WF

I studied the Hobbit in English Lit and also suffer from hating films that don't do the film justice...

So instead of kicking off, I just allow myself the option to not care!!!

I'm not into books anymore, I just don't get the time to sit relax and enjoy.... Love films though!!

I've tried the not caring, problem is that I sit watching the film and I'll be enjoying it then the first inconsistency comes along and this voice pops up in my head going "Thats wrong."

Its actually one of the reasons that I really like Game of Thrones. I can't comment on the second season having not watched it yet, but season one was so loyal to the book it sets the benchmark now for book to film/TV conversions. There are one or two bit missed out and a scenes added, but they've been clever about it and the scenes added are just to give certain characters abit more screen time so you know who they are or they are scenes added so that they can reference events from the book which time constraints mean they can't show in full. All in all there was no moment that singularly screamed out that it was wrong.

Whereas Lord of the Rings had Elves at Helmsdeep.

There were no Elves at Helmsdeep!!

Jesus, I don't think you should watch the Hobbit...

It could cause you all sorts of upset..

Hmm, what I don't like is that the Lord of the Rings constituent books were (if I remember correctly) about 900-1000 pages each and were adapted into single film versions, whereas The Hobbit, written as a childrens' book and lighter in tone, was about 300 pages, yet is being adapted into two films. It seems to me that New Line Cinema are being greedy.

I am glad I read all the books before the films came out, as I am far happier with my personal vision of Middle Earth than Jackson's realisation of it. Having said that, I enjoy the tone and feel of the films.

The same can't be said for Harry Potter, I think the films are awful in many ways, compared to the books. I just hate that all the children are posh in those films, Hermione is too good looking, etc. Harry Potter is an orphan, an abused/neglected child who sleeps in a cupboard, when we meet him, so why cast Daniel Radcliffe, who sounds like he's walked out of a nineteenth century costume drama when he opens his gob?

LH you're going to hate New Line even more then because they're actually doing a Trilogy.

And I agree about the Harry Potter films as well. (Although on the subject of the actors I can forgive them Emma Watson because...... well I'm sure you can work out why!)

One thing people always forget is that Rowling has never said the books were for kids, in fact she has said they definitely aren't suitable for young kids, particularly the last two which are quite dark in places and would scare a young child.

However the film makers wanted to cash in on a young audience and so toned down the films to their detriment. The same thing has happened with Taken 2 funnily enough.

Quite looking forward to the new film version of Les Miserables, myself.

Mind you...anything with HBC in is fine and dandy by me. And Bellatrix gives me a stiffy.

Didn't Rowling start the Potter books as for kids but as her readership & indeed the star of the books grew up a bit more the writing style also got more grown up.

Or did I make that up?

Funnily there aren't a lot of Films that are like the book some even remotely.

HBC is a very good actress. King's Speech she was brilliant, but so was everyone!

The only problem she has is that like Johnny Depp she is her husband's go to for nearly every film he does. And frankly alot of Tim Burton's stuff over the last decade has gotten abit stale as a result.

Yeah thats true Zat.

I think the idea was that her audience grew up with the characters. Although I think some of the more mature writing in the later books is also down to her maturing as a writer. Philosopher's Stone was her first book afterall and by the time you've got to Deathly Hallows that fact becomes very obvious if you go back and re-read the earlier books.

I got early access to Pottermore, which is the Harry Potter online community, about a year ago.

If you think this place is over-moderated, that place is on another level.

You can't pick a username, it just gives you a choice of 5, and they are all the name of two random objects followed by a number.

There's a very limited bulletin board bit. I used the word 'massacre' on it and got a warning email. Even though the books themselves contain massacres. Bizarre.

Zat's 50p Head is right though, the books do get increasingly darker from 'Goblet of Fire' (book 4) onwards, which is where they get a lot longer too.

the last film i went to see was predators.

im not a big film buff.

I am.

got the lords of the rings boxset 12 discs but it scares me as it would take so long to watch so it has just laid there unwatched and unloved on a shelf for 3/4 years.

The thing to do benny is make a day of it, literally it takes that long to watch in one sitting!

Get the lads over, get the beers and pizza in and sit and watch it. Chuck in a bit of Fifa in between films and you're sorted.

Also, 10 comments to go!

I have that same extended box set of LotR, I feel a bit conned buying it, one of my last purchases on DVD before Blu-Ray came on to the market. I now own two copies of the films which are both obsolete. Mug <---

Look on the brightside LH, at least LOTR was a George Lucas film. If it was there'd have been 12 new releases of it since the original each with more pointless little changes that ultimately detract from what was already a fantastic trilogy.

George Lucas nearly conned me in the same way, WF. He claimed for years he wasn't going to bring Star Wars out on Blu-Ray. I'm a massive SW fan bit refused to buy Episodes II and III on DVD. It paid off in September last year when the Blu-Ray box set came out.

Also as big a fan as I am, the whole 3D thing is a joke. Changing a film to 3D in post production looks very average.

I've never ever seen the new second Star Wars film fully without falling asleep. Granted one of them was at the end of one of my leaving do's and I may have been very very drunk.

The other one was during the middle of the afternoon though. Odd much the same as I can't watch Liverpool play on TV without nodding off either.

Episode I was disappointing because of Jar Jar Binks and very little lightsabre action.

II and III were great IMO apart from the dialogue in the love scenes, which made me cringe. Just not George Lucas's forte.

My entire childhood will be ruined if Disney make another Star Wars film & make it Episode 7...

The Return Of The Jedi is the only way to end the story..

I can't have this changing. I won't..

Episode 3 is good up until the near last scene with Anakin screaming "Noooooo" which was just bad!

And the fact that Lucas then dubbed that in to Return of the Jedi was a crime!

i liked the original star wars films could not abide the prequels starring lennie lawrence as chancellor palpatine.

I

Agree












300