If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Empire Magazine)   Listen to the complete The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey soundtrack   (empireonline.com) divider line 59
    More: Spiffy, The Hobbit, Annie Lennox, soundtracks, echos  
•       •       •

2486 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Nov 2012 at 2:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-14 01:53:50 PM

leakybucket: likefunbutnot:
Pandora's Clint Mansell channel is really interesting. It crosses in to full-stop classical musi, and plenty of movie soundtracks, but then it passes through various forms of acoustic performances and any number of different sorts of ambient and electronica. Extremely eclectic for a single composer's work.

I saw StandsWithAFist mention Bear McCreary, and he seems very similar to me. Especially listening over all the seasons of battlestar galactica, he brought in so many different areas of music - and unusual instruments as well. I watch 'Walking Dead', and I love the music there. Here's a video of Bear McCreary describing how they use the hurdy gurdy for the show:

Link


Cool link - will definitely be bookmarking that for later, thanks! I always wondered what instrument made that particular sound, since it's so distinctive.
 
2012-11-14 02:11:56 PM
You cant say Scouring was covered in the Mirror of Galadriel, because thats what Sam saw anyway. Scouring is not even so much about Sam, he is already great by that point. Frodo is spent. Its really about Merry and Pippin handling things themselves.

Leaving that out, puts more focus on the human characters (who are stiff as cardboard), and not the Hobbits. Its the Hobbit deeds that carried the day, not the acts of men. Men would have lost on their own. Seeing the movies, you think its men that handled things.
 
2012-11-14 02:26:46 PM

gbv23: [i1177.photobucket.com image 400x400]


Lord of the Rings - Hobbitry of the Penis
 
2012-11-14 07:01:01 PM

Zombie DJ: Favorite soundtracks?
Glad you asked.


ecx.images-amazon.com

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-11-14 09:51:28 PM

Clash City Farker: You cant say Scouring was covered in the Mirror of Galadriel, because thats what Sam saw anyway. Scouring is not even so much about Sam, he is already great by that point. Frodo is spent. Its really about Merry and Pippin handling things themselves.

Leaving that out, puts more focus on the human characters (who are stiff as cardboard), and not the Hobbits. Its the Hobbit deeds that carried the day, not the acts of men. Men would have lost on their own. Seeing the movies, you think its men that handled things.



You watched those movies and came away thinking that Men defeated Sauron? They cut tons of scenes to focus on Frodo, Sam, Gollum, and the Ring. It's painfully evident that by the end of the movie Frodo and Sam were heroes that had carried the day (and the age).

Yes, the book is better. Books are always better. However, you cannot shoot the book as a movie. Some things had to be sacrificed, and of all the endings in the book, they really needed to show the crowning of King Elessar Telcontar, and the final farewell at the Grey Havens. They threw in some extras of Frodo growing weary of Middle Earth and that is fine. What they could not do was follow-up the destruction of the One Ring and the power of Sauron with a minor proxy war in the Shire. That's bad film making.

It would have been awesome if they had shot the Scouring of the Shire as a side, maybe 50-75 minutes, and released it with the extended editions. Getting financial backing for that probably wouldn't have happened.
 
2012-11-15 12:35:37 PM

that bosnian sniper: Carousel Beast: I'm one of those. It doesn't change the fact that the movies were poor adaptations of the books.

Get off your high horse. The Jackson films were the about the best adaptations you were going to be able to expect. The basic plot and the major themes were preserved, necessary concessions for the sake of a modern audience had to be made (and were without compromising plot or theme), and content had to be necessarily cut.

Audiences were never going to get a translation of the books to film, only an adaptation. The very fact Jackson managed to coherently adapt the book to film was remarkable in and of itself. You sorely underestimate the amount of content in the book, the amount of it that had no way whatsoever to even translate to film let alone coherently, and let alone how much of it just wouldn't have played well on film.

Would you rather have gotten nothing, or something that attempted to stay as true to the book as possible at the cost of coherence and the ability to draw in a crowd?


If you want a good adaptation at all, the 1970s-era dramatic radio play for LOTR (narrated by Tammy Grimes) was excellent. I remember listening to it on my local college radio station on Sunday nights, and it gave me a lot of late Monday mornings at school. Then Tom Baker's Doctor Who showed up on PBS a year later and it was all over but the cryin'.
 
2012-11-16 06:28:03 AM

th0th: If you want a good adaptation at all, the 1970s-era dramatic radio play for LOTR (narrated by Tammy Grimes) was excellent. I remember listening to it on my local college radio station on Sunday nights, and it gave me a lot of late Monday mornings at school. Then Tom Baker's Doctor Who showed up on PBS a year later and it was all over but the cryin'.


There was a great audio version of The Hobbit that my family had on cassette, 5 of them I think. We took it with us on long car trips a lot. Excellent voice characterizations, and nothing left out.

We got a LOTR set later on, probably made by the same people, on CD, but it was certainly abridged, and it never caught on with us.
 
2012-11-16 02:10:31 PM

that bosnian sniper: Carousel Beast: I'm one of those. It doesn't change the fact that the movies were poor adaptations of the books.

Get off your high horse. The Jackson films were the about the best adaptations you were going to be able to expect. The basic plot and the major themes were preserved, necessary concessions for the sake of a modern audience had to be made (and were without compromising plot or theme), and content had to be necessarily cut.

Audiences were never going to get a translation of the books to film, only an adaptation. The very fact Jackson managed to coherently adapt the book to film was remarkable in and of itself. You sorely underestimate the amount of content in the book, the amount of it that had no way whatsoever to even translate to film let alone coherently, and let alone how much of it just wouldn't have played well on film.

Would you rather have gotten nothing, or something that attempted to stay as true to the book as possible at the cost of coherence and the ability to draw in a crowd?


No, they were visually awesome. They were very poor adaptations and missed nearly every single plot and character point of the books. They kept names and the idea of a ring, and that was about it.
 
2012-11-16 02:14:29 PM

Clash City Farker: that bosnian sniper: Carousel Beast: I'm one of those. It doesn't change the fact that the movies were poor adaptations of the books.

Get off your high horse. The Jackson films were the about the best adaptations you were going to be able to expect. The basic plot and the major themes were preserved, necessary concessions for the sake of a modern audience had to be made (and were without compromising plot or theme), and content had to be necessarily cut.



The Scouring of the Shire, a major theme, is the heart and soul of the work. It was left out completely.


The larger point was the Dominion of Men. Elves were bit-players in the books for a very specific reason, and it's no mistake that everyone who could say no to the ring either already had one of their own, or was of the race of Men. The faux character development that Jackson put in - and I understand why he did it - killed the adaptation. The only development to be had was from the Hobbits. Everyone else coming into the story had a specific background and many years of experience and were fully developed "off camera", as it were. Jackson completely devalued everyone that wasn't an elf.
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report