|
Post by tangent on Jan 5, 2013 1:29:25 GMT
How exactly do you use it? There's no seat
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jan 5, 2013 1:50:00 GMT
It's like a wallet, I think. Do you guys have wallets?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 5, 2013 2:13:20 GMT
It's like a wallet, I think. Do you guys have wallets? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jan 5, 2013 2:49:04 GMT
Yep, that's what we call a wallet too.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Jan 5, 2013 4:20:50 GMT
A pocketbook is a purse.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Jan 5, 2013 8:28:31 GMT
The way I picked up language, a wallet was the sort of thing a man would use (usually with no or little place for coins and small enough to fit in a pocket), while a woman would have a purse. In her handbag.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 5, 2013 8:54:22 GMT
The classic '50's stewardess purse-holding position: Maybe those are elbow-bags! I always thought of handbags based on size... What do you call the ones with a carry strap that also have a shoulder strap that you can attach?!? It's almost like there hasn't been an official definition made! As in all cases, people from England are correct when defining words in English!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 11:12:03 GMT
I never really got what a purse was supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jan 5, 2013 13:46:52 GMT
I have a wallet where I keep my money in my purse. And Alva, I've been speaking English since before you were born, so I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Jan 5, 2013 15:01:45 GMT
I have a wallet where I keep my money in my purse. Yes, this. ^
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Jan 5, 2013 15:03:08 GMT
What do you call the ones with a carry strap that also have a shoulder strap that you can attach?!? Purses.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 5, 2013 18:52:24 GMT
Isn't that also a handbag?
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 5, 2013 18:58:42 GMT
I looked up handbag on wiki and turns out the first luxery handbag as we know it today are on display in the handbag museum right here in Amsterdam. Gonna go check that out!
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Jan 5, 2013 20:01:53 GMT
Do they carry handbags or wallets in the Hobbit movie? My Franek wants to watch The Hobbit since he read the book and liked it. I am not so keen because it's going to be dubbed in Polish.
|
|
|
Post by Fr. Gruesome on Jan 6, 2013 12:45:57 GMT
It's what you and I would call a wallet.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 6, 2013 14:45:28 GMT
I keep my money in a wallet in my back pocket. No shoulder strap.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Jan 6, 2013 14:53:26 GMT
That's bad for your back. You should get a shoulder strap for that wallet.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jan 6, 2013 17:53:36 GMT
I rather think the shoulder strap would weigh more than the wallet
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 7, 2013 19:52:18 GMT
We went to the handbag museum yesterday. Was kinda funny. They had all sorts of bags. They even had a shop selling them and I picked up a very nice bag which I was showing off today at work.
|
|
|
Post by Fr. Gruesome on Jan 7, 2013 22:36:00 GMT
Bilbo starts off with a rather nice tooled leather back-pack in the film but looses it in the Goblin caverns. Shame.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Jan 15, 2013 20:26:51 GMT
I went to see the Hobbits (3D) with my boys today. I am most impressed by Gollum, his facial expressions are so funny. My 6 years old was afraid to watch the part though, he thought Gollum might hurt Bilbo. He didn't like the 3D stuff, me neither. I also found the movie too action packed; the scenes are made so sleek, it doesn't have any touch of a proper legend. But we will go see the 2nd part for sure
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Feb 24, 2013 18:40:53 GMT
I just watched it and I am Not Happy. It's Voyage of the Dawn Treader all over again with a story that isn't supposed to be there and other important parts that should be there, aren't. The Eagles are portrayed as being on Gandalf's beck and call, there is an orc king hunting the company that shouldn't be there, what the heck is Radaghast doing in there and wasn't the Demsterwold supposed to have grown into a dark wood over the past couple of decades? Moreover, almost all dwarves were supposed to have died at thehand(/breath) of the dragon but bnow there are enough to apparently go get into a massive fight in Moria right after. Feh!
|
|
|
Post by ming on May 8, 2013 14:05:44 GMT
I was slightly disappointed at the extended Azog story. I didn't mind the addition of Radagast the Brown or the White Council meeting, I thought it was nice to see Saruman playing a "nice" role. I certainly will see the second and the third parts but I am afraid that there will be many new additions but I'd rather have the Hobbit filmed with these additions than no Hobbit film at all. However, I think Peter Jackson should have left it as two films rather than making a trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on May 8, 2013 15:30:43 GMT
I still haven't seen it. But I'm sure I will eventually.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on May 8, 2013 17:57:02 GMT
I have seen a shelf of DVDs in a shop, but not actually decided to get it as yet.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on May 8, 2013 18:59:29 GMT
I saw it in the cinema, and I'm going to agree with: I hope nobody will hate me for saying this, but Frank and I watched the 3-D-version in England and we both loved it. We knew it wasn't going to be like the book so we were prepared for it being different and we really enjoyed it. although also: and some frankly ridiculous Indiana Jones style escaping-unhurt-on-collapsing-structures to have any credibility. Oh yes - that too. and also: The way I picked up language, a wallet was the sort of thing a man would use (usually with no or little place for coins and small enough to fit in a pocket), while a woman would have a purse. In her handbag.
|
|
deej
Hello
Posts: 32
|
Post by deej on May 12, 2013 21:57:28 GMT
The first film is okay (drags on a little) but I'm still wondering how they have managed to make three lengthy films out of a much shorter book than the LOTR trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jul 22, 2013 11:44:10 GMT
Finally saw it last night and pretty much agree with all the comments made for far.
1. The 48 frame thing makes it all too bright and too fake looking 2. The fight/chase scenes were in general ridiculous and not the slightest bit realistic 3. The pacing was a bit off 4. Too many villians, Smaug, Azog and Necromancer - they really did not need Azog. It would have saved a lot of minutes in the film that could have been put to better use. 5. I thought the prologue was way too long and if they didn't need to set up a villian for Thorin in the shape of Azog it could have been cut a lot shorter. 6. I did enjoy the scenes in the Shire but felt it was a bit too long and time could have been put to better use elsewhere
The highlight for me was the Bilbo/Gollum scene which was brilliant. Funny, scary and true to the spirit of the book.
My major dislike was the line Gandalf says to Bilbo when he tells him that it is sometimes more important to know when to not use your sword. It felt like such a set up for when Bilbo takes pity on Gollum and doesn't kill him that I fully expected Bilbo would be hearing Gandalf's voice telling him that as he was looking at Gollum. Thankfully they didn't stoop to that but it did rather ruin that scene for me as I was waiting for it. The pity of Bilbo saved them all, and it wasn't because Gandalf told him to do it.
I actually did not mind Rhadagast or the rabbits and thought the rabbits were well done. Agree with Fr G that the thumping rabbit was delightful. I didn't even mind the white council scenes as it happens during that period though out of the book and at least adds to the story and connects it with LOTR. But it was paced oddly. I thought Elrond was much better here than in LOTR too. It was a shame they didn't show Bilbo connecting at all with Rivendell as I don't understand why he would want to go back there now.
Overall I enjoyed it but didn't feel it held to the spirit of the book which is very much a children's tale and visually it was really let down with that 48 framing thing.
|
|