• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Red Letter Media |OT| of Movies, Murderers, and Pizza Rolls

C

call_kotaku

Member
Something about the later 2 Lord of the Rings movies at times just felt like dramatic reenactments of a bad tabletop roleplay session, which isn't something the first movie or the books ever felt like. I haven't seen the Hobbit movies because that's also the feeling I got from the trailers, but I might check them out for a marathon down the line.
 
A

Admiral Woofington

Member
markot said:
I thought lotr came first, hobbit was just aimed at kids.
Click to expand...

The Hobbit- 1937

The Fellowship of the Ring- 1954

The Hobbit came first. I'm not even sure how much JRR Tolkien had planned out in using the ring and the hobbit for LOTR. I'm nowhere near a Tolkien expert/super fan though I'm not the best person to ask
 
C

Cheerilee

Member
Admiral Woofington said:
The Hobbit- 1937

The Fellowship of the Ring- 1954

The Hobbit came first. I'm not even sure how much JRR Tolkien had planned out in using the ring and the hobbit for LOTR. I'm nowhere near a Tolkien expert/super fan though I'm not the best person to ask
Click to expand...

For The Hobbit, Tolkien was basically just writing bedtime stories for his kids. A publisher thought it might be a good idea to publish his work, and it sold huge, so the publisher asked Tolkien to write a sequel, and he said "Okay, but this time I'm gonna get serious" and then he wrote Lord of the Rings.

In the first published versions of The Hobbit, Gollum apparently didn't even really care about losing his invisibility ring. Lord of the Rings was not yet a gleam in Tolkien's eye when he wrote The Hobbit. After he started writing LOTR, he went back and tweaked The Hobbit a little to lay the groundwork for LOTR (Tolkien was kind of like George Lucas, and he was never satisfied with his work, but Tolkien didn't make awful changes). And even though the original version of The Hobbit sold well enough to demand a sequel that took almost 20 years to write, the revised version is the one everybody knows.

tryagainlater said:
I'm glad they also think the Star Wars prequels comparisons are unfair.
Click to expand...

I think there are a remarkable number of parallels to draw between George Lucas and the Star Wars prequels and Peter Jackson and the Hobbit movies, but the two situations are not really the same thing. So long as you make it clear that you're only talking about the ways in which they're similar, it's fair to compare them. Mike even made a prequel comparison after agreeing with Jay that the prequel comparisons are unfair, and Jay gave a subtle little swipe at Peej, saying that the Orcs get cut down like butter (Lucas droid army reference).

- Both of them were chasing James Cameron at the time of their prequel trilogies (Lucas chasing Titanic, Jackson chasing Avatar).
- Both of them tried to bail on the actual work of making their prequel trilogies, after being exhausted by their original trilogies (Pepsi demanded that Lucas direct the prequels, and Del Toro bailed on Jackson).
- Both people were relative nobodies who climbed out of the basement and were built up as heroes by masses of nerds after making gloriously wonderful trilogies.
- Cracks were visible in both original trilogies, but fans refused to see the cracks, until prequel trilogies brought their worlds crashing down around them.
- Both original trilogies have fight choreography by the legendary Bob Anderson. Both prequel trilogies have CGI non-humans getting cut down like butter.
- The third movies are probably the best movies in both of the prequel trilogies, but both third movies include a 75 minute fight scene that's entirely devoid of meaning or emotion.

Of course, George Lucas was kind of a failure on every level, while Peej merely tried to combine two ideas that were incompatible. George Lucas combined like... twelve incompatible ideas.

call_kotaku said:
Something about the later 2 Lord of the Rings movies at times just felt like dramatic reenactments of a bad tabletop roleplay session, which isn't something the first movie or the books ever felt like. I haven't seen the Hobbit movies because that's also the feeling I got from the trailers, but I might check them out for a marathon down the line.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...eter-Jackson-sacrificed-subtlety-for-CGI.html

Viggo Mortensen said:
Officially, [Peter Jackson] could say that he was finished in December 2000 – he’d shot all three films in the trilogy – but really the second and third ones were a mess. It was very sloppy – it just wasn’t done at all. It needed massive reshoots, which we did, year after year. But he would have never been given the extra money to do those if the first one hadn’t been a huge success. The second and third ones would have been straight to video.

The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.

The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…
Click to expand...

1443.jpg
Click to expand...

Sir Ian McKellen said:
"In order to shoot the dwarves and a large Gandalf, we couldn't be in the same set," he said. "All I had for company was 13 photographs of the dwarves on top of stands with little lights – whoever's talking flashes up. Pretending you're with 13 other people when you're on your own, it stretches your technical ability to the absolute limits.

And I cried, actually. I cried. Then I said out loud, 'This is not why I became an actor.' Unfortunately the microphone was on and the whole studio heard."
Click to expand...
 
A

Archaix

Drunky McMurder
I'm 15 minutes in and really want to skip ahead to see
if they ever actually talk about the Star Wars christmas special.


I didn't expect that Jay had so much to edit because everybody just refused to talk about the movie.
 
U

UrbanRats

Member
I thought it was great and a lot of fun.
Second part will talk about the special, but at the end of the day, what do you really expect them to say about it that is revelatory? It's a shitty cash in.
BotW it's about the comedy, and this had it.
 
D

Deleted member 57681

Unconfirmed Member
Oh there's gonna be a part 2? Did I miss a to be continued or something?
 
A

aravuus

Member
I suppose you could say it wasn't exactly a "good" episode of BotW

But goddamn if it isn't one of their most hilarious videos ever
 
B

BatDan

Bane? Get them on board, I'll call it in.
I don't blame them for avoiding discussion. The Holiday Special is a rare type of legendary bad.
I've seen it with RiffTrax (cause I tried watching it by itself and couldn't take it), and the Nostalgia Critic review. Part 2 is going to be one hell of a ride.

I wonder if their version had "Fighting the Frizzies at 11"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Helldivers II | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
128
15K
splattered replied
Bloomberg: Behind ‘Suicide Squad,’ the Year’s Biggest Video-Game Flop
2 3
143
9K
MALpractice311 replied
Lego Star Wars - The Skywalker Saga | Review Mega Thread
News 2 3 4
185
17K
Cyberpunkd replied
RedLetterMedia |OT| Is This OT Replacing the Other OT?
Media 27 28 29 30 31
2K
177K
digdug2 replied
Hideo Kojima or a cult game designer and his story
Game Dev
40
7K
brian0057 replied
Top Bottom