Which voice would you choose?

[Jono]

One of the guests from boomerang or whatever it was called.

 

[byeo]

I've always been fond of Tom Hanks' accent for some reason.

Plainly patrick stewart, or sean bean

I've met the odd person before who have mentioned how I sound like him which I guess I do as I'm from Sheffield like Sean, but never "got" why people like his voice so much. It's just a common Sheffield accent really.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Instead of asking for your comments to be moved to a new thread why not start your own and stop derailing this one?

Coz I can't copy & paste other peoples' posts.

never "got" why people like his voice so much. It's just a common Sheffield accent really.

The voice itself is pretty calm and relaxing, I think.
The accent is more subjective, but I think he has the benefit of all the 'girly hearthrob' roles behind him, like Sharpe and Mellors.

That said, Richard Coyle is a Sheffield lad and his voice is along the same lines. Doesn't matter what accent he's using.

 

[Bubo]

Scatman Crothers, otherwise known as Hong Kong Phooey. Or maybe Marvin Kaplan (Choo Choo in Top Cat)

 

[Surfer]

And he continues with it despite knowing it won't work.
He is an idiot.

No he doesn't actually continue with it. He comes to his senses after Frodo runs off. Did you not see the film?

We only have one elf and one dwarf. We already have Aragorn, for humans. We don't need two, especially one who has trouble controlling himself. Boromir is surplus to requirements.

subjective twaddle. Does Aragorn hold any official position within the kingdom of men? Now you would be right if at that point Aragorn had pressed his claim to the throne of Gondor / revealed his lineage. However at this point in the film he has not. It becomes known yes but that is different from him officially representing them.

If it wasnt for Boromir's susceptability to the ring Frodo perhaps would not have left the company and one by one they would all fall to it (Galadriel's own words) (more later on this)

Irrelevant waffle. Doesn't matter what he wanted. It's what he did that counts and that was to threaten the integrity of the Fellowship.
From the very outset he was an arrogant arse. That's more likely why the party aren't exactly best buds with him. They're having to watch their backs twice, once for Sauron and once for Boromir.

Firstly intentions do make a difference. From your dismissal of the importance of intentions in acts i assume you have a utilitarian mindset. But i also think you are probably trolling me now with that statement dismissing the intentions of persons; they are unimportant etc.

Secondly oh right so you have evidence where Boromir is thinking about attacking the other members of the fellowship? You seem to be implying that "they're having to watch their backs" ? From the films mind you.

Let me answer for you...no you don't but hey don't let facts get in the way of you trying to hold together a threadbare argument.

But the way he is portrayed in the film is taken from and dictated by the books. You cannot comment on the films without knowing the books and why they portrayed him thus.

Absolute garbage. But again that was not my point. You completely ignore my argument and rant about the books again.

Plus the way you specifically mentioned "the films" suggested you were happy with how he is in the books and thus already comparing them. Do you not see that?

Hilarious. Oh go on show me the rationality behind that lol. I mention specifically the films but in your eyes that automatically means "oh that includes the books as well" hahaha... wow really?

The explanation for what you're arguing is in the book, though. The films don't have time to cover it.
Without that understanding, your argument is meaningless.

And here we come to the crunch of the matter. At least you are conceding that the film does not represent Boromir well (hence why you are saying look to the books for a fuller understanding of Boromir and the things he does

However, a comparison of Boromir from the film and the books was not my argument at all......i am very much aware you get a greater understanding of Boromir from the books........

You would know this if you could read (my previous posts)

It's a film of the book. That's what dictated Bean's portrayal. How do you not understand this?

Oh no i understand that you are saying that films of books cannot be viewed and stand in their own right without reading the books to understand the "story". Utter hogwash. You do realize that every time someone mentions a criticism of anything you can just say "oh its explained in the book" as if that will sweep away all failings of a film. Its a very very weak position. Bordering on ludicrous to be honest.

What is more laughable is that i have already said it is not relevant what the books say because i'm not arguing anything to do with them. I'm arguing how Boromir is portrayed in the films. That has nothing to do with the books.

It's stated quite clearly in The Silmarillion - Celebrimbor forged the Three Rings alone. Sauron had no hand in those.

No idea why you bring this irrelevant stuff up. Now you seem to be trying to say that the one ring doesn't have dominion or influence over the other rings forged....

Actually it's debatable as to whether those are Nenya's powers (preservation, protection, and concealment from evil), or Galadriel's own merely channelled through her ring. Her ring does not have any destructive powers.

Well its pretty obvious to anyone who has eyes she uses the ring to banish Sauron. You can twitter on about it not having destructive qualities etc etc till the cows come home if you like. But that she actually uses it is not open to question if you use common sense.

Again, how right you are.......
From the film:
"Galadriel: This is Nenya, the Ring of Adamant. And I am it's keeper. This task was appointed to you, and if you do not find a way, no one will"

See above. We have already cleared up Galadriel using the ring to help her banish Sauron. That is very clear from the way it is portrayed in The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies.

I am well aware this is different from what happens in the books (artistic licence of Jackson) but we arent talking about the books.... but lol even in the books she uses the ring to help make her land prosperous. This is obvious stuff that you are too blind to admit to.

Err.... ****, yes, I'm disputing that!!!
You saw for yourself, Galadriel, Aragorn, Gandalf - None of them fell to it. Neither did Legless or Gimli, or any of the other Hobbits. Only Boromir fell to it.

Actually both Hobbits fell to it later. You seem to have problems adding 2 + 2 to get to 4 ttaskmaster. Galadriel has already confirmed that they would all fall to it. So that is moot. As i have said Boromir basically falls first to it because he is the weakest (as i explained). But that does not mean that the rest of them are immune to it. Boromir is just exposed to it more.

The ring is tempting everyone all the time.

Show me in the Fellowship of the Ring film how many times the Ring directly tries to influence the others. How many times. Does it attack Boromir more times? Of course it does. Unless you have evidence from the film that shows otherwise?

Err... he does do that.

liar liar

Well, he tries, anyway. Frodo escaped, but Boromir was fully gone, at that point.

Ahh haha... yeah walk it back...troll lol

Curiously Boromir's role was actually pivotol to Frodo's success. If he had not tried to take it "forcing" Frodo to leave the company (to save the company though...because Frodo realizes unlike you that the rest of the company would fall to the ring if he stayed) and is ultimately successful in his mission.

Actually, you are proving my point.
The films cannot show everything that the books do, nor spoonfeed everything to the same level of detail that the books do. The running time would be months instead of hours. Therefore they cut things down to only the main plot essentials.Do you understand this?

One extra scene showing Boromir receiving a gift and being spoken to as a person... (just like the others do)does not equate with adding hours and hours to the film. However this does not suit the director of the film and the image he wishes to present of Boromir.

Do you understand that?

Your logic is seriously questionable on that front.
Boromir is a book character. Any film that portrays him has to adhere to that book, or it's not actually Boromir. His portrayal is defined by the book.

But even if you want to ignore the book - How he is in the film is how he's supposed to be. You have nothing else to compare him to and the picture they paint is perfect, because that's how they wrote him.

My only argument (which you willfully ignore time and again) is he was treated unjustly by most of the other characters in the fellowship and others (Galadriel etc)

Its a very biased and flawed picture of Boromir because the director is hammering home to the audience that he is the one who is evil or flawed and he will break first. I agree that Boromir is weak and not the brightest spark. However his intentions are noble and he is a decent human being. I don't think it was necessary for Jackson to have the rest of the company treat him with such disdain and dishonour.

Yeah, we get that you're not into reading, which appears to be what gave rise to yoru whole argument in the first place and still has absolutely nothing to do with my original remark anyway....

You have eyes but you still cannot see.

Given that i was the one who made the original proposition that you had issues with yes it has nothing to do with your remarks because you cannot read someone elses post and respond to its points accurately and succinctly. Instead you prefer to go on a lotr ramble from the books. That is your agenda and to be honest you are the one who has derailed this because you are the one who constantly did not address my points. I think you did this willfully unless you are very young and did not know any better. (probable)

Please do not reply to this post if you are just going to re-gurgitate your own agenda from the books.

Also be aware that you have painted yourself into a corner here...pretty much everyone can now say to you whenever you are at odds with what they say...its in the book ttaskmaster..go read it. Your "MacGuffin" is your own undoing.


p.s. just recently back from hospital hence why the late reply.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

James Earl Jones.

 

[adam cool dude]

James Earl Jones.

What just going to post the same thing myself! Also a thumbs up to Sean Bean who has a great common accent!

 

[James82]

A voice for myself? Well my voice obviously (I'm a scouser and wouldn't change it for anything).

Any voice if I could? Probably Patrick Stewart.

 

[ttaskmaster]

No he doesn't actually continue with it. He comes to his senses after Frodo runs off. Did you not see the film?

So?
My assertion is that he knows it won't work from the moment he is thus told, and continues with it right up to the point where the ring is now beyond him. He does not stop, he does not come to his senses, he gets worse and worse.
After Frodo has left, it is no longer possible for him to get the ring, so as irrelevant as your remark.

subjective twaddle. Does Aragorn hold any official position within the kingdom of men?

Does Gimli?
Does Frodo?
Do all of them have to be kings?
Even Legless is not a king...

Now you would be right if at that point Aragorn had pressed his claim to the throne of Gondor / revealed his lineage. However at this point in the film he has not. It becomes known yes but that is different from him officially representing them.

He is already known to be a king and Gondor has nothing to do with it.
Moreover, he is quite clearly a Man. We have one Elf and one Dwarf. We do not need two Men.

If it wasnt for Boromir's susceptability to the ring Frodo perhaps would not have left the company and one by one they would all fall to it (Galadriel's own words) (more later on this)

Absolutely right!!!!!
So who at the Council of Elrond can see the future and know that Boromir is essential, hmm? Anyone?
No?
Then why take a stupidly dangerous third wheel along? It is retarded.

Firstly intentions do make a difference.

The goal is to destroy the ring. Everyone except Boromir agrees.
It doesn't matter what his intentions are, they can never see the light of day because the ring will corrupt him and it will **** everyone over in the process.
Intentions are irrelevant.

But i also think you are probably trolling me now with that statement dismissing the intentions of persons; they are unimportant etc.

Actually I'm trolling you at the same time - I made a passing remark about Sean Bean's accent slipping, and you've taken that as an excuse to go on a massive personal wibble defending your Boromir. It's pretty laughable, really.

Secondly oh right so you have evidence where Boromir is thinking about attacking the other members of the fellowship? You seem to be implying that "they're having to watch their backs" ? From the films mind you.

Basic common sense - Every one of them is set on protecting Frodo. Anyone who wants the ring will have to go through them. That means they have to watch their backs, because their backs are what protects Frodo.

Let me answer for you...no you don't but hey don't let facts get in the way of you trying to hold together a threadbare argument.

Well that does seem to be the way you're approaching this... Not interested in understanding what you're arguing and the reasons behind, just bleating on what you think is happening in your very limited scope.

Absolute garbage. But again that was not my point. You completely ignore my argument and rant about the books again.

So this is not a film based on a book, then?
Or are you only saying that because you haven't read the books at all and so have no argument?

Hilarious. Oh go on show me the rationality behind that lol. I mention specifically the films but in your eyes that automatically means "oh that includes the books as well" hahaha... wow really?

He's a ******* character in a book. They made a film of the book. That means the film character has to follow the one in the book, or it's not accurate.
If you cannot see this very fundamental fact, you're just a wibbling fool.

And here we come to the crunch of the matter. At least you are conceding that the film does not represent Boromir well (hence why you are saying look to the books for a fuller understanding of Boromir and the things he does

Err... I concede nothing.
The films do a fantastic job. The reason I know this is precisely because I have read the books. You cannot tell me what Boromir is supposed to be, because you don't know. You haven't read the books and so do not know why he is like that. If you had, you'd understand.
But if you want to take that as a complete personal victory for you and your Boromir, then whatever. It's not like you're actually paying attention.

and so underYou would know this if you could read (my previous posts)

No, the only part I don't understand is how you think you can argue something that you admit you don't understand in the first place.

Oh no i understand that you are saying that films of books cannot be viewed and stand in their own right without reading the books to understand the "story".

No you don't and no, I'm really not. Another strawman argument.
The story is perfectly understandable as is. The detail of why it happens like that is what cannot be shown, including the long and detailed reasons for Boromir's character.

What is more laughable is that i have already said it is not relevant what the books say because i'm not arguing anything to do with them. I'm arguing how Boromir is portrayed in the films. That has nothing to do with the books.

Yeah, OK, whatever. I suppose you'd argue that a painting looks nothing like the subject, without having ever seen the subject too?

No idea why you bring this irrelevant stuff up. Now you seem to be trying to say that the one ring doesn't have dominion or influence over the other rings forged....

Err... Because it doesn't, in the case of the Three?

Well its pretty obvious to anyone who has eyes she uses the ring to banish Sauron. You can twitter on about it not having destructive qualities etc etc till the cows come home if you like. But that she actually uses it is not open to question if you use common sense.

Even if she did, which many Tolkien scholars far more learned than you still debate, that doesn't mean the mortal Boromir should be given the One Ring for the defence of Gondor, no matter what his intentions were.

Actually both Hobbits fell to it later. You seem to have problems adding 2 + 2 to get to 4 ttaskmaster.

Ah, so Sauron got the ring in the end, did he? Sam gave it up, did he?
Nope?
Oh well.

liar liar

Oh, so he does NOT pin Frodo to the floor and try to take the ring to Gondor, then?

Ahh haha... yeah walk it back...troll lol

You seem not to know when you're actually being trolled... But whatever makes you happy, I suppose.

Curiously Boromir's role was actually pivotol to Frodo's success. If he had not tried to take it "forcing" Frodo to leave the company (to save the company though...because Frodo realizes unlike you that the rest of the company would fall to the ring if he stayed) and is ultimately successful in his mission.

Irrelevant.
Boromir was a known risk from the beginning and no-one sensible would have taken him along.

One extra scene showing Boromir receiving a gift and being spoken to as a person... (just like the others do)does not equate with adding hours and hours to the film.

It also does nothing for the primary plot, which is why it was not included.
Do you understand that??!!

However this does not suit the director of the film and the image he wishes to present of Boromir.

It didn't quite suit the director when it came to the portrayal of Saruman either, but Christopher Lee had read the books more than anyone else on the production and knew the character better, so Jackson allowed and even welcomed Lee's advice on it.

My only argument (which you willfully ignore time and again) is he was treated unjustly by most of the other characters in the fellowship and others (Galadriel etc)

Not at all ignored. Just utterly dismissed.
The fim shows how Boromir presents himself, just like in the books, and how the Fellowship react to that - Were it anyone else in real life, they'd be just as suspicious. It's perfectly justified... and he is an arrogant arse.
Reading the books does explain more about why he's an arrogant arse and while that arrogance itself may be justifed to a degree, he is still an arrogant arse and the party treat him thus.

Its a very biased and flawed picture of Boromir because the director is hammering home to the audience that he is the one who is evil or flawed and he will break first. I agree that Boromir is weak and not the brightest spark.

You would probably need a separate film to fully cover why Boromir is like that... but he is still like that and that's how the character was written and intended to be. Also he is not evil until he falls under the ring's influence, but since that's where the fellowship tend to encounter him for the most part, that wuill obviously be how he appears most often.

However his intentions are noble and he is a decent human being. I don't think it was necessary for Jackson to have the rest of the company treat him with such disdain and dishonour.

He behaved like a complete ******. He deserved it.

Given that i was the one who made the original proposition that you had issues with yes it has nothing to do with your remarks because you cannot read someone elses post and respond to its points accurately and succinctly.

OK, let's address your very remarks right here and now, shall we?
I assert that Sean Bean's accent slips.
You counter this by asserting that Boromir was treated badly by his mates.
How the hell does that have *anything* to do with what I said?

Instead you prefer to go on a lotr ramble from the books. That is your agenda and to be honest you are the one who has derailed this because you are the one who constantly did not address my points. I think you did this willfully unless you are very young and did not know any better. (probable)

Agenda.... You're the one who, without ANY cause, reason, pretext or excuse, launched into a massive wibble in defence of your Boromir's character, based on some similar rant from nothing more substantial than a YouTube video of someone else's opinion, supposedly to challenge my assertion that Bean's accent slips.... Tell me more about agendas, again?
I did not address your points because they have nothing to do with what I said in the first place, are based on nothing more than recycling someone else's opinion and are totally (nay, wilfully) ignorant of the source material upon which they depend and to which they pretend.

As for age - I similarly assume you're still in secondary school rather than considering your retirement like some of us, and more interested in blindly pushing your own agenda rather than examining a debate objectively... never mind making remarks actually relevant to the discussion.

Also be aware that you have painted yourself into a corner here...pretty much everyone can now say to you whenever you are at odds with what they say...its in the book ttaskmaster..go read it. Your "MacGuffin" is your own undoing.

Yeah, OK, if you say so...
I'll just assume that means anything you say is now irrelevant twaddle unless it's IN THE FILMS (all caps, of course)...

 

[h4rm0ny]

Idris Elba. His rich honeyed tones would have superb comedy value coming from a modest in size Northern lass. But for a more serious answer, Nigella Lawson. I'm sure I could have anyone I wished if I just talked the way she does about chocolate pudding.

Both temporary though! Yorkshire accent and proud of it!

EDIT: How the Hell did this thread end up here???

 

[DELETED_195422]

I'm very proud of my Scottish accent, but if i had to choose it would be: Sean Connery or Michael Wincott.

As for women. I'd say Mariella Frostrup, Helen Mirren, Dani Behr, Esther Rantzen and J.K Rowling. Aye, i love the English accent in women. It can sound very elegant.

 

[olivier renault]

Darth Vader. Sorry, James Earl Jones. Or John Hurt, if I was told I wasn't funky enough.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Yeah, OK, if you say so...
I'll just assume that means anything you say is now irrelevant twaddle unless it's IN THE FILMS (all caps, of course)...

I suggest you both ignore each other or agree to disagree. I can't read any more bickering

 

[ttaskmaster]

I suggest you both ignore each other or agree to disagree. I can't read any more bickering

I did request a separate thread... other poster was adamant to the contrary.

 

[stuie]

Peter Cullen

 

[Surfer]

Actually I'm trolling you at the same time - I made a passing remark about Sean Bean's accent slipping, and you've taken that as an excuse to go on a massive personal wibble defending your Boromir. It's pretty laughable, really.


OK, let's address your very remarks right here and now, shall we?
I assert that Sean Bean's accent slips.
You counter this by asserting that Boromir was treated badly by his mates.
How the hell does that have *anything* to do with what I said?

I couldnt care less about Sean Bean's accent in the films and i certainly wasn't responding to that. You said he deserved it so i gave some info about how he didnt deserve it and was treated poorly by the rest etc. You took issue with that and decided to regurgitate entire books at us all ...lovely lol.

Anyway your usual trolling and personal attacks.

Well i've reported your post as you openly admitted to trolling me from the beginning.

 

[Lopéz]

Seriously would you two just get a room and either have a fight or nosh each other off or something?

Jesus Christ.

 

[Kol]

Anymore nonsense and we'll just issue thread bans. Calm it down.

 

[Patberts19]

Either Morgan Freeman or David Attenborough, could go about casually narrating everything.