Thanks for using my Amazon Affiliate links (US, UK, Canada).
Surely the last line of the second panel should be "From other people", not "For other people"?
Why didn't they have a midnight showing of Les Mis? I bet Scott would have enjoyed the crowd lustily signing along with Russel Crowe.
I actually went to see Les Miz alone, since Scott had no interest. He does, however, know enough of the show to be able to mock it by saying things like: "Will you join in our crusade? Would you like some lemonade?" ~Missy
@rorshak...I think he means that he wants "for" everyone else to be depressed if it means they'll shut up and be quiet.
Scott, great work as always!
Naw. Both either way are awrights.
But really. The fundamental difference is that The Hobbit is an objective improvement due to having picture and sound where the original did not, while Star Trek is simply different from the original.
@Lockez I think you mean The Hobbit is objectively worse because now it has picture and sound.
An objective improvement? How do sound and picture make it objectively an improvement?
If anything, the barbaric destruction of Tolkien's prose make the movie a hollywood bastardisation of the original... but there's nothing objective about that!
While I am not that big fan of the LoTR series. I have to disagree on the Star Trek being awesome. The new restart movie really butchered the whole franchise, and I don't even want to know how much the next movie will make this worse.
My only hope is that they will restart it again when humanity has developed a bit again, so they can make a movie about space exploration, without turning it into an american high school action comedy with cheerleaders and jocks.
Actually, I thought The Hobbit was a fantastic movie that was by-and-large true to the spirit of Tolkien's world, while the new Star Trek movie seems like it will have little resemblance to the Star Trek I love. The first thing I said to my moviegoing partner after it ended - "that wasn't Star Trek". Both of us agreed. It was just a modern action movie like any other, with characters, story and philosophy taking a distant back seat. It's not something for the mind.
Like how that recent Sherlock Holmes movie had nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes at all, at least not the one I know.
The difference is that it's much easier to spoil books by turning them into movies than it is to spoil a television series. The "Lord of the Rings" movies were butcheries of the books, and there's no reason to think that "The Hobbit" will be any better. I'll wait until they come out with all three films of that, and then consider renting the DVDs. Of course, if you actually thought the LOTR movies were good...well, no accounting for taste.
Some people who love books can't wait to see them turned into movies, but the films often miss what is best in the source material. On the other hand, with a TV show, what is there to miss?
Scott, I hope you're getting as big a kick as I am out of seeing the comments parallel the comic. It's meta-something, I'm sure. :)
I dread the day that Jackson makes The Silmarrilion...
I hear Jackson padded it out terribly to get a trilogy out of it, why couldn't they stick to Bakshi's original story?
@Lockez -- I suspect your opinion that picture and sound are objective improvements would be rebuked by anyone who went to meet in person a "hot girl" they met online.
If you loved the original Star Trek, how can you not love The Hobbit? They both have Leonard Nemoy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU
Also, the copyright date is all screwed up. Just thought you should know.
Does Hoodie Guy have a name? Scott, can you do a page that identifies your characters? I always enjoy reading your backstories on whose likenesses you are exploiting for each new person and would like to see them collected somewhere for easy reference.
The LotR and Hobbit movies may take liberties with the books, but they still preserve a lot of the spirit of the books. The best thing about the new Star Trek movie was that it DIDN'T preserve the spirit of the original series. Although I think the ST preview that was shown before Hobbit might have more of the spirit of the series--what on earth was Dr. McCoy doing running around on the planet, and why was Uhura needed in the shuttlecraft? Don't they have red-shirts for those jobs?
@Esn:I think it's kind of funny that people thought that one of the big reasons that the Star Wars prequels sucked was that they wasted so much time talking about politics and economics while apparently the complaint about the new Star Trek prequels is that they waste too much time with action and not *enough* politics and economics.
Make that, "Star Trek WAS awesome." TOS and the first three even numbered movies (just like the books of the Aeneid!) were worth watching. The rest? Not so much. So, no, a preview of STI (or perhaps STD) wouldn't be a draw for a film I don't care to see on the big screen anyway, and certainly not in 3D.
I agree Scott, Star Trek is awesome.
"Like how that recent Sherlock Holmes movie had nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes at all, at least not the one I know."
I completely disagree. They took some liberties with the action-hero capabilities of Holmes and Watson but I thought Holmes' methods and personality were brilliantly handled. The movie is average if you haven't read much of Sherlock Holmes, but superb if you have.
Wait - is there an implication here that the Hobbit never had picture and sound before the recent movie? I feel the TRUE bastardization in the movies is that Gollum is no longer the silvery-grey lizard-like creature from the animated movie. But you can't please all the people all the time :)Also, I would LOVE to hear someone take the tune of "The Greatest Adventure," and use the lyrics of Madonna's "Like a Prayer".
I love the snooty snoots trash-talking the LOTR films. There is no accounting for taste indeed, and I think the world has spoken as to which side of normal you snobs are on (to the tune of hundreds of positive reviews and billions of dollars). Enjoy this season of Downton Abbey (wait, was that based on a book?).
How does no one remember the great classic "The Hobbit" movie from 1977?
Am I the only one who was disappointed that The Hobbit didn't include Leonard Nimoy singing Bilbo Baggins?
The Trek reboot was okay for what it was, I mean, how could it possibly stand up to TOS? You really have no choice but to accept it as an alternative reality. This being a prime example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.The problem with the reboot was the complete lack of concern about the alternate timeline, once it was discovered. In every incarnation of Trek, whenever timelines are altered, they strive mightily to correct the situation. In this case, correcting it would only have saved billions of Vulcan lives. Are there no Federation Time Police in Kirk's century?
Star Wars OT (IV.V.VI) trump all. I refuse to acknowledge the first 3 as there was no Hon Solo.
I didn't have a choice about watching what Disney did to THE JUNGLE BOOK because I was a child and my whole family went to see it. That was my first experience of seeing a book I loved ruined (in my opinion) by the film version. Fortunately, no one could force me to watch what Jackson did to Tolkien, and after hearing the anguished comments of a Tolkien-loving friend, I don't want to know what the films were like and never will. My young nieces made a similar decision re the HARRY POTTER series. As for the millions of people who enjoyed all the films mentioned above, hip hooray and glad you had a good time. If someone doesn't like what I like, there's no reason I should care, and vice versa.
I think they're saving Leonard Nimoy for the closing titles of film three,"The Hobbit: A Necromancer Says What? (Am I Doing In This Movie)", since in the song he gives away most of the story - the -original- story. Or they may get that one guy from "Heroes" to perform it.
I also think Scott expected zero comments about the actual comic today!
Panel 2... So much yes!!!
@Telanis - No. Just no. I'm not sure what Sherlock Holmes you read, but we're talking about the one written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The one who was antisocial and bi-polar and plagued by severe ennui. Not the strangely dapper playboy Robert Downey JR seems to play all the time.
Anne: How can you judge a film when you haven't seen it, only taken someone else's word for it? Why not see it for yourself and then decide if its crap or not?
@Czernobog - Thank you. As for me, when I hear the words "creative reimagining," I reach for my pistol.
@stephen: I don't know, my main complaint with the new Star Wars movies is that they had some really terrible dialogue and bad acting, leading to unlikeable and unrealistic characters. Along with often incoherent structure. Each movie in the original trilogy basically had 3 main acts/locations (ANH: Tatooine, Death Star, Yavin/final battle. ESB: Hoth, Dagobah, Cloud City. ROJ: Tatooine, Endor, Death Star), while the new prequels zig-zag all over the place.
The other similarity that the early Star Wars and the early Star Trek have is that they're both founded on an idealistic worldview, while the more recent entries of both don't really seem to be about that.
Hang on, Joe Momma, it's TOTALLY possible to love the LotR films and still like Downton Abbey!
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.