NOW WATCHING

So I just talked to my dad, and he asked me if he would like Game of Thrones. I told him that I'm not so sure. He said that he's not into series, but he enjoyed House of Cards. But that he knows Game of Thrones is more like Lord of the Rings. To which I replied that I'm not so sure about that. Any opinions?
 
Perun said:
But that he knows Game of Thrones is more like Lord of the Rings. To which I replied that I'm not so sure about that. Any opinions?
Click to expand...
They are similar in the same way that Iron Maiden and Metallica are similar, but very different if you know about both.
 
Perun said:
So I just talked to my dad, and he asked me if he would like Game of Thrones. I told him that I'm not so sure. He said that he's not into series, but he enjoyed House of Cards. But that he knows Game of Thrones is more like Lord of the Rings. To which I replied that I'm not so sure about that. Any opinions?
Click to expand...

You can view GOT as a response to LOTR. George R.R Martin has gone on the record to say that he LOVES LOTR, but always wondered what Aragon's economic policies would be. That in the end it is still a Fantasy as it doesn't have a "real" economy. So he wrote GOT for two reasons. The first, he was sick of hollywood limiting his scripts or constantly changing them, therefore he set out to write an epic SO epic it would be unfilmable. Second, like I stated, LOTR with a viable economy and international relations.

To be fair LOTR was originally marked to children, who I doubt are interested in free-market neo-capitalism and how the dirty socialist are out to take your stuff.
 
Well, I don't know what you meant by "marked"; but it was neither marketed (it this what you meant?) or written for children, regardless of your personal opinion of it. That's all I'm saying.
 
Been watching two classic 80s horror movies lately. Both on Netflix.

The Thing from 1982, and the campy vampire goodness of Fright Night from 1985.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Well, I don't know what you meant by "marked"; but it was neither marketed (it this what you meant?) or written for children, regardless of your personal opinion of it. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Indeed it was "marketed." typo. I'd hazard a guess most people, specially the ones on this board read those books in middle school/high school. Like Jurassic Park and Congo. Marketed to children or not. They're not exactly "difficult" books, like Chronicles of Narnia. That's what I meant. The original Star Wars wasn't meant for kids either, at least not the first two films. Return of the Jedi is heavily criticized for being more "kid friendly." Yet at any rate I saw and fell in love with them when I was like 6. They've held up through time, but it doesn't mean they didn't hold some appeal to a younger audience.

Since The Hobbit was a children's book, I'm sure those who grew up with it loved TLOFTR that much for it, specially since they were still kids. That adults can read them too doesn't negate that... like Harry Potter. How many adults love those books and read them as adults, not kids? I recently bought the 4th and final book in The Giver series, Son. I read all The Giver Books as an adult, but clearly remember the "advanced" readers club in sixth grade read it.

In short, I agree with you that the original marketing may not have been children, but I still say its main audience still ended up being just that, intended or not.

Since this is the now WATCHING thread however, I guess I'll note that I just watched the Halloween sequel. I enjoyed it, but far from loved it. I liked the nods to the original, as well as other minor details. Since we are supposed to already be familiar with the characters and story I forgave it's quick pace, but would have enjoyed a slightly slower burn. Like many here, I liked that Michael went back to his "pure evil" self, but the killing everything in sight bothered me. Part of the allure of the original is that he had specific targets and was more of a cat and mouse game than a kill them all bonanza. At any rate, good shtuff.
 
^ I understand your reasoning, but I'm not convinced it played out like that in 1954. The correspondence that Tolkien received at the time (late 50's) was predominantly from adult readers. Sure, there were young fans, but that was probably more in the ascendency in the late-60's & early-70's when Tolkien really took off in the US i.e. the paperback boom making it affordable (vs. three hardback books). Again, this still wasn't a child-readership; this was mostly college-aged students. I'm not really disputing that "young people" read & still read LotRs; I'm just saying nobody would really categorise them as children. That's The Hobbit. And, opinions aside, it certainly wasn't ever marketed for children at the time; which is what you originally said... :innocent:
 
Definitely the goriest special effects of 1982. It lost out in the special effects awards to E.T. that was released the same year. Fright Night is not bad in the speciel effects department either, done by the same guy who did the visual effects for the Star Wars movies.
 
SixesAlltheway said:
Been watching two classic 80s horror movies lately. Both on Netflix.

The Thing from 1982, and the campy vampire goodness of Fright Night from 1985.
Click to expand...
80s Fright Night was surprisingly excellent. A cross between Hammer and 80s teen movie, but very well made. I remain convinced that the charming if slightly tragic bad guy is a much preferable character than the irritating brat of a hero. :D
 
Brigantium said:
80s Fright Night was surprisingly excellent. A cross between Hammer and 80s teen movie, but very well made. I remain convinced that the charming if slightly tragic bad guy is a much preferable character than the irritating brat of a hero. :D
Click to expand...

Hehe yes definitely :D The director Tom Holland uses the actor that plays Dandrige again in another very famous horror movie of the 80s, Child's Play, in which he plays the detective that's after Chucky :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top