Return Of The King. .. Does the hobbit trilogy sound good? what about pirates of the caribbean? lord of the ring Ace
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (173)
[ 173 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #28 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply +230 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [+] (37 replies)
stickied by psychadelicace
Does the hobbit trilogy sound good? what about pirates of the caribbean?
#116 to #28 - thornberry
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
All the pirates of the Caribbean sucked ass except the first one...
#137 to #116 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
It's good but i think At worlds end is the best one
It's good but i think At worlds end is the best one
#150 to #137 - ephialtes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Are you going to be doing the Star wars prequel trilogy?
User avatar #152 to #150 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Yes, i have all the info written down
#172 to #152 - ephialtes
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Great, looking forward to it, none of your content disappoints.
User avatar #42 to #28 - sardinez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
pirates.
User avatar #48 to #28 - TehGordonFreeman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
do the hobbit trillogy when the last movie gets released.
#51 to #28 - anon id: c584c087
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
pirates i reckon
User avatar #62 to #28 - unikornking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
both
User avatar #91 to #28 - garymuthafuknoak
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
hobbit
User avatar #92 to #28 - areialview
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Hell ******* yes to both
User avatar #132 to #28 - inkoma
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
hobbit hobbit
User avatar #145 to #28 - ThatFatMummy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Planet of the apes
User avatar #153 to #145 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
2011 one?
User avatar #160 to #153 - ThatFatMummy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Whichever ones have the cooler facts
User avatar #35 to #28 - studbeefpile
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Yes.
User avatar #39 to #28 - Awesomenessniss
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
As long as you mention the aspects that Jackson ****** up then yes that would be good.
#41 to #39 - theruse
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
The Hobbit movies did a damn fine job.
I'm the ******* Hitler of book-to-movie adaptations, and I thought it was a fantastic representation.
User avatar #43 to #41 - Awesomenessniss
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
He completely invented his own original character for the sole purpose of including an unnecessary love triangle for the sake of adding drama, not to mention the plot element of some sort of fictional political strife in Laketown. There were parts that were made very well, but there were parts that were not good at all. Fili had less of a beard than dwarf women for God's sake! You may be the "******* Hitler of book-to-movie adaptations" but I ******* know my Tolkien, every work ever published is very close to me and that is how i know that I can call out ********. No wonder Christopher Tolkien is ashamed of what the film industry has done to his father's work.
User avatar #138 to #43 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Well said
#44 to #43 - theruse
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Granted, the love triangle was phoned in a bit, but that doesn't mean it's a ***** adaptation.   
You wanna see some **** adaptations?   
Go watch Percy Jackson and the Olympians.
Granted, the love triangle was phoned in a bit, but that doesn't mean it's a ***** adaptation.
You wanna see some **** adaptations?
Go watch Percy Jackson and the Olympians.
User avatar #47 to #44 - archmagestudios
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
**** me I hated that percy jackson movie
User avatar #45 to #44 - Awesomenessniss
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Yeah they left a lot out of the movie as I recall, but there was also less source material and it seems that the film industry likes to cut corners in that manner the younger the target audience is which is unfortunate.
#124 to #45 - theruse
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Less source material?
Holy **** *****, did you read the books?
They were pretty long, and weren't vague.
User avatar #159 to #124 - Awesomenessniss
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Yes I did read the books, and there is way more source material from the mind of Tolkien.
User avatar #65 to #43 - gamagoriira
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
You guys seem to forget that to turn a book into a movie, some things need to change.
User avatar #66 to #65 - Awesomenessniss
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Stuff from the original source material was removed and content from Jackson was added in. Jackson did not do justice to the original material no matter how often he may like to say it.
User avatar #67 to #66 - gamagoriira
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Thanks going to happen with any movie to film adaptation. You've given an example of something put in. Lets talk about something taken out. In the LotR trilogy, where the hell is Tom Bombadil? Nowhere. Despite him being an interesting character, and fun to read about in the book, it would have made for an awful movie scene. So it got left out. Things are going to get changed, and at some point you'll have to accept it or slowly come to hate book to film movies.
User avatar #68 to #67 - Awesomenessniss
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
I understand that, my issue is with Jackson going on about how true to the books he is.
User avatar #69 to #68 - gamagoriira
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Because he generally is.
User avatar #70 to #69 - Awesomenessniss
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
I like to measure the value of being valid to the source not with including of all major themes, but caring enough to acknowledge the smaller details, that's one reason i like the extended versions, more lore based content. The basis in movies that content needs to be cut is why I am so afraid Jackson will try to cut his way into the earlier history of Tolkien's world and do it gross injustice.
User avatar #81 to #70 - gamagoriira
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Well, I do see the validity of your opinions and respect them, but we will have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #83 to #81 - Awesomenessniss
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Disagreements are the spice of the human condition, carry on.
User avatar #87 to #83 - gamagoriira
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
All of my points have been made. Things must left out for it to be a movie, and things will get added in, to make it more theatrical. Jackson does stay true to the books in every major way. The short beard and extra little relationship drama worries just seem silly to me.
#112 to #28 - swagbot
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Seriously not trying to troll:

Whereas LOTR was Awesome Writing + Acting + Pacing + Believability + Eye-Candy...
...Hobbit Series is only Eye-Candy.

It has WAY too many Plot deviations (that are not fruitful), gratuitous chase scenes, unbelievable physics - Also, amazingly, there are even gaps in its only virtue, the 'Eye-Candy' - in 60fps IMAX, the sets look constrained, and the immersion is a fraction as good as the LOTR movies.

First one was decent - 5/10.
...I actually couldn't wait to get out of the theater after DoS - 2/10.

Sorry.
User avatar #113 to #112 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
I wasn't too fond of it either
#29 to #28 - cityoftroy
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
The Hobbit trilogy would be great!
User avatar #158 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
stickied by psychadelicace
#2 - benschien
Reply +150 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
this was seriously the only thing that always bothered me. i mean aragorn should have just said, yeah just kill all of sauron's army and you're free to go. those ******* ghosts were way too overpowered
User avatar #30 to #2 - serotonin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Played any strategy game? Summoned creatures dissapear after a while.
#55 to #30 - wheredahoodat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Not these. They disappear when the heir of Isildur allows them to. They have been waiting for him for hundreds of years, after all.
User avatar #171 to #55 - serotonin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
well he summoned them to help him. Think of their vow as summoning scroll
User avatar #3 to #2 - psychadelicace [OP]
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Yeah but it would of made a pretty bad ending the army of the dead just kills everything in mordor and thats it
User avatar #7 to #3 - benschien
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
of course that would have been a ****** ending, but it would have been the logical thing to do for aragorn. thats why i didn't like that OP army in the first place
#14 to #7 - hugebulliest
Reply +43 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
What do you think would have happened when the eye looked upon the army of the dead?

In the movie at least i imagined that the eye would simply vanquish the ghosts.

The thing is, the army of the dead was supposed to be more like zombies, not ghosts. But it was because that he trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean came out and features the same looking undead as was originally intended for the Army of the Dead. So they went with ghosts instead.

When I read the book however, I pictured them being more like undead warriors (Think World of Warcraft).

But with there already being plenty of supernatural beings in Mordor, (Nazgûl is the obvious one) Would simply fly over them and crush them just like they did with the Gondorian soldiers. And I'm pretty sure, even though terrified men could not harm the undead soldiers, A massive war-hammer from a Troll would crush them to bits.

The Army of the Deads main weapon was fear, terrified men don't stand and fight.

So I imagine that the undead can be killed, just like everything else. And with plenty of fearless beasts lurking in Mordor, the Army would not be invincible, like they seem to be in the movies.

I don't like saying "The Book was better" because its a very different media, and the movie would only be enjoyed by die hard Tolkien fans, compared to the wide audience that movies has to target, simply because the budget for a movie is a tad higher than a book, especially a movie trilogy as big as Lord of the Rings.

And I personally think that Peter Jackson did an incredible job making the films, And I don't think the movies could have been done better, It was a perfect timing when it came to production, they had a brilliant team, and they are by far my favorite movies. My favorite being Fellowship of the Ring.

But as I said, they had to make a choice, either do something unique or do the same thing as another movie. Which I think would have been worse.

#16 to #14 - fynix
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Well not only that, but i like to think it simple.

What im saying is that the army was cursed for not joining the battle in first place, and they only agreed to fight that one battle with Arragorn for their freedom, so Arragorn decided to be honorable and set them free(even though Gimli said lets keep them, theyre badass).

Sry for my english if there is mistakes, im not really confident in that.
User avatar #31 to #16 - amusingusername
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Dude it's ok. I've seen native speakers with an English worse than yours.
#169 to #14 - junahi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
When you put it like that, the scene and movie would had been a lot better if they had actually been rotten corpses. Would had looked less silly and felt less deus ex or stupid to let them go.
User avatar #19 to #14 - benschien
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
thatt lightens it up alot for me thanks
#38 to #14 - kez
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
think WOW. Implying everyone has as little a social life as you
#50 to #38 - hugebulliest
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
That wasn't very friendly.

Anyhow, It would take people around a minute to find out what an Undead in Warcraft is and how they work.
#73 - bval
Reply +88 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Jesus, I never realized. Born in 1922, he's gonna be 92 in a little over a week. Thankfully, he's gonna keep on truckin'.
Lee: "I always ask myself 'well, what else could I do?'. Making films has never just been a job to me, it is my life. I have some interests outside of acting – I sing and I've written books, for instance – but acting is what keeps me going, it's what I do, it gives life purpose... I'm realistic about the amount of work I can get at my age, but I take what I can, even voice-overs and narration."

Also: "Lee is fluent in English, Italian, French, Spanish and German, and moderately proficient in Swedish, Russian and Greek."

Don't die, you magnificent man. Live. For all our sakes.
User avatar #127 to #73 - aran
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
he will reach 100 or more, no doubt.
#135 to #73 - anon id: 7476cdab
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
don't forget the metal album.
User avatar #119 to #73 - flibstaar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
He is an incredible man.
#102 to #73 - iateallthebacon
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
******* 92 years old and still writing heavy metal albums, ******* legend
#104 to #73 - nationalanthem
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
makes me kinda sad to think how many old men are like this but because they are not famous we just bump into them on the street and never get to hear how awesome they are too
User avatar #98 to #73 - looneyfortheluna
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
I'm also pretty sure he was the only one of the entire LotR set to have actually met Tolkien, a testament of his age. What a legend.
User avatar #174 to #98 - orangeyouglad
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/27/2014) [-]
ayyy lmao
#8 - chrismamaril
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Spiders **** my mood up.
Spiders **** my mood up.
#123 to #8 - broswagonist
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
This is the future you chose.
This is the future you chose.
#95 to #8 - theroflcer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
We'll, hopefully you won't have a problem with me posting scorpions then.

(Fun fact, these things exist)
User avatar #165 to #95 - meestaa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Not scorpions
User avatar #121 to #95 - broswagonist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Fun fact, they're not poisonous
#10 to #8 - meatygoodness
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
#11 to #10 - chrismamaril
Reply +62 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
****, no.
#23 to #11 - vgmddg
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Why won't you accept me Dad?
#12 to #11 - meatygoodness
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
#88 to #11 - profkitty
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
What about this cute little ******?
What about this cute little ******?
#78 to #11 - gruntmastr
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
How about now?
#46 to #11 - EdwardNigma
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Hey.
#100 - stegosaurusrah
Reply +51 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
"because he did not wish to disappoint diehard fans of the book trilogy"   
oh yeah? well what happended when you were making the Hobbit, huh? suddenly forgot to give a ****?   
   
punk azz bietch
"because he did not wish to disappoint diehard fans of the book trilogy"
oh yeah? well what happended when you were making the Hobbit, huh? suddenly forgot to give a ****?

punk azz bietch
User avatar #134 to #100 - fishandkids
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
He didn't want to remove a big part of the story. There were a **** ton of things changed or things that were not even in teh book to begin with in the LOTR. The way Aragorn kills Nazgul? Grow the **** up and relise the movies of the LOTR book(s) were just as bad as the hobbit.
#103 to #100 - plaguehammer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
you realize that was the studio's decision, right?
User avatar #105 to #103 - stegosaurusrah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
i'll believe that when you can provide proof
#107 to #105 - plaguehammer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
you seem to be confused as to what a director's job is in the movie business
#168 to #105 - rustmcrust
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
It actually was Jackson's decision? You know why? Because he's not ******* stupid.

Putting the Tom Bombadill story (the old forest, Gold Berry, the barrow wright) in the movie would have absolutely KILLED the pacing. When Frodo and Sam leave the shire there is a real sense of urgency, a sense of threat, that builds up all the way until they reach Rivendell. all that would vanish instantly when you put Tom Bombadil in there.
Besides it would be a huge waste of time and time is extremely valuable in a movie, even if it's three hours long.

Tom Bombadil works in the book because you read it at a different pace. It would never work in the movie, same goes for the Scouring of the shire.

Only bad differentiations Jackson made were the ghost Army and Denethor.
User avatar #110 to #100 - leglesslegolegolas
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
He removed Tom Bombadil from the movies, also because he did not wish to disappoint die hard fans of the book trilogy.
User avatar #167 to #110 - willindor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Isn't Tom Bombadil a bit of a jerk? He could wear the ring without getting trouble from the downside and instead of strutting straight to Mount Doom he stayed in his forest. Or is there something that I'm missing?
#164 to #110 - anon id: ec7f12c1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
He removed Tom Bombadill because they only had 3 hours to tell the entire story of the first book and putting in the Tom Bombadill story in there would have at least taken 30 minutes to do properly and would have ****** up the entire pacing.
#156 to #110 - anon id: afd2231b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Let's be honest, Tom Bombadil was pretty pointless, beyond "wow look at this mysterious cool powerful guy whoops nvm he's gone"
User avatar #129 to #110 - honkan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
How so?
User avatar #140 to #129 - blackrookfiend
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
I think that may be a joke about how the very, very long arc regarding Tom Bombadil in the Lord of the Rings which is long, inconsequential and boring. It's theorized that Tolkien was going to use him in the payoff, but that payoff never came.
#89 - deiignis
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
This is actually how Saruman's death scene was supposed to go, but later on in post production, they decided to cut it due to time constraints.    
   
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc   
   
gif. semi-related
This is actually how Saruman's death scene was supposed to go, but later on in post production, they decided to cut it due to time constraints.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc

gif. semi-related
User avatar #111 to #89 - leglesslegolegolas
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
I feel ashamed to know I have the dialogue for his death scene memorized.
User avatar #106 to #89 - sexyhimself
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
that was beautiful.
#4 - anon id: d7e111e6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
Magic ring. Elves. Monsters and goblins. Hobbits. And the army of the dead is "unbelievable".
#99 to #4 - anon id: bfc5e902
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
i feel like the battle had no point. because the army of the dead is invincible, and could end the entire war at any time.
User avatar #154 to #4 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
It seemed like a really convenient cop-out, although it is in the book.
#101 to #4 - thevoodoofrog
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
The problem is that the army literally reeks of Deus Ex Machina. Its like "Oh **** we're hopelessly outnumbered and there's no way we can win. But wait, undead army that literally can't die!"

I can understand why it bothered him.
User avatar #54 to #4 - amanaman
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
to be fair its kind of a deus ex
#120 to #54 - broswagonist
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#63 to #54 - anon id: 1aab03ff
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
deus ex machina.
User avatar #25 to #4 - bothemastaofall
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(05/15/2014) [-]
You have to admit, it is pretty convenient that Aragorn can summon an army of undead just in the nick of time.
User avatar #128 to #25 - angelious
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
and the fact he doesnt just tell them

"lets kill sauron and his army and then you can go"


seriously the fact he just let them go after one fight was stupid...and not like it would have been so much of a trouble for the green goo brigade to run through sauronland and kill all his minions..
#36 - studbeefpile
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
More pls.
More pls.
#114 - oaaaa
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
a lot of faggots
User avatar #37 - slandersalamander
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
>approximately 8 hours and 37 minutes

********. Total ********. It's 568 minutes (around 9 and a half hours) for the theatrical cuts, 681 (11 hours 21 minutes) for the extended editions, and 726 (12 hours 6 minutes) for the Bluray extended editions.
#57 to #37 - zackaryy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
Bluray extended is the only way to go in my opinion
#61 to #37 - technobanana
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
HOLY **** I NEED THIS IN MY LIFE... theres more I have missed? Only seen the dvd extended... oh my god...
User avatar #76 to #37 - eight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
The combined runtime of my bluray extended editions are only 10 hours 55 minutes long. No credits though.
User avatar #74 to #37 - DeathKnight
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
WHAT THE **** DO YOU MEAN BLURAY EXTENDED

ARE YOU SAYING THERES MORE THAN REGULAR EXTENDED

WHAT THE **** HOW HAVE I NOT KNOWN ABOUT THIS, I THOUGHT IVE WATCHED EVERYTHING
User avatar #77 to #74 - DeathKnight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(05/16/2014) [-]
wait nevermind the "extended blu-ray" just includes more people in the credits, i think its the LOTR fan club or some **** [sauce: wikipedia]