topic of the thread, not how strong someone's logic or argument is.

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Well, Jackson has wrought more changes on his Tolkien films in a lot less time than it took Lucas to start revising his films so there's another difference. So god only knows how many versions will exist of both LOTR and The Hobbit in, say, thirty years' time.

Jackson has wrought exactly one change on the home video releases of the theatrical edition of LOTR. He removed a car that drove through the Shire when the Hobbits were reflecting on what it meant to leave (IIRC). I am personally rather offended by this--I had written a 26-chapter fanfic loosely based on Tolkien's time-travel story in The Lost Road, which required me to construct a hypothetical intermediate language between Adunaic and Old English, all to explain the presence of a car in the Third Age. When I saw that Jackson had removed it, I deleted the whole thing in a fit of rage. But I cannot argue removing the car significantly alters the film, or that a reasonable person would want it put back. It was not an intentional element of the film, not the work of one of the many artists and artisans who contributed to the work.

(If I wanted to be annoyingly pedantic, I could point out that there were two theatrical editions of the first one or two films--the initial release, and the re-release with the teaser for the next movie. You cannot watch the re-release with an integral teaser, but the teasers are available with one or both home video versions.)

"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time

There was also a car in Army of Darkness.  They clearly existed.

Author
Time

Heero Yuy said:


Then I'd advise not taking cues from the apologists and autists from TF.N like you've been doing in your posts. I'm the one being level headed, objective, and analytical here. Demonstrably you've not been anything of the sort.

Do better next time. 


Do better next time? I'd relish the opportunity to give you a smack in the mouth. Don't refer to people as "autists" just because you don't like what they have to say. Nothing I have said amounts to that level of offense and your remark is completely uncalled for.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Scruffy said:



Jackson has wrought exactly one change on the home video releases of the theatrical edition of LOTR.


I was referring to the changes made in the extended editions.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Heero Yuy said:


Then I'd advise not taking cues from the apologists and autists from TF.N like you've been doing in your posts. I'm the one being level headed, objective, and analytical here. Demonstrably you've not been anything of the sort.

Do better next time. 



Do better next time? I'd relish the opportunity to give you a smack in the mouth. Don't refer to people as "autists" just because you don't like what they have to say. Nothing I have said amounts to that level of offense and your remark is completely uncalled for.

 Official Warning #1

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Guidelines-for-Post-Content-and-General-Behavior-Or-How-Not-To-Get-Banned/forum/2/topic/12074/

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

eiyosus said:


I've noticed this place has gotten a bit more hostile in the last day or two.



*glares at the jawa*


What a sad state affairs when someone here can make a glib and offensive remark about autism and get away with it while someone who passionately disagress with and makes a stand against the stream of vituperative bile that makes up the majority of the posts here gets whinged at for being "hostile".

Small wonder that my visits here are so infrequent.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

SilverWook said:



Easterhay said:


Heero Yuy said:

Then I'd advise not taking cues from the apologists and autists from TF.N like you've been doing in your posts. I'm the one being level headed, objective, and analytical here. Demonstrably you've not been anything of the sort.

Do better next time. 




Do better next time? I'd relish the opportunity to give you a smack in the mouth. Don't refer to people as "autists" just because you don't like what they have to say. Nothing I have said amounts to that level of offense and your remark is completely uncalled for.




 Official Warning #1

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Guidelines-for-Post-Content-and-General-Behavior-Or-How-Not-To-Get-Banned/forum/2/topic/12074/


You can officially do one, Silver Wook.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Smarting off to a mod is a fast track to warning #2.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:


Smarting off to a mod is a fast track to warning #2.


Well I'm terrified now.

Private message sent - you should be fucking ashamed of yourself, as should the poster in question.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time

Dial it back right now, mister.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Heero Yuy said:

Then I'd advise not taking cues from the apologists and autists from TF.N like you've been doing in your posts. I'm the one being level headed, objective, and analytical here. Demonstrably you've not been anything of the sort.

Do better next time. 

 Might be a good idea to not use the A word in this context in the future. Especially if it's going to get people upset. I doubt anyone would appreciate other terms for people with disabilities being casually tossed around as adjectives. It's not political correctness, it's called being considerate.

Now everyone please chill out?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Easterhay said:

Heero Yuy said:


Then I'd advise not taking cues from the apologists and autists from TF.N like you've been doing in your posts. I'm the one being level headed, objective, and analytical here. Demonstrably you've not been anything of the sort.

Do better next time. 



Do better next time? I'd relish the opportunity to give you a smack in the mouth. Don't refer to people as "autists" just because you don't like what they have to say. Nothing I have said amounts to that level of offense and your remark is completely uncalled for.

LOL, watch it guys! We got a badass over her

Relax, boy. I've been nice to you so far. Once again, you rely on emotional points in lieu of anything substantial.

No need to get uppity just because I hit you close to home.

Author
Time

Wait--we're not supposed to say "apologists" anymore?

Booooo.

Author
Time

Don't minimize it.  Using "autist" as a derogatory term was simply outside the realm of basic civility.  While this doesn't excuse threats of bodily harm, it was the first punch, as it were.  The mods have spoken.  Chill, move on.

Although to be honest, A-words in general do seem to be a trigger for Easterhay.  I recall he also threw a complete wobbly when I used the word "astute" to compliment his son once.  True story.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

Scruffy said:



Jackson has wrought exactly one change on the home video releases of the theatrical edition of LOTR.



I was referring to the changes made in the extended editions.

Which are not analogous to any version of the Star Wars Trilogy, for reasons already explained. In fact, they serve as an excellent counterexample or foil to the continuing Star Wars debacle. Jackson (or whoever controls these things) released the Carless Theatrical Trilogy and the EE on DVD. Then, when Blu-Ray became a thing, he released both versions of the trilogy on that. All of them were quality products, with good transfers* and a bunch of well-thought-out extras. The creators obviously saw value in both versions, and put a lot of work into giving them the treatment each deserved. If two versions of LOTR can circulate side-by-side for years, surely we could have had multiple versions of Star Wars all this time?

It's also kind of relevant that the EE really is an extended edition, not a new edition. It was produced alongside the theatrical editions. It draws from the same script, cast, crew, photography, effects work, score, locations, etc. They are all products of the same filmmaking effort; one is simply a slightly longer cut than the other. The Star Wars SEs are not so closely bound to their theatrical editions. The SEs represent a variety of viewpoints, ideas, techniques, and actors from across several decades. Older George has different ideas than younger George.** Grafting 21st century George Lucas's ideas on top of 1977 George Lucas's ideas, then taking 1977 George off the market, is a completely different prospect than Peter Jackson making two different versions of a movie for different audiences.

* though there have been complaints about a green tint to the Blu-Rays

** My own hobby horse is Luke's dilemma throughout RotJ, and his debate with Obi-Wan Kenobi. As originally envisioned, Luke was right and Kenobi was wrong. There was good in his father, and we see that the old man is good at heart when Darth Vader's aged spirit turns out to be a kindly old man. In the revision, Kenobi was right. Anakin Skywalker really had died when he became evil, and thus his redeemed ghost has the aspect of a young, not-yet-corrupted man. I think this is due to the aging auteur shifting his sympathy from the idealistic youth to the cynical senex, but I might be overthinking it. I don't think there's anything in the LOTR EE that really reverses the story told in the theatrical editions like that.

"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time

I haven't seen the new Hobbit films and probably won't. I really liked The Fellowship Of The Ring when it came out, I must have been 19 or 20. But when I watched it again in 2010 I didn't think too highly of it anymore, and Peter Jackson is a terrible, terrible director in my opinion. I think if people go back and watch these films at an older age, they may form a different opinion, similar to how a lot of PT fanboys stopped liking those "movies" once they grew up.

Return of the King was absolutely insufferable when I watched it in 2003. Other than Viggo Mortensen's performance, there was nothing redeemable about that flick at all.

Author
Time

Darth Id said:

Wait--we're not supposed to say "apologists" anymore?

Booooo.

 LOL!!!