logo Sign In

Tiptup

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
26-Apr-2012
Posts
1,696

Post History

Post
#251548
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251548/action/topic#251548
Time
Originally posted by: THX
[interweb mode]

Book-accurate movies of LOTR would have been: a) far less successful; b) worse. Criticizing a film adaptation because it's different from the book is senseless.

[/interweb mode]


[answering unsupported statements mode]

Book-accurate movies of LOTR would have been a) far more successful; b) amazingly superior. Criticizing a film adaptation because it is different from the books can often make a lot of sense in many situations.

[/answering unsupported statements mode]
Post
#251277
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251277/action/topic#251277
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O

There are things that you like about Jackson's versions?

Of course! I thought they were great movies! I even loved many of the changes when they perfectly upheld the spirit of the books (which was often rare unfortunately).

THX stated that the movies captured the spirit of the books well, but I don’t believe that’s true. There were far too many additions that had absolutely nothing to do with the books to ever say that. Concepts that didn’t even exist in the slightest way until Jackson stuck them in. I can’t forgive that. He took up valuable time that could have been used for better content that was actually in the books.


Originally posted by: Mike O

The lack of Bombadil awesomeness.

Him I can live without, and in any case it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he'd have to go for time. He scares me more than anything in Mordor .

My mentioning of Bombadil was mostly a joke. I loved the section about him in the book. It was so surreal and hallucinational. But, I never believed that anyone, including myself, could ever fit that part of the story into a two hour movie that would already be trying to cram everything from the two largest of the six books in.


Originally posted by: Mike O

Elijah Wood being gay.

Wood is gay?


Wow, I’m having a Beavis & Butthead moment here.


Originally posted by: Mike O

Mythology Changes that didn't live up to the spirit of what Tolkien envisioned (like Elves at Helms Deep).


I will debate that with you, but I think along the same lines in terms of the Elves at Helm's Deep. I suppose how radical it is depends on what one thinks of the scene. I do think that it goes along with Tolkien's theme of the races uniting against evil, I'm just unsure why Jacksone wanted to do it.


He wanted to do it because he likes mindless action and because he had the elf actors on hand and wanted to give them more screen time.


Originally posted by: Nanner Split

Quick question of the story: Was Goldberry supposed to be a She-Ent? She seemed to fit Treebeard's description...


No, she was most likely a Maiar. The same type of being as Sauron, Gandalf, Bombadil, Shelob, and the balrogs. You can sort of think about Maiar as spiritually powerful beings in Tolkien’s universe. Demigods or angels.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab

The elves at Helm's Deep, I think, were basically a way of evening the odds. The idea that 300 men, half of whom were too old or young to effectively weild a sword, could hold off ten thousand orcs strains suspension of disbelief. I'd rather Jackson make book purists irate than lose the audience on something more farfetched than inspiring. Helm's Deep is not Thermopolae, and the people of Rohan are not Spartans.


Good Lord. Where on earth does that stupid idea keep coming from?

Tolkien is not that stupid. According to the books, the men of Rohan went out to war with “more than a thousand” men (young and old) on horses. They meant to battle Isengard in the open and on horseback. It wasn’t until news arrived of a massive force that Gandalf told them to ride to Helm’s Deep. Then, later, scouts arrived that gave an accurate estimate of the enemy as being “many times as great” as what they left with. That would make the enemy army’s size between 6-9 thousand I would guess. Meanwhile, the people of the Westfold Vale (the valley below Helm’s Deep) had been preparing Helm’s Deep to withstand a Siege and enough fighting men were left behind to add another thousand to the defense (some who had seen “too many winters” or “too few”). Also, the Hornburg and its defending wall were somewhat larger in the book. So, total, that was well over 2,000 men defending at Helm’s Deep, according to the book.

If you want to tactically criticize something, do so with that scene that Jackson invented to depict the Orc’s attacking Osgiliath. Those noisy orc paddles were seriously able to successfully sneak past any of Faramir’s veteran rangers?! That was a totally unrealistic surprise attack (Jackson has a simple mind). Oh, and hiding behind a pillar is strategy? Uhg.
Post
#251144
Topic
The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251144/action/topic#251144
Time
Originally posted by: JediSage

To each his own but one of the most noticeable problems with the stories is the meandering plot that goes on and on and on. If you really want to torture yourself read The Silmarillion.


Nonsense, the plot hardly meandered. It was just extremely detailed. At worst the intricate planning on the part of Tolkien occasionally reached the point where it became emotionally dry, but that doesn't take away realism. Tolkien covered much more than just language. He covered terrain, weather, warfare, time and a whole host of other details meticulously. So sue him if he decided to write about every last bit. I like it myself. The logical cohesion of the world is what draws me to the books.

Otherwise, if I'm looking for a good, traditional story that moves me emotionally, that would be the Hobbit. That has been my favorite story of all time since I was in fourth grade. Absolutely wonderful story.


Off the top of my head, here are my least favorite aspects of the PJ movies (in a general order of magnitude:

Mythology Changes that didn't live up to the spirit of what Tolkien envisioned (like Elves at Helms Deep).
Elijah Wood being gay.
Elijah Wood squirming and yelping with his face filling the screen.
Too many close-up shots of the One Ring.
Horrible dialogue changes in many scenes.
The lack of Bombadil awesomeness.


And, off the top of my head, here are my favorite aspects of the PJ films (again, in a general order of magnitude):

The faithful and awesome visualizations (the Balrog made me have multiple orgasms in the space of a few minutes).
The music.
The attention to languages.
Sean Astin!
Ian McKellen.
Billy Boyd.
Ian Holm.
Sean Bean.
John Rys Davies.
Andy Serkis.
Cate Blanchett.
Dominic Monaghan.
Post
#251042
Topic
Lucas Interview from 1979 - Alan Arnold's 'Once Upon a Galaxy' book
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251042/action/topic#251042
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
When you put that kind of money into a film (his OWN money) and the future of your company and independence (which he greatly desires above all things), you get anxious about it working. That's totally understandable, in my eyes.

And it's not like the quality suffered for it once Episode V was released. You can make the argument that the quality suffered once he got to Episode VI but that's subjective. It was the end of the trilogy anyway. Alot of that film was dictated by the previous film and the lack of technology to accomplish things he wanted to accomplish in Episode VI.

If he really wanted to make sure Episode V made more than the previous film, he would've made the exact same film over again. Clearly, he did not. He wanted to take the world he created in a new direction on all fronts. Sure, he was worried about the financial aspect of the project and how it relates to his grand plans of having his own filmmaking studio up in San Fran., but he clearly wanted to take the storyline and the quality of film to new heights.

That's part Kershner. No doubt about it. But, Kershner's film doesn't work without Lucas' draft of the script before Kasdan got there. That's where the foundation started for Episode V. You take Lucas' contribution to that film on all fronts, and you don't get the Episode V. That's just fact.

Uh, what are you responding to in my post?

First, I talked about how George actually said that he was more interested in Star Wars (Empire at the very least) as a way to make him money than as a work of art. That's not to say the artistic end wasn't important to him (I never said that), but that the money-making franchise end of it was more important to him. He clearly wanted realize his experimental film dreams by using Star Wars and I don't criticize that. I just find it interesting and it was actually in the interview in this thread. There's nothing to debate on this point:


AA: You've always acted on that kind of faith, haven't you?
GL: Well, most of this filmmaking effort is so I can create a dream, a dream I've had for a long time, which is to build a research retreat for film. The amount of money needed to develop a facility like that is so enormous that the money I have doesn't amount to anything. You need millions and millions of dollars to build such an operation. The only way I can do it is to create a company that will generate profits.
There's a world of difference between the money making abilities of corporations and those of individuals. For an individual to make two or three million dollars is a big deal. He'd feel very wealthy and secure. But most corporations have to make thirty or forty million dollars a year in order to feel secure. No matter how much money I make individually, I don't think I’d ever have enough to compete on a corporate level. To take care of just the overhead of a company, to pay all the employees every year, costs several million dollars. I couldn't direct enough films fast enough to pay all those people. So I had to develop a company.

AA: Although you've diversified, the Star Wars films are at the heart of it all
GL: Yes, they are the core, which is why I have to concentrate on them. I don't want to spend the rest of my life making Star Wars pictures, but I do want to get them set up so that they'll operate properly without having to get completely involved in all of them. They've got to be self generating to support the facility.


Secondly, I then simply stated another fact that George thought fluff-stories and action make more money in film. He has actually said that in the past. He used the first Indiana Jones movie as his prime example in the quote I heard.
Post
#250897
Topic
What do you think of the <strong>Prequel Trilogy</strong>? a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250897/action/topic#250897
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I think it's great to be so observant, but at some point we have to keep in mind that it will never be perfect, and if we want to get the most enjoyment out of these films, we have to work with them to a certain extent.


I believe my criticisms of the prequel trilogy were fair. I don't consider the original Star Wars movies perfect by comparison, but they were a lot better.

If you ever want to reply more in my prequel thread then you are certainly free to do so.
Post
#250893
Topic
Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250893/action/topic#250893
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I just don't see what's so cool about it. As far as I can see, it has no positive impact on the movie. It's redundant. It ruins the reveal of Jabba. It ruins the reveal of the Falcon! It has Boba Fett mugging the camera for no reason. The pace of the movie comes to an abrupt screeching halt. It's even evident in the music, which just stops, reuses a cue from ROTJ, and then continues from where it left off. It's just jarring. And that's not even getting into how bad both the '97 and '04 versions of Jabba look. And before you accuse me of hating CG in favor of the puppet, I actually liked the way he looked in TPM. They claim that the '04 Jabba is based off of that one, but I don't see the resemblence. Distant cousins, maybe...


I completely agree with every last point mentioned there.
Post
#250892
Topic
Lucas Interview from 1979 - Alan Arnold's 'Once Upon a Galaxy' book
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250892/action/topic#250892
Time
Wow, so George always primarily intended Star Wars to be a money making machine. The artistic nature of Star Wars was clearly secondary to him. He practically comes right out and says it in that interview. He wanted the movies to be excellent only insofar as they made him more money.

AA: Does that worry you?
GL: Well, yes. I'm faced with a situation where everything I own, everything I ever earned, is wrapped up in this picture. If it isn't a success not only could I lose everything, but I could also end up millions of dollars in debt which would be very difficult to get out from under. It would probably take me the rest of my life to get back even again. That worries me. Everybody says "Oh, don't worry, the film will be a huge success" and I'm sure it will be, but if it is just one of those mildly successful film sequels, I'd lose everything. It has to be the biggest grossing sequel of all time for me to break even.

This is the most telling quote of the interview for me. It clearly shows how anxious he was about the success of the films. Then, when Empire earned less than Star Wars, George Lucas acquired the notion that people prefer superficial and lighthearted films.


Oh, and I like the following quote in light of the prequels.

In movies give someone $150 million and fifty years to make a film, and the odds are good that they'll make a professional movie.
Post
#249869
Topic
Super ESB and ROTJ SNES Video Review
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249869/action/topic#249869
Time
Originally posted by: SKot
But you have to admit the market (particularly the Nintendo market) was flooded with games of that type back then.

I'm more of an adventure gamer, myself. I always liked games where you have a chance to explore and discover, rather than games where your finger is constantly on the "kill, kill, kill" button.

I miss Infocom games, and wish something equivalent would come along for the modern age.

--SKot


I was a huge nintendo fan in that era and I avoided shoot-em-up games just fine. Contra 3 was the most interesting of them, but way too short.

Just off the top of my head, released around that same time, there was Super Mario World (of course), Legend of Zelda, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, F-Zero, Super Castlevania IV (awesome game), Super Mario Kart (my god!), Street Fighter 2, Battle Clash, Cybernator, Star Fox!, and I'm sure there were others I would mention. Then, in the few following years you saw the amazing RPGs of Final Fantasy 6 (FF3) and Chrono Trigger; also the platforming-god games: Super Metroid (awesome game and an adventure game) Donkey Kong Country 1-3, Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (my favorite freakin' game of all time!), Demon's Crest, Earthworm Jim; and some other good games like Stunt Race FX.

The trick was to avoid crappy games based upon things like movie or tv franchises. The goal was to look for gameplay and fun.
Post
#249696
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249696/action/topic#249696
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

As far as not understanding the simple elegance of the way the Han/Greedo sequence played out before, I do understand that. I didn't mind it the way it was, but at the same time I can see why Lucas wanted to change it and in the end it's not that big of a deal to me.


It's a big deal to me! We're supposed to believe that Greedo, probably well accustomed to aiming his blaster, was holding it two feet or less away from Han and missed, shooting at the wall?! That's very hard to believe. If anything, Lucas' alteration makes me wonder if Greedo was even trying to shoot Han at all.

Uhg, and that horrible cgi head of Han's! It makes a very unnaturtal twitch in an effort to dodge the gun blast that wouldn't have even hit his head whether it twitched or not! It was so much better before.
Post
#249692
Topic
I've given this a lot of thought, and I've decided this makes no sense. (Qui-Gon and Anakin's ghosts.)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249692/action/topic#249692
Time
This thread is a bit odd. Hmm, I always was under the impression that Ben did something special since he felt it was important to tell Vader that he would gain more power after death. Then, when he disappeared, Vader investigated to ensure that it wasn't a trick. This implies that it wasn't meant to be a common technique among Jedi. Seriously, Darth Vader had to have killed many Jedi up until that point. That's all according to the original movie though, and not the stuff that George Lucas threw around after that.
Post
#249661
Topic
your buying the PT all over again in Blue ray !!!!!!!!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249661/action/topic#249661
Time
Originally posted by: boris

Microsoft's strategy with the XBOX paid off quite well last time. I think Nintendo will pick up ground this time round, however I still believe Microsoft's XBOX-360 has the biggest growth of a fan-base, and getting in early will have been a huge advantage for them. Today you cannot own a PS3 or a Wii - but you can own an XBOX-360.

It all comes down to what Sony fans do, really. If their market goes to Microsoft - then MS will be the strongest party this time, if they go to Nintendo - then Nintendo may win. I think though that Sony fans will probably prefer XBOX-360 - because it's the closest system to what the PS3 is, whereas Nintendo is off in a world of their own. If I get any, it probably be the Wii - but I don't know about the "sports" - I've never been a fan of videogame sports. If I want to play tennis I'll play tennis, not a Nintendo.


That's nonsense on two counts if you ask me.

First, you cannot say that Microsoft's strategy with the X-box "paid off quite well" considering Microsoft was still selling each individual X-box at a loss right up until the X-box 360's launch. Now their new system is losing them a whole lot more money and they still have yet to attain a payoff. Microsoft's games division claims that its all part of their genius strategy to become the dominant system in the market, like Sony achieved with the PS2, but what does that matter if they make no profits? (Plus the PS2 enticed a massive section of the console market with its DVD playback and I see nothing as similarly enticing for average people concerning the Xbox-360. In the end, the size of a system's user base is what matters in consoles.)

As for the Wii appealing to the ex-Sony gamers, that's too simplistic of a view. The Wii is a very different kind of system and isn't limited in its appeal like that. I know plenty of X-box fans that can't wait own a Wii and know plenty of Sony fans that say the same thing. People don't have to purchase one system only.
Post
#249601
Topic
your buying the PT all over again in Blue ray !!!!!!!!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249601/action/topic#249601
Time
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Either way, I still intend to purchase a PS3 simply for the gaming console aspect at least (I'll share the cost with my girlfriend ). I might wait before buying any kind of movie library though. I also don't know if I'll wait a few months and hope the PS3's price drops or if I'll buy a "launch" system.
I know this is off topic, but Nintendo promised the price of the Wii will be "at most" half the price of the PS3! I don't hold much hope (or respect) for Sony, but I do think Microsoft will be the market leader this time around. MS got in before Sony or Nintendo, and their units will drop in price first. But Nintendo's will be US$250 (or possibly less) at release, so they'll certainly have a chance. A lot of Sony fans prefer Sony because it has a wider range of titles than Nintendo... and I think that MS would have caught many of those consumers in their net this time around, getting in before PS3 - and let's face it, XBOX shits all over PS2. Nintendo will always strive to be the name in quality and innovation... but I don't know if that's going to be enough to win consumers this time around. After all, Microsoft's controllers are USB compatible - then again, Nintendo is 100% backwards compatible with GameCube - AND has the ability to play their NES, SNES and N64 back-catalogue... this could be enough for me, if I could play Goldeneye and Perfect Dark again, I wouldn't even mind paying for it a 2nd time round! I think in the end though, this fierce competition is going to help build grater consoles and make far better gaming. I won't be buying the Sony console - I continue to despise the company after their rootkits... so buying a PS3 is out of the question. The other two, however are looking strong.


I wholeheartedly believe that Nintendo will come out of this generation strong. It's the one system I'm pre-ordering and Nintendo doesn't have to sell its system for a loss just to entice customers. Microsoft can kiss my ass. Its bad enough I'm stuck with their damn OS on my computer, I don't want to help them form a monopoly in the console market. Sony is annoying, but I can enjoy them and BD is the superior HD format at the moment (though even BD sucks as a true successor to DVD).
Post
#249597
Topic
&quot;If you leave now, help them you could...&quot;
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249597/action/topic#249597
Time
Originally posted by: JamesEightBitStar
So really, what's with Yoda's warning?


That's always bugged me to a degree as well. Same with his statement that facing Vader was his final test to become a Jedi. I never understood how he could propose either idea so I just sort of ignored them. Nothing outright contradicted anything he said anyways.

I actually felt that, since Luke didn't leave right away, that he learned just enough after that point to possibly prevent Yoda's prophecy.
Post
#249448
Topic
Interesting tidbit about who shot first
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249448/action/topic#249448
Time
Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
I think instead of all this shooting at one another, Lucas could've just clarified his intentions by cutting in a quick insert shot of Greedo raising his blaster or about to squeeze the trigger. Just something. The scene just feels fairly devoid of tension. How the heck is Han NOT supposed to come off as a cold blooded killer if Greedo just waves around a blaster throughout the scene? Despite his dialogue, he just doesn't LOOK like he's about to shoot anyone.


Seriously? You have no tension when you watch that scene? Han pulling his blaster out of its holster and aiming it at Greedo the under the table? Greedo saying that Han was going to soon be dead and that he was looking forward to "this" for a long time? Then a big white explosion obscurring who was able to fire his blaster first?

Plenty of tension for me.

Though I will admit that the SE kind of removes all of the fun from that scene somehow . . . like an annoying headache.