The Official Forumshire Filmmakers Commentary Drinking Game: AUJ EE Edition

The Official Forumshire Filmmakers Commentary Drinking Game: AUJ EE Edition

(Warning: You may die from consumption if you attempt this drinking game.)

Take a drink when:

1. Someone says the word "appendices."
2. Someone makes a self-congratulatory comment.
3. Boyens corrects Jackson on something.
4. Someone starts grasping at straws.
5. Someone starts making up excuses/pointing fingers.
6. Jackson says "Shmowguh."
7. Boyens gushes over Azog.
8. Someone claims that what was in the book just wouldn't work on screen.
9. Boyens says something about feminine energy.
10. Someone gushes about the New Zealand landscape.

Feel free to add to this.

Damn were gonna be one drunk lot ain't we?  

how about...  11. computer generation and motion capture are more reliable and cost effective than practical effects

12. Every time someone compares AUJ to the LOTR films. Take two drinks if they say "this once in a lifetime experienced ended up happening twice."

  damn we really are gonna be drunk

13. Every time someone refers to the bonding among cast and crew.

halfwise wrote:13. Every time someone refers to the bonding among cast and crew.

That sounds like the part of the game where you vomit and go back to the start line  

14. Every time you wonder why in the name or Eru ANYONE felt that this movie needed to be longer.

Though I think we all understand the sentiment, the prompts to drink must be less than continuous. Must be external...especially if Petty plays. Maybe rewrite to say

14. Every time somebody mentions the need to add extra material that wasn't in the book, for any reason.

True, I did consider that a drop rather than a drink would be safer.

though I should have said "compulsion" rather than "need".  there was no need.

15. Every time someone talks about giving the dwarves distinctive identities so that they don't just blur together.

We'll be dead by Rivendell.

15.Everytime Boyens gives the impresssion she's the biggest and most knowledgeable Tolkien fan in the world only to be proven wrong.

16. Everytime they compare the book to Lord of the Rings book and try to defend the changes by the (apparently much much longer and more dramatic than I remember) 1960 Hobbit.

17. Everytime something in the commentary makes you agree with Christopher Tolkien's stance on further films.

I hope nobody minds but Ive preempted the likely things they will say and started drinking already    

I would post a cheeky comment about you being Scottish...but I'm tempted to join you, a month of solid drinking should help blot out the pain...scratch that can I just use the film as an ecuse to drink?

I would post a cheeky comment about you being Scottish- Malick

If you are implying all Scots are drunks, I dont see what is cheeky about that- we have the statistics to prove it!   

18. Anytime PJ starts gloating about shooting in 48 fps/ talks about his new equipment

19. Anytime you feel like throwing your shoes through the screen...best just remove them to be on the save side.

And petty we have the piles of vomit, loud mouthed idiots and cheap nasty clubs to prove that hampshire can more than match Scotland in terms of drunkeness.

Not that that's a badge of pride or anything

What do you mean its not a matter of pride?  

We have the vomit, our loud mouthed idiots are better though , they tend to have a good line in banter, you might get stabbed/glassed or bottled and robbed but at least you can be assured of many classic, witty remarks whilst it happens that, assuming you survive, will make for a good funny tale to tell years later once you are over the trauma.  

18. Everythime they try to justify 48fps by saying its the 'Next Big Thing'.

19. Everytime James Cameron says Jackson is 'very brave'.

20. Everytime female energy is mentioned.

21. Everytime they justify painting Mirkwood like Ronald Macdonalds knickers, because the new technology cant do normal natural colours so everything has to be Painted a shit shade of bright pink and dayglo green which still looks shit after post production.

malickfan wrote:16. Everytime they compare the book to Lord of the Rings book and try to defend the changes by the (apparently much much longer and more dramatic than I remember) 1960 Hobbit.

This will be the one that does me in. I had someone on another forum try to use this argument on me just the other day.

Eldorion wrote:

malickfan wrote:16. Everytime they compare the book to Lord of the Rings book and try to defend the changes by the (apparently much much longer and more dramatic than I remember) 1960 Hobbit.

This will be the one that does me in.  I had someone on another forum try to use this argument on me just the other day.

I often wonder who has ACTUALLY read The History Of The Hobbit...I mean if the changes were as dramatic as Jackson says:

Why did Tolkien misplace them so easily?
why has almost no one heard of them?
why did they go unpublished for 50 years-the 1960 hobbit is mentioned VERY briefly in HOME and The Annotated Hobbit but there is absolutely no idication of how dramatic the changes are
Why do the talking purse, multi coloured beard etc still feature prominently if this is an adult story set in middle earth?

Why didn't he use them more extensively in the 1966 rewrite (Given The Hobbit was more or less unknown in America at this point it would have been a great chance to do drastic changes),

why did he abandon it after 2 and a bit chapters, after recieving critisism from ONE unamed person (A woman incidently-she didn't seem so pissed off about the lack of female energy?)-he spent decades reworking portions of The Silmarillion on a whim, dosen't seem that serious in comparison.

Why was there no mention in his letters or official biography?

Why did Christopher Tolkien incorporate the changes into a later edition if they truly were the last word on The Hobbit?


You get the message I trust.

And I maintain that as it features in EVERY version of The Hobbit The Talking Purse is more faifthful to Tolkien's spirit then Tauriel.

Well he only read LotRs once in his late teens before deciding he was the man to make it into cinema, so I doubt he even bothered reading TH- I mean why should he when he has Tolkien expert Boyens at his side?  

Oh of course my mistake.

Would that be the same devoted fan and expert Phillipa Boyens who hasn't read The Silmarillion in 26 years because she's too scared she'll get upset at getting unobtainable ideas irrelevant to use in The Hobbit?

Funny that for such a devoted fan she didn't seem to read The Silmarillion in over a decade before she was hired as a screenwriter on LOTR.

Hmm, but she does have an academy award.