What Is Your Favorite TV Show?

[Zaarin]

It's funny. I can't watch GoT. I saw an interview with Martin once, and can't stand the man. Don't even remember why, but I won't buy/read/watch anything associated with him.

BTW, saw where CBS hasn't renewed Criminal Minds, CSI:Cyber, and Supergirl. These shows may have run their course.

Agreed. For me it's what I said above: he focuses on the violence and brutality of the Middle Ages but strips away everything that was beautiful. As someone with a keen interest in Medieval history, this is as wrong a way to view the Middle Ages as it is any other period of history. Where is the faith? The art? The philosophy? The romance? If you have to glorify gratuitous violence and violation of sex taboos just to sell it, it can't be that interesting. I may be young, but my view of literature is old fashioned: it's all about Truth and Beauty. GoT, as far as I can tell, has neither.

 

[Lorraine]

I read the first two books in GoT and then threw the rest away. Didn't like them AT ALL. But then I am a dyed in the wool LOTR reader from the 70's and I know what I likes...and it ain't killing off all your protagonists. The thing that amazes me is how much my non-fantasy reading sister and daughter LOVE GoT. Yuck...just yuck.

 

[Miss B]

It's funny. I can't watch GoT. I saw an interview with Martin once, and can't stand the man. Don't even remember why, but I won't buy/read/watch anything associated with him.

BTW, saw where CBS hasn't renewed Criminal Minds, CSI:Cyber, and Supergirl. These shows may have run their course.

I only watched the first season of Game of Thrones, but I am enjoying the books. I just wish they weren't so looooong.

As far as CBS not renewing those shows, Criminal Minds has been on for a number of years, and can be seen in renuns, but, if I'm not mistaken, CSI:Cyber and Supergirl are new this year, so they probably aren't getting a large enough audience to renew them for next year.

 

[Miss B]

I read the first two books in GoT and then threw the rest away. Didn't like them AT ALL. But then I am a dyed in the wool LOTR reader from the 70's and I know what I likes...and it ain't killing off all your protagonists. The thing that amazes me is how much my non-fantasy reading sister and daughter LOVE GoT. Yuck...just yuck.

Everyone has different tastes in reading. I loved LoTR, and I like GoT, even though I was disappointed that some of the main characters were killed off. It'll be interesting to see who makes it through the last 2 books, but there are no hints where he'll take the story from here. I only know I read somewhere that book 6 will take place during the same time-frame as book 5, but will feature other main characters.

I only rented the first season from Netflix, because I was disappointed. I find it rare when a movie (or series of movies) follow a book (or series of books) well. The only 2 I found that lived up to the original books were the Harry Potter Series and LoTR. Every other book I've read by some top authors have been chopped up to bits when made into movies, and that so disappoints me.

 

[Pendraia]

As far as CBS not renewing those shows, Criminal Minds has been on for a number of years, and can be seen in renuns, but, if I'm not mistaken, CSI:Cyber and Supergirl are new this year, so they probably aren't getting a large enough audience to renew them for next year.

My daughter was upset about Supergirl...I can understand CSI Cyber might not have a large enough audience though and you're right that Criminal Minds has been going a long time. I also think that it's characters aren't as strong as they used to be...it used to be one of my favourite shows but this last season I haven't even been watching.

 

[Miss B]

I mostly watch it in reruns, and now that it won't be renewed, the newer seasons will go to reruns too.

I'm a little disappointed about Supergirl as well, as I've been enjoying it. Oh well, maybe they'll come up with a new show we'll like as much next season.

 

[Zaarin]

I read the first two books in GoT and then threw the rest away. Didn't like them AT ALL. But then I am a dyed in the wool LOTR reader from the 70's and I know what I likes...and it ain't killing off all your protagonists. The thing that amazes me is how much my non-fantasy reading sister and daughter LOVE GoT. Yuck...just yuck.

I just finished reading LotR for the twenty-somethingth time (I've lost track), and I've read The Silmarillion more times than that. Tolkien set the bar for fantasy very high; I've yet to see anyone even come close.

I find it rare when a movie (or series of movies) follow a book (or series of books) well. The only 2 I found that lived up to the original books were the Harry Potter Series and LoTR.

I think the Lord of the Rings films are cinematic masterpieces--but only so-so adaptations. The attention to detail in sets and props is astonishing, and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Christopher Lee as Saruman are the most perfect castings I can think of. Unfortunately, when it comes to plot and character development, Jackson showed a grievous lack of understanding of Tolkien's ethos--and an unnecessary predilection for spectacle. The most egregious aspects of the films, in my opinion, were reducing Merry and Pippin to comic relief, the blue polarized "YOU SHALL HAVE A QUEEEEEEEN" monologue (word-for-word, it's in the book--and yet Jackson seems to have completely misunderstood what was happening in that scene), turning Éowyn from a cold powerhouse with the heart of a warrior into a silly school girl (oddly, I think Miranda Otto did a great job with the role--the writing was the problem), corrupting Faramir, leaving out what had corrupted Denethor, and having the Witch-king break Gandalf's staff (perhaps the most egregious of all errors). Like I said, they're wonderful films--but flawed adaptations. I will not speak of The Hobbit films; they are not adaptations at all, and they are abominable films completely irrespective of the source material. >_< Thank the Valar that PJ does not have and will never have the rights to The Silmarillion or Tolkien's other writings.

 

[Miss B]

I never saw The Hobbit films, and I've had The Silmarillion for a while now, but haven't gotten around to reading it.

I'm spending too much time with my head buried in 3D.

 

[Zaarin]

I never saw The Hobbit films, and I've had The Silmarillion for a while now, but haven't gotten around to reading it.

I'm spending too much time with my head buried in 3D.

Save yourself the pain and skip The Hobbit films. Some advice on reading The Silmarillion: it's my personal favorite of Tolkien's writings, but if you approach it like a traditional novel you will probably be disappointed. Approach it more like a history book and you'll find it much more fulfilling.

 

[Miss B]

Ahhh OK. Good to know.

 

[Pendraia]

I just finished reading LotR for the twenty-somethingth time (I've lost track), and I've read The Silmarillion more times than that. Tolkien set the bar for fantasy very high; I've yet to see anyone even come close.

iirc hadn't he done a lot of work on medieval literature and that area at somewhere like Oxford. I highly doubt that most fantasy authors have that sort of knowledge which alone would make it very hard to replicate the sheer knowlege that has gone into LoTR's.

I think the Lord of the Rings films are cinematic masterpieces--but only so-so adaptations. The attention to detail in sets and props is astonishing, and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Christopher Lee as Saruman are the most perfect castings I can think of. Unfortunately, when it comes to plot and character development, Jackson showed a grievous lack of understanding of Tolkien's ethos--and an unnecessary predilection for spectacle. The most egregious aspects of the films, in my opinion, were reducing Merry and Pippin to comic relief, the blue polarized "YOU SHALL HAVE A QUEEEEEEEN" monologue (word-for-word, it's in the book--and yet Jackson seems to have completely misunderstood what was happening in that scene), turning Éowyn from a cold powerhouse with the heart of a warrior into a silly school girl (oddly, I think Miranda Otto did a great job with the role--the writing was the problem), corrupting Faramir, leaving out what had corrupted Denethor, and having the Witch-king break Gandalf's staff (perhaps the most egregious of all errors). Like I said, they're wonderful films--but flawed adaptations. I will not speak of The Hobbit films; they are not adaptations at all, and they are abominable films completely irrespective of the source material. >_< Thank the Valar that PJ does not have and will never have the rights to The Silmarillion or Tolkien's other writings.

Agree with what you've said here but I also think that he didn't end it properly which I think was an important part of the book also some of which comes back to how he depicted the younger hobbits.

Agree totally the Silmarillion is more like a history book and considering it grew out of his background notes that is hardly surprising. I personally could never work my way through it.

 

[frogimus]

That's a shame about the Hobbit movies. I was waiting for them to be released before watching any of them. Wanted to see them in correct order. Guess I'll pass on the whole bunch then.

 

[Pendraia]

I enjoyed them Frogimus...certainly worth watching. They don't stick exactly to the books but I thought they were well done and my family enjoyed them also. Both my husband and I have read the hobbit and felt it wasn't too far from it but some things had definitely changed.

 

[frogimus]

Not a big fan of movies made from books I like.

I might try them out someday, but not in a big hurry over it.

 

[Pendraia]

Fair enough...I don't normally like the inconsistencies but I did enjoy the Hobbit...

 

[Zaarin]

iirc hadn't he done a lot of work on medieval literature and that area at somewhere like Oxford. I highly doubt that most fantasy authors have that sort of knowledge which alone would make it very hard to replicate the sheer knowlege that has gone into LoTR's.

Agree with what you've said here but I also think that he didn't end it properly which I think was an important part of the book also some of which comes back to how he depicted the younger hobbits.

Agree totally the Silmarillion is more like a history book and considering it grew out of his background notes that is hardly surprising. I personally could never work my way through it.

Yes, Tolkien was a professor of Old English literature at Oxford, and he also had a keen interest in Medieval Norse, Welsh, and Finnish literature as well--and myth in general. His stated goal for his legendarium was the creation of a native mythos for England (given that King Arthur is Welsh).

I agree about the ending. I seem to be in a small camp that considers the scouring of the Shire not only not anticlimactic but indeed an integral part of the story--emphasizing the fact that there's no going home for Frodo and that the War of the Ring had a deeply personal cost for the Hobbits, just as it did for the rest of the Fellowship. Plus the way Saruman is killed in the (extended) films makes me cringe every time.

That's a shame about the Hobbit movies. I was waiting for them to be released before watching any of them. Wanted to see them in correct order. Guess I'll pass on the whole bunch then.

Sadly, there's nothing resembling The Hobbit in the films. It's one gigantic Lucas-esque spectacle from start to finish.

I enjoyed them Frogimus...certainly worth watching. They don't stick exactly to the books but I thought they were well done and my family enjoyed them also. Both my husband and I have read the hobbit and felt it wasn't too far from it but some things had definitely changed.

Jackson's or the animated film? The animated film is decent if a bit boring. Jackson's...well, as I said above, I felt there was nothing left of the source material in them. Just a bunch of pointless spectacle. Reducing the House of Durin, the noblest of all Dwarves, to a bunch of Hobbit-esque buffoons, the absolutely ridiculous love theme between Tauriel and Fili (which from an elven perspective would be rather like a love story between a human and an orangutan), Bard the Balistaman/Bard the turn-his-son-into-a-bow-man, Smaug the Wyvern (very incompatible with the fact that dragons originally had no wings before Morgoth bred Ancalagon the Black; also contrary to Tolkien's own illustration of Smaug; also contrary to Smaug's visible forelegs in An Unexpected Journey...), turning Beorn into a strange emo sole survivor...An Unexpected Journey is tedious but relatively bearable; it just goes downhill from there. Also, Jackson seems to have trouble taking Tolkien at his word when he says people have beards, whether that be Círdan the Shipwright in Return of the King or Dwarf women in The Hobbit. There was probably enough material for two movies; there was by no means enough material for three. If The Hobbit merited three movies, I'm pretty certain The Lord of the Rings should have been about twelve.

If you like heavy action films heavy on spectacle and short on substance, you might enjoy Jackson's The Hobbit. If you like spectacle, it certainly delivers. Unfortunately, I don't feel like there's a lot to back up the spectacle. IMO, Jackson's weakness was always a predilection for spectacle--even in LotR--and he goes completely George Lucas on The Hobbit.

Re-reading this I fear I may sound a bit hostile. Not my intention at all. This is just a subject I'm extremely passionate about; Tolkien is perhaps my only hero. I sometimes have trouble expressing myself clearly and come across as aggressive or arrogant when it's not my intention at all.

 

[Lorraine]

Zaarin, I'm completely in your camp. I've read the LoTR every year since 1974...it's part of my New Year ritual. I LOVE the books with a passion and I REFUSE to watch any of the movies. Arwin turned into a warrior princess?! Glorfindel dropped?! Gimli made into a clown?! No chance. I'd rather read the books again. PJ is a Kiwi like me and I'm proud of him for his success but...I wish he hadn't killed my favourite books of all time.

 

[Pendraia]

Yes, Tolkien was a professor of Old English literature at Oxford, and he also had a keen interest in Medieval Norse, Welsh, and Finnish literature as well--and myth in general. His stated goal for his legendarium was the creation of a native mythos for England (given that King Arthur is Welsh).

I agree about the ending. I seem to be in a small camp that considers the scouring of the Shire not only not anticlimactic but indeed an integral part of the story--emphasizing the fact that there's no going home for Frodo and that the War of the Ring had a deeply personal cost for the Hobbits, just as it did for the rest of the Fellowship. Plus the way Saruman is killed in the (extended) films makes me cringe every time.

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.

Sadly, there's nothing resembling The Hobbit in the films. It's one gigantic Lucas-esque spectacle from start to finish.


Jackson's or the animated film? The animated film is decent if a bit boring. Jackson's...well, as I said above, I felt there was nothing left of the source material in them. Just a bunch of pointless spectacle. Reducing the House of Durin, the noblest of all Dwarves, to a bunch of Hobbit-esque buffoons, the absolutely ridiculous love theme between Tauriel and Fili (which from an elven perspective would be rather like a love story between a human and an orangutan), Bard the Balistaman/Bard the turn-his-son-into-a-bow-man, Smaug the Wyvern (very incompatible with the fact that dragons originally had no wings before Morgoth bred Ancalagon the Black; also contrary to Tolkien's own illustration of Smaug; also contrary to Smaug's visible forelegs in An Unexpected Journey...), turning Beorn into a strange emo sole survivor...An Unexpected Journey is tedious but relatively bearable; it just goes downhill from there. Also, Jackson seems to have trouble taking Tolkien at his word when he says people have beards, whether that be Círdan the Shipwright in Return of the King or Dwarf women in The Hobbit. There was probably enough material for two movies; there was by no means enough material for three. If The Hobbit merited three movies, I'm pretty certain The Lord of the Rings should have been about twelve.

If you like heavy action films heavy on spectacle and short on substance, you might enjoy Jackson's The Hobbit. If you like spectacle, it certainly delivers. Unfortunately, I don't feel like there's a lot to back up the spectacle. IMO, Jackson's weakness was always a predilection for spectacle--even in LotR--and he goes completely George Lucas on The Hobbit.

Re-reading this I fear I may sound a bit hostile. Not my intention at all. This is just a subject I'm extremely passionate about; Tolkien is perhaps my only hero. I sometimes have trouble expressing myself clearly and come across as aggressive or arrogant when it's not my intention at all.

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...

 

[Zaarin]

Zaarin, I'm completely in your camp. I've read the LoTR every year since 1974...it's part of my New Year ritual. I LOVE the books with a passion and I REFUSE to watch any of the movies. Arwin turned into a warrior princess?! Glorfindel dropped?! Gimli made into a clown?! No chance. I'd rather read the books again. PJ is a Kiwi like me and I'm proud of him for his success but...I wish he hadn't killed my favourite books of all time.

Gimli may not be as bad as you've heard; most of his lines are straight from the book, where he definitely has a certain sense of dry gallows humor. I'm almost okay with what they did with Arwen, simply because she's an important character who gets one line in the book--but of course it doesn't really make sense. The reason that Glorfindel could ride against the Nine is because he's been to Valinor. He slew and was slain by a Balrog; I think he can handle a few undead kings of Men. Arwen has never been to Valinor, and she certainly has never slain a Balrog. And, probably because monarchy is out of fashion, they turned Aragorn into a reluctant leader, rather than the grim man who was born to be king in the book. (Not to mention he had rather a bit of motivation to become king: he doesn't get Arwen unless he becomes king of both Gondor and Arnor.) And of course having Arwen give Aragorn the elf-jewel rather than Galadriel completely misses the point that it was a symbol of betrothal to be given by the bride's mother (or grandmother, in this case) to the groom. Plus the jewel Arwen gives Aragorn is presumably the one she gives Frodo as a "ticket," so to speak, to Tol Eressëa. So many details just show a complete lack of understanding of the context of LotR...Some are small, like making Théoden too young, others are enormous, like failing to understand the implications of having the Witch-king break Gandalf's staff. Gandalf, who was counted the wisest of the Maiar before the first rising of the Sun.

 

[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.