CP3S

Is Kerr's edit decently edited? I'm not a huge fan of fanedits. The problem is anyone who has a computer can make one, and more often than not they are painfully amateurish and extremely poor quality.

darth_ender said:

@C3PS, in The Fellowship film, Saruman says the Uruk-hai are a cross of orcs and goblin-men. In the novel they are said to be a cross of orcs and men. I'm assuming your friends were relying on the film as their source. As for goblins being stronger, I've never read anything, nor remember seeing anything on film that implied that; goblins have always appeared to be weaker when any distinction was made, it seems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk-hai#Adaptations

Yeah, they are definitely 100% dependent on the movies for anything they know about LOTR. That is weird. Any ideas where Jackson came up with the orcs and goblin-men thing? What the heck is a "goblin-man" according to the movies? In the book "goblin-men" is what some characters actually call the Uruk-hai, IIRC. So they are basically claiming Uruk-hai are a cross between orcs and uruk-hai, right?

Anyway, I guess that means they were completely right then, following Jackson's lore.

The History of the Hobbit...hadn't seen that before. That looks really cool!

I know, right! That was a book I was extremely excited about and couldn't wait for in the months prior to its release. Then volume one finally came out and I figured I could wait an extra few weeks to get it at a reduced used price off amazon. I guess I got sidetracked or used to waiting for it, now it has been out for years, and I still haven't managed to get it. Still really want it.

darth_ender said:

    What do you think about ommitting the Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil?

I think it is good Tom got cut. The scouring of the Shire is one of my favorite parts of the book. In fact, sometimes I will just pick up the book and read that section when I feel like a small dose of Tolkien without a big commitment.

I feel like it is a really important part of the story and really shows the growth and maturity the hobbit characters went through during their adventure. They left scared and nervous young hobbits, and returned to something their former selves would have once considered a nightmare, but now they laugh in its face and run it off. However, ROTK already felt a bit bogged down at the end, it would have been hard to find a place to put it, and it would have messed with the pacing of the film. Like Akwat said, it would have been pretty anti-climactic being shoved in after the climax of the film.

@ Akwat. I've always wanted to do an edit that follows the book chronology of events. Did you do that in yours?

In fact, since I am very ADHD and have a very hard time sitting through 3 hour plus long movies in one sitting, I've always wanted to edit all three extended editions of the LOTR films into 40-50 minute episodes like a television series, ordering and editing together each episode as closely as possible to chapters from the book (for example, for a whole episode we'd follow Frodo and Sam, rather than flipping back and forth between various character's stories every few minutes as done in the films. Also wanted to add a brief title intro to make them feel authentic.

Watching The Hobbit has kind of re-sparked my interest in doing something like this, only now with the three Hobbit films as season one of the series. I'd be a lot of work though.

Akwat said:

Goblins and orcs are just two different names for the same creature. Cross an orc with a human, however, and you get a half-orc. Saruman's Uruk-Hai are a particular breed of half-orc that were stronger, smarter, and larger than regular orcs and could also withstand sunlight. Another product of Saruman's "orc husbandry" was a race called "goblin-men" which are only mentioned once or twice, and about whom very little is known. Most likely, they too were a specific breed of half-orc, distinct from both Uruk-Hai and from garden-variety half-orcs. (In the FOTR movie, Gandalf tells Elrond that the Uruk-Hai are a product of Saruman's cross-breeding orcs with goblin-men. I'm pretty sure, from a book standpoint, that this is erroneous.)

Ah, I knew of the few different breeds of half-orcs, but I thought goblin-men was used to describe Uruk-Hai when told from the perspective of characters who didn't know what a Uruk-Hai was. I took it as more of a descriptive name for something that appears to be a cross between an orc/goblin and a human (which of course, was a Uruk).

And yeah, I am sure the films saying they are a cross between goblin-men and orcs is entirely erroneous from the book standpoint. Clearly Jackson and Co made the decision to separate the species of goblins and orcs long before An Unexpected Journey.

I also hated the inclusion of the anachronistic golf and croquet references. I think the golf joke worked fine for the book, but in a film made to be a prequel to the Lord of the Rings movies, it was really out of place.

Ordinarily I would agree on this point. But seeing as how these references were straight out of the book, somehow I can't bring myself to fault them. I couldn't help but smile when I heard these references in the theatre.

I know they came from Tolkien, and I think they fit fine with the tone of the book just fine. I just fell they were something that made it fit poorly with the LOTR films. Leaving them out of the movie, when they left out so many other things, would have been preferable to me.

I knew you did, because I am pretty sure we've talked about them before. I just followed Ender's lead without thinking, then right after making my post, I read yours saying you have, realized of course you have, and edited my post. Must have missed my edit.

I think your comments on having just learned The Hobbit underwent major revisions struck us an something that would come from someone who was not yet a Tolkien initiate. Must be one of those guys who skips all the forwards and other pages at the beginning of a book and skip right to Chapter One, otherwise you would have read Tolkien's in universe explanation of the true events that took place in The Hobbit and Bilbo's lies that were found in the book and found yourself scratching your head because the true events were what you read in the book. In other words,

C3PS said

"I encourage you to read the forward to the book, xhonzi." 

Fixed.

Oh yeah, and the appendices are fun too.

xhonzi said:

CP3S said:

...the universe of the LOTR films by feeling in the blanks...

 Eh?

Dah, this is why you proof read your post, C3PX!

Placed my further replies to the discussion on the subject of Tolkien in Akwat's new thread.

Xhonzi said:

Part of the rumour I heard was that Jackson & Co. had access to the partial rewrite (as far as I know, it's not publicly available) when formulating the new movies.  It makes me wonder what parts of the movie come from there, especially Bilbo's reasoning with the trolls.  But if he were rewriting it, why would he leave the silliness in?

I was under the impression pretty much anything anyone could want to see/read of the two versions of The Hobbit was covered and published in the nifty two volume History of the Hobbit released a few years back, but I could very well be mistaken.

darth_ender said:

Anyway, yes, I'd heard he had been at least planning for a rewrite, though I didn't know he'd made much progress. Interestingly, another thing I'd read was that he planned on changing all references to "goblins" in the Hobbit to "orcs," as they are supposed to be the same creatures. However, many have interpreted them to be smaller and less fearsome, given their more childish nature in the books. But initially the distinction is not so clear.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#Orcs.2C_Goblins.2C_and_Uruks

Thanks for the link!

Right after seeing The Hobbit I mentioned to my three friends I saw it with that I thought it was interesting that the film split orcs and goblins into two different creatures, when in the books they are the same thing, having been called goblins in The Hobbit, and changed to orcs in LOTR (including Tolkien's forward, which recounts events of The Hobbit, now using the term orc in place of goblin). Upon mentioning this, all three of my friends slowly turned their heads toward me, eyebrows raised, and two of them in unison said, "No they're not! They've always been different!" They then explained that the Uruk-hai were a cross breed between goblins and orcs, and that goblins are stronger than orcs, but die when exposed to sunlight, and that the significance of the uruk-hai were that they had the mixed strength of goblins along with the orcs ability to walk in daylight.

What??? Where did they get this from? Their sureness and detail on the matter made me highly doubt what I thought I knew on the subject, but Ender's link confirms I was correct. Is this alternative take on the two species and origin of the Uruk-hai explained in the LOTR movies or something? I've read the book numerous times, but I have only seen the movies a couple of times, and the only extended edition I have seen is Fellowship, meanwhile my buddies are LOTR film fans and have never read Tolkien's works.

I encourage you to read the books, xhonzi.

Seconded, though you've already read them. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't read them to give them a shot.

For years you had two kinds of people, those who have read LOTR, and those who hadn't. The films have created a kind of annoying frustrating situation where you have thousands of of die hard "LOTR fans" who have never read the books and admit they rather hate them.

You might enjoy the differences and the resulting approaches Jackson and Co. took to the different films. I think splitting it (as Kbrana said) was the right choice for Jackson, and the only childishness that really did bug me was the bird poop on Radagast.

That annoyed me a bit too, seemed a little over the top. I also hated the inclusion of the anachronistic golf and croquet references. I think the golf joke worked fine for the book, but in a film made to be a prequel to the Lord of the Rings movies, it was really out of place.

Another specific complaint I had was the "good morning" conversation between Gandalf and Bilbo. It was such a fun little conversation in the book that really setup the quirkiness of Gandalf's character, and they absolutely butchered it.

Bit of trivia: Gandalf can't remember the names of the two blue wizards in the film. This is likely because their names were not completely consistent, and the only sources for their names are from incomplete stories. It was a joke based on the two different versions of their names.
Source: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Blue_Wizards

That was my assumption too, but maybe Akwat's take on them not owning the rights is accurate, I hadn't even thought of that myself.

xhonzi said:

I think Tolkien changed his mind as to what Middle Earth was betwixt the writing of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.  The Goblin king, in the novel and all adaptations I've seen, seems to have just finished taking his afternoon tea when the party bursts in.

Tolkien definitely changed the nature of Middle Earth between the writing of the two works. Not really changed so much, as drastically grew and expanded upon it. The Hobbit was just a children's fairytale, while its sequel grew into a very large epic. In The Hobbit, the magic ring that makes you invisible was obviously just a fun little magical item. I remember really wishing I had a ring like that after first reading the book as a youngster. Of course, reading LOTR later my feelings toward the ring changed completely, and it no longer seemed like such a neat little item I wished I had.

Personally, I think the film did a great job of pulling The Hobbit into the universe of the LOTR films by feeling in the blanks and giving the whole thing a bit of a darker feel.

Still, as one of my friends pointed out, when you measure the escape from the goblins with the scene in the Mines of Moria from Fellowship, the contrast between the two films feel very severe. In The Hobbit, you never feel much concern for the escaping dwarves, you see them rolling around, falling great lengths, and bouncing around all over the place without any sign of injury. In Moria, you find yourself on the edge of your seat watching deadly arrow whizz past the heads of the fellowship, feeling real concern for the characters.

I also made a thread in an attempt to warn my fellow forum members of the dangers of the ever present video game threat.

I make threats Xhonzi! I make threats all the time!

Yeah, I agree with Akwat. In the movie he comes off as a major douchebag from the start. Where in the book I thought he was really likeable until the end.

Maybe a few people hit theaters with poor presentation that ruined it for them. But I imagine most of the theaters with 48fps abilities would be newer high end theaters that are in the habit of keeping things up to standards.

I honestly think all the hostility toward 48fps has everything to do with fear of change. It is a normal human response to the situation, and we've seen it countless times throughout our lives, with every little change science, discovery, and technology brings us, there are always a segment of people who oppose it vehemently. From going to the moon, to manual transmissions, color TV, and cellphones. 

Just got done watching The Hobbit HFR/3D/Imax.

Wow! So, as can be seen in the first pages of this thread, I was all for the 48fps thing and thought it would be really neat. Then reviews started pouring in with severely negative reactions to it. Seemed a lot of us in this thread that saw it in 48fps really didn't like the experience much.

I thought it was amazing. It took me Peter Jackson's estimated 10 minutes or so to get used to the effect, and from there it was just spectacular. I don't even like 3D as a whole, I think it is typically a really gimmicky thing, but this was just gorgeous.

48fps was very different, it really did feel soap opera-esque for the first little bit, but once I got into the movie and stopped focusing and thinking about the frame rate, it made for a very visually appealing enjoyable experience. During the riddles in the dark scene, I felt like I could imagine myself being in the scene with the characters, which is remarkable considering one of the character is a computer drawn animation. In the Two Towers and The Return of the King, Gollum never really looked that real. I mean, he looked great, I felt they did a good job on him, but he still felt like a CG character. During that scene in The Hobbit, it was almost kind of freaky how organic he looked, I know the original Gollum was a product of decade old technology, so of course he would look better now, but I really think the more fluid motion of 48fps contributed to this.

I can't remember the last time I saw a 3D movie, but it has been a while. I often hear people talk about how awful 2D movies converted to 3D look over movies filmed in 3D (and how some conversions are better than others). I realized what they were talking about when watching the trailer for Jurassic Park 3D, something I was feeling a little excited for, if for no other reason than to see Jurassic Park on the big screen again. The trailer for it looked pretty bad, the 3D effect looked really forced, unlike the other 3D trailers shown.

What's Jesus Juice?

He eats them, so, probably the first one...

I've kind of been a purist from the very beginning. I was extremely excited when the SE's were coming out. I was really excited to see them on the big screen, and I was even more excited about new SW footage I'd never seen before making its way into the film.

I went and saw each as it came out. Saw SW more times than I can remember, when it got to the dollar theater me and my cousin went and saw it every weekend, and I went to see it with my dad several times too. It was brilliant seeing it on the big screen! The changes were a fun new addition, mixing it up a bit.

I guess my definitive moment as a purist was a few weeks after my dad went and bought the SE VHS tapes, I was the driving force behind him buying them, I thought it would be neat to have them with all the changes. But after we watching them together a couple of times I went back to my faces THX set. To me those were the real thing, the SE was just a fun alternative, I'd sowed my wild oats with them and was ready to settle back down to my faithful OT. One day my dad sat down to watch TV, hit play on the VCR, saw that The Empire Strikes Back was in there and decided to just go ahead and watch that (back in the nineties, no cable, only five channels through our massive antenna mounted on the chimney, pickings were slim for us), when he realized it wasn't the SE he asked me why I wasn't watching the new version. I shrugged and said "I just missed the real ones".

Flash forward a few years. I get my first DVD player and the one set of movies I really want on DVD are the SW trilogy. Since SW DVDs didn't exist and there was talk about the original trilogy not making it to DVD until after all the prequels are out and they could all be released together (this is pre AOTC, and back when TPM had just come out on VHS), I found some Asian VCDs for sale online and promptly bought them, anxiously waiting three long weeks for them to arrive from Hong Kong. Popped them in and... felt really disappointed they were the Special Editions. The box gave no indication of this, it just advertised it as the Star Wars trilogy (this was an official licensed version, the exact same set as the very last VHS release of Star Wars, which also omitted the fact that they were the SE's on the box), the website listing even listed the dates of each film, I figured when it said Star Wars (1977) it meant it was actually the 1977 film that I was buying. I felt cheated and a bit irritated. Combing the internet, I came to the conclusion that VCDs of the original versions didn't seem to be for sale anywhere, if they even existed.

I discovered that VCD had a very simple file structure on the disc and that I could just drag and drop the biggest video file to my PC and rename it .mpg and run it through TMPGEnc, hack it up, and reburn it to two CD-Rs. I used this to make semi-despecialized versions of both Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back (ROTJ was a lost cause, too many major alterations that couldn't be clipped, though I did go through the effort of removing Jedi Rocks and splicing in Lapti Nek, and making a few other changes). I was really pleased with how easy it was to remove Greedo's shot and to cutout the whole Jabba scene as well as many of the other added shots.

All this about a year or two before this site even existed, and before I had any idea others felt the same way as me about the SEs (my closest of SW friends at the time seemed blissfully enthralled by the changes, by TPM, and by anything the EU could throw their way), and tha they were working on even better methods of making home made DVD versions of the films than I had the resources to make.

EDIT: "You're lucky you don't taste very good." I think that line was the seed of my lack of acceptance of the SE. It has always been one of my favorite lines, and I feel like the way Luke says it showed a lot of his affection for Artoo. Kind of like a parent scolding a little kid who just ran out into the street and almost got hit by a car, but unable to hide the love and relief in their voice. I noticed it was missing the first time I saw TESB SE in the theater, and remember mentioning it to my dad and cousin on the way out. Didn't feel right without it. One of the first changes I made to my despecialized VCD version of Empire was to splice it back in.

Wait, Santa and Krampus are real AND I have my own brand of pudding!

This keeps getting more and more exciting!

If Santa is real, does that mean Krampus is real too!

It is times like this that I feel like a really poor excuse for a nerd.

I've never even put any thought into this subject, just assumed it took damage during the fall and became vulnerable.

EDIT: By repeated mention of the corrugated passage that connects head to shoulders, I feel like Tyrph wins the thread.

Given that it is a made up ship from a movie, I don't really care what the different parts of it are for. However, looking at the diagram Adywan posted made me think what a cool ship design this thing was. I used to have a little die-cast model, complete with blockade runner in docking area, I kind of want to dig that thing up and fondle it now. 

Don't get me wrong, I love George. But I do agree with DuracellEnergizer to some degree here. George started off as this rogue independent filmmaker who was going places and doing it on his terms and he was doing it in flannel and blue jeans. He was kind of a badass. He achieved freedom and independence from Hollywood, then he just kind of tanked. He made/produced several crappy little films, and then got stuck on the brand names and over saturated the market with Indy and Star Wars, a very Hollywood thing to do. I think Graffiti, Star Wars, and Raiders are all really fantastically made films. I would have loved to see George take this creativity, and to continue working on fresh projects with it. Instead, he broke away from Hollywood to become his own mini-Hollywood. So much lost potential.

The Boost is right too though, while he fell into the Hollywood tradition of milking his cash cows for all their worth and other not so indy spirited things, he still did it on his terms and with complete creative control. You still have to admire him for that. Still, ah, so much missed potential! The young George Lucas is one of my absolutely favorite film makers, I really want to see more from that guy!

Fitted Kitchens East Riding.

Johnny Ringo said:

Got a chance to play some of the new Rage DLC...Remember Rage? no? well the DLC is good fun - it's called the Scorchers and follows one of the wasteland clans.

Whoa! Rage! That was that game I was kind of excited about based solely on the trailer and aesthetics. I had made up my mind not to get it and save the money, had kind of a bad day the day it was released, and ended up buying it as a kick in the face to the less than pleasant day, feeling sure it was just the answer for a cheer up. Tried playing it numerous times, but was never able to get into it.

Really felt like a shooter from the late 90's early 00's. Not in a bad way, kind of in a nostalgic way, but the bottom line for me was it didn't feel very fresh and I had a hard time feeling motivated about it. Need to give it another shot. It was fun watching the price rapidly drop on the thing throughout the year. I think it was down to under twenty for a used copy less than six months after it came out. Now it is only $10 at Gamestop.

Kind of bad when you can pick up a copy of a game for a wee bit more than it's new DLC. It wasn't a game I would have expected DLC for. Ringo has made it sound kind of fun. If I ever manage to finish Rage, I may just drop $5 dollars on this thing.

pat man said:

Is there a Santa? No one knows 

 

Um, pat man... about that... I think you are old enough now... We need to talk.

This post was priceless!

PaulG said:

You should get your facts straight before trying to start a forum war.

...

2. If you don't like WoW, then don't listen, and don't bother anyone. No one wants to hear you whine about something, when it can be easily avoided by you just shutting up. Frankly, I think HotRod is the most childish person I've ever come across.

3. And lastly, you can't beat TB in a forum war. Ever.

Kudos to you TB for getting all the extra promotion from this,

The Podcaster formerly known as Hotar.

Ah man! How removed from reality were these poor souls. I'd like to think they were all in high school or just really, really young.

Haha! Gruss guy. Gruss vom Krampus means Greetings from Krampus. I just now saw my typo in the thread title. Damn the "n" and "m" keys for being so close together!

Santa's lesser known little helper. Ridding the world of overly naughty children for centuries.

TotalBiscuit said:

Originally posted by: HotRod
I'm at work right now and the guy I work with next to me is listening to - - - World of Warcraft radio - - -
It's the saddest bloody thing ever. A radio station talking about a bloody game...what to be, the best character, what to do...Oh my god!!



It's one thing to play the game that sucks all your life away, but to listen to a bunch of saddo nerds talking about the best way to play...well call me whatever you like, but Jesus this is sad beyond all sadness.



I'm sorry I've just had to compose myself due to laughing my arse off at the irony of someone posting on the 'Fight for Original Trilogy DVD' forums, with almost 2000 posts, calling other people nerds over the internet. No offense to your site or those who post it, but you sir specifically.. well...

I have an image macro for this occassion.



For other references please see dictionary definitions : Irony, hypocrisy, people in glass houses, and rofl.



EDIT: I've now lost the will to live!!!!

No please keep talking! There are still a few of my braincells that you haven't murdered with stupidity.

Thanks for the free referrals by the way! You have contributed to an organisation which is significantly more successful and well-respected than this one <3 Jedi Master Hotrod.

TB - WoW Radio Owner, and a far better geek than you will ever be.

HAHAHA!!! I mean, who does shit like this! Cracks me up! Sixth post in the thread, then his buddies start pouring in to defend him. His "braincells" and "stupidity" comment just screams painfully inadequate social adjustment.