Come on! We're talking about the guy who created the Gungans and Watto and a planet called Kamino inhabited by a bunch of brown-skinned clones. Of course the guy's racist! He's only marrying her to ward off criticism!
Sheesh, I keep misunderstanding you!
By the way, you really ought to try reading the books.
Don't shoot, don't shoot!!!
Since this thread is meant to poke fun at everyone there at the JCF, I included links in the Troll Speculation Thread.
Their moderator Darth Boba is, shall we say, taking his job a little too seriously. If anyone uses any hint of sarcasm, he immediately jumps in to tell folks to knock it off. I consider myself a law abiding OT-er, but I have a feeling I wouldn't last more than a few days if I actually started posting over ther ;)
Per Actufaalb's request elsewhere, this is one of Father Skywalker's/Lord Tyrannus's threads:
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/how-can-i-create-a-poll.50005629/
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/how-did-darth-vader-anakin-get-the-deep-voice.50005628/
A specific post that made me laugh:
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/what-was-palpatines-home-planet.50004559/#post-50103215
Seriously, you can search on google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ajedicouncilforums+lord+tyrannus&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=#hl=en&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:boards.theforce.net+lord+tyrannus&oq=site:boards.theforce.net+lord+tyrannus&gs_l=serp.12...0.0.0.2623.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.P9sbZF4QosE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=81896374b892cf2f&bpcl=40096503&biw=1280&bih=575
You'll find so much stuff to make your gut hurt. I'm convinced he's actually a very naive and strange person who craves a lot of attention, but I don't think he deliberately goes out of his way to bug people. He's just a natural at it. I have an inside source ;)
Nice list. I especially agree about the ghost army--too convenient without any foreshadowing, and then so overpoweringly awesome that it seemed a little cheap. As I recall, their role in the books was more of intimidation in order to capture the ships rather than to charge off them and completely destroy everything.
I was a little disappointed that the Witch King was so much more powerful than Gandalf. I suppose the idea is to paint the battle as truly frightening, even for him, but really I think he as Gandalf the White feared only Sauron.
The matter of ring ownership is pretty well understood, I thought. I think the movies conveyed it exactly as Tolkein had spelled out in his books.
All your other points are well made, and I share in most of them.
Adywan, is there a particular month or season we should be hoping for? I know you probably don't want to commit to too much, especially considering life got in the way a few times for you, but it makes the anticipation slightly more bearable to at least hope for a more specific time frame, even if it has to change down the road :)
As far as I know. He doesn't appear to be posting anymore. I've read some of his old stuff, and it was hilarious!
I recently signed up over there, and you know, I respect others' opinions. But I feel that we can all laugh now and then at the discussions going on there as well. Here are a few that really make me giggle.
Why no put a bomb in Vader's brain or head?
Hypothetical: If Luke Turned to the Dark Side, what would his SIth name be?
There are more. Hopefully my poking fun doesn't get me banned. I haven't even posted there yet. But I just thought it'd be worth a laugh to even simply read the titles to these threads. I guess different fanbases discuss the series from very different perspectives.
I'm putting in this plug all over the place, but I have become fairly convinced that the best prequel fan edits would change Ep II into Ep I, create a feature length story from the Clone Wars series for Ep II, and then edit Ep III. Elements from TPM could be retained for the new Ep I, such as Darth Maul, perhaps even starting as Topher Grace did with the Maul/Kenobi/Ginn battle, and then reintroducing him as the primary villain for Ep II whilst giving more background to Grievous. I know that there would be a jarring change in styles from live action in Ep I to CGI in Ep II and then back in Ep III, but I think it could really make a more congruent story. Since the series may be wrapping up fairly soon, I have high hopes that someone would consider that route.
Folks at OT.com Father Skywalker
Just watched this for the first time since the theater. I have to say I liked it even better this time. I'm a big fan of watching films with subtitles, so I picked up a lot better on many of the subtleties of the plot. Understanding it better made for a better story. The first time I loved it as a thrill ride that I only was able to follow fairly well. This time it was much clearer and Bane's motives made much more sense to me. The whole OWS stuff was merely an opportunity to further torture Gotham and not anything he believed in at all. Many of the themes were interesting, and sort of countered the themes of the previous film. While TDK showed us the grey area of the necessity of living and believing a lie, TDKR showed us the ultimate damage that can come from that lie. While BB taught Batman to face and conquer his fear, TDKR required him to thrive in it and be motivated by it. And obviously, the overarching theme of overcoming all odds and rising returns. I understand that it's not a film for everyone, but gosh I really enjoy it, and much of the criticism leveled against it still sounds rather picky to me, rather than rational and based on the same standards held for other films. I really love this movie, and I find the whole trilogy to be a successful series!
Well, congrats to him. We all know how celebrity marriages go, but hopefully this one lasts. :)
You know, xhonzi, I tihnk you really ought to give teh books a read. Tehy're very good ;)
@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
The History of the Hobbit...hadn't seen that before. That looks really cool!
@SilverWook, yeah, but...but...it's just gross!!!
Nice points. I don't think certain things bothered me as much, but I'm less of a purist than many. I was actually less bothered by the dwarves' slovenly portrayal (I think expanding upon their more materialistic portrayal, which is made pretty clear in the books), and was bothered more (though not much) by some, like Thorin, having short beards. I'm trying to think of which architecture you are referring to, however, as the only time I can recall seeing anything is in the Mines of Moria, and there we see little because it is so rundown. However, you are correct in your assessment that the elves are portrayed as very elegant, certainly superior to the dwarves in most respects.
I agree that the Azog elements were particularly well done. I thought it tied things in nicely, and I'd say the same for the many other additional elements not found in the novel, such as the council with Saruman, Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond, or the Radagast's encounter with the Necromancer.
Which fanedits did you do? I hadn't realized you'd released any (and truthfully I haven't even checked any LOTR edits out, but that could change). I'm truly interested.
Questions regarding the trilogy and Jackson's films:
How do you feel about the Nazguls' portrayal?
How do you feel about Faramir?
What do you think about ommitting the Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil?
In the same vein, how do you feel about the changes to Saruman's demise?
There are aspects of the film I enjoyed, and aspects of the books I enjoyed, and there are times when I can't even tell which I prefer. For instance, I actually think I prefer the self-doubting Aragorn. And Faramir, while I prefer the truly noble character in the books, is interesting on film as a conflicted character driven by his desires to please his father.
I would also love to hear from xhonzi on his perception of the good and bad edits.
Hope you know I was teasing :) Glad to see the thread.
Man I wish I knew what language nearly everyone in this preservation area was speaking. Most of it is beyond my puny comprehension. However, what I do understand is that you are creating something I desire very much, and I can't wait to see it. There are so many versions of this project that are currently taking place, but I can't wait to grab one that is finished. Given your speed with the previous project and your promises with this one, I am indeed excited. Good luck :)
Ah, my bad. Sounds like you really do understand the stories pretty well. I would ask you what edits you like and dislike, but I think maybe this discussion should be moved to its own thread. And since Akwat has had a full 30 minutes to start that thread and hasn't done so (slacker! ;) ), I guess I'll do it to keep the conversation going.
Oh, and I see what you did there ;)
^Perhaps that is the reason for leaving out the names (and I admit that it is my own conjecture that arrived at my conclusion), but to me it seems they could have easily simply not even tried to allude to their names ("...and then there are the two blue wizards.") or could have easily secured the rights to use just those names. I like the thought that it was a bit of a joke because it made me laugh in the theater, but of course I could be wrong.
I'll also admit that my Tolkein knowledge is rather limited, as I only read the trilogy for the first time in the past year (and the Hobbit for the first time in more than a decade last October). Anything beyond that stems from my reading the LOTR wiki. You seem much more knowledgeable in all things Tolkeinesque, and maybe you should start a Middle Earth thread. I know I'd enjoy it, but I feel unworthy to start it ;)
I'm not sure I've given the New Thread Thread more than a single glance. Too much trouble when you're as creative as I and love to start new threads that serve little purpose.
My italicized "obviously" in the above quote was intended to convey sarcasm. Not sure that it worked now :(
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
I encourage you to read the books, xhonzi. 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.
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
Bingowings said:
Must everything not Christian caucasian America be satanic or in need of a white American saviour?
At least KOTCS didn't have missionaries in a cauldron danced around by black cannibals.
In Raiders Sallah was a real character with real concerns but in TLC he was a comedy Arab.
Was Indy more exciting when his friends were real or when his friends were national cartoons?
Salah was certainly a better character in ROTLA. But how is his comedy racist? Marcus Brody was even more silly and utterly idiotic at times. He was a white character. Henry Jones, Sr. was pretty silly too. Maybe he was perpetuating a stereotype against Scots. I'm not saying there aren't valid criticisms of movies with racist content. Many films make me cringe or at least worry. But I think that the cure isn't simply making only whites idiots. We need to spread the idiocy around. Not everything must be taken in the context that there is a racist hidden message, though I feel so much of our society looks for exactly that.
What the heck is going on in this world!!? It truly horrifies me how people treat others, particularly women. I've been following the story about the New Dehli rape, but there are other stories as well. I know that rape has been around for thousands of years, but of all the barbarity of humanity, this horrifies me the most, and it's still prevalent in many parts of the world. It makes me very sad.
CP3S said:
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.
Yes, he did expand. But really, I'm convinced that the change in nature is more drastic than people realize. The Hobbit was published in 1937, while The Lord of the Rings trilogy was published in 1954. When the Hobbit was written, a fleshed out Middle Earth had not been as thoroughly devised. The former was geared towards children, the latter towards adults. And in reality, there was no master plan in place when The Hobbit was written. Unlike George Lucas, who obviously had things planned out from the very beginning, when the Hobbit was written, Tolkein had made vague references that were later drastically expanded. For instance, the idea of the Necromancer was simply that there was some powerful evil mage in a tower who got Gandalf's attention specifically so he would leave the party of dwarves, and we learned little more about him. Later that idea was turned into Sauron, but it was not initially so. Likewise with Gollum, who was merely a creepy character and an opportunity to get that handy ring which would change Bilbo's burglaring career. I've posted this before, but I find it so fascinating that I will again provide the link to the comparison between the two versions of The Hobbit's ch. 5: Riddles in the Dark. Gollum was not so malicious, nor the ring so overpoweringly addictive: Gollum gave it up willingly! Tolkein completely retconned the whole chapter and provided a reason for its difference in the forward to LOTR. Other aspects of the story changed as well, such as the existence of matches and clocks in the Hobbit, which later completely vanished. It's just so interesting to me to see the development of Middle Earth in the originator's mind, and I personally enjoyed how the film better tied the two trilogies together for moviegoers, while retaining the different flavor of the Hobbit quite well.
I'm also glad you're having such fun with the Star Wars ones. Problem is, ROTJ has had plenty of criticism (much of which I don't agree with), and the PT has been torn to shreds by this site. I don't know if I could come up with new stuff. But maybe I should make lists for those flicks, even if I have to recycle some of it, just so you can provide some rebuttals.
Mrebo, I'm sorry I haven't seen The Holiday, so I can't read your list there (considering your spoiler warning). When I do watch it, I'll comment :)
And timdiggerm, nice rebuttals once again. And again, not all are perfect, but many are really good and you did a very good job :)