01-02-2002 20:12									#1
	How would you rate civ III and Lord of the Rings Movie Got spare money?

Just testing out a theory...

	01-02-2002 20:20									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

My own theory is that this thread will find itself in Apolyton Community p.d.q.

	01-02-2002 21:30									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

These polls are becoming wierd...

	01-02-2002 21:52									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

any theories on why settlers never include a banana option?

civ3 = not finished
LotR = not yet viewed

	01-02-2002 22:02									#5
	Sufficiently Buried theory... Increase the size of your Attachments

Sorry, to many college physics under my belt to post the theory before taking the observations.

The theory, that is pretty quickly being disabused was that all the gripefests showing up here on the forum were stemming from a biased population and that the bias would be against 'ANYTHING' that was not the original.

One note: This poll is resulting in much higher approval ratings for CIVIII than any of the polls I've seen spawned in the last couple days...

The secret to understanding the settler is realizing that there is no banana. Then you realize that it is not the banana that bends, but yourself...

	01-02-2002 22:18									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think the options are too restrictive ... I figured what you were up to, but thought it rude to comment before you did, so ...

Because of this, I voted for game good, movie bad, even though I thought the movie was good, it just wasn't in the spirit of LOTR. If there never had been the book version then I'd probably appreciate it much more. The left some important stuff out, and added some useless stuff in, and totally changed the story.

Which is exactly the opposite of how I feel about civ 3, where I think they've made improvements from civ 2 and picked the right stuff to add in and leave out.

It's all just opinion and personal taste.

	01-02-2002 23:49									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I agree with you, OneInTen (about the movie). I really don't understand what makes a screenplay writer whose most important work is "Meet the feebles" think he has anything to add to a story that has sold millions and millions of copies.

Naturally it's impossible to fit the whole book into a film (even if it's 3 hours long) but changing so many other things for no apparent reason is stupid. Even those who've never read the book would probably appreciate the true original story more.

	02-02-2002 02:45									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by OneInTen The left some important stuff out, and added some useless stuff in, and totally changed the story.

God yeah. I hated the way they totally changed the story. Like, Frodo wasn't a human kid with a lightning bolt scar. And it was Gandalf not Dumbledore. And where did that school come from?

Ripoff, man, ripoff. You know, granted that they had limited time to tell the story, at least they could have had the beginning in the Shire. And the bit with the ringwraith on the road was key, no way it should have been scrapped. The axing of Bombadil is no biggy - but replacing him with that "giant" that never quite looked big enough? Bleach. Weathertop, Moria, Galadriel and the big separation scene - all key and all gone.

Wait a minute - I'm thinking about the wrong movie! D'oh. I guess the agonizingly inane hyperbole of the "totally changed" comment threw me. My bad.

	02-02-2002 02:53									#9
	Re: Sufficiently Buried theory... Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ShuShu One note: This poll is resulting in much higher approval ratings for CIVIII than any of the polls I've seen spawned in the last couple days...

Do you mean the polls of the civ3 whiners....errr....general forum?

	05-02-2002 03:40									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

ok now, be honest, how many of you went to the movie and were disappointed there was no mention of Harlen Thomson's scenario?

	07-02-2002 16:24									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Game: Very Good

loft: Haven't seen the movie, but the general idea/story is very BAD.

	07-02-2002 16:56									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I read The Hobbit, and couldn't bring myself to read the trilogy. (I just can't stand all the little happy people singing all the time.) So I saw the movie as a movie, and not as a (poorly executed) adaptation of the book(s). I liked the film. The special effects were pretty good, as was the acting.

I wish I could say the same about Civ 3. Unfortunately it isn't as good as Civ 2 in many ways, and it pales in comparison to SMAC. There were some good ideas, but they were poorly implemented much of the time. The biggest design flaw was setting the player on such a narrow track that there are really no significant strategic choices to make. This may help the AI, but it's also dull as hell. Since I can still beat the AI it's hard to see this as a useful tradeoff. Thinking that perhaps I just wasn't in a mood to play games I fired up SMAC again. What a difference! Civ 3 blows, and no longer resides on my hard drive. I replaced it with EU2, which kicks it's butt IMO.

	07-02-2002 17:37									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The movie needed a scenario editor.

	07-02-2002 17:45									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I know this is a big cliche along movies based on books, but still:
The storyline was replaced by too much action in movie

	07-02-2002 19:31									#15
	Increase Your PM Length

The movie is better than the book but it still sucks. The game... I don't mind, but my fav thing about Civ2 was the editing tools...

	08-02-2002 01:34									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The movie was overhyped, which was a big mistake. If you've read the trilogy, you're bound to feel disappointed to some degree. I know I was, but I still found bits in the movie to enjoy.

It's pretty much the same situation with most adaptations. Contact is a pretty good example; people who'd read the book and then seen the film were disappointed. Since I'd never read the book, I could enjoy the film as a film, and I thought it was pretty good.

	08-02-2002 01:50									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Paul Hanson The movie was overhyped, which was a big mistake.

Big mistake in terms of what? I think they've already made a profit, overcoming the expenses for all 3 movies, with the DVDs not even out yet and 2 more films still to be released.

quote: If you've read the trilogy, you're bound to feel disappointed to some degree. I know I was, but I still found bits in the movie to enjoy.

Not necessarily. What if you were mostly bored with the book, like I was?

I loved the movie, because they took out all of the boring crap. 75-80% of enjoyment was also because of the high production values and gorgeous cinematography. This is just my opinion, of course, and Tolkien fans would strongly disagree.

My sister got the book as a gift, and I told her not to read it because it was really boring. My other sister agreed, and said The Hobbit was a lot better. I read the Hobbit such a long time ago, that I don't really remember what I thought of it. Of course, if I don't remember, I guess I must not have liked it that much, either, although I probably didn't dislike it as much, as well.

And I do like fantasy, and there are some fantasy novels I have enjoyed. Just not Tolkien, with his long-winded, drawn out, dry writing style.

And another example is Dune, which was undoubtedly a bad interpretation, but I still liked the movie a lot anyway (the David Lynch version, I haven't seen the Sci-Fi channel version). And this was based on one of my favorite novels. I can't see why people can't separate a book from a movie. It's impossible to make a faithful adaptation of Fellowship unless the movie were 10 hours long. And they would make no money on such a venture, unless it was mini-series which would vastly decrease the movie's budget.

I doubt they would spend 90+ million dollars producing a mini-series. I would rather have the money spent on the 3 hour film that was actually released.

	08-02-2002 02:45									#18
	Tired of ads?

The dune mini-series was well......ok. Having the luxury of time, it's a bit more loyal to the book, but the acting was too over the top, the various sets a little to cheesy and minimal, and it was shot in some god-awful primary color tone. Then again, I thought Lynch's adaptation was damn near perfect visually, but mangled the book so badly as to render the plot unrecognizable. my .02$ anyway.

Lord of the Rings- surprisingly good, saw it three times

Civ 3 back to the drawing room, boys.

	08-02-2002 03:43									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I thought that the LOTR movie was well done. I loved the books, but I sure wouldn't want to see every single detail from the books in the movie; my ass fell asleep as it was. They really emphasized the swords and splosions, and for that I thank them. Was it accurate to the books? Sure, more or less.

Haven't bought Civ III and do not intend to.

	08-02-2002 04:14									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The book (or books) is, as anyone with an ounce of literary sense would know, a masterpiece. With some very few exceptions the fantasy-genre that followed in its wake is nowhere near its standard, and it's really sad that Tolkien's work should be associated with these.

The movie did its best to make money on those who had not read the book. Quite disappointing screenplay-writing. The casting was done well though, no complaints there, and the stunning visuals clearly made it worth the trip.

	08-02-2002 04:27									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by copcartman The book (or books) is, as anyone with an ounce of literary sense would know, a masterpiece. With some very few exceptions the fantasy-genre that followed in its wake is nowhere near its standard, and it's really sad that Tolkien's work should be associated with these.

Wow, you take fantasy too seriously. To me, it's not literature in the "literary" sense, it's *fantasy*. Literature is about the human condition, our flaws, our weaknesses, and our relationships with others, be it friendly or romantic.

I read fantasy or sci-fi for escapist entertainment.

For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc. And I don't go around telling people who haven't read them or don't like them that they have no "literary" sense. It's elitist and pretentious.

	08-02-2002 04:32									#22
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Pembleton For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc. And I don't go around telling people who haven't read them or don't like them that they have no "literary" sense. It's elitist and pretentious.

Well said.

	08-02-2002 06:18									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Pembleton Wow, you take fantasy too seriously. To me, it's not literature in the "literary" sense, it's *fantasy*. Literature is about the human condition, our flaws, our weaknesses, and our relationships with others, be it friendly or romantic. I read fantasy or sci-fi for escapist entertainment. For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc. And I don't go around telling people who haven't read them or don't like them that they have no "literary" sense. It's elitist and pretentious.

Well, I don't take fantasy too serious, since I don't really like most books in that genre. As I hinted to earlier, I don't put Tolkien's books in that category. Be it elitistic or not, some intellectual or artistic works are masterpieces, and if a person don't captures that it's probably not due to the book, but the reader. I don't claim to get the essence of every good book i read, but I still (most of the time) can tell the difference between those that are universally bad books and those that are simply inaccessible to me.

	09-02-2002 00:44									#24
	Define "deep" Put an end to popups!

quote: For "deep" reading I go for Dostoevsky, Kundera, Kafka, Nietzsche, Kierkeggaard, Lawrence, Dickens, etc., etc.

Deep sleep?

Deep obfuscation (have you actually read Kierkegaard?)?

Deep depression?



Dickens was a columnist for USA today, Shakespeare wrote screenplays for Hollywood, and Bach was doing the mixing for Britany Spears.

I would venture to say that more scholarly research went into the work of Tolkein than most of the people on your list.

I'ld love to know love because loving love leads to understanding love my love, but its all just a lovely fantasy. --- Son of Kierkegaard

God is a fantasy, so god is dead is also a fantasy. --- Ubermensch

Please sir, can I be a hobbit instead of an orphan? --- Oliver Twist.

All of your authors wrote works of fantasy, err sorry, fiction, err philosophy. Tolkein's portrayal of the England of his time is every bit as insightful as Dickens's portrayal of his.

I consider the elevation of dusty dead guys over popular contemporaries rather elitest but heck, what do I know...

copcartman didn't say you had to LIKE the books if you had any literary sense just acknowledge that they are masterpieces. I believe the same applies to your guys.

PS: I happen to disagree with his conclusion. Since adaptations of masterpieces by hollywood has proven to be a nigh on impossible task, the success Peter Jackson had in his efforts was nothing short of a miacle...

	09-02-2002 01:29									#25
	Re: Define "deep" Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by ShuShu Deep sleep? Deep obfuscation (have you actually read Kierkegaard?)? Deep depression?

Your opinion. Just because you condemn my opinions, doesn't mean I'm going to condemn yours.

One notable trait that most of the writers share is tolerance of all people, something that you might want to learn more of.

	09-02-2002 01:33									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I voted bad game, good movie.

The civ2-savvys in civ2-strategy seem to not like the game either. I think the graphics are bad and there are no wonder videos! And you have those cute little scrolls that all new adventure games have. It's like a fashion thing I think. It will die out hopefully.

	11-02-2002 21:10									#27
	Unkept promises... Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Just because you condemn my opinions, doesn't mean I'm going to condemn yours.

seems like you just said 'I am lieing'.

quote: tolerance of all people, something that you might want to learn more of

oops... sorry... my mistake, you weren't going to condemn my opinions, just me...

I came not to condemn Pembleton but to bury him... err, that didn't come off right.

You are absolutely right. Implying Kierkeggaard could have been a touch more succint, and that cheerful is not a term often used to describe the works of Nietzsche... (err Dostoevsky, err Kafka, err Dickens) was clearly beyond the pail.

It was that sleep thing wasn't it? The fact that I am more inclined to loose sleep over imaginative renditions of good vs. evil instead of contemplating the existential raison d'tre (or something like that) is clearly something that only shallow people such as myself do.

You caught me, I live to condemn. Instead of jugemental statements like

quote: ... didn't say you had to LIKE the books if you had any literary sense just acknowledge that they are masterpieces.

I should stick to words with a slightly more neutral connotation. Say...

quote: condemn

or

quote: deep

or

quote: you take fantasy too seriously

or

quote: escapist

or

quote: elitist and pretentious

Hey wait a second, I used the word elitest! How come I didn't get any credit for that?

quote: I consider the elevation of dusty dead guys over popular contemporaries rather elitest but heck, what do I know...

Must have been that smiley after the 'what do I know'. I am sorry Pembleton, I meant no offense with my wanton use of a . I have seen the light, and shall endeavor to be as accepting as possible and follow the shining path you have shown.

Yours in repentance,
ShuShu

	11-02-2002 21:46									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Scholarship comes to nothing if you've got a basic inability to write stylishly and consistently. Tolkien drifts off into pages and pages of sense-numbing, adjectiveless description, loses the sense of story frequently, writes soulless, stilted poetry for row upon row upon row, has no sense of the english language or narrative pace and is generally a bad writer. And that's all that counts- no haughty world-building or self-indulgent archetype-building in the world is going to save a badly written book. In fact, any book with that sort of thing baked in is generally awful- as far as I'm concerned it just gets in the way of the story. Oh well, back to Robert E Howard, I suppose...

	11-02-2002 21:58									#29
	Re: Unkept promises... Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by ShuShu seems like you just said 'I am lieing'. oops... sorry... my mistake, you weren't going to condemn my opinions, just me... I came not to condemn Pembleton but to bury him... err, that didn't come off right. You are absolutely right. Implying Kierkeggaard could have been a touch more succint, and that cheerful is not a term often used to describe the works of Nietzsche... (err Dostoevsky, err Kafka, err Dickens) was clearly beyond the pail. It was that sleep thing wasn't it? The fact that I am more inclined to loose sleep over imaginative renditions of good vs. evil instead of contemplating the existential raison d'tre (or something like that) is clearly something that only shallow people such as myself do.

There must have been a grave misunderstanding somewhere here. I never meant to imply anyone was shallow. If I did give that impression, I apologize. No need to get so upset about something I never meant to be offensive, just defensive.

If anyone wants to argue that Tolkien is more literary, that's fine by me. I will no longer raise an objection. My mistake.

	11-02-2002 22:10									#30
	Poor Kierkeggaard... Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

... I'ld imagine he's not on your top ten list...

quote: it just gets in the way of the story

say, did I see news editor in your title?

quote: any book with that sort of thing baked in is generally awful

My wife couldn't get into the books either. I do believe that a distinction should be made between big G and little g great books. I think Great books are generally difficult reads because they are meant to be (baked in?). I think great books are generally easy reads because they are meant to be. The world would be a lesser place without either, they both should be read, and, err I think I am agreeing with you, the big G's are not supreior to the little g's.

quote: no sense of the english language

What's your take on his sense of the elvish language? Maybe the problem was just with the translation...

quote: Robert E Howard

I'm afraid I do not know him. Is he a big G or little g guy?