9611 réponses à ce sujet

[KyreneZA]

Stardusk wrote...

I liked it more when Martin's novels were just that, without the show...

Hipster!

[KyreneZA]

And so that people don't have to dig back...

On page 168 Kyrene wrote...

Okay, I'll also bite, even if late to the thread:

My lovely wife and I (themed year end function in 2009)


My other baby (the dirty red one in front; also my avatar) and I (some rainy morning in 2010)

[Stardusk]

Kyrene wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

I liked it more when Martin's novels were just that, without the show...

Hipster!

I guess. The novels were great and well-known enough without the Commercialisation Effect. That is not to say the show is bad, in fact, it is very good just with its advent the books lost something.

[KyreneZA]

Stardusk wrote...

Kyrene wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

I liked it more when Martin's novels were just that, without the show...

Hipster!

I guess. The novels were great and well-known enough without the Commercialisation Effect. That is not to say the show is bad, in fact, it is very good just with its advent the books lost something.

I feel the same way about LotR. I think I first read it back in '86, and although Jackson did a fair treatment of it in the trilogy of films, I liked Frodo better when he wasn't a whiny crybaby.

Don't get me started on the trilogy of Hobbit films though. That's just Jackson padding his money castle.

[greghorvath]

but at least she conceded to it...

[greghorvath]

Lord_Sirian wrote...

If Life On Mars, and the English cricket team is an accurate representative of the British population, then I can safely say that 99.9% of British people are ugly mongoloids and/or skinheads whose receding hairlines make me think they're white supremicists. 

But then... Britain also produced Matt Tuck and David Tennant.  I'm so confused. 

Your sources are clearly wrong. Look for the pics of Twinkles in this here thread. I will not continue this thought for fear of being revealed to the missus.

[greghorvath]

Kyrene wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

Kyrene wrote...

Stardusk wrote...

I liked it more when Martin's novels were just that, without the show...

Hipster!

I guess. The novels were great and well-known enough without the Commercialisation Effect. That is not to say the show is bad, in fact, it is very good just with its advent the books lost something.

I feel the same way about LotR. I think I first read it back in '86, and although Jackson did a fair treatment of it in the trilogy of films, I liked Frodo better when he wasn't a whiny crybaby.

Don't get me started on the trilogy of Hobbit films though. That's just Jackson padding his money castle.

Lotr movie was a great MOVIE. The book was a mediocre novel. I should know, I wrote a thesis on a related subject. Actually, I wrote two... *lifts nose towards the high heavens*

[greghorvath]

[quote]Kyrene wrote...



My other baby (the dirty red one in front; also my avatar) and I (some rainy morning in 2010)[/quote]
[/quote] I wish I still had my bike... Or if at least I didn't have the loan to pay for it...

Modifié par greghorvath, 13 décembre 2012 - 11:54 .

[d_nought]

Lord_Sirian wrote...

But then... Britain also produced Matt Tuck and David Tennant.  I'm so confused. 

In more than one way if that emoticon is anything to go by.

I also look nothing like I sound. Still looking for decent photos though, i don't really have an awful lot.

[GriM_AoD]

Odd. Tis the first time I've noticed this thread. Not sure how it has eluded me, must be the timezones and the tread sinks before I normally appear.

I'm never one for this sort of stuff, but..
digging...digging...digging

Haha, it appears I have no pictures of myself whatsoever xP
Maybe another time BSN, maybe another time.

[greghorvath]

GriM_AoD wrote...
Haha, it appears I have no pictures of myself whatsoever xP
Maybe another time BSN, maybe another time.

this is so anachronistic an excuse in an age when the stupidest of smartphones has at least 2 cameras...

Modifié par greghorvath, 13 décembre 2012 - 12:01 .

[KyreneZA]

greghorvath wrote...

Lotr movie was a great MOVIE. The book was a mediocre novel. I should know, I wrote a thesis on a related subject. Actually, I wrote two... *lifts nose towards the high heavens*

I still re-read that mediocre novel once every five years (The Hobbit once a year) whereas I have yet to rewatch the movie (we do own the 6 disc "extended in your extended so we gave you more extended" set). Many 'great' novels I've only ever read once to see what the fuss is all about. A book must entertain first, 'be great' a distant second.

[d_nought]

Lord_Sirian wrote...

First read LOTR when I was 11

Spoiler

me too

I've only watched the movies once through despite owning them, so yeah.

Modifié par chipsandwich, 13 décembre 2012 - 01:06 .

[Stardusk]

Lord_Sirian wrote...

I thought LOTR was a great book & film series. PJ did tend to veer away from the books a little bit more in the later films, which annoyed me, but all in all I think he did a good job.

First read LOTR when I was 11. What a hipster kid I was.

11...wow, not even in the 20th century....

[Anubis_TPF]

I liked the movies, and the book, personally. Two Towers was my favorites of the movies, since it felt the most true to the source. I was happy that Fellowship cut out the 200+ pages of boring from the beginning of the book, though. It took FOREVER for them to get out of the Shire in the book.

I'm with you on The Hobbit. Two movies whould have been more than enough. Three is just pandering for money.

[KyreneZA]

Stardusk wrote...

11...wow, not even in the 20th century....

Hehe. Damn kids of today?!?

[KyreneZA]

Anubis_TPF wrote...

TwoOne movies whould have been more than enough.

Fixed that for ya...

[Boobasaurus]

Three movies?  Really? I thought it was just going to be one.

[greghorvath]

Its just like with this game: with the level of "proficiency" in a subject, aspects change. People soloing platinum will not likely enjoy what bronze players have a great time with. (Please note there is no value attached to either). With one degree in literature and the next one around the corner, "mere entertainment" is not enough for me. (aside: When I first announced my topic at the university, the head of the department told me that Tolkien is to the department what the colour red is to the bull... Snobs...Worse than me...)

In terms of literary value, I must say Lotr has very little. What is important about Tolkien's works is that they make people read. And that is perhaps the greatest thing a piece of literature can achieve. This is one of the reasons for me choosing what I chose as the topic of my theses.

The movies balanced out, with very good taste, those totally superfluous and omissible things that the novel contained. As a movie based on a novel, I think it is one of the best adaptations ever made. And there were several examples of superb acting, in the movies. Simply superb.

I was about 11 when I first attempted to read Lotr myself. I failed. Miserably... Since then I have read it 3 times and I have seen the extended editions many, many times. But, as with the game, we enjoy different things. And it is well that way.

[Pablo Cavalieri]

Hey...this thread is for pics! Show your faces!
Im Batman!