|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by pinata242
(Post 11331849)
Or maybe 3-5 posts above yours to see if people are already talking about it? I mean, it was only 20 posts, superdeluxe! ;)
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11331855)
And how the hell was I supposed to know that that information was in posts #1,307 and #1,327 without actually reading 1,307 and 1,327 posts, huh? That's just being ridiculous.
|
Re: The Hobbit
What's funny is that there's already been at least three times as much wasted space arguing about and mocking the "offending" post than the original thing itself took up.
Here's Gandalf doing the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air to cheer all you grumpy gills up: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V1HSNV9y25A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11331855)
And how the hell was I supposed to know that that information was in posts #1,307 and #1,327 without actually reading 1,307 and 1,327 posts, huh?
Why the hell should I Google search before I make a comment? Do you??? I suppose neither of you have ever made a mistake? |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11330894)
I sincerely hope that the rumors regarding the splitting of The Hobbit into 3 parts is unfounded. I think it would be a travesty to the extreme. It's bad enough for the impatient that it's going to be in two parts (2 years), making us wait 3 years to see the whole movie would royally piss me off. While taking the additional time to flesh out the extravaganza over 2 movies would give Jackson a chance to do the movie as much justice as he did with LOTR (and ultimately be more satisfying to people like me), doing so over 3 seems more like abuse to me. -kd5-
The Hobbit is about a quest of a dude walking to a mountain. The Lord of the Rings is about a quest of a dude walking to a volcano. The movie versions have every right to have the same length. If Peter Jackson wanted, the Hobbit could be turned into 6 movies and it would probably still be a great movie adaptation.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11332157)
By going to the last page in a thread and reading back a few pages. I do it all the time.
All the time, yes. I've made plenty of mistakes, some of which were on this forum. The difference is that I own the mistake and move on, instead of getting incredibly defensive about it. |
Re: The Hobbit
Thanks for being the voice of reason toddly.
For the record, I don't typically have the time nor the inclination to read back lord knows how many pages to see whether something I want to say may be in error. I apologize for taking issue with being called out on said error but I refuse to apologize for not doing what you people claim I need to do before I make a simple comment in a thread. I said Ooops! once, I won't say it again. -kd5- |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11332316)
Thanks for being the voice of reason toddly.
For the record, I don't typically have the time nor the inclination to read back lord knows how many pages to see whether something I want to say may be in error. I apologize for taking issue with being called out on said error but I refuse to apologize for not doing what you people claim I need to do before I make a simple comment in a thread. I said Ooops! once, I won't say it again. -kd5- |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by yoshimi
(Post 11332323)
You should feel ashamed. The internet is serious business.
:lol: -kd5- |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by toddly6666
(Post 11332297)
ahhh, it's no big deal. There's never been a time in the history of internet forums where people don't always read back a couple pages. It's not a big deal and it's not worth scolding anyone for that.
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11332316)
For the record, I don't typically have the time nor the inclination to read back lord knows how many pages....
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11332316)
...to see whether something I want to say may be in error. I apologize for taking issue with being called out on said error but I refuse to apologize for not doing what you people claim I need to do before I make a simple comment in a thread. I said Ooops! once, I won't say it again. -kd5-
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by pinata242
(Post 11331849)
Or maybe 3-5 posts above yours to see if people are already talking about it? I mean, it was only 20 posts, superdeluxe! ;)
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11332316)
Thanks for being the voice of reason toddly.
For the record, I don't typically have the time nor the inclination to read back lord knows how many pages to see whether something I want to say may be in error. I apologize for taking issue with being called out on said error but I refuse to apologize for not doing what you people claim I need to do before I make a simple comment in a thread. I said Ooops! once, I won't say it again. -kd5- |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by superdeluxe
(Post 11332451)
I don't get it heh.
Originally Posted by whoopdido
(Post 11332461)
I'm with you. I might read back a page or two, but not always. When I go into a thread blind, I usually preface my post with "I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has already been discussed, but..."
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11332472)
pinata242 posted the confirmed news of a third film 20 posts before you did. So while kd5 was guilty of not reading around 50 recent posts before posting, you were guilty of not reading 20 previous posts prior to repeating the news.
oh sh*t lol. |
Re: The Hobbit
If everyone continues "sharing" their personal opinion about meaningless internet forum behavior like Real Housewives of DVDTalk for three more thread pages, then it looks like everyone is going to have to scroll back to earlier pages to know what the Hobbit topic was! ;)
|
Re: The Hobbit
This just in: according to The Sun Daily, The Hobbit will be three films:
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/453219 In all seriousness, the article has some new quotes. This was jointly announced recently by Toby Emmerich, president and chief operating officer of New Line Cinema; Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, co-chairmen and chief executive officers of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios; and Jeff Robinov, president of Warner Bros Pictures Group.... Emmerich said he completely supported Jackson and his vision for bringing the grand adventure to the screen over the course of three films. “Peter, Fran and Philippa’s reverence for the material and understanding of these characters ensure an exciting and expanded journey that is bound to please fans around the world.” Birnbaum said he and Barber fully endorsed the decision to further develop what the others had already begun. “We are confident that, with the great care the filmmakers have taken to faithfully bring this journey to the screen, the film will be welcomed by the legions of fans across the globe.” Robinov added that “Peter, Fran and Philippa have lived in this world and understand more than anyone its tremendous breadth and scope, and the relationships that bind it together. We strongly support their vision to bring this great work fully to life”. Another article, in defense of trilogizing The Hobbit: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...hobbit/260648/ |
Re: The Hobbit
People are still going on about it? Sheesh...most useless and off-topic page of posts ever.
SO, The Hobbit. It's pretty clear at this point that Jackson's movie trilogy will expand the story way beyond Bilbo's journey in the book. That could be a good thing in many ways, but then I remember the changes and additions that were made to the story in LOTR and get worried. They did a great job of condensing the story for the most part, but the weird and often unnecessary departures remain the weakest parts of those films in my opinion. |
Re: The Hobbit
Alright..so educate me. I know Tom Babadil (sp?) is a joke and I smile about it cuz I know it is..but..how much of that guy was in these books?
|
Re: The Hobbit
Tom Bababooey threw out the worst opening pitch in MLB history.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by kd5
(Post 11332316)
Thanks for being the voice of reason toddly.
For the record, I don't typically have the time nor the inclination to read back lord knows how many pages to see whether something I want to say may be in error. I apologize for taking issue with being called out on said error but I refuse to apologize for not doing what you people claim I need to do before I make a simple comment in a thread. I said Ooops! once, I won't say it again. -kd5- |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Pizza
(Post 11332907)
I wouldn't apologize. It seems to me, Jay G keeps an eye open for mistakes on these boards and likes to correct a poster. He's done it to me a few times. I'm not saying it's malicious, but he does appear to want everyone "to own the mistake" as he said. Sure, it helps to be up to speed on a topic but it's silly to slam someone for not doing research and forum searches before making a comment, but to each their own.
As for "owning the mistake," either apologize for the mistake or not, I don't care. Just don't go defending the mistake like it's everyone else's problem, not yours. It didn't help that kd5 repeatedly tried to characterize his mistake as a case of other people wanting him to read "1300+ posts," when the reality was that the news was only a few dozen posts previous. Finally, I don't think I "slammed" kd5 in my posts. I corrected an error in his initial post, then corrected a misimpression of the error when he replied back. I didn't really chastise him besides pointing out that if he doesn't read up on a thread, don't be surprised when people correct his ignorance. And now I'm stuck trying to figure out what corrected I corrected Pizza on that's stuck in his craw for so long. ;) |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11332924)
I do tend to post corrections for factual errors that I see. I do so under the (perhaps mistaken) belief that I'm being helpful. kd5, for example, still thought it only a rumor that the film was split into three films. Since he's apparently too busy to read back in a thread, wasn't it helpful that I corrected his misconception? What would've been the proper response to his post?
As for "owning the mistake," either apologize for the mistake or not, I don't care. Just don't go defending the mistake like it's everyone else's problem, not yours. It didn't help that kd5 repeatedly tried to characterize his mistake as a case of other people wanting him to read "1300+ posts," when the reality was that the news was only a few dozen posts previous. Finally, I don't think I "slammed" kd5 in my posts. I corrected an error in his initial post, then corrected a misimpression of the error when he replied back. I didn't really chastise him besides pointing out that if he doesn't read up on a thread, don't be surprised when people correct his ignorance. And now I'm stuck trying to figure out what corrected I corrected Pizza on that's stuck in his craw for so long. ;) |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jules Winfield
(Post 11332932)
You could've just said "Oh, it has been confirmed that it's being split into three movies" and left it at that. I think posting the exact post number makes you look like a nerd and makes it look like you are being extremely anal about the whole thing.
It wasn't until kd5 brought up the number of posts preceeding his, 1380, that I provided the post numbers to show how close the relevant posts were to his. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 11332865)
Alright..so educate me. I know Tom Babadil (sp?) is a joke and I smile about it cuz I know it is..but..how much of that guy was in these books?
He is, on the surface, a rather silly character and seems to have been included because he was based on one of Tolkien's daughter's dolls. But Bombadil also has an air of mystery about him because he is seemingly immune to the power of the Ring, and there are implications that he may be a manifestation of God (Eru?) or nature itself. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
(Post 11332959)
Tom Bombadil, along with his wife Goldberry, was in one early chapter of "The Fellowship of the Ring." The hobbits ran into him.
He is, on the surface, a rather silly character and seems to have been included because he was based on one of Tolkien's daughter's dolls. But Bombadil also has an air of mystery about him because he is seemingly immune to the power of the Ring, and there are implications that he may be a manifestation of God (Eru?) or nature itself. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11332924)
I do tend to post corrections for factual errors that I see. I do so under the (perhaps mistaken) belief that I'm being helpful. kd5, for example, still thought it only a rumor that the film was split into three films. Since he's apparently too busy to read back in a thread, wasn't it helpful that I corrected his misconception? What would've been the proper response to his post?
As for "owning the mistake," either apologize for the mistake or not, I don't care. Just don't go defending the mistake like it's everyone else's problem, not yours. It didn't help that kd5 repeatedly tried to characterize his mistake as a case of other people wanting him to read "1300+ posts," when the reality was that the news was only a few dozen posts previous. Finally, I don't think I "slammed" kd5 in my posts. I corrected an error in his initial post, then corrected a misimpression of the error when he replied back. I didn't really chastise him besides pointing out that if he doesn't read up on a thread, don't be surprised when people correct his ignorance. And now I'm stuck trying to figure out what corrected I corrected Pizza on that's stuck in his craw for so long. ;) And congratulations on your 10,000th post. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.