With a rubber duck! Because as we all know, "you're never alone with a rubber duck".Or every episode is rudely interupted by a scene of a naked sauron hatching his evil plans from his bathtub.
With a rubber duck! Because as we all know, "you're never alone with a rubber duck".Or every episode is rudely interupted by a scene of a naked sauron hatching his evil plans from his bathtub.
Sauron's return as the Necromancer of Dol Goldur (sp?) happens in the Third Age, IIRC.Sauron returns twice in the 2nd age, I think: first as Annatar mid-2nd Age, and later as we see in the FOTR movie's prologue, at the end of the 2nd Age. IIRC
Sauron's return as the Necromancer of Dol Goldur (sp?) happens in the Third Age, IIRC.
Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.That's correct. But (i believe) ART! was referring to his two reappearances in the 2nd Age.
The first was his return after the destruction of Angband by the Host of the Valar at the end of the 1st Age. He wanders about styling himself Annatar "Bringer of Gifts" and being all matey with everyone.
The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.
The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.
I believe that distinction goes to Water World.This will either go down in history as one of the biggest wastes of money or will be the second coming of Game of Thrones (as far as fantasy TV-pop culture impact goes).
Gives new meaning to Morning Wood.I've heard the nudity will be limited to Ents and Dragons.
I believe that distinction goes to Water World.
Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.
I think that "John Carter" suffers from people feeling it's derivative of so many other movies, when the opposite is largely the truth. The "Warlord of Mars" series of books is seminal. So many other works drew from it, that many references have become ubiquitous. I rather enjoyed it, but must admit that I was a little disappointed that Dejah Thoris didn't appear as she was described in "A Princess of Mars."Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).
I think that "John Carter" suffers from people feeling it's derivative of so many other movies, when the opposite is largely the truth.
I tried to read it and got past exactly ZERO pages. I re-read the same few paragraphs about 20 times and decided life's too short for this. I've never even considered giving it another try.Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.
Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman. Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious. It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).
Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman. Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious. It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.
I've read Greek, Norse, and Hindu Mythology. I've read the I Ching and Tao te Ching (the latter is a tough one). I've read various religious works. It was a major effort to make it through The Silmarillion, for me.The Silmarillion's first chapter is just terrible.; I always recommend people skip it.
As for the rest of it - you have to treat it as you would a book of Norse or Greek mythology. That's basically what it is. Pretty dry, even for Tolkien. You're either gonna be okay with that (as I am) or you're gonna hate it, which I can totally understand.
I thought John Carter was okay, but like everyone else here thought it could have been much more fun. Haven't seen Lone Ranger and never will. 13th Warrior is one of those I feel I need to catch up on eventually.
Rather interestingly, Depp received some praise for his portrayal of Tonto from the Aboriginal Community, most notably from Comanche Nation Chairman Wallace Coffey. I'd call it a "controversial" choice.The 13th Warrior is somehow still the best on-screen Beowulf adaptation (the source novel by Michael Crichton being a riff on both The Name of the Rose and Beowulf). Johnny Depp's casting and subsequent performance in The Lone Ranger was horrifyingly racist. John Carter is fine but not great, though it falls short of the excitement of the original novel. It's not like the studio handed the director $250 million to make it and they came back with Manos the Hands of Fate In Space.
I feel the same.But to get back on topic, all of Tolkien's writing is dry. Since the movies came out, I find I prefer to watch them rather than read the books. I hope the new show will be as entertaining as the movies.
The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)
There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.