The Razing of the Shire truly reveals that Tokein wasn't a great storyteller. He abandoned countless storytelling conventions with regard to pace and rhythm; in the books he will abandon vital characters for multiple chapters and throw you back into their story like throwing cold water on your face. At times his genealogical exploration reads like the Bible.
Then he ends arguably the greatest literary work of all time (artificially divided into three volumes) with a story about Saruman wrecking the little folks' hometown after just describing how pure evil at its most potent was cast out of the world.
But Tolkein seemed to be infatuated with the hobbits and their connection with nature and wanted to explore them instead of spending more time on the men (except in the appendices which take up 1/3rd of Return of the King; which is very odd).
In my opinion it is because the story was incidental to Tolkein that the work is so magnificent. He was truly creating a world, a type of folklore that involved groups of people that we identify with as part of our collective unconscious.
"Razing of the Shire"? Where was this in the book?
Raze - to demolish completely
Maybe "Scouring of the Shire"?
I think the purpose of this chapter was to show that no place was safe from evil, but even the smallest can rise up and overthrow tyranny, if only they try.
It was the time for hobbits to take a stand, value themselves, and become a part of the world at large, instead of isolation.
On a personal level I think LoTR is one of the best books ever written. Ever read The Wheel of Time? RJ can write 1000 pages and still achieve nothing. JRR at least could convey a story in a concise, yet detailed manner!
It was good, but a little long. Overall 3 stars. On another note, I love it when people have to be all critical to feel important. It's always been amusing to me when something is popular and people feel like if they look down on it, they're somehow better than the rest.
I think the purpose of this chapter was to show that no place was safe from evil, but even the smallest can rise up and overthrow tyranny, if only they try.
The best explanation I have heard about that part is that Tolkien had some conservative vendetta against industrialisation. The evil ones make weapons in factory-like settings (rational manufactoring), burn trees (killing nature) and transforming a culture of independent manufactores to an industrial culture.
It was good, but a little long. Overall 3 stars. On another note, I love it when people have to be all critical to feel important. It's always been amusing to me when something is popular and people feel like if they look down on it, they're somehow better than the rest.
Maybe one day I'll do a study...
Except that is pure bullshit. I was expectant of a great film on par with the first two. If your explanation had any merit, I would have complained about LotR and TTT when those films came out. I didn't read ANY reviews before seeing the film. I didn't plagiarize or borrow any gripes from professional critics, but when I read the few somewhat negative reviews, the same complaints are mentioned over and over.
RotK in theatrical form is a good flick, but it's not great...not compared to the earlier volumes of the trilogy.
I gave it a B. You gave it 3 stars...out of 4? It seems I was more generous than you were.
I've seen it twice now (er, I had to go back with my girlfriend - yes, that's it) and I have to say, not having read the books, that the Deagol and Smeagol bit was very interesting - but then, I don't know what I'm missing out on instead, I suppose.
Observations: crying Hobbits only become more trying on the second view, Legolas less smug (although people laughed out loud at his line "A diversion?") and the last twenty minutes are almost embarrassing.
I liked it.
I also looked at a one-volume paperback edition of the book this morning for the first time in some 15 years and I remembered why I couldn't get into it. As a storyteller Tolkein something must have had something great going for him, because holy crap he was a terrible writer. There is no place for the words "lo", "thereupon" or "alas" in any book written within the last 100 years.
Observations: crying Hobbits only become more trying on the second view, Legolas less smug (although people laughed out loud at his line "A diversion?") and the last twenty minutes are almost embarrassing.
The surprise of seeing everything for the first time really got to me. I would have graded it a "C" if I had only seen it once.
The second time through I knew exactly where I would be disappointed, so the shock value was gone. I felt better about it...until the last 30 minutes.
Except that is pure bullshit. I was expectant of a great film on par with the first two. If your explanation had any merit, I would have complained about LotR and TTT when those films came out. I didn't read ANY reviews before seeing the film. I didn't plagiarize or borrow any gripes from professional critics, but when I read the few somewhat negative reviews, the same complaints are mentioned over and over.
RotK in theatrical form is a good flick, but it's not great...not compared to the earlier volumes of the trilogy.
I gave it a B. You gave it 3 stars...out of 4? It seems I was more generous than you were.
That you thought my comment was directed at you speaks volumes.
So, it's an either/or thing? Either you speak for them or they agree with my statement? Hmm. That's interesting.
In this case it is. You've made a generalization about why 'people' critique movies, and you didn't single anybody out. So who were you talking to? The next lowest denomination would be the entire group of critics.
Either your statement is false to them, or it's true.
The Razing of the Shire truly reveals that Tokein wasn't a great storyteller. He abandoned countless storytelling conventions with regard to pace and rhythm; in the books he will abandon vital characters for multiple chapters and throw you back into their story like throwing cold water on your face. At times his genealogical exploration reads like the Bible.
Then he ends arguably the greatest literary work of all time (artificially divided into three volumes) with a story about Saruman wrecking the little folks' hometown after just describing how pure evil at its most potent was cast out of the world.
But Tolkein seemed to be infatuated with the hobbits and their connection with nature and wanted to explore them instead of spending more time on the men (except in the appendices which take up 1/3rd of Return of the King; which is very odd).
In my opinion it is because the story was incidental to Tolkein that the work is so magnificent. He was truly creating a world, a type of folklore that involved groups of people that we identify with as part of our collective unconscious.
I'm rambling. But I love the Razing of the Shire.
You answer your own concerns. If Tolkien was not a great story teller, he was a great historian. Although I find that the books return a sense of quiet to the reader at the end. Some books do that and they aren't poorer for it, lotsa books actually. When you've sluffed through 1000 pages, what's another 200 between friends?
In this case it is. You've made a generalization about why 'people' critique movies, and you didn't single anybody out. So who were you talking to? The next lowest denomination would be the entire group of critics.
Either your statement is false to them, or it's true.
Why don't you tell me what you think I said. It sounds like you're hearing a dichotomy that isn't really there.
Comments
How many of you guys that hated the movie have gerbils?
I think you know what I'm talking about.
Then he ends arguably the greatest literary work of all time (artificially divided into three volumes) with a story about Saruman wrecking the little folks' hometown after just describing how pure evil at its most potent was cast out of the world.
But Tolkein seemed to be infatuated with the hobbits and their connection with nature and wanted to explore them instead of spending more time on the men (except in the appendices which take up 1/3rd of Return of the King; which is very odd).
In my opinion it is because the story was incidental to Tolkein that the work is so magnificent. He was truly creating a world, a type of folklore that involved groups of people that we identify with as part of our collective unconscious.
I'm rambling. But I love the Razing of the Shire.
Raze - to demolish completely
Maybe "Scouring of the Shire"?
I think the purpose of this chapter was to show that no place was safe from evil, but even the smallest can rise up and overthrow tyranny, if only they try.
It was the time for hobbits to take a stand, value themselves, and become a part of the world at large, instead of isolation.
On a personal level I think LoTR is one of the best books ever written. Ever read The Wheel of Time? RJ can write 1000 pages and still achieve nothing. JRR at least could convey a story in a concise, yet detailed manner!
Maybe one day I'll do a study...
Originally posted by jwri004
I think the purpose of this chapter was to show that no place was safe from evil, but even the smallest can rise up and overthrow tyranny, if only they try.
The best explanation I have heard about that part is that Tolkien had some conservative vendetta against industrialisation. The evil ones make weapons in factory-like settings (rational manufactoring), burn trees (killing nature) and transforming a culture of independent manufactores to an industrial culture.
Originally posted by torifile
It was good, but a little long. Overall 3 stars. On another note, I love it when people have to be all critical to feel important. It's always been amusing to me when something is popular and people feel like if they look down on it, they're somehow better than the rest.
Maybe one day I'll do a study...
Except that is pure bullshit. I was expectant of a great film on par with the first two. If your explanation had any merit, I would have complained about LotR and TTT when those films came out. I didn't read ANY reviews before seeing the film. I didn't plagiarize or borrow any gripes from professional critics, but when I read the few somewhat negative reviews, the same complaints are mentioned over and over.
RotK in theatrical form is a good flick, but it's not great...not compared to the earlier volumes of the trilogy.
I gave it a B. You gave it 3 stars...out of 4? It seems I was more generous than you were.
Observations: crying Hobbits only become more trying on the second view, Legolas less smug (although people laughed out loud at his line "A diversion?") and the last twenty minutes are almost embarrassing.
I liked it.
I also looked at a one-volume paperback edition of the book this morning for the first time in some 15 years and I remembered why I couldn't get into it. As a storyteller Tolkein something must have had something great going for him, because holy crap he was a terrible writer. There is no place for the words "lo", "thereupon" or "alas" in any book written within the last 100 years.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Observations: crying Hobbits only become more trying on the second view, Legolas less smug (although people laughed out loud at his line "A diversion?") and the last twenty minutes are almost embarrassing.
The surprise of seeing everything for the first time really got to me. I would have graded it a "C" if I had only seen it once.
The second time through I knew exactly where I would be disappointed, so the shock value was gone. I felt better about it...until the last 30 minutes.
Originally posted by Eugene
Except that is pure bullshit. I was expectant of a great film on par with the first two. If your explanation had any merit, I would have complained about LotR and TTT when those films came out. I didn't read ANY reviews before seeing the film. I didn't plagiarize or borrow any gripes from professional critics, but when I read the few somewhat negative reviews, the same complaints are mentioned over and over.
RotK in theatrical form is a good flick, but it's not great...not compared to the earlier volumes of the trilogy.
I gave it a B. You gave it 3 stars...out of 4? It seems I was more generous than you were.
That you thought my comment was directed at you speaks volumes.
Originally posted by torifile
That you thought my comment was directed at you speaks volumes.
I speak for everyone you painted over with your stupid psychological brush. My gripes and others' are legitimate.
Originally posted by Eugene
I speak for everyone you painted over with your stupid psychological brush. My gripes and others' are legitimate.
That you think you can speak on others' behalf also says a lot.
Originally posted by Eugene
I could say people who loved it are bandwagon jumpers and fair-weather film connoisseurs too, but would I be right or just plain stupid?
That's a good question.
Originally posted by torifile
That you think you can speak on others' behalf also says a lot.
Why shouldn't I defend the film's critics? If they don't want to be defended, they can speak up and side with you...against themselves.
Originally posted by Eugene
Why shouldn't I defend the film's critics? If they don't want to be defended, they can speak up and side with you.
So, it's an either/or thing? Either you speak for them or they agree with my statement? Hmm. That's interesting.
Originally posted by torifile
So, it's an either/or thing? Either you speak for them or they agree with my statement? Hmm. That's interesting.
In this case it is. You've made a generalization about why 'people' critique movies, and you didn't single anybody out. So who were you talking to? The next lowest denomination would be the entire group of critics.
Either your statement is false to them, or it's true.
Originally posted by groverat
The Razing of the Shire truly reveals that Tokein wasn't a great storyteller. He abandoned countless storytelling conventions with regard to pace and rhythm; in the books he will abandon vital characters for multiple chapters and throw you back into their story like throwing cold water on your face. At times his genealogical exploration reads like the Bible.
Then he ends arguably the greatest literary work of all time (artificially divided into three volumes) with a story about Saruman wrecking the little folks' hometown after just describing how pure evil at its most potent was cast out of the world.
But Tolkein seemed to be infatuated with the hobbits and their connection with nature and wanted to explore them instead of spending more time on the men (except in the appendices which take up 1/3rd of Return of the King; which is very odd).
In my opinion it is because the story was incidental to Tolkein that the work is so magnificent. He was truly creating a world, a type of folklore that involved groups of people that we identify with as part of our collective unconscious.
I'm rambling. But I love the Razing of the Shire.
You answer your own concerns. If Tolkien was not a great story teller, he was a great historian.
Originally posted by Eugene
In this case it is. You've made a generalization about why 'people' critique movies, and you didn't single anybody out. So who were you talking to? The next lowest denomination would be the entire group of critics.
Either your statement is false to them, or it's true.
Why don't you tell me what you think I said. It sounds like you're hearing a dichotomy that isn't really there.
Originally posted by torifile
Why don't you tell me what you think I said. It sounds like you're hearing a dichotomy that isn't really there.
Why don't you name the people you originally referred to?
Maybe you just want to make yourself seem better than the rest with your lame psycho-babble.