I looked for this exact gif, no luck!
Lets talk all things Star Wars
- Status
I looked for this exact gif, no luck!
DARTH ANIBAL
Sr Member
Pretty much, yeah. Ask most of those folks the significance of 5/25, and they would have absolutely NO idea. That day is for *us*. May 4th is when everyone we know who's never even seen SW sends us memes/texts/gifs--it's more for them.
I have an analogy I've used before, but I'll keep it off the boards. Now that I'm thinking about it, a few come to mind, though.
*Disclaimer: My first love is SW, but I also LOVE Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Not even the theatrical ones, only the extended editions will do.
Last edited:
DARTH ANIBAL
Sr Member
CT1138
Sr Member
Bigdaddy
Master Member
I'm aware of the abomination's existence. As I said, No thanks.Hate to tell ya, but there's already The Hobbit.
The novel is fantastic. One of my very favorite books of all time. In fact as much as I love the Lord of the Rings books, I think the Hobbit is a stronger story because its more focused and doesn't get sidetracked with Hobbit real estate and meander around side plots that go nowhere. Tolkien is a fantastic writer but he really stretches my patience at times by being long-winded. Economy of words is not his strength.
Does the Hobbit have its weaknesses? Certainly. Though Jackson's film trilogy is horrid. I love the animated Rankin Bass movie far better. Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy by comparison, is phenomenal! A bit sappy at times but an overall masterpiece of cinema.
Does the Hobbit have its weaknesses? Certainly. Though Jackson's film trilogy is horrid. I love the animated Rankin Bass movie far better. Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy by comparison, is phenomenal! A bit sappy at times but an overall masterpiece of cinema.
Last edited:
CT1138
Sr Member
I know we're tangenting into LoTR in the SW thread, but I completely agree with that sentiment. I prefer The Hobbit (the book) over the movie trilogy because of it being a singular, focused, on track story. It didn't meander around like the LotR books do, which almost reminded me of a Charles Dickens story with the amount of useless, long windedness. With Dickens, it at least made sense: he was paid by the installment. And the more installments he released, the more he was paid. Tolkien was not. I feel like that's partly where the Hobbit trilogy went wrong: it tried too much to be like LotR, when the specific charm of The Hobbit is that it is NOT LotR. That's why I like the LotR movies over the books: it trims the fat of the books into a more linear, coherent story that is easier to follow. Beyond that, I think Jackson also tried pulling a James Cameron with the Hobbit movies, seeing how far he could push visual effects while trying to keep some kind of story intact. But part of what made the LotR film trilogy so great was its extensive use of physical sets, miniatures/bigatures, and costumes and props. Actually SEEING a person dressed up as an Orc made their presence that much more frightening than some CGI monolith.
Last edited:
Yeah, the Hobbit movies baffle me with how much they got so terribly wrong -- that is in the books they're using to write the scripts! Thorin is supposed to be the oldest of the thirteen Dwarves. Balin was but a young man when they fled Erebor. Thorin got his epithet of "Oakenshield" after they fled. Smaug wouldn't know it. Thorin's dad was killed by Azog, who was in turn killed by Thorin. Azog's son was the one who swore vengeance. Bard would have been just fine still being the captain of the guard of Laketown. Why they felt the need to have him have been in disgrace I do not know. And Glamdring and Orcrist are supposed to glow, dammit! Et cetera, et cetera.
The things they got right they, as I've come to expect from that crew, got very right. All the "nailed it!"s serve to make the dropped balls that much more glaring. I have the extended editions and they're a little better, though the problems remain. But mainly I have them to watch the twelve hours of bonus material.
The things they got right they, as I've come to expect from that crew, got very right. All the "nailed it!"s serve to make the dropped balls that much more glaring. I have the extended editions and they're a little better, though the problems remain. But mainly I have them to watch the twelve hours of bonus material.
CT1138
Sr Member
To be fair, Glamdring never glows blue in the LOTR movies, either. I suspect that it doesn't glow in either movie trilogies as Jackson wanted to prevent any noticeable similarity to lightsabers, whilst still keeping Sting unique in that respect. It always confused me because both Elrond in "An Unexpected Journey" and Bilbo in "Fellowship of the Ring" clearly state that Elvish blades glow blue in the presence of Orcs and Goblins, yet Sting is the only sword to do so.
Speaking of sword names and lightsabers, I always found it somewhat interesting that lightsabers never had "given names" in the Star Wars movies in spite of the heavy Japanese/Samurai influence on the movies and in spite of, at least in the case of the Skywalker lightsaber, the very direct treatment of Anakin's old lightsaber as an Excalibur analogue. The Samurai, themselves, were well known for giving their swords names and believed that their swords held their own spirit/soul. This was also shared by the Nordic/Viking peoples who also named their swords, which influenced Tolkien's work with the LotR universe.
Last edited:
sztriki
Sr Member
I usually have no problem when the movie adaptation changes plots, takes out bits (if the plot is still sensible unlike the HP movies), or makes composite characters etc...I have issues with movie adaptations that just don't get the source material and makes it something completely different. Hobbit movies were dumbo Hollywood action fantasy movies to me. They tried to be LOTR with more modern popcorn flair but that was never the source book. Either make a proper whimsy adaptation of the Hobbit or a LOTR trilogy-esque stuff from the ancilliary material and hang it on the plot of The Hobbit. They certainly tried to do the latter but it just became a mess that didn't work.
Bigdaddy
Master Member
Until the ST lightsabers weren't mystical or treated with reverence by the characters. They were just tools, and something to differentiate Jedi/ Ex-Jedi from other characters in the OT. The PT was even more flippant with them, spares getting tossed out, Anakin losing/destroying them for comedic effect. The Excalibur treatment didn't start until TFA.
sztriki
Sr Member
That's a good point, although I cannot help but think of a GOT quote with a rather unquotable word in it...
CT1138
Sr Member
Gonna disagree there. Star Wars, at its heart, is purely Arthurian Legend in Space. A wise old wizard convinces a young man to join him on a quest to storm a castle, rescue a princess, and fight the Black Knight. They're cut from the same cloth!
Bigdaddy
Master Member
I agree that the story has some similarities but that's really picking the elements from Arthurian legend and switching them around to fit with Star Wars. I can't think of a single occasion before the ST that lightsabers were referred to as anything mystical or individually special. If there are examples I'm certainly open to checking them out.
I'm not suggesting lightsabers shouldn't have names, just offering a reason why they didn't in the first two trilogies.
I'm not suggesting lightsabers shouldn't have names, just offering a reason why they didn't in the first two trilogies.
David3
Sr Member
Yes, this touches on an object taking on the energy or spirit/soul of its maker, like the OneRing of Sauron's and why i have a bit of a love hate issue with the graflex. It's an awesome prop but its history is all bad juju - as one of Anakin/Vader's builds it'd have all his dark force applied to it; it never helped Luke in any way and actually worked against him to the point he loses his hand to it's master and creator, Vader. Also it is a youngling killer after all.
Like the OneRing though, it's still an awesome prop.
DARTH ANIBAL
Sr Member
Yeah, the book is great. I'm not a person who shies away from a well-told story with a long runtime, the Hobbit "trilogy" was just unnecessarily long. I mean they had to pull so much from the appendices and The Silmarillion to pad out a story that was less than half the length of just one of the LOTR books. That's my beef with it. Well, that and the fact that most of it looks like a video game.
Outside of the films themselves there appeared to be some line of thinking like that.
Last edited:
DARTH ANIBAL
Sr Member
Edited down to one post. ^^
I'd say you're both right. A destined young boy inheriting a legendary fantastical weapon. While the lightsaber has no actual mystical power like Excalibur, it still radiates an aura of magic because of its place in the Star Wars universe. A highly technological object in an already futuristic universe that can only be built and utilized effectively by a mysterious order of knights. I mean it might as well be Excalibur.
But still they were just tools and regarded as such. Even Yoda seemed to suggest you don't need one to become a powerful Jedi. Now, Luke's Graflex was more than just a tool but not because of any spiritual significance but because of sentimental value. It's the only thing he has of his father. That's why it was so infuriating to see him casually toss it like he was throwing away a discarded banana peel. And then it calling to Rey as if it had some kind of spiritual presence made no sense at all especially now that we know she has no relation to any Skywalkers.
As for the Hobbit trilogy, oh boy where to start? I think it's better than the prequels but I guess that's not saying much. At least the acting was great but so much else has flaws- some minor, some major. Like CT1138 said, it was trying to be LOTR when it should've just tried to be The Hobbit.
Just a product of the day in age we now live in I'm afraid. Everything has to be bigger than what came before even if it doesn't favor the source material.
I feel like if The Hobbit had been made in the Eighties, it would've been so good. That was such a great decade for fantasy adventure movies.
Last edited:
robn1
Master Member
I saw them both in digital theaters. I specifically remember that AOTC was shown on a Samsung DLP cinema projector. It looked great to me, and I'm generally a purist
The higher quality of film was rarely apparent in theaters because of the poor quality of the print, color and contrast varied from one to another, and sometimes they couldn't be focused because the film image was printed out of focus. This is just 35mm, 70mm prints were made with a lot more care. Digital cinema projection avoids all that stuff, and the resolution seemed less important than the overall presentation.- Status
Similar threads
