LoTR remake, will you watch it?

Topic List	Page List: 1
Zikten 12/23/22 1:13:29 PM #1:	A famous director who maybe isn't even born yet, or maybe they are a little kid right now, resurrects Middle Earth for a future generation like 50 years from now The Lord of the Rings part is 9 movies. 3 for each book. It includes Tom Bombadil. Would you watch it or refuse to pay any mind to such rubbish and put your ancient Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition bluray in your antique bluray player? <cite>Zikten posted [p:970361584] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>A famous director who maybe isn't even born yet, or maybe they are a little kid right now, resurrects Middle Earth for a future generation like 50 years from nowThe Lord of the Rings part is 9 movies. 3 for each book. It includes Tom Bombadil. Would you watch it or refuse to pay any mind to such rubbish and put your ancient Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition bluray in your antique bluray player?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlephZero 12/23/22 1:15:55 PM #2:	only if gandalf is black and disabled --- "life is overrated" - Seiichi Omori 01001100 01010101 01000101 00100000 00110100 00110000 00110010 <cite>AlephZero posted [p:970361642] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>only if gandalf is black and disabled</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
masterpug53 12/23/22 1:19:25 PM #3:	Zikten posted... The Lord of the Rings part is 9 movies. 3 for each book. Considering how this worked out for The Hobbit, not interested. Even if you devoted screentime in exacting detail to all the cut material from FotR alone, that still wouldn't fill out 3 movies; and like The Hobbit, it would end up getting injected with a lot of pointless filler. --- Simple questions deserve long-winded answers that no one will bother to read https://imgur.com/1WshTZu - by DB_Insider https://imgur.com/eW67nT8 - by Wii_Shaker <cite>masterpug53 posted [p:970361705] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>Zikten posted... </cite><quote>The Lord of the Rings part is 9 movies. 3 for each book.</quote>Considering how this worked out for The Hobbit, not interested. Even if you devoted screentime in exacting detail to all the cut material from FotR alone, that still wouldn't fill out 3 movies; and like The Hobbit, it would end up getting injected with a lot of pointless filler.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 12/23/22 1:20:56 PM #4:	masterpug53 posted... Considering how this worked out for The Hobbit, not interested. Even if you devoted screentime in exacting detail to all the cut material from FotR alone, that still wouldn't fill out 3 movies; and like The Hobbit, it would end up getting injected with a lot of pointless filler. The Hobbit stretched out a bunch of filler to make a trilogy it didn't need. But didn't Peter Jackson himself say he wanted it fo be 9 for LotR? Those books are thicker than Hobbit. The extra material wouldn't be filler <cite>Zikten posted [p:970361732] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>masterpug53 posted... </cite><quote>Considering how this worked out for The Hobbit, not interested. Even if you devoted screentime in exacting detail to all the cut material from FotR alone, that still wouldn't fill out 3 movies; and like The Hobbit, it would end up getting injected with a lot of pointless filler.</quote>The Hobbit stretched out a bunch of filler to make a trilogy it didn't need. But didn't Peter Jackson himself say he wanted it fo be 9 for LotR? Those books are thicker than Hobbit. The extra material wouldn't be filler </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe 12/23/22 1:30:01 PM #5:	But Jackson was inspired by Bakshi's version, thereby we already got a remake .. --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC <cite>Foppe posted [p:970361873] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>But Jackson was inspired by Bakshi's version, thereby we already got a remake ..</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Heartomaton 12/23/22 1:32:15 PM #6:	Not interested. --- https://www.youtube.com/user/Heartomaton Heartomaton for President 2028. <cite>Heartomaton posted [p:970361917] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>Not interested. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
masterpug53 12/23/22 1:36:47 PM #7:	Zikten posted... The Hobbit stretched out a bunch of filler to make a trilogy it didn't need. But didn't Peter Jackson himself say he wanted it fo be 9 for LotR? Those books are thicker than Hobbit. The extra material wouldn't be filler I'm currently rereading FotR, and as much as the early section of the book gets lambasted for dragging on too long (Frodo taking his sweet time moving from Bag End to Crickhollow, Tom Bombadil, the Barrows, etc), I'm of the opinion that a competent director could accurately adapt that in 30 minutes of screentime, 45 tops. But for the sake of argument, let's say you could effectively stretch this chunk out to 90 minutes. This is by far the biggest section of cut material, so it's hard to believe that the remaining 3-4 hours of runtime of a proposed FotR sub-trilogy wouldn't contain substantial filler. --- Simple questions deserve long-winded answers that no one will bother to read https://imgur.com/1WshTZu - by DB_Insider https://imgur.com/eW67nT8 - by Wii_Shaker <cite>masterpug53 posted [p:970362002] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>Zikten posted... </cite><quote>The Hobbit stretched out a bunch of filler to make a trilogy it didn't need. But didn't Peter Jackson himself say he wanted it fo be 9 for LotR? Those books are thicker than Hobbit. The extra material wouldn't be filler</quote>I'm currently rereading FotR, and as much as the early section of the book gets lambasted for dragging on too long (Frodo taking his sweet time moving from Bag End to Crickhollow, Tom Bombadil, the Barrows, etc), I'm of the opinion that a competent director could accurately adapt that in 30 minutes of screentime, 45 tops. But for the sake of argument, let's say you could effectively stretch this chunk out to 90 minutes. This is by far the biggest section of cut material, so it's hard to believe that the remaining 3-4 hours of runtime of a proposed FotR sub-trilogy wouldn't contain substantial filler.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
rexcrk 12/23/22 1:40:55 PM #8:	Sure. I love the movies but theres a lot that they left out or changed (only a couple very specific things legit frustrated me in RotK). A different take of these on the big screen would be neat. --- Fate rarely calls on us at a moment of our choosing. <cite>rexcrk posted [p:970362071] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>Sure. I love the movies but theres a lot that they left out or changed (only a couple very specific things legit frustrated me in RotK). A different take of these on the big screen would be neat. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Foppe 12/23/22 1:48:51 PM #9:	Fuck Peter Jackson for removing most of the Beorn scenes and fuck him for killing the Tintin movies. --- GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC <cite>Foppe posted [p:970362199] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>Fuck Peter Jackson for removing most of the Beorn scenes and fuck him for killing the Tintin movies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IShall_Run_Amok 12/23/22 2:10:08 PM #10:	The Hobbit could have easily been a trilogy of three movies in the 90-100 minutes range. Conceptually, a lot of the stuff in the movies isn't necessarily damning. But, I mean, that's not even nearly the biggest problem with the trilogy we got. The execution could have killed any story, no matter what elements it consisted of. Stuff goes on for far too long, the characters don't come off, the visual effects are overwhelming and so bad. If you say "the prequel trilogy" out of context you may have to specify whether you're talking about Star Wars or Lord of the Rings because they're bad for a lot of the same reasons. --- Your mom Sherlock. Sherlock deez nuts <cite>IShall_Run_Amok posted [p:970362592] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>The Hobbit could have easily been a trilogy of three movies in the 90-100 minutes range. Conceptually, a lot of the stuff in the movies isn't necessarily damning. But, I mean, that's not even nearly the biggest problem with the trilogy we got. The execution could have killed any story, no matter what elements it consisted of. Stuff goes on for far too long, the characters don't come off, the visual effects are overwhelming and so bad. If you say "the prequel trilogy" out of context you may have to specify whether you're talking about Star Wars or Lord of the Rings because they're bad for a lot of the same reasons.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zikten 12/23/22 2:21:00 PM #11:	The best part of the hobbit trilogy is the 3rd movies ending credits. It served as a farewell to the franchise and has a beautiful song playing alongside artwork of characters https://youtu.be/uSfEdJAPoYQ A lot of people only watched the first Hobbit film, and might not know about this <cite>Zikten posted [p:970362781] in If you liv... [t:80287271]...</cite> <quote>The best part of the hobbit trilogy is the 3rd movies ending credits. It served as a farewell to the franchise and has a beautiful song playing alongside artwork of charactershttps://youtu.be/uSfEdJAPoYQA lot of people only watched the first Hobbit film, and might not know about this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > If you live long enough to see a Hobbit/LoTR remake, will you watch it? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > If you live long enough to see a Hobbit/LoTR remake, will you watch it?