Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:16 pm
by Brocktune
so sorry wrote:
wonkabar wrote:How could you hate on poor Tom?


"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow."

"Hey dol! merry dol!ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo"

any other questions?


hahaha

i liked tom. but that is funny.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:18 pm
by The Vicar
so sorry wrote:
wonkabar wrote:How could you hate on poor Tom?


"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow."

"Hey dol! merry dol!ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo"

any other questions?


The prosecution rests.
Well argued.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:21 pm
by Chairman Kaga
"Mommy why is that man singing about dildos?"

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:23 pm
by tapehead
see? he's clearly wasted! - Love that crazy Tom

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:08 pm
by wonkabar
Yeah, Tom was a total pot-head

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:11 pm
by buster00
Also among the deleted footage:

Tom Bombadil makes a sandwich...from pure love, man.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:04 pm
by Fried Gold
How can there possibly be any new or exclusive behind the scenes footage to document?

Or have they filmed new scenes, just so that they could film some new behind the scenes footage?

Or is it just bits of Lost, History of Violence & Silent Hill sellotaped together?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:08 pm
by Brocktune
wonkabar wrote:Yeah, Tom was a total pot-head


dude, everyone in middle earth was a pothead.
at least thats what i got out of it.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:32 pm
by tapehead
your love of the halfling's leaf has clouded your mind.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:33 pm
by The Vicar
Gandalf, the Dwarves, all the stinking Hobbits ... I think the only non-stoners were the orcs.

Tom has on mesc.
Count on it.

I wish I were the prime dealer in Middle Earth - sounds like a studly market.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:35 pm
by raasnio
Chairman Kaga wrote:Same way I hate Jesus.


:lol:

I don't get the anger over these soon to be released editions. The EE discs were so good, and I see nothing superior on the upcoming sets, that I see no reason to even care. I don't need the theatrical cuts. Branching? Who cares.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:35 pm
by The Vicar
Hey mods!!!

Can we get a pole added to this thread?

Something along the lines of:

Tom Bombadil -

a) complete fairy wanker

b) beloved missing character from the movie

c) stoner hippy trash

d) a gift from JRRs heart?

e) wtf?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:59 pm
by Lady Sheridan
Brocktune wrote:amen sister.

you're looking at your man right here.
this greedy and feduciarily gluttonous triple dip is as nauseating as it is aggravating. upon the release of these, i will get them from netflix, rip the shit out of the bonus features, and promptly send a copy your way. ill be damned, if im going to fork out another 90 bucks to these fucking whores.


Hooray!! I was hoping a Zoner (you) would come to my call. I'm holding you to that.

I suppose they have crunched the numbers--they are executives, after all--but you have to wonder...wouldn't they make MORE money if they released the documentaries as a seperate release? I know lots of LOTR fans who would eagerly shell out the money, but I don't know of many who would buy completely new editions. We all love our EE's too much.

Those of us who want them desperately will be finding illegal methods to obtain them...

So you have to wonder if they really think these things through.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:09 pm
by Lady Sheridan
seppukudkurosawa wrote:I like him. He's like one of your granddad's long-winded, rambling stories in humanoid form. And you could say that he was the epitome of the words "salt of the earth"; he's how Tolkien wished man really was- a minstrel who lives in the forest. Instead of these overly-political, urbane socialites, who are riding the gnarly wave of encroachment. Which is pretty much why the hippies clung onto Lord of The Rings in the first place- to escape what they saw the world was turning into.


See, if he had been in The Hobbit, I probably would have liked him. The Hobbit is very cute, for lack of a better word. It's a more innocent and sweet book, which only hints at the decay and darkness of Middle Earth.

LOTR is a darker story (to me) and he never fit in well with that. I liked the hints he gave to the wider world of magic and mystery that permeated Middle Earth...but it was still a bit too sing-songy. If he'd been a little more Gandalf and a little less Ren Faire carnie, I would have liked him.

Oddly, I really like Goldberry...she's the only thing that saves the detour for me. If it had just been her, and none of the dilly-dilly-do schmaltz, I would have adored those chapters.

If there IS a weak point in Tolkien for me, it's that he was never very consistent in his tone. I get needing lighter moments to break up the drama, and that the hobbits were very child-like people who didn't understand the seriousness of their mission for some time. But it was always jarring to me how they would escape a Ringwraith and then the hobbits would sing a silly song, with Aragorn clapping the beat...it was hard to take the danger seriously when the characters blew it off.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:52 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Glad to see I wasn't alone in the Bombadil detuor disdain.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:42 am
by sonnyboo
Why can't the money & interest be better spent getting THE HOBBIT made into a movie while Ian McKellen is still able to walk & talk?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:33 am
by silentbobafett
OH MY GOD! I just spent a godf 20 minutes writign the longest fucking reply ever and it got wiped cos these shit fucking text boxes don't hold the text if you go back!

General jist: yah to the documentaries. You were warned about this dvd's on the LOTR EE in an interview with PJ!

Seemy new thread r.e The Hobbit

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:35 am
by sleepflower
I don't own any LOTR DVD's yet (thoughI can borrow them from my mother at any time I go visit) and so these initially make sense.

Though when you consider the fact I may want all of those extras that have been left out, and the introduction of HD, do these really make sense.

With only one extra feature and not much space for extras yet on HD discs, does anyone else feel this may come as a dual release for a HD disc as well, so with the same packaging and content on HD discs at a later date?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:58 am
by tapehead
yeah but sleepflower, where do you stand on the Tom Bombadil question?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:37 am
by sleepflower
Is Tom the character from LOTR that they missed out from the film, I rememebr some ruckus about it.

Well, I know so little about him if it is, I have never read the books, never intend to. I don't really read I'm afraid.

Though the sandwich from pure love sound mightily ominous.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:41 am
by doglips
Mmmmm, I sense a visit from the Grammar Nazi. :P

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:44 am
by sleepflower
thedoglippedone wrote:Mmmmm, I sense a visit from the Grammar Nazi.


Is that aimed towards me?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:48 am
by The Vicar
Mmmmm could be.....

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:52 am
by sleepflower
What I do?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:08 am
by The Vicar
I have no idea.

Doglippedone up there started it.
I'm just a joiner.
I have needs. Sniff.

"You're in the Bastille...you must of done something...."

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:27 am
by tapehead
the grammar nazi is a douche - no one is writing a thesis here
there are no 'pure love sandwiches' in the novels (unless you count lembas)

tom bom bomb a dil
bomb ba dill o

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:38 am
by sleepflower
I will go ask Lugz more on this character. I am well out of depth. Drowning in fact.

For the record, I type as I speak, in my head. I do not go back to what I have written much. I find it hard to construct posts. This is a place to get a message across. If you can read it then all is good. If not, then ask what I meant.

Tapehead, you seem quite a Tom fan...

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:48 am
by doglips
sleepflower wrote:I will go ask Lugz more on this character. I am well out of depth. Drowning in fact.

For the record, I type as I speak, in my head. I do not go back to what I have written much. I find it hard to construct posts. This is a place to get a message across. If you can read it then all is good. If not, then ask what I meant.


Hey, it was just an inter-thread joke, don't take everything to heart in this place - I should have emoticoned my comment, I'll go and edit it now.

For the record it was a travesty that after being so thorough with the rest of the books, Jackson left Tom out.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:49 am
by colonel_lugz
Theres no way I can not buy these, Me and Doc were talking last night about just how great the current DVDs are, but....but.....I want more!!! and now I can get it!!

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:51 am
by sleepflower
colonel_lugz wrote:Theres no way I can not buy these, Me and Doc were talking last night about just how great the current DVDs are, but....but.....I want more!!! and now I can get it!!


You Sir, have a habit.





And no, no matter how much you wish, I did not say or mean Hobbit.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:01 am
by tapehead
actually I think I am unable to see what other readers have so disliked about the character. At this stage I suspect I'm just trying to provoke more responses

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:26 am
by Shane
I might buy them because I haven't seen any of them since opening day in the theater

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:41 pm
by Chairman Kaga
tapehead wrote:actually I think I am unable to see what other readers have so disliked about the character. At this stage I suspect I'm just trying to provoke more responses

His singing sucks.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:03 pm
by The Vicar
He does absolutely nothing to advance the story.
Throw his chapters out of the book and you wouldn't notice.
Also, you'd get to Rivendall quicker.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:03 pm
by Petri
I would enjoy the scene with the barrow-wights though.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:14 pm
by buster00
Can't wait to see this deleted footage:

Tom spanks Goldberry's ass until it's bright red. But here's the thing -- he's paddling her bum with pure love, man.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:05 pm
by iamthevillain
If I remember correctly Tom saves the hobbits from being buried in trees that pretty much over took them while they were napping "F-ing hobbits". I would have liked to see the trees eat the hobbits, and the burrow wrates (i forgot the exact name in the book), I don't really care about Tom, but his wife was supposed to be hot in the book, and I wonder who they would have cast for her part. I don't know it could have gone either way and I am still happy. But everything else was pretty close to the book, why would he stop at Tom? was he that bad in the book, that no one wanted him in the movie that was well recieved because it followed the book?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:08 pm
by colonel_lugz
iamthevillain wrote:If I remember correctly Tom saves the hobbits from being buried in trees that pretty much over took them while they were napping "F-ing hobbits". I would have liked to see the trees eat the hobbits, and the burrow wrates (i forgot the exact name in the book), I don't really care about Tom, but his wife was supposed to be hot in the book, and I wonder who they would have cast for her part. I don't know it could have gone either way and I am still happy. But everything else was pretty close to the book, why would he stop at Tom? was he that bad in the book, that no one wanted him in the movie that was well recieved because it followed the book?


Bombadillo doesn't really add that much to the plot, as a great a character I think he is. He wouldn't have served any real purpose in the movie world. Pj has said as much himself, I respect him for that as I dont feel he would have transferred well and THAT would have pissed us all off a lot more

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:45 am
by RogueScribner
Plus didn't PJ say that it didn't make sense to build up the the threat of the One Ring and then run into this guy who isn't affected by it all? I think that's why he ultimately cut it out because it would have undermined the power of the ring.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:06 am
by raasnio
RogueScribner wrote:Plus didn't PJ say that it didn't make sense to build up the the threat of the One Ring and then run into this guy who isn't affected by it all? I think that's why he ultimately cut it out because it would have undermined the power of the ring.


That makes sense. It doesn't matter to purists, though, who probably still feel like the true LotR films haven't been made yet. In my opinion Jackson delivered as good a trilogy as possible. I actually prefer his films over the books.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:38 am
by RogueScribner
There's a guy I know who hated Jackson's trilogy and can't wait until someone else comes along in 10 - 20 years and does their own version. As successful as these films were (with critics and the public, in box office and awards), I personally don't think we'll see another live action retelling in the cinema. Not in the next 50 years anyway. Gone with the Wind was based on a popular book and how many times has that been remade? Oh yeah, ZERO.

I think this guy is stuck with films he hates . . . but the rest of the world enjoys.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:56 pm
by Chairman Kaga
I think those LotR films are definitive. I doubt a remake would ever occur unless the medium was different...Like it was done animated (I mean better then the previous animated versions).

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:35 pm
by RogueScribner
I can see another animated adaptation happening, maybe even a television miniseries down the road. But neither of those projects will hit the breadth and scope of Jackson's films. Animation can offer more spectacle without worrying about budget too much, but the odds of an animated trilogy being created are slim and the odds of each installment of that trilogy being 3 hours long is even slimmer. So the story would have to be cut down. A TV miniseries can take its time to explore every detail of the narrative, but then it's going to cheap out on the spectacle so you'll have not so grand sets, limited location shooting, and small scale battles. No, Jackson's films are it, as far as I'm concerned, and I think he did a pretty good job of it considering the task at hand.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:02 am
by Lady Sheridan
I know one guy, via another message board, that refuses to see them. He considers them nothing but stupid Hollywood blockbusters that totally missed the themes of the book. He rants about it constantly.

I told him repeatedly they are anything BUT the traditional Hollywood blockbuster, but his mind is made up. He's an ass.

I don't see anyone remaking them, unless it was animated. I could see a massive animated one made that would include Tom Bombadill and every song and poem...but you know, I don't think I'd be that interested in seeing it. I love the books, and I will read them again and again if I feel the need to visit the definitive Middle Earth.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:26 am
by tapehead
Also - I'd like to see the Scourge of the Shire - In fact I'd like to see this just as much as Tom - the proper end of Sauromon and Wormtongue and the Hobbits defending their own shire from destruction - I know in the theatre it would have contributed to the collective numbing of ROTK's audience's arses, but why not in the extended edition? It's a great chapter in the book

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:38 am
by RogueScribner
Well, Saruman was killed in the extended edition already so how could he show up at the end? And really, after the huge battle(s) we've gone through in the movie, after the crowning and kneeling for the hobbits and bla bla bla, another action sequence? When the war was over? It doesn't make any sense. I think PJ made the right call. It might work in a book, but it's highly redundant and superfluous in a movie. We've seen the four hobbits be heroes already. We don't need to see it again. It would only ruin the pacing and emotional effectiveness of the movie.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:00 am
by tapehead
RogueScribner wrote:Well, Saruman was killed in the extended edition already so how could he show up at the end? And really, after the huge battle(s) we've gone through in the movie, after the crowning and kneeling for the hobbits and bla bla bla, another action sequence? When the war was over? It doesn't make any sense. I think PJ made the right call. It might work in a book, but it's highly redundant and superfluous in a movie. We've seen the four hobbits be heroes already. We don't need to see it again. It would only ruin the pacing and emotional effectiveness of the movie.



actually I was hoping maybe they shot it, and it would be in the deleted scenes - if included in the film it would require other scenes to be re-edited, but that's obvious, isn't it? I'm interested Rogue, have you read the books? Because if you haven't I'm a little upset that you would completely disregard my suggestion without consideration








...and what is a scribner?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:40 am
by Doc Holliday
Chairman Kaga wrote:It's funny how people have been down on the two DVD versions of Star Wars so far (what with that edition featuring the originals on the horizon) yet LOTR, which is no where near as old, is already up to their third version.


I have a feeling (a real bad feeling in fact ha ha ha) that the Bajillion Kagillion VHS editions of the OT may be relevant to your point.....




hobbitshobbitshobbitshobbitshobbitshobbitshobbits

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:55 am
by Chairman Kaga
Doc Holliday wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:It's funny how people have been down on the two DVD versions of Star Wars so far (what with that edition featuring the originals on the horizon) yet LOTR, which is no where near as old, is already up to their third version.


I have a feeling (a real bad feeling in fact ha ha ha) that the Bajillion Kagillion VHS editions of the OT may be relevant to your point.....

I can see that. Give em 20 years.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:36 am
by Petri
Well since I have only the theatrical versions of LOTR (that I received as gifts) and have yet to see any of the extended editions, I pointed these out to my wife as good Christmas presents.