It all makes sense now.

[Ram Quixote]

The Lord of the Rings, for example, has a coherent plot and doesn't depend on contrivances (well till the stupid eagles conveniently show up at the end).

Because LotR was done before the Hobbit, the eagle's arrival does seem contrived. But in the Hobbit, the eagles come to Gandalf and the dwarves aid a couple times, as well as Gandalf's rescue from Saruman in Fellowship.

There was precedence to it, but only if you had read the Hobbit.

DK? I saw it just once. I prefer less dry wit and the not-so-serious Marvel types.

Now, if you really want to get into subtext and themes, this website I go to has 12 pages of discussion on DK, still going since that movie came out 4 years ago.
http://kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=15681

Some of these people lean towards the intellectual. In other words, they're often a little too full of themselves. But they can still be entertaining, in a Frasier Crane sort of way.

I'm a bit of a TLOR/JRR Tolkien connoisseur. The Eagles were explained in the book...they were from the Brown Wizard, who also helped save Gandalf from the Tower of Saruman. There were more wizards than just the White (Saruman...later Gandalf), the Gray (Gandalf) and the Brown, but they're not mentioned in TLOR. They are mentioned in The Silmarillion.

One of the things I hated about The Hobbit was the transition from The Hobbit to TLOR and how amazingly different the one ring is treated (I won't even get into the fact that the Hobbit is a kids book and to me nearly unreadable). In The Hobbit it makes it seem like the ring Bilbo found was just one of hundreds of magical rings. All of a sudden in TLOR it becomes the single most important item on the planet. And a Wizard sent from heaven by the Gods couldn't recognize that the one thing that could potentially ruin the planet was found in his company? To me that's a huge plot hole...the Eagles by comparison is just tiny.

Tolkien, after conceiving the furthering of the Hobbit with the LotR, did do a rewrite of the chapter Riddles in the Dark. Originally, Bilbo won the Ring from Gollum, but with what the Ring had become, he realized Gollum would never have given up the Ring voluntarily.

But I agree with most of what you say. The Hobbit's tone through most of it is a gentle lark, until the very end. The dialogue becomes much more formal towards the end. The trailers for the upcoming movie seem to be far more serious than the book ever was.

 

[Angry Ram]

I meant to say crew, meaning guards/security. The actually captain and ship crew, would already be on the boats and wouldn't know they got killed. Or, OR Joker's minions could've tossed the bodies into the lake/river/ocean or w/e body of water that was.

Your right, tho, about the detonators. Forgot that Joker told them they were "part of a social experiment." Still, it was Joker. He's was very smart for his purpose, riggin both the city and boats.

As for comic book movie, I felt that BB and DKR were more comic-y then DK. DK was more crime syndicate type movie.

Okay so in that universe we would have a ferry company that didn't notice all of its security people were dead.

DK is not really a crime drama movie though it borrows elements. If it were the much more realistic crime drama movie, for example, an FBI lab would be all over the blown up batmobile and would have figured out who made it. Like, within a day. To name just one example. If that happened in a crime drama--like "Heat"--we would immediately go "uh, they have a blown up car, they can do forensics work on it." Or, when the Joker sets all the money on fire on the docks, someone notices that a ship is burning and they find the forensic traces of a whole lot of money that got burned. In DK, we don't even think about that. So in the comix, the FBI not only doesn't figure out who Batman is, they don't exist. Just a rule of the genre.

It's a comic book movie that kind of uses that "hard-boiled feel" for tone.

We agree that we like the DK movies, right? But to me, Nolan as a director really works this way--he has a number of set-piece scenes, and then, in between, a lot of "don't think too hard about it" plot convenience strings.

It def. is more of a crime drama movie, w/ the mob, lawyers, courts, etc. That's what Dent was all about, no? I agree they were good movies, but I rank them BB, DKR, DK in order of comic-y. I just feel like DK, it required more thinking than BB or DKR.

Marvel movies feel like comic books. Like in Avengers, I can picture them in a comic pane when they are all posing, are ribbing each other. DK...not so much.

That;s the kind of comic book world it's set in. So then you get comic book versions of that kind of thing, like all the mobsters in town eating at the same restaurant at the same time and so all getting arrested at once. They did everything but toss in Flattop Jones and Pruneface.

I didn't think for a solitary second during the DK films. They were just well made comic book films. Which is fine, cause, I like well made comic book films.

Yeah we're real lucky to have these comic movies. I don't remember the last non comic movie I saw in the theater (unless you count the 3rd Transformers).

What a bunch of damn nerds :razzed:

Quiet, you. As I currently watch a documentary about Stan Lee. :shifty:

 

[Anonymous]

I meant to say crew, meaning guards/security. The actually captain and ship crew, would already be on the boats and wouldn't know they got killed. Or, OR Joker's minions could've tossed the bodies into the lake/river/ocean or w/e body of water that was.

Your right, tho, about the detonators. Forgot that Joker told them they were "part of a social experiment." Still, it was Joker. He's was very smart for his purpose, riggin both the city and boats.

As for comic book movie, I felt that BB and DKR were more comic-y then DK. DK was more crime syndicate type movie.

Okay so in that universe we would have a ferry company that didn't notice all of its security people were dead.

DK is not really a crime drama movie though it borrows elements. If it were the much more realistic crime drama movie, for example, an FBI lab would be all over the blown up batmobile and would have figured out who made it. Like, within a day. To name just one example. If that happened in a crime drama--like "Heat"--we would immediately go "uh, they have a blown up car, they can do forensics work on it." Or, when the Joker sets all the money on fire on the docks, someone notices that a ship is burning and they find the forensic traces of a whole lot of money that got burned. In DK, we don't even think about that. So in the comix, the FBI not only doesn't figure out who Batman is, they don't exist. Just a rule of the genre.

It's a comic book movie that kind of uses that "hard-boiled feel" for tone.

We agree that we like the DK movies, right? But to me, Nolan as a director really works this way--he has a number of set-piece scenes, and then, in between, a lot of "don't think too hard about it" plot convenience strings.

It def. is more of a crime drama movie, w/ the mob, lawyers, courts, etc. That's what Dent was all about, no? I agree they were good movies, but I rank them BB, DKR, DK in order of comic-y. I just feel like DK, it required more thinking than BB or DKR.

Marvel movies feel like comic books. Like in Avengers, I can picture them in a comic pane when they are all posing, are ribbing each other. DK...not so much.

That;s the kind of comic book world it's set in. So then you get comic book versions of that kind of thing, like all the mobsters in town eating at the same restaurant at the same time and so all getting arrested at once. They did everything but toss in Flattop Jones and Pruneface.

I didn't think for a solitary second during the DK films. They were just well made comic book films. Which is fine, cause, I like well made comic book films.

Yeah we're real lucky to have these comic movies. I don't remember the last non comic movie I saw in the theater (unless you count the 3rd Transformers).

What a bunch of damn nerds :razzed:

Quiet, you. As I currently watch a documentary about Stan Lee. :shifty:

I grew up reading Daredevil, Spiderman, The X-men, Thor, etc.

One of the big travesties though was the 3rd X-man. Before that they had nailed it.

I like the casting in the good movies--RD Jr IS Tony Stark, Tom Hiddleston IS Loki, HJ IS Wolverine, etc.

 

[Anonymous]

The Lord of the Rings, for example, has a coherent plot and doesn't depend on contrivances (well till the stupid eagles conveniently show up at the end).

Because LotR was done before the Hobbit, the eagle's arrival does seem contrived. But in the Hobbit, the eagles come to Gandalf and the dwarves aid a couple times, as well as Gandalf's rescue from Saruman in Fellowship.

There was precedence to it, but only if you had read the Hobbit.

DK? I saw it just once. I prefer less dry wit and the not-so-serious Marvel types.

Now, if you really want to get into subtext and themes, this website I go to has 12 pages of discussion on DK, still going since that movie came out 4 years ago.
http://kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=15681

Some of these people lean towards the intellectual. In other words, they're often a little too full of themselves. But they can still be entertaining, in a Frasier Crane sort of way.

I'm a bit of a TLOR/JRR Tolkien connoisseur. The Eagles were explained in the book...they were from the Brown Wizard, who also helped save Gandalf from the Tower of Saruman. There were more wizards than just the White (Saruman...later Gandalf), the Gray (Gandalf) and the Brown, but they're not mentioned in TLOR. They are mentioned in The Silmarillion.

One of the things I hated about The Hobbit was the transition from The Hobbit to TLOR and how amazingly different the one ring is treated (I won't even get into the fact that the Hobbit is a kids book and to me nearly unreadable). In The Hobbit it makes it seem like the ring Bilbo found was just one of hundreds of magical rings. All of a sudden in TLOR it becomes the single most important item on the planet. And a Wizard sent from heaven by the Gods couldn't recognize that the one thing that could potentially ruin the planet was found in his company? To me that's a huge plot hole...the Eagles by comparison is just tiny.

Tolkien, after conceiving the furthering of the Hobbit with the LotR, did do a rewrite of the chapter Riddles in the Dark. Originally, Bilbo won the Ring from Gollum, but with what the Ring had become, he realized Gollum would never have given up the Ring voluntarily.

But I agree with most of what you say. The Hobbit's tone through most of it is a gentle lark, until the very end. The dialogue becomes much more formal towards the end. The trailers for the upcoming movie seem to be far more serious than the book ever was.

I'm not a connoisseur but I read the H and LOTR when I was a teen. I agree that of course in the book the eagles have a context. In the movie they don't handle that well. Actually that spawned a viral youtube spoof where after they are rescued by the Eagles, Sam goes "you mean you could have just flown us in here over mount doom all along? We didn't have to walk through peril all the way?"

I think what Jackson is doing with the H is making it merge, in tone, with the LOTR films. Cause while the style is for kids in that book, the subject matter can be treated more seriously.

People know of course that the appendixes to LOTR fill in some of the gaps from the H, like where did Gandalf go. Turns out Jackson merged the plot of the H with the backstory stuff in the LOTR appendixes and expanded the story.

 

[Iron Lion]

What a bunch of damn nerds :razzed:

Ha!

Wait.

I might be one too. I'm kinda hooked on the Oblivion (Elder Scrolls) video game series, and I was an epic member of RuneScape. :?!:

What do you consider epic? I'm maxed skill total, bank of around 10bil GP, conquered FunOrb, and a few other things here and there. You should hit me up on there, I'm Blasphemite.

 

[-X-]

What a bunch of damn nerds :razzed:

Ha!

Wait.

I might be one too. I'm kinda hooked on the Oblivion (Elder Scrolls) video game series, and I was an epic member of RuneScape. :?!:

What do you consider epic? I'm maxed skill total, bank of around 10bil GP, conquered FunOrb, and a few other things here and there. You should hit me up on there, I'm Blasphemite.

Solo Nex yet?




Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[Iron Lion]

Lol are you claiming to be Woox?

 

[-X-]

Lol are you claiming to be Woox?

Trolololol.

Nah man. I'm not near as epic as you guys. I'm just a lowly 137cb with 40 grips and no phat. And I don't skeel. I keel. Just can't find the time to grind.

Been about a year since I stopped playing regularly. I pop on every now and then just to see what changed.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[Iron Lion]

Pop in my friends chat any time :ww:

 

[-X-]

Pop in my friends chat any time :ww:

I'll do that. Alcha Pwn blowin' up ur set. :hehe: :lmao:

 

[Iron Lion]

Pop in my friends chat any time :ww:

I'll do that. Alcha Pwn blowin' up ur set. :hehe: :lmao:

Lol, you'll fit right in with Jeh Freedommer.

 

[-X-]

Pop in my friends chat any time :ww:

I'll do that. Alcha Pwn blowin' up ur set. :hehe: :lmao:

Lol, you'll fit right in with Jeh Freedommer.

Brilliant.

 

[-X-]

Wow.

Correction. I *USED* to have 40M in the bank. :neh:

That'll teach me to not set a bank pin.

 

[Iron Lion]

Oh noes :boohoo:

 

[-X-]

It happens.

Like I said, I don't play much anyway.

 

[Iron Lion]

So I assume then you don't have Ram horns like I do...

 

[-X-]

That's pretty boss right there.

And ... no. I do not.

 

[Angry Ram]

Who are the dorks and nerds now?!

:LOLLLL:

 

[Ram Quixote]

The Lord of the Rings, for example, has a coherent plot and doesn't depend on contrivances (well till the stupid eagles conveniently show up at the end).

Because LotR was done before the Hobbit, the eagle's arrival does seem contrived. But in the Hobbit, the eagles come to Gandalf and the dwarves aid a couple times, as well as Gandalf's rescue from Saruman in Fellowship.

There was precedence to it, but only if you had read the Hobbit.

DK? I saw it just once. I prefer less dry wit and the not-so-serious Marvel types.

Now, if you really want to get into subtext and themes, this website I go to has 12 pages of discussion on DK, still going since that movie came out 4 years ago.
http://kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=15681

Some of these people lean towards the intellectual. In other words, they're often a little too full of themselves. But they can still be entertaining, in a Frasier Crane sort of way.

I'm a bit of a TLOR/JRR Tolkien connoisseur. The Eagles were explained in the book...they were from the Brown Wizard, who also helped save Gandalf from the Tower of Saruman. There were more wizards than just the White (Saruman...later Gandalf), the Gray (Gandalf) and the Brown, but they're not mentioned in TLOR. They are mentioned in The Silmarillion.

One of the things I hated about The Hobbit was the transition from The Hobbit to TLOR and how amazingly different the one ring is treated (I won't even get into the fact that the Hobbit is a kids book and to me nearly unreadable). In The Hobbit it makes it seem like the ring Bilbo found was just one of hundreds of magical rings. All of a sudden in TLOR it becomes the single most important item on the planet. And a Wizard sent from heaven by the Gods couldn't recognize that the one thing that could potentially ruin the planet was found in his company? To me that's a huge plot hole...the Eagles by comparison is just tiny.

Tolkien, after conceiving the furthering of the Hobbit with the LotR, did do a rewrite of the chapter Riddles in the Dark. Originally, Bilbo won the Ring from Gollum, but with what the Ring had become, he realized Gollum would never have given up the Ring voluntarily.

But I agree with most of what you say. The Hobbit's tone through most of it is a gentle lark, until the very end. The dialogue becomes much more formal towards the end. The trailers for the upcoming movie seem to be far more serious than the book ever was.

I'm not a connoisseur but I read the H and LOTR when I was a teen. I agree that of course in the book the eagles have a context. In the movie they don't handle that well. Actually that spawned a viral youtube spoof where after they are rescued by the Eagles, Sam goes "you mean you could have just flown us in here over mount doom all along? We didn't have to walk through peril all the way?"

I think what Jackson is doing with the H is making it merge, in tone, with the LOTR films. Cause while the style is for kids in that book, the subject matter can be treated more seriously.

People know of course that the appendixes to LOTR fill in some of the gaps from the H, like where did Gandalf go. Turns out Jackson merged the plot of the H with the backstory stuff in the LOTR appendixes and expanded the story.

I was thinking about that in my first post. Funny stuff. I read it back in my teens, too, but I've reread it a half dozen times over the years.

I have been following progress of the Hobbit fairly closely (not like the Rams, though). I'm looking forward to seeing it. I pretty much geeked out when news of the LOTR movies first came out.

 

[Anonymous]

The Lord of the Rings, for example, has a coherent plot and doesn't depend on contrivances (well till the stupid eagles conveniently show up at the end).

Because LotR was done before the Hobbit, the eagle's arrival does seem contrived. But in the Hobbit, the eagles come to Gandalf and the dwarves aid a couple times, as well as Gandalf's rescue from Saruman in Fellowship.

There was precedence to it, but only if you had read the Hobbit.

DK? I saw it just once. I prefer less dry wit and the not-so-serious Marvel types.

Now, if you really want to get into subtext and themes, this website I go to has 12 pages of discussion on DK, still going since that movie came out 4 years ago.
http://kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=15681

Some of these people lean towards the intellectual. In other words, they're often a little too full of themselves. But they can still be entertaining, in a Frasier Crane sort of way.

I'm a bit of a TLOR/JRR Tolkien connoisseur. The Eagles were explained in the book...they were from the Brown Wizard, who also helped save Gandalf from the Tower of Saruman. There were more wizards than just the White (Saruman...later Gandalf), the Gray (Gandalf) and the Brown, but they're not mentioned in TLOR. They are mentioned in The Silmarillion.

One of the things I hated about The Hobbit was the transition from The Hobbit to TLOR and how amazingly different the one ring is treated (I won't even get into the fact that the Hobbit is a kids book and to me nearly unreadable). In The Hobbit it makes it seem like the ring Bilbo found was just one of hundreds of magical rings. All of a sudden in TLOR it becomes the single most important item on the planet. And a Wizard sent from heaven by the Gods couldn't recognize that the one thing that could potentially ruin the planet was found in his company? To me that's a huge plot hole...the Eagles by comparison is just tiny.

Tolkien, after conceiving the furthering of the Hobbit with the LotR, did do a rewrite of the chapter Riddles in the Dark. Originally, Bilbo won the Ring from Gollum, but with what the Ring had become, he realized Gollum would never have given up the Ring voluntarily.

But I agree with most of what you say. The Hobbit's tone through most of it is a gentle lark, until the very end. The dialogue becomes much more formal towards the end. The trailers for the upcoming movie seem to be far more serious than the book ever was.

I'm not a connoisseur but I read the H and LOTR when I was a teen. I agree that of course in the book the eagles have a context. In the movie they don't handle that well. Actually that spawned a viral youtube spoof where after they are rescued by the Eagles, Sam goes "you mean you could have just flown us in here over mount doom all along? We didn't have to walk through peril all the way?"

I think what Jackson is doing with the H is making it merge, in tone, with the LOTR films. Cause while the style is for kids in that book, the subject matter can be treated more seriously.

People know of course that the appendixes to LOTR fill in some of the gaps from the H, like where did Gandalf go. Turns out Jackson merged the plot of the H with the backstory stuff in the LOTR appendixes and expanded the story.

I was thinking about that in my first post. Funny stuff. I read it back in my teens, too, but I've reread it a half dozen times over the years.

I have been following progress of the Hobbit fairly closely (not like the Rams, though). I'm looking forward to seeing it. I pretty much geeked out when news of the LOTR movies first came out.

Do you know about the Hobbit logs at AICN?

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51787?ut ... dium=email

There's 6 of them so far.