What Is Your Favorite TV Show?

[Lorraine]

Aragorn sure ain't reluctant in the books, damn it, he DRIVES the whole endeavour! And I don't think the guy who played him was old enough either. I always picture him as Sean Conneryish. Grizzled and worn and hewn from stone. Not a pretty boy. Everything I read about the movies makes me more glad I never watched them.

 

[Zaarin]

This was my thoughts exactly...the emphasis on the cost of war hits everyone not just those directly on the battlefield. Merry and Pippen grew over the story and the drinking of the ent waters was supposed to have had a part in that. Thanks for the info...I was pretty sure that was the case in regard to Oxford.



I can see that you're really passionate about this and don't have any issues with that. It was the recent movies that I enjoyed but don't ask me who made it or acted in it. I can never remember stuff like that. Drives my family mad as they are very keen on video. My son can walk in to the room see two seconds of what you're watching and tell you which season and episode its from of whatever you're watching. I drive them crazy....

I agree it probably should have only had two movies not three. You only have to compare the size of the books. Although I do have a beautiful rice paper edition of LoTR's that my brother bought for me that is not much thicker than the hobbit.

I do enjoy movies like DieHard, Terminator etc...I'm not a purist in what I watch or read. I'm very eclectic in my tastes which is very dependent on mood.

I did find the love story aspect between an elf and a dwarf annoying but I think the reason I could enjoy the movies was that I went into them not expecting them to match the book. I was able to view them as separate entities.

Film is very different to books and how the author crafts his/her story is very different to how a director/ producer make a movie. They're for the most part appealing to very different audiences. Some things that are important in books wouldn't translate well to movies and wouldn't have the same impact.

I realised some time back that the sorts of things I enjoy on TV or at the movies isn't the same as most people. An example of this is reality tv shows. I hate them. I cannot understand how anyone can put themselves through that just for 5 mins of fame, but the people I work with love them. They cannot get enough of them. They text each other about them and talk about them all the time. Things that I do enjoy tend to have 1 season and if I'm lucky there will be a second...with the exception of action movies like Diehard of course...

I'm a literature major, so when I watch adaptations of books I tend to be very critical. Actually, I've always been a pretty harsh critic. I do love film, but I tend to gravitate to non-adaptations. Although I did love the 2005 Pride & Prejudice with Keira Knightley. It's not particularly true to the book--Dame Judi Dench was a perfect Lady Bracknell and Matthew MacFadyen was a perfect Mr. Darcy, but Keira Knightley was a very different Miss Elizabeth Bennett. But it was beautiful in its own right. That's mostly how I view the LotR films as well, just with much sharper criticism of their errors.

I agree that some things wouldn't translate well. For example, even though it's one of my favorite passages in the book, I have no problems cutting Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs. I do have a problem with cutting the conspiracy in the Shire, mostly because it's one of the first scenes to show that Merry is probably the cleverest of the Hobbits. Also, without it the whole beginning of the movie feels rushed.

I have two collector's editions of Lord of the Rings (one leather-bound and gilt edged, the other illustrated by Alan Lee), a cloth-bound gilt edged collector's edition of The Hobbit, and an Alan Lee-illustrated edition of The Hobbit. I would love a really nice collector's edition of The Silmarillion, but I can't find a version available in America and shipping from the UK is expensive.

I loathe reality shows too, Pen. The obvious misnaming of them grates too, anything less real I have yet to see. My daughter and sister LOVE them. Makes me feel quite ill when I visit and am stuck watching them.

I also dislike reality shows, though I do enjoy The Voice. When I'm not screaming at the coaches for being idiots. Or the voters for being idiots. But I have very unpopular opinions about voting...

Aragorn sure ain't reluctant in the books, damn it, he DRIVES the whole endeavour! And I don't think the guy who played him was old enough either. I always picture him as Sean Conneryish. Grizzled and worn and hewn from stone. Not a pretty boy. Everything I read about the movies makes me more glad I never watched them.

Precisely. I think Vigo Morttensen played the part well, but he was a very different character (and I agree he felt too young). This gold glittered a bit too much for the poem describing him...Though I think the most damaged character was definitely Éowyn. In the books she's as cold as steel. She begrudges her status as a woman and she falls in love with Aragorn's kingliness, not his charm. In the films she's warm and caring and practically giggling over her infatuation with Aragorn. Worse, they completely destroyed the powerful moment where she kills the Witch-king. In the books she laughs at him after he promises to torture her; in the films, she just takes off her helmet (and the film never makes any pretense of disguising her as a man, incidentally), says she's no man, and stabs him in the face. Then she crawls over to have a final chat with her uncle. As one commentator says, somehow the character in a book by a conservative Catholic in 1959 was more feminist than her 2000s adaptation.

 

[Lorraine]

A girly Eowyn ~shudder~ She is no girl, she is a swordwielding, take no prisoners, WARRIOR! And she doesn't fall in love with Aragorn so much as want to be his queen. Cos she knows that's the only way to wield power as a woman.

 

[Pendraia]

I think the biggest problem with converting books to film is that with a book your imagination is more in play and with movies it there before you. If you had a visual image of a particular character and it doesn't gel with the casting directors it can cause a discordant note before they even start adapting the book to a play. I think that's a big problem that people have with movies made from books. I like Aragorn in the movie but he isn't how I visualised him while reading. I do however appreciate eye candy at any time of day...

I'm a literature major, so when I watch adaptations of books I tend to be very critical. Actually, I've always been a pretty harsh critic. I do love film, but I tend to gravitate to non-adaptations. Although I did love the 2005 Pride & Prejudice with Keira Knightley. It's not particularly true to the book--Dame Judi Dench was a perfect Lady Bracknell and Matthew MacFadyen was a perfect Mr. Darcy, but Keira Knightley was a very different Miss Elizabeth Bennett. But it was beautiful in its own right. That's mostly how I view the LotR films as well, just with much sharper criticism of their errors.

Your knowledge comes through in your posts. I can understand for someone who has studied books indepth like you have can find it really annoying. I do to an extent but in recent years I've gotten better at separating them and viewing them as entities in their own right. Also it's interesting to compare the written text to a visual text and to try and understand why they have been changed due to the medium.

I agree that some things wouldn't translate well. For example, even though it's one of my favorite passages in the book, I have no problems cutting Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-downs. I do have a problem with cutting the conspiracy in the Shire, mostly because it's one of the first scenes to show that Merry is probably the cleverest of the Hobbits. Also, without it the whole beginning of the movie feels rushed.

Agree totally...

I have two collector's editions of Lord of the Rings (one leather-bound and gilt edged, the other illustrated by Alan Lee), a cloth-bound gilt edged collector's edition of The Hobbit, and an Alan Lee-illustrated edition of The Hobbit. I would love a really nice collector's edition of The Silmarillion, but I can't find a version available in America and shipping from the UK is expensive.

Mine came in a faux leather bound box which has deluxe edition on the front. It ahs a beautiful engraving on the front and was printed in 1976. The brother who gave it to me was called Bilbo before we even knew who Bilbo was as his name was William Robert and it was shortened to Bilbo. When he gave it to me he wrote on the card to Lady Penelope from Bilbo. It was a present for my 18th birthday and much treasured. I have a cheap copy of the Silmarillion but have never really looked for a quality version. I have always felt that The Silmarillion felt unfinished.

Precisely. I think Vigo Morttensen played the part well, but he was a very different character (and I agree he felt too young). This gold glittered a bit too much for the poem describing him...Though I think the most damaged character was definitely Éowyn. In the books she's as cold as steel. She begrudges her status as a woman and she falls in love with Aragorn's kingliness, not his charm. In the films she's warm and caring and practically giggling over her infatuation with Aragorn. Worse, they completely destroyed the powerful moment where she kills the Witch-king. In the books she laughs at him after he promises to torture her; in the films, she just takes off her helmet (and the film never makes any pretense of disguising her as a man, incidentally), says she's no man, and stabs him in the face. Then she crawls over to have a final chat with her uncle. As one commentator says, somehow the character in a book by a conservative Catholic in 1959 was more feminist than her 2000s adaptation.

So totally agree with this. I think her character was changed for the worse.

Lorraine:
I loathe reality shows too, Pen. The obvious misnaming of them grates too, anything less real I have yet to see. My daughter and sister LOVE them. Makes me feel quite ill when I visit and am stuck watching them.

I also dislike reality shows, though I do enjoy The Voice. When I'm not screaming at the coaches for being idiots. Or the voters for being idiots. But I have very unpopular opinions about voting...

Reality shows are so highly directed and structured it's not funny...they are no more reality than Star trek.

I prefer talent competitions that are based on talent not popularity. If you have to vote to keep someone in it becomes a popularity contest not a talent contest and again I'm not sure that they aren't structured in such a way that they get optimal ratings rather than be an honest reflection of talent.

 

[Lorraine]

I prefer talent competitions that are based on talent not popularity. If you have to vote to keep someone in it becomes a popularity contest not a talent contest and again I'm not sure that they aren't structured in such a way that they get optimal ratings rather than be an honest reflection of talent.

This! And I haven't seen a talent quest done that way for many years.

 

[Lorraine]

in recent years I've gotten better at separating them and viewing them as entities in their own right

I just can't do it, I'm afraid. I no longer watch movies made of books I know and love. I get too upset when they mess with the characters to their detriment.

 

[Pendraia]

That's fair enough Lorraine...sometimes I can't if they have mucked it up really badly.

Young talent time and Evie Hayes where are you...or even the talent show on Hey Hey it's Saturday with Red as a judge.

 

[Lorraine]

Young talent time and Evie Hayes where are you...or even the talent show on Hey Hey it's Saturday with Red as a judge.

We don't get these. Only those So-and-So's Got Talent etc.

 

[Pendraia]

lol...those were shows from when I was growing up Red was from Skyhooks. It was a Saturday night show here in Australia and he used to delight in being rude to the contestants. They would go on just to annoy him...it was very funny.

 

[Satira Capriccio]

It used to irk me no end when a book was made into a movie or series and it wasn't true to the books. I still don't like when that's the case, but I find I'm still able to enjoy most movies or series despite their inaccuracies. Especially when they are beautifully filmed and costumed. It is jarring when a character is different than the character in the book. I agree Eowyn just wasn't done right.

It does kind of bother me though when people who never read the book(s) think they know it all because they watched the movie or series.

 

[Zaarin]

A girly Eowyn ~shudder~ She is no girl, she is a swordwielding, take no prisoners, WARRIOR! And she doesn't fall in love with Aragorn so much as want to be his queen. Cos she knows that's the only way to wield power as a woman.

Exactly. In the book, she is one of the most powerful characters I can think of and a strong argument against the specious assumption that Tolkien writes weak female characters (aside from Éowyn, I'd also point out Galadriel, Aradhel, Haleth, Luthien...). I've still never figured out where that idea comes from, unless it's from reading The Hobbit and only The Hobbit...

I think the biggest problem with converting books to film is that with a book your imagination is more in play and with movies it there before you. If you had a visual image of a particular character and it doesn't gel with the casting directors it can cause a discordant note before they even start adapting the book to a play. I think that's a big problem that people have with movies made from books. I like Aragorn in the movie but he isn't how I visualised him while reading. I do however appreciate eye candy at any time of day...

I think the only cases where this is a major issue for me in LotR are Legolas, Théoden, and Faramir. I still picture Legolas with brown hair. And being played by someone who actually has some talent at acting, rather than just staring into the distance and flatly delivering his lines. Théoden was portrayed as about twenty years too young, IMO. I mean, he had a forty-two year old son who the appendices tell us was not the child of his youth (of course, the films also portrayed Théodred as being somewhere between seventeen and twenty...), and in several places the book comments on his snowy white hair and beard. He wasn't a young man that Grima had tricked into believing he was an old man, he was an old man who had been lied into believing himself an invalid (I hate that scene in the films--he wasn't possessed by witchcraft, he was just lied to until he believed he was an invalid). As for Faramir, I think Viggo Mortensen would actually have been much better for Faramir than Gandalf.

Mine came in a faux leather bound box which has deluxe edition on the front. It ahs a beautiful engraving on the front and was printed in 1976. The brother who gave it to me was called Bilbo before we even knew who Bilbo was as his name was William Robert and it was shortened to Bilbo. When he gave it to me he wrote on the card to Lady Penelope from Bilbo. It was a present for my 18th birthday and much treasured. I have a cheap copy of the Silmarillion but have never really looked for a quality version. I have always felt that The Silmarillion felt unfinished.

That's really cool.

It used to irk me no end when a book was made into a movie or series and it wasn't true to the books. I still don't like when that's the case, but I find I'm still able to enjoy most movies or series despite their inaccuracies. Especially when they are beautifully filmed and costumed. It is jarring when a character is different than the character in the book. I agree Eowyn just wasn't done right.

It does kind of bother me though when people who never read the book(s) think they know it all because they watched the movie or series.

Ha ha, I've had interesting...discussions with people like that. I knew someone who insisted that Esmaralda was not a...um, "lady of the night" based on the Disney film. Don't get me wrong, Hunchback of Notre Dame is my absolute favorite Disney film (depending on my mood--Tangled is neck-and-neck with it) and I'm actually not a particularly big fan of Victor Hugo (maybe I'd like him better if I could read him in French), but arguing the nature of a character based on an incredibly loose and highly sanitized adaptation...Of course, I ultimately gave up trying to discuss things with this person; he was the sort who would make extremely circular arguments and then promptly reject any facts that disagreed with his predetermined conclusion. I once tried discussing theology with him; as you can imagine, that was...interesting.

I agree that the props, sets, and costumes in Lord of the Rings are exquisite, though. And the non-Legolas choreography was pretty fantastic, too. You know another overall weak movie that I nevertheless enjoy for its sumptuous costumes and a smattering of witty dialogue? Mirror Mirror. The plot is pretty tepid and the non-lead actors are incredibly weak, but those costumes--I already love Baroque and Tudor costumes and these are so gorgeous. Oh, and Lily Collins is gorgeous and, unlike her father, can actually sing!

 

[Lorraine]

Oh, and Lily Collins is gorgeous and, unlike her father, can actually sing!

'I can hear it, comin' in the air tonight', all the Phil Collins fans, sharpening their knives

 

[Zaarin]

'I can hear it, comin' in the air tonight', all the Phil Collins fans, sharpening their knives

I will never forgive him for ruining Brother Bear. I can't blame him for ruining Tarzan; Jane* was the only thing right about that train wreck of a movie. Actually, Brother Bear had several problems as well, of which I rank Phil Collins as number 2.

1. Lack of Native involvement. Sometimes I like to play "spot the anachronism" with Disney movies; in Brother Bear I play "spot the taboos being violated." I mean, even the taboo that is probably the most well known even among people who know next to nothing about indigenous cultures: do not speak the name of the dead. Seriously, did no one do any research? Also, the spoken Yup'ik at the beginning of the film, despite being a native speaker, really doesn't count as Native involvement since all he did was speak his lines.
2. Phil Collins. Even if you like his music, how is electronic pop appropriate for a movie set ca. 10,000 BC? Should have either taken a note from Pocahontas on this one or left out the music, as in Atlantis and Treasure Planet (which both bombed in the box office**, so I understand moving away from that model).
3. Lack of understanding of American history. The main characters look Inuit, have Athapaskan names, and ride mammoths. Mammoths went extinct ~10,000 years ago; the Na-Dene (including the Athapaskans) arrived in North America ~6,000 years ago; the Eskimo-Aleuts (Inuit, Yupik, Aleuts) arrived ~3,000 years ago.

I think Brother Bear is a very underrated movie--great story, great acting, great animation, and remarkably serious for a Disney film. But it makes Pocahontas look like a well-researched documentary (and while Disney is rarely big on accuracy, Pocahontas is another film that stands out for errors--in fact, I'd rank it number four for worst historical accuracy after Hercules, Aladdin, and Brother Bear).

*Jane is absolutely adorable. "And, Daddy, they stole my boot!"
**Atlantis is a film I have mixed feelings about. Magnificent cast, great style, but the plot really doesn't know what to do with itself. Treasure Planet happens to be one of my favorite underrated Disney films, however. Beautiful animation, fantastic music, and a really unique style that's not really Steampunk--more like, I dunno, Sailpunk? Anyway, it really evokes being at once sci-fi and Georgian and I love it. Also, Jim Hawkins makes the very short list of likable Disney non-animal male leads, along with Flynn Rider, Milo Thatch, Phoebus, and Quasimodo. I give Kristoff a half-point.

 

[Lorraine]

And I have never seen ANY of those movies! I have a friend with Disney mad children so I'm going to ask to borrow their dvd collection and do a Disney marathon. You have piqued my interest and that is a good thing!

 

[Zaarin]

And I have never seen ANY of those movies! I have a friend with Disney mad children so I'm going to ask to borrow their dvd collection and do a Disney marathon. You have piqued my interest and that is a good thing!

I love Disney. I even love the sadly undervalued Disney movies from the first half of the 2000s--The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear. Second half of the 2000s--not so much, not until John Lasseter of Pixar took over starting with The Princess and the Frog in 2009 (alas, Disney's last traditionally animated film, not counting Winnie the Pooh). My absolute favorite movie of last year was Pixar's Inside Out. Best representation of why we feel the way we feel ever. I have a Sadness figurine on my desk.

This year's Zootopia...I have such mixed feelings about it. I absolutely want to adore it--great characters, especially the leads. Judy and Nick have such great chemistry. And the world-building is spot on. The animation is phenomenal. The lines are witty. So many clever references, too. But man--that political sledgehammer it's swinging around makes Avatar look like a lesson in subtlety, and it seriously detracts from my enjoyment of the film.

I just want to add that I love that we can actually discuss things here and even civilly disagree without either being silenced or forced into artificial agreement (*cough*DAZ*cough*) or descending into petty argument (*cough*Facebook*cough*). It's nice to know that at least some portions of the internet are still populated by adults...

And while I'm discussing Disney's errors, I'd be remiss not to mention that Mulan stands out as the most remarkably historically accurate of any Disney film. Frozen, as much as I begrudge it for being incredibly overrated, is also a pretty accurate picture of 19th century Norway. But 19th century Norway is a lot easier than Tang China, so the kudos still go to Mulan. Yes, Mulan claims to be set in the Han Dynasty; but stylistically it's clearly Tang. The historical Hua Mulan was Han, but legends have placed her in the Wei and Tang dynasties.

 

[Lorraine]

Zaarin, you are spot on with your teeny comment at the end. HW is a sane, civilised and polite-without-being-saccharine space in a mad, trolling world and I love it here. And goodness knows, we do go off on some tangents and no-one gets mad and waves a stick. I don't think a disagreeable nasty type would last long here without being encouraged to either shape up or ship out. And by all of us peeps cos we don't seem to require a lot of modding ~bows in appreciation in the general direction of Alisa the Wonderful~

 

[Miss B]

It does kind of bother me though when people who never read the book(s) think they know it all because they watched the movie or series.

I couldn't agree more, especially when whole parts of a book are left out so they can "fit the whole story" into 90 to 100 minutes, and I'm not just talking fantasy or sci-fi. I saw this with a Tom Clancy book and couldn't believe it. ~shakes head~

 

[Zaarin]

Zaarin, you are spot on with your teeny comment at the end. HW is a sane, civilised and polite-without-being-saccharine space in a mad, trolling world and I love it here. And goodness knows, we do go off on some tangents and no-one gets mad and waves a stick. I don't think a disagreeable nasty type would last long here without being encouraged to either shape up or ship out. And by all of us peeps cos we don't seem to require a lot of modding ~bows in appreciation in the general direction of Alisa the Wonderful~

It's always nice when communities are self-moderating. I'm part of another online community which started around a game that most of us there no longer play, but most of us joined as young teens and have grown up together so we're kind of like family. Our discussions can get a little more...heated than those here, but I don't think there's been a moderator warning for years because we all respect each other and no where to draw the line.

I couldn't agree more, especially when whole parts of a book are left out so they can "fit the whole story" into 90 to 100 minutes, and I'm not just talking fantasy or sci-fi. I saw this with a Tom Clancy book and couldn't believe it. ~shakes head~

The best are the people who think watching modernized adaptations of Shakespeare like She's The Man or Men of Honor count as having read/watched the original play. I found She's The Man reasonably amusing (and to be honest I haven't read or watched Twelfth Night to compare it), but Men of Honor was an incredibly paltry rendition of Macbeth. Actually, I have yet to see a really satisfying production of Macbeth--I would love to see Gerard Butler in the title role, though. Hamlet seems to be the play that gets the most productions, which means out of them all you're bound to find a decent one. I found the David Tennet/Patrick Stewart version to be quite well done, though mixing modern clothes and the original language was slightly jarring at times--but the acting was fantastic. As much as I like Picard, I do love Stewart best in Shakespeare.

 

[Miss B]

As much as I like Picard, I do love Stewart best in Shakespeare.

ABSOLUTELY!! The man is Shakespearean trained, so definitely his best work.

 

[Lyne]

oh my goodness gracious!! A LOT has gone on here since I last read... uh...way too much to type re: books made into movies/series...

Anyone seen Dark Matter? opinions? The Canadians made it, it's got to be good, in my opinion, but good to have comments from those who actually saw it!