Posted on 12/15/2012 2:39:40 PM PST by Perdogg
Tom Cruise is an arrogant egotistical frak to campaign for the Reacher role. He’s a flipping midget.
BTW, prior to the casting, Lee Child’s nominee was Hugh Jackman who is listed at 6’2.5”. That’s close enough for me.
Enjoyed the heck out of it
It ended to soon for me
I’ve read the LOTR >15 times
Almost as many Hobbit reads
The Critics have mush for brains
I would love that, but only as a very well produced mini-series. FX or TNT, maybe. Even though it's the shortest of the three Middle Earth books, I don't see how it could be done any other way, unless the screen adaptation were completely unfaithful to the source material.
While not the best almost 3 hour movie I’ve seen it was rather good. They did go overboard on the 3D effects though.
I wish they would make movies out of the Shanarra books by Terry Brooks.
He's eaten too many mushrooms
I warned him about that...
— Saruman —
Saw it. Thought it was very good.
I seriously doubt it. The Tolkein family wasnt really warm to the idea of the LOTR or The Hobbit books to be put on film. JRR himself didn't think that what was in the book could be properly translated onto film.
However, he had sold the rights to the both of those (why, I dont know) - and therefore putting them on film was out of his control.
The Silmarilion however was published posthumously as a collection of unpublished histories & stories edited/arranged/finished by son Christopher. The family refuses to give up the rights.
Plus - it would be near impossible conceptually to be done as a complete book.
My friends and I are huge Tolkein fans, having picked it up from my best friends parents & their friends. Now my friends' kids & some of their friends are picking it up.
Several of us went to midnight showing.
Movie was awesome, as a fan. (We watched 2D) We did not go in expecting it to be like the book. (Good thing.)
I’d say it would be nigh impossible to do the Silmarillion.
It’s not an easy book to read, and it covers tens of thousands of years. Very complex.
I saw it last night
I was a little annoyed that he was going to take 3 MOVIES to tell The Hobbit, but after seeing it, I know why- to make a lot of money
He makes up a lot of stuff that was not in the book and adds it to the movie, and where he had an opportunity to follow the book closely he blows it (like the scene where the trolls capture all of them and Bilbo manages to delay them until the sun comes out and turns them to stone)
It was a good movie, as well made as The Lord of th Rings trilogy, but for a true fan of the books it will make you unhappy in some parts.
I already know I will probably NOT be going to see the next two installments at the theatre- I will probably wait to see it on DVD
Jack Reacher started off great, but fell apart as the movie progressed. Casting was horrible. There were a few great one liners. Tom Cruise in a film clip before the movie started mentioned that there was no CGI used in the car chase. The car chase was very weak.
Dang, you almost destroyed my keyboard....
Tell us what you really think.
:-)
I declare eh. It was alright, not great. Stretching with filler from the appendices was a mistake. That stuff wasn’t necessary or essential, that’s why it was in the appendices not the main story in the first place. And putting it in a movie is basically hitting the pause button on the real story. What made his LOTR movies work was he got it down to brass tacks, no Tom Bombadil, no lame songs, none of the meandering asides that make a good book but not a good movie. He’s making the Hobbit in exactly the opposite way. It’s not bad, but it shows why the cuts he made in LOTR were right. Hobbit would have been better as one movie, cut to the chase. Maybe 2 movies, keep a good chunk of the fluff.
The story presented in the movie is bigger, and darker, than Tolkien's book "The Hobbit". They draw some material from LOTR, from other Tolkien writings, and make the connection between with some of the LOTR events more obvious than they are in the book.
I've read the Trilogy at least 4 times and the Hobbit 8 times...2 or 4 times to my kids at night over many nights.
It's way better than any movie IMO...
I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I really can’t address your comment. Sorry! :o]
I hope he does the Silmarillion. It was too boring for me to ever read it. Reading pure history can get dry sometimes, so imagine doing that for a purely fictional world. Plenty of room for a good script writer to flesh it out though. Thousands of years from which to make stories!
I thought the trashing of the Shire and Tom Bombadil were bogus elements to LOTR. I liked how Elronds daughter got a major role in the movie and not just an appendix addition in the book. (The King marries her, how did that happen?). Radagast the Brown sounded like an interesting fellow but you don’t meet him in the books, but you DO in the movie. Perhaps it’s not better than the books but I like the changes because knowing EVERYTHING that is going to happen cheats me out of a few welcome surprises.
Sounds like a wonderful movie....
I will have to watch them all in sequence...
In the “Return of the King” Saraman escapes from Isengard and goes to the Shire where he takes it over and works to destroy it. In the Movie Saraman dies at Isengard. In “The Fellowship of the Ring” Tom saves the Hobbits from a barrow wright, in the movie the whole encounter never happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.