HOME | DD

Art-Calavera In reply to MemoriesPast8956 [2013-09-10 21:38:46 +0000 UTC]

Please, feel free to use it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MemoriesPast8956 In reply to Art-Calavera [2013-09-10 21:39:59 +0000 UTC]

Thanks so much, I'll be sure to say I got it from you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ares12 In reply to aaaaceace [2013-04-14 18:09:24 +0000 UTC]

Except Thorin's not hunting him. It's the other way around.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to ares12 [2013-04-15 01:43:54 +0000 UTC]

I don't know, Thorin seemed to be just as obessed with him as Moby was with Thorin.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Son-of-Icarus In reply to aaaaceace [2014-04-30 00:01:19 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, well, that whole subplot actually doesn't exist in the Tolkien books. . . .
Still an awesome movie though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to Son-of-Icarus [2014-04-30 00:34:38 +0000 UTC]

The movie was better than the book. There I said and you know it is true. The book was good but simple, with weak character development. I mean besides Thorin, what do the dwarfs do besides beg Gandalf and Bilbo to save them? Tolken even has them dress and act the same. Hell they didn't even have a plan to kill Smaug when they got to the Lonely Mountain. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Son-of-Icarus In reply to aaaaceace [2014-04-30 21:24:53 +0000 UTC]

Your point about the dwarves being all the same is true - the only one that is different in the book is Bombur, but that's because he's the fat one that's always last.
But the reason that they don't have a plan is kind of important to Bilbo's character - the point is that even though the dwarves act like they're the experts, it's really the reluctant hobbit that saves their asses time and time again.
And you're right - the dwarfs are a bunch of wimps.
But, I'm always going to like the book better. I'm a book kind of guy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to Son-of-Icarus [2014-05-01 12:28:24 +0000 UTC]

I love books to and would normally agree that the book is usually better than the movie. But you can't just say the books is better than the movie because it's a book. Give me an actual reason you prefer the book to the movie. Now this may make me sound like a troll but that is not my intent, I just really hated when people have unthought reasons for liking or disliking something.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Son-of-Icarus In reply to aaaaceace [2014-05-03 12:05:51 +0000 UTC]

I understand and am not offended- I hate it when people just spew opinions.
The reason that I usually prefer books over movies is that in books there are so many details and descriptions that are impossible to fit into movies.
One of my favorite examples of this is from Game of Thrones. Now, I love the show in all of its' gritty realism,
but when you read the books, you get to see all these little details. One of Tyrion's chapters starts with the opening sentence "Tyrion stabbed listlessly at a grey sausage, pretending it was his sister."
Now, I'm not saying that movies can't be better than books - take Howl's Moving Castle for example. The book has no plot and just flies all over the place, while the movie has a story line and an exciting plot.
The Hobbit may not be the best example for discussion, because most of the book is the characters wandering around Middle Earth. I do understand that the film needed some action to "Spice things up" but I find that the subplots with the white orc, the whole thing with the Nazgul, Radagast's magical rabbits, took the film in an entirely different direction.
I don't mind additions to a book's story if they are tastefully done, and mostly follow what's going on in the book, But the whole magical rabbits bit was. . . special, and didn't do much besides add action.
I'm sorry - This just got really long!  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to Son-of-Icarus [2014-05-04 20:58:39 +0000 UTC]

In most cases I would agree that books offer more details than movies or tv shows, however the Hobbit movie actually has more details than the book. In the movie each dwarf has a fairly distinct look and personality, they actually have a plan on how to kill Smaug, they explain why Bard is not the leader of Lake Town and how Smaug got the hole in his scales, and the subplots with Moby Orc and Gandalf's fight with the Necromancer do play a role in the greater scheme of the world and add more depth to the story. In the book the dwarves are all the same and have no reason for being on this journey (except Thorin who does a lot of the fighting), they have no plan on what to do about Smaug, the characters are one demsional and kind of boring, and the plot is rather simple until the Battle of the Five Armies. Now this is in no way meant to insult the all might Nerd God Tolken or the Hobbit, but the book was meant to be a children's book and it shows, while the movie is clearly aiming at a older crowd.   

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Son-of-Icarus In reply to aaaaceace [2014-05-05 01:18:06 +0000 UTC]

I do have to agree with most of your points - I can even see the whole
Moby Orc(Do lets call him that) thing as nessicary - It's just the
Gandalf-necromancer - nazghul thing that I found a little annoying.
It was like two sentences in the story, and they turned it into a
major secondary plot.
And I do agree with you, The Hobbit was a children's book, and
one of Tolkien's first forays into the realm of fantasy.
But you can definitely see the influence that his scholarly background (in
old English/Norse ect. literature) ((actually what I'm going to school for))
in his works, especially the Hobbit. In Beowulf, the dragon is woken by a thief
stealing from its' hoard - and the thief takes a golden cup, like Bilbo does.
(My god, I just love this autocorrect. It just capitalized Bilbo for me)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to Son-of-Icarus [2014-05-05 10:48:30 +0000 UTC]

I think Gandalf's fight with Saruon was important in the movie since (A) it shows that despite his weaken state the dark lord of Mordor is still a threat, and (B) it showed just how involved Gandalf was in preparing Middle Earth for war. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Son-of-Icarus In reply to aaaaceace [2014-05-05 22:44:40 +0000 UTC]

I can see that, but it just messes with the original plot just a wee bit. I think they add it just to help stretch the plot out into the other two movies.  
And the whole fact that they are taking Tolkien's children's book and trying to stretch it into the Lord of the Rings Trilogy part two guarantees to mess with plot.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

aaaaceace In reply to Son-of-Icarus [2014-05-06 12:28:22 +0000 UTC]

I can understand how you can see that, but my counter argument would be that without showing what Gandalf was up too then the people who didn't read the book wouldn't understand why he left the party. In the book this is ok because Gandalf is portrayed as very mysterious, but in the movies it was established that he has a more human personality. Also they really didn't mess with the plot all that much, they just added a bunch of details that I think make the story more interesting. But again I can see why you think it is kind of messy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Son-of-Icarus In reply to aaaaceace [2014-05-06 19:13:21 +0000 UTC]

I understand, but the whole point of the movies is that they are trying to stretch out the
Hobbit into something akin to the trilogy, so they add plot lines not only for your valid reasons, but for the sake of extending this one rather less complex book into a trilogy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

aaaaceace In reply to aaaaceace [2014-05-04 21:05:09 +0000 UTC]

Also don't feel you need to have to apologize for a long post, as long as your argument is clear, well thought out, and does not repeat it's self, then it is fine. I remember one time I got into this argument of Fire Lord Ozia from Avatar the Last Air Bender and this guy kept repeating the same argument over and over no matter how many times I proved that it was wrong.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to FrankietheCat [2012-12-31 19:01:56 +0000 UTC]

From my point of view, he was very welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to Piccolos-Only-LoverG [2012-12-30 13:21:01 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Piccolos-Only-LoverG In reply to Art-Calavera [2013-04-23 13:13:46 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome. ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to CursedFreak [2012-12-25 23:07:27 +0000 UTC]

It's funny, I've seen a lot of Azog's fan arts on the internets, and most of them are taking details from my interpretation, which is filled with errors!
Like this one [link] or this one [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CursedFreak In reply to Art-Calavera [2012-12-26 01:44:22 +0000 UTC]

Well, since the movie has been out for less than two weeks there are not many actual screens of the movie yet to get a good reference of the character, the only ones I've seen was in the LotR wiki and it wasn't any good for checking the details. It's undestandable that when people see a drawing that seems to represent the character well (at least in a general way?) they'd use it as reference even though it's not an official artwork. Hopefully they gave you some credit?


ugh, I'd love to have some pictures of the movie for reference! specially of the Great Goblin, that guy is so disgustingly awesome, (I haven't seen the movie yet but I can tell just from the few pics in the Internet) just the kind of thing I usually draw!! hehe

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to neonparrot [2012-12-23 16:25:08 +0000 UTC]

That's what I say to myself when I don't want to finish something

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to VEKTTOR [2012-12-22 21:17:57 +0000 UTC]

Thanks yo!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to KuroCyou [2012-12-22 15:46:40 +0000 UTC]

thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to Midgey103 [2012-12-22 10:05:02 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Art-Calavera In reply to yumi71 [2012-12-22 01:39:03 +0000 UTC]

thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0