View Single Post
  #49  
Old 04-18-2012, 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post

I don't disagree about the motivations for the film. The theory that the hobbit is a step down is a little silly, granted it was initially a bedtime story for his children which he had developed in the trenches of WWI. Of course it's not on the same level of depth as the LOTR trilogy, as davey so amazingly put it, it's a childrens book. That being said it was the precursor to the LOTR trilogy. Obviously the Silmarillion was in the works before The Hobbit and remained a work in process all his life, but it was, as I am sure you know as a self proclaimed expert, Tolkiens first step into ME. The Hobbit introduced, at least to the public, almost every idea and ideology that were later presented in LOTR and the Histories of Middle Earth; trust me, I've read them all.

Everything I've said is obviously my extremely biased opinion. I know it pisses some of you off and that's fine, your opinions frustrate me too. Luckily that's what the purpose of these boards are. What it boils down to is that I find the idea of a bunch of midgets marching to a mountain to kill a dragon that stole their shit more interesting than an irritating masked guy trying to save a city from a steroid injecting criminal with a paintball mask on.
I'm not looking to piss anyone off with my completely opinionated stance, I'm merely trying to get a better idea of why you questioned someone's excitement for a Batman movie over The Hobbit. Personally, I think the LOTR series is completely overrated and you clearly feel the same about the current Batman' movies. But I feel that if they were to adapt another Tolkien' novel then The Silmarillion would have been more fitting. Sure, people wouldn't have know what the hell was going on or who most of the characters were, but it continues and even expands upon some of the darker underlining themes covered in LOTR by showing how it literally all started. On the hand, you have The Hobbit--which davey accurately classified as a child's book--which is on a much smaller scale but subsequently is being split into two parts. Why is this necessary? I think the main reason my excitement isn't as high as many fanatics of the books is because Peter Jackson isn't very consistent when it comes to film making. King Kong was too long and The Lovely Bones was bad, just bad. So his return to Middle Earth seems more forced than anything else.
Reply With Quote