How would you rate civ III and Lord of the Rings Movie

[Paul Hanson]

The movie was overhyped, which was a big mistake. If you've read the trilogy, you're bound to feel disappointed to some degree. I know I was, but I still found bits in the movie to enjoy.

It's pretty much the same situation with most adaptations. Contact is a pretty good example; people who'd read the book and then seen the film were disappointed. Since I'd never read the book, I could enjoy the film as a film, and I thought it was pretty good.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
The movie was overhyped, which was a big mistake.

Big mistake in terms of what? I think they've already made a profit, overcoming the expenses for all 3 movies, with the DVDs not even out yet and 2 more films still to be released.

If you've read the trilogy, you're bound to feel disappointed to some degree. I know I was, but I still found bits in the movie to enjoy.

Not necessarily. What if you were mostly bored with the book, like I was?

I loved the movie, because they took out all of the boring crap. 75-80% of enjoyment was also because of the high production values and gorgeous cinematography. This is just my opinion, of course, and Tolkien fans would strongly disagree.

My sister got the book as a gift, and I told her not to read it because it was really boring. My other sister agreed, and said The Hobbit was a lot better. I read the Hobbit such a long time ago, that I don't really remember what I thought of it. Of course, if I don't remember, I guess I must not have liked it that much, either, although I probably didn't dislike it as much, as well.

And I do like fantasy, and there are some fantasy novels I have enjoyed. Just not Tolkien, with his long-winded, drawn out, dry writing style.

And another example is Dune, which was undoubtedly a bad interpretation, but I still liked the movie a lot anyway (the David Lynch version, I haven't seen the Sci-Fi channel version). And this was based on one of my favorite novels. I can't see why people can't separate a book from a movie. It's impossible to make a faithful adaptation of Fellowship unless the movie were 10 hours long. And they would make no money on such a venture, unless it was mini-series which would vastly decrease the movie's budget.

I doubt they would spend 90+ million dollars producing a mini-series. I would rather have the money spent on the 3 hour film that was actually released.

[Jac de Molay]

The dune mini-series was well......ok. Having the luxury of time, it's a bit more loyal to the book, but the acting was too over the top, the various sets a little to cheesy and minimal, and it was shot in some god-awful primary color tone. Then again, I thought Lynch's adaptation was damn near perfect visually, but mangled the book so badly as to render the plot unrecognizable. my .02$ anyway.

Lord of the Rings- surprisingly good, saw it three times

Civ 3 back to the drawing room, boys.

[loinburger]

I thought that the LOTR movie was well done. I loved the books, but I sure wouldn't want to see every single detail from the books in the movie; my ass fell asleep as it was. They really emphasized the swords and splosions, and for that I thank them. Was it accurate to the books? Sure, more or less.

Haven't bought Civ III and do not intend to.

[copcartman]

The book (or books) is, as anyone with an ounce of literary sense would know, a masterpiece. With some very few exceptions the fantasy-genre that followed in its wake is nowhere near its standard, and it's really sad that Tolkien's work should be associated with these.

The movie did its best to make money on those who had not read the book. Quite disappointing screenplay-writing. The casting was done well though, no complaints there, and the stunning visuals clearly made it worth the trip.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by copcartman
The book (or books) is, as anyone with an ounce of literary sense would know, a masterpiece. With some very few exceptions the fantasy-genre that followed in its wake is nowhere near its standard, and it's really sad that Tolkien's work should be associated with these.

Wow, you take fantasy too seriously. To me, it's not literature in the "literary" sense, it's *fantasy*. Literature is about the human condition, our flaws, our weaknesses, and our relationships with others, be it friendly or romantic.

I read fantasy or sci-fi for escapist entertainment.

For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc. And I don't go around telling people who haven't read them or don't like them that they have no "literary" sense. It's elitist and pretentious.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Pembleton
For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc. And I don't go around telling people who haven't read them or don't like them that they have no "literary" sense. It's elitist and pretentious.

Well said.

[copcartman]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Wow, you take fantasy too seriously. To me, it's not literature in the "literary" sense, it's *fantasy*. Literature is about the human condition, our flaws, our weaknesses, and our relationships with others, be it friendly or romantic.

I read fantasy or sci-fi for escapist entertainment.

For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc. And I don't go around telling people who haven't read them or don't like them that they have no "literary" sense. It's elitist and pretentious.

Well, I don't take fantasy too serious, since I don't really like most books in that genre. As I hinted to earlier, I don't put Tolkien's books in that category. Be it elitistic or not, some intellectual or artistic works are masterpieces, and if a person don't captures that it's probably not due to the book, but the reader. I don't claim to get the essence of every good book i read, but I still (most of the time) can tell the difference between those that are universally bad books and those that are simply inaccessible to me.

[ShuShu]

Define "deep"

For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc.

Deep sleep?

Deep obfuscation (have you actually read Kierkegaard?)?

Deep depression?



Dickens was a columnist for USA today, Shakespeare wrote screenplays for Hollywood, and Bach was doing the mixing for Britany Spears.

I would venture to say that more scholarly research went into the work of Tolkein than most of the people on your list.

I'ld love to know love because loving love leads to understanding love my love, but its all just a lovely fantasy. --- Son of Kierkegaard

God is a fantasy, so god is dead is also a fantasy. --- Ubermensch

Please sir, can I be a hobbit instead of an orphan? --- Oliver Twist.

All of your authors wrote works of fantasy, err sorry, fiction, err philosophy. Tolkein's portrayal of the England of his time is every bit as insightful as Dickens's portrayal of his.

I consider the elevation of dusty dead guys over popular contemporaries rather elitest but heck, what do I know...

copcartman didn't say you had to LIKE the books if you had any literary sense just acknowledge that they are masterpieces. I believe the same applies to your guys.

PS: I happen to disagree with his conclusion. Since adaptations of masterpieces by hollywood has proven to be a nigh on impossible task, the success Peter Jackson had in his efforts was nothing short of a miacle...

[Pembleton]

Re: Define "deep"

Originally posted by ShuShu

Deep sleep?

Deep obfuscation (have you actually read Kierkegaard?)?

Deep depression?

Your opinion. Just because you condemn my opinions, doesn't mean I'm going to condemn yours.

One notable trait that most of the writers share is tolerance of all people, something that you might want to learn more of.

[Lars-E]

I voted bad game, good movie.

The civ2-savvys in civ2-strategy seem to not like the game either. I think the graphics are bad and there are no wonder videos! And you have those cute little scrolls that all new adventure games have. It's like a fashion thing I think. It will die out hopefully.

[ShuShu]

Unkept promises...

Just because you condemn my opinions, doesn't mean I'm going to condemn yours.

seems like you just said 'I am lieing'.

tolerance of all people, something that you might want to learn more of

oops... sorry... my mistake, you weren't going to condemn my opinions, just me...

I came not to condemn Pembleton but to bury him... err, that didn't come off right.

You are absolutely right. Implying Kierkeggaard could have been a touch more succint, and that cheerful is not a term often used to describe the works of Nietzsche... (err Dostoevsky, err Kafka, err Dickens) was clearly beyond the pail.

It was that sleep thing wasn't it? The fact that I am more inclined to loose sleep over imaginative renditions of good vs. evil instead of contemplating the existential raison d'tre (or something like that) is clearly something that only shallow people such as myself do.

You caught me, I live to condemn. Instead of jugemental statements like

... didn't say you had to LIKE the books if you had any literary sense just acknowledge that they are masterpieces.

I should stick to words with a slightly more neutral connotation. Say...

condemn

or

deep

or

you take fantasy too seriously

or

escapist

or

elitist and pretentious

Hey wait a second, I used the word elitest! How come I didn't get any credit for that?

I consider the elevation of dusty dead guys over popular contemporaries rather elitest but heck, what do I know...

Must have been that smiley after the 'what do I know'. I am sorry Pembleton, I meant no offense with my wanton use of a . I have seen the light, and shall endeavor to be as accepting as possible and follow the shining path you have shown.

Yours in repentance,
ShuShu

[Buck Birdseed]

Scholarship comes to nothing if you've got a basic inability to write stylishly and consistently. Tolkien drifts off into pages and pages of sense-numbing, adjectiveless description, loses the sense of story frequently, writes soulless, stilted poetry for row upon row upon row, has no sense of the english language or narrative pace and is generally a bad writer. And that's all that counts- no haughty world-building or self-indulgent archetype-building in the world is going to save a badly written book. In fact, any book with that sort of thing baked in is generally awful- as far as I'm concerned it just gets in the way of the story. Oh well, back to Robert E Howard, I suppose...

[Pembleton]

Re: Unkept promises...

Originally posted by ShuShu


seems like you just said 'I am lieing'.

oops... sorry... my mistake, you weren't going to condemn my opinions, just me...

I came not to condemn Pembleton but to bury him... err, that didn't come off right.

You are absolutely right. Implying Kierkeggaard could have been a touch more succint, and that cheerful is not a term often used to describe the works of Nietzsche... (err Dostoevsky, err Kafka, err Dickens) was clearly beyond the pail.

It was that sleep thing wasn't it? The fact that I am more inclined to loose sleep over imaginative renditions of good vs. evil instead of contemplating the existential raison d'tre (or something like that) is clearly something that only shallow people such as myself do.

There must have been a grave misunderstanding somewhere here. I never meant to imply anyone was shallow. If I did give that impression, I apologize. No need to get so upset about something I never meant to be offensive, just defensive.

If anyone wants to argue that Tolkien is more literary, that's fine by me. I will no longer raise an objection. My mistake.

[ShuShu]

Poor Kierkeggaard...

... I'ld imagine he's not on your top ten list...

it just gets in the way of the story

say, did I see news editor in your title?

any book with that sort of thing baked in is generally awful

My wife couldn't get into the books either. I do believe that a distinction should be made between big G and little g great books. I think Great books are generally difficult reads because they are meant to be (baked in?). I think great books are generally easy reads because they are meant to be. The world would be a lesser place without either, they both should be read, and, err I think I am agreeing with you, the big G's are not supreior to the little g's.

no sense of the english language

What's your take on his sense of the elvish language? Maybe the problem was just with the translation...

Robert E Howard

I'm afraid I do not know him. Is he a big G or little g guy?