It all makes sense now.

[PhxRam]

You guys would have loved my grandfather. He considered anything but The Dirty Dozen and Chisholm Trail a "spaceship" movie.

I can recall watching Back To The Future and he strolled in and the first thing out of his mouth "goddamn spaceship movie. Thats all you kids watch these days. Goddamn spaceship movies".

I might add that the three things he loved on TV other then westerns and war movies

1. Yankee baseball (I am from NY)
2. WWF
3. Tom and Jerry. I have never seen a guy get so worked up over the antics of that cat and mouse.

I loved that dude.

 

[Anonymous]

You guys would have loved my grandfather. He considered anything but The Dirty Dozen and Chisholm Trail a "spaceship" movie.

I can recall watching Back To The Future and he strolled in and the first thing out of his mouth "goddamn spaceship movie. Thats all you kids watch these days. Goddamn spaceship movies".

I loved that dude.

Yeah cause the dirty dozen was so realistic. Convicted felons are trained to go behind enemy lines and assassinate german officers as a prelude to d-day...and some make it out alive. Kelly's Heroes without the comedy. :mrgreen:

 

[Iron Lion]

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.

Let's keep this going

 

[Ram Quixote]

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.

I do, though yours is a better link.

I get most of my Hobbit news from http://www.theonering.net/

 

[RamFan503]

Who are the dorks and nerds now?!

:LOLLLL:

Same as before. :sly: