Old time TV shows

[Miss M]

"The Red Green Show"! I haven't seen that in ages... very funny stuff! :lol:

I agree, documentaries used to be much better.

 

[mystang89]

The "natural" good manners of Wally and the Beaver were more what parents were aiming at... and provided a good role model. I think that was one of the differences between "vintage" TV and modern shows. They modeled appropriate behaviour and (although not totally realistic) thereby helped to shape it. Not a bad thing.

Very true!

LoTR was a great trilogy, *though not as good as the books* and the hobbit has been good too. Wish they had just made that into a really long movie instead of 3 but I'm ok with it. Only reason I'm not liking the 3 is because that makes me have to wait.

Yes, they ripped all of Middle Earth right out of my head, I am sure of it! I read the books in the 80s. Everything in the movies looked just like I imagined it. You are right, though, they aren't as good as the books... but I think they did about as well as they could, without doing a miniseries. :lol:

I hesitate to bother with "The Hobbit". The reviews sound like they ruined it. Added all kinds of odd stuff that wasn't in the book and didn't really belong... a love triangle? Really? :?

And I could see making one long movie, or two 1.5 hour movies, but not three movies. Way too much. The book was not much larger than any one of the LoTR books!

Love triangle? I don't remember anything like that in the movie besides maybe a refering of Sam and the girl he likes. I've only seen one though so they might gave done something stupid with the second one.

 

[skysthelimit]

The best, imo, are the BBC period films. Not just the Jane Austin movies, but ones like North and South. I've been watching a lot of BBC production on the history of England. Seems too that quite a few of the peoriod pieces are "romanticized" notions of the actual atmosphere of the time, but they are still very interesting.

 

[Miss M]

Love triangle? I don't remember anything like that in the movie besides maybe a refering of Sam and the girl he likes. I've only seen one though so they might gave done something stupid with the second one.

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/evange ... affid=news

I don't know if you've read the book or the trilogy... but in the LOTR movies, they had enough of a time trying to distill the story down to the absolutely essential characters. There's no way you could have had people follow the movies, with all the characters from the books in there. So they removed some characters entirely, and assigned the actions of others to characters they kept. (Like Glorfindel -- he never appears in the movies, because he's hardly in the books... however, he does one very important thing: finds the Fellowship on their way to Rivendell, and sets Frodo on his horse to get him there quickly. They gave this to Arwen in the movies.)

In "The Hobbit", you never meet Legolas, nor do you meet any female elves. It is true that Legolas would have been a prince in the clan of elves in "The Hobbit", so I can easily see them bringing him into the story. There was no romance in the book, though, so the girl and the love triangle are completely added to the story.

You probably could keep all the characters from "The Hobbit" in the movie, but it could have made two movies, not three. The book is SHORTER than any of the trilogy books. But they made one movie each from the trilogy books, and they make three movies from a shorter book? That's a lot of added stuff! Has to be. :razz2:

 

[mystang89]

Well, if you think about the three books after The Hobbit, they made each of those books into a movie however they were able to do that because they took much of the stuff out in order to do that: people, events etc. What I'm "hoping" is that the reason they made The Hobbit into three movies is because they didn't reduce content nor add content but kept things in there, all the way from Beorn to the side story of that archer who shot the dragon. If they kept that stuff in I can see how they would be able to make 3 movies that were the length of normal movies.

That's my hope anyway.

 

[Miss M]

True... if that's what they did. I've just read so many reviews where people talked about so much stupid stuff having been added. Maybe I'll find it in a thrift store and see for myself. Don't know that I can stomach the love triangle, though ("Desolation of Smaug"). Gag.

 

[mystang89]

Yeah, they did such a good job on the first 3 movies. It's probably just me wishing and hoping they didn't do anything stupid like that. I watched the first of The Hobbit movies and I don't remember anything about it...which could mean that it wasn't good enough to remember like the other three or it could just mean that my memory is terrible...which is true.

 

[Galadriel]

We love the original trilogy (we're rewatching it right now; just waiting for the weekend for "Return of the King"!), and the "The Hobbit" book is wonderful. But I just don't know if I could stomach a love triangle either. That's just not what the book was about. It was a funny, scary, thrilling little story that did not have a love triangle in it and certainly did not have enough for another trilogy all it's own!

Can you tell I'm the type that sticks like glue to her books? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[mystang89]

We love the original trilogy (we're rewatching it right now; just waiting for the weekend for "Return of the King"!), and the "The Hobbit" book is wonderful. But I just don't know if I could stomach a love triangle either. That's just not what the book was about. It was a funny, scary, thrilling little story that did not have a love triangle in it and certainly did not have enough for another trilogy all it's own!

Can you tell I'm the type that sticks like glue to her books? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're absolutely right. Tolkien was a genius when it came to writing and he did an excellent job on it. I didn't really understand the Simarilian all that much but then again I was 12 and very immature when I tried to read through it. I don't really think that I would be very happy with a love triangle either. If I wanted something as mundane as that I would watch any other show out there since almost ALL of them have it. That was what was so great about the Lord of the Ring movies is that they didn't do anything like that. It was refreshing.

And as far as sticking to your books - that is a wonderful trait to have and I wouldn't give it up for the world.

 

[Galadriel]

Tolkien was a genius when it came to writing and he did an excellent job on it.

Absolutely.

And as far as sticking to your books - that is a wonderful trait to have and I wouldn't give it up for the world.

Sometimes it can be a little frustrating because if I see something that's really off I immediately think "That wasn't in the book!". But I like it that way, and besides, we have the director's cut of "The Lord of the Rings", so we have a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that explains why they changed what they did in the movies. I'm a little less annoyed with them now. :lol:

 

[Frosted Rabbits]

I actually wrote a short paper for a class in college that compared "Death of a Salesman" with "Leave It To Beaver!" I wasn't even permitted to watch "Mr. Ed" when I was growing up. Gene Roddenberry had "Star Trek " (which I didn't actually get to watch until it was in syndicated re-runs) act as a form of commentary on social and political issues, much the way M*A*S*H* was used a decade or so later.
ever notice, in those family based, black and white shows, father goes off to work, but one isn't really sure what father's job was? Sure, we knew what "Rob's" job was, and "Mr C' owned a hardware store. Lucille Ball was the first actress to really show her pregnancy on television. Others were only filmed from the diaphragm up once they started to 'show'
the innuendos were present in many of the shows- just not as crudely stated as they are now

I fund my thrill, on blueberry hill......