The people who criticize something because it's popular.
I never said a thing about people who critique a movie. To quote what I initially said: "I love it when people have to be all critical to feel important"
Let me recap this session, Eugene:
1) I made a general comment about behavior that I've observed. I never specified whether it was in this thread, in this forum, on this bulletin board, or on the internet.
2) You assumed I was referring to your comments. This indicates to me that you're somewhat ego-centric and self-important.
3) I pointed this observation out to you. Rather than admit your mistake (and you were mistaken in your assumption that I was even thinking about your posts at all), you decided to proclaim your ability to speak for an entire group of people.
4) I then pointed out some black-and-white thinking on your part. Either/or thinking (Or GWB thinking for the politically minded). It's inherently flawed.
5) You then dodged a rather pointed question. Of course, that's your prerogative and your wont.
I'm done for the day. Come back and see me next week when you've thought about what egocentricity means to you.
1) I made a general comment about behavior that I've observed. I never specified whether it was in this thread, in this forum, on this bulletin board, or on the internet.
Clearly at least one person's criticisms was the impetus behind your barging into the thread with that comment.
Quote:
2) You assumed I was referring to your comments. This indicates to me that you're somewhat ego-centric and self-important.
No, I assumed you referred to several member comments because otherwise your interloping topic would be a tangent.
Quote:
3) I pointed this observation out to you. Rather than admit your mistake (and you were mistaken in your assumption that I was even thinking about your posts at all), you decided to proclaim your ability to speak for an entire group of people.
An observation you made elsewhere which for no reason is brought forward in this thread?
Quote:
4) I then pointed out some black-and-white thinking on your part. Either/or thinking (Or GWB thinking for the politically minded). It's inherently flawed.
It is black and white. You made those comments for a reason. You had certain people in mind. Echo echo echo.
Quote:
5) You then dodged a rather pointed question. Of course, that's your prerogative and your wont.
I know what you said. You know what you said. You know why you said it. I don't have to tell you what or why.
Quote:
I'm done for the day. Come back and see me next week when you've thought about what egocentricity means to you.
Egocentricity is sideswiping a thread about yeas/nays in a movie with quasi-academic platitudes telling us why other 'people' think the way they do. If you did not want to draw a response, why did you make the comments in the first place?
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...
I thought the first two were pretty decent. I think more of the problem is that I've never really been into fantasy, yet I did read the books. So for a fantasy movie/book to excite me, it needs to be perfect.
Among other things, part of the WitchKing's blade remained in his wound and would never heal. His life was difficult and his only relief was to live among the elves.
This is not exactly correct, but I have given my books to my sister, and can't document this explanation now.
It wasn't just the wound, although that was part of it. The biggest part was the fact that he had borne the ring of power and it still had "residual" effects (thus, Bilbo was still alive albeit incredibly old even for a hobbit). In the book, reference is made to Sam going to the Havens at the end of his life for the very same reason.
I loved the movie, but I probably would have loved it more if I hadn't read the book(s) so many times. I think Peter Jackson did an excellent job adapting the story, but I can't seem to discuss the movie without using the phrase, "but in the book . . ."
I mean, I think Frodo was cast _way_ too young, although Sam, Merry, and Pippen are about right; actually, Sam and Pippin are right on. Merry is okay.
And I would like to see the Scouring of the Shire. I think it wraps things up, providing real closure, bringing things round full circle.
And while I'm at it, I would like to see a reference in the Extended to the fact that the war wasn't being fought just at Minas Tirith. The dwarves and elves were fighting in their respective realms as well, which is why they weren't marching to the aid of mankind.
It's a great story, even abridged. And no boobs, no swearing, no gratitutous sex scenes.
i thought it was pretty good. the second one was my favorite (same with matrices). this one didn't feel as strong in the fight scenes. in 2, i felt the action a lot more. those ghost doods for instance, they just plowed. i don't know about the book, but i would imagine there's some kind of fight supposed to happen. and of course, the ending was too drawn out. and, in not having read the book, i was kind of hoping for more of a bitter end, but i'll blame Tolkien for that. i'd give it a C, where 1 was a B and 2 was stellar. overall the trilogy is wonderful.
i don't know about the book, but i would imagine there's some kind of fight supposed to happen. and of course, the ending was too drawn out. and, in not having read the book, i was kind of hoping for more of a bitter end, but i'll blame Tolkien for that
How can you blame the ending of the movie on Tolkien, when you admit to not knowing the books? Ever heard of "The Scouring of the Shire?"
How can you blame the ending of the movie on Tolkien, when you admit to not knowing the books? Ever heard of "The Scouring of the Shire?"
i've read a bit about it (well, solely through this thread), but i was referring to the end of the ring. i was kind of hoping that frodo died along the way, and the big bad dood got the ring back.
That would probably be a tough project since The Hobbit was written for the 10-12 year old reader and everybody would be expecting something on the same level as The Lord of the Rings.
And of course The Silmarillion would be toughest of all because it reads like the Bible or one continuous prologue. Only bits of that book are translatable to film, like the bits about Luthien and Beren.
My understanding is that the rights to the Hobbit haven't been sold by the Tolkien estate, and they don't look like they want to. It would be the absolutely perfect prequel for them to continue this franchise though. The story is even more suited to film than LotR.
Yes, very much so, but I think that the bane of the hobbit movie would be comparisons to the endearing cartoon. Just as the bane of the LoTR movies are infinite comparisons to the books.
while the hobbit is a great book, having that cutesy cartoon is what a lot of people associate with.
The Hobbit as a movie (think of how cool Smaug would be!!!)
The omitted Tom Bombadil material (before the LOTR actors get older)
Regarding the "scouring" of the Shire:
I agree with the "what's 200 pages between friends" comment. If you've read The Hobbit, then LOTR, you may have discovered the same affection for the Hobbits that Tolkien had. These little guys participate in events so much larger than them that they almost seem not to realize how great their roles in those events were. Consider it an Epilogue.
Regarding the ending being "sappy"?
Rubbish. Read the Silmarillion, find out the amazing pre-history of Middle Earth. Realize how long the Elves have been in Middle Earth (think thousands of years). The fact that all the Elves are leaving Middle Earth is beyond earth-shattering. It is the end of an age. Those guys aren't coming back, ever. The light of the Quenya is leaving the face of Middle Earth, the world is being diminished. The three Elven Rings of Power, seconds only to the One Ring's power, are finally revealed to have been wielded by Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf (because Cirdan the Shipwright loaned the ring to Gandalf). This scene is a climactic event in Middle Earth...no more Elves. Sappy? Maybe if you don't know what it's all about.
Regarding the argument between Torrifile and Eugene?
I really did interpret Torrifile's complaint to have been a more general comment on how slamming movies has become "cool". With the advent of the internet it's like there are 50 million clones of the guy from the comic book store on the Simpsons, all mercilessly slamming movies, TV shows, books...whatever...because it's entertaining. It's like being the class clown. I don't know if Torri ever meant for that comment to hit Eugene, but I didn't interpret it as a direct attack...but he's ready for a good fight when it happens!
Sappy? Maybe if you don't know what it's all about.
The sap doesn't come with the history. The sap comes from the formulaic step-by-step appearance of Gandalf, then Merry and Pippin wriggling, then Gimli, then Aragorn and Legolas, and finally the extended lover's gaze between Sam and Frodo. And then at the dock, nobody really cares about the elves in the flick. The Hobbits don't get all teary until Frodo informs them he's leaving. And then there's 5 minutes more of huggy-huggy forehead kissing action.
The end of the movie just leaves out all the rich history you're talking about. Legolas and Gimli? Everybody else? The fact that Sam sails to Valinor near the end of his days too (he did bear the ring after all).
And obviously the 'internet' has a much more positive influence on these types of movies than negative. Is RotK really this good? ... soon to be #1 on that list I'd bet.
There is a big difference between comparing RotK to other movies and comparing it to the book.
Personally, I think the whole LotR blows away just about anything else I've seen, with the exception of some old movies. I mean, Peter Jackson isn't Orson Welles by a long shot, but perhaps that is comparing apples to oranges. I would love it if "Hollywood" would take a look at these movies and realize that a movie doesn't have to be 90 minutes long and full of sex and foul language and really bad jokes. People will go see a 3+hour movie if it has a good story; 15 minutes is too long if the story isn't there. So yeah, I vote for RotK as one of the best movies of all time.
But the book is still so much better. I'm not complaining. I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job, although the Arwen stuff was a bit over the top--her life was tied to defeating Sauron. And has anyone watch the extra stuff on the TTT extended version--they were actually going to have Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep?!! I am sooooo glad they wised up.
I'm with Grover... greatest trilogy 3VAR! At least until the third Extended Edition DVD comes out... then the theatrical versions will be the second best.
Hey, maybe the EE DVD of ROTK will make all of us even happier...
My big question is: do you think they'll release the EE DVD before November of '04? They staged the previous two releases to help build momentum for the upcoming theatrical releases. Now that all the movies are out it doesn't seem necessary to delay the DVD's until next November......unless they're still in-production of the content...
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
Why don't you name the people who you refer to?
The people who criticize something because it's popular.
I never said a thing about people who critique a movie. To quote what I initially said: "I love it when people have to be all critical to feel important"
Let me recap this session, Eugene:
1) I made a general comment about behavior that I've observed. I never specified whether it was in this thread, in this forum, on this bulletin board, or on the internet.
2) You assumed I was referring to your comments. This indicates to me that you're somewhat ego-centric and self-important.
3) I pointed this observation out to you. Rather than admit your mistake (and you were mistaken in your assumption that I was even thinking about your posts at all), you decided to proclaim your ability to speak for an entire group of people.
4) I then pointed out some black-and-white thinking on your part. Either/or thinking (Or GWB thinking for the politically minded). It's inherently flawed.
5) You then dodged a rather pointed question. Of course, that's your prerogative and your wont.
I'm done for the day. Come back and see me next week when you've thought about what egocentricity means to you.
Originally posted by torifile
1) I made a general comment about behavior that I've observed. I never specified whether it was in this thread, in this forum, on this bulletin board, or on the internet.
Clearly at least one person's criticisms was the impetus behind your barging into the thread with that comment.
2) You assumed I was referring to your comments. This indicates to me that you're somewhat ego-centric and self-important.
No, I assumed you referred to several member comments because otherwise your interloping topic would be a tangent.
3) I pointed this observation out to you. Rather than admit your mistake (and you were mistaken in your assumption that I was even thinking about your posts at all), you decided to proclaim your ability to speak for an entire group of people.
An observation you made elsewhere which for no reason is brought forward in this thread?
4) I then pointed out some black-and-white thinking on your part. Either/or thinking (Or GWB thinking for the politically minded). It's inherently flawed.
It is black and white. You made those comments for a reason. You had certain people in mind. Echo echo echo.
5) You then dodged a rather pointed question. Of course, that's your prerogative and your wont.
I know what you said. You know what you said. You know why you said it. I don't have to tell you what or why.
I'm done for the day. Come back and see me next week when you've thought about what egocentricity means to you.
Egocentricity is sideswiping a thread about yeas/nays in a movie with quasi-academic platitudes telling us why other 'people' think the way they do. If you did not want to draw a response, why did you make the comments in the first place?
This reminds me of the Spyware thread.
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...
I thought the first two were pretty decent. I think more of the problem is that I've never really been into fantasy, yet I did read the books. So for a fantasy movie/book to excite me, it needs to be perfect.
the article goes on to say he bought ice cream at the inerval.
INTERVAL?!?
there is an interval in the british screenings?
i could have used a bleeding interval!
Originally posted by Skipjack
Among other things, part of the WitchKing's blade remained in his wound and would never heal. His life was difficult and his only relief was to live among the elves.
This is not exactly correct, but I have given my books to my sister, and can't document this explanation now.
It wasn't just the wound, although that was part of it. The biggest part was the fact that he had borne the ring of power and it still had "residual" effects (thus, Bilbo was still alive albeit incredibly old even for a hobbit). In the book, reference is made to Sam going to the Havens at the end of his life for the very same reason.
I mean, I think Frodo was cast _way_ too young, although Sam, Merry, and Pippen are about right; actually, Sam and Pippin are right on. Merry is okay.
And I would like to see the Scouring of the Shire. I think it wraps things up, providing real closure, bringing things round full circle.
And while I'm at it, I would like to see a reference in the Extended to the fact that the war wasn't being fought just at Minas Tirith. The dwarves and elves were fighting in their respective realms as well, which is why they weren't marching to the aid of mankind.
It's a great story, even abridged. And no boobs, no swearing, no gratitutous sex scenes.
So when is The Hobbit going to come out?
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i don't know about the book, but i would imagine there's some kind of fight supposed to happen. and of course, the ending was too drawn out. and, in not having read the book, i was kind of hoping for more of a bitter end, but i'll blame Tolkien for that
How can you blame the ending of the movie on Tolkien, when you admit to not knowing the books? Ever heard of "The Scouring of the Shire?"
Originally posted by rageous
How can you blame the ending of the movie on Tolkien, when you admit to not knowing the books? Ever heard of "The Scouring of the Shire?"
i've read a bit about it (well, solely through this thread), but i was referring to the end of the ring. i was kind of hoping that frodo died along the way, and the big bad dood got the ring back.
So when is The Hobbit going to come out?
That would probably be a tough project since The Hobbit was written for the 10-12 year old reader and everybody would be expecting something on the same level as The Lord of the Rings.
And of course The Silmarillion would be toughest of all because it reads like the Bible or one continuous prologue. Only bits of that book are translatable to film, like the bits about Luthien and Beren.
while the hobbit is childish, it is still a good story, I just hope they keep the musical aspect from the cartoon
(note: this is just what I heard through the grapevine, I know nothing as to whether it's true or not)
I couldn't see The Silmarillion transfered to film, unless it was aired on the history channel
Originally posted by BRussell
The story is even more suited to film than LotR.
Yes, very much so, but I think that the bane of the hobbit movie would be comparisons to the endearing cartoon. Just as the bane of the LoTR movies are infinite comparisons to the books.
while the hobbit is a great book, having that cutesy cartoon is what a lot of people associate with.
The Hobbit as a movie (think of how cool Smaug would be!!!)
The omitted Tom Bombadil material (before the LOTR actors get older)
Regarding the "scouring" of the Shire:
I agree with the "what's 200 pages between friends" comment. If you've read The Hobbit, then LOTR, you may have discovered the same affection for the Hobbits that Tolkien had. These little guys participate in events so much larger than them that they almost seem not to realize how great their roles in those events were. Consider it an Epilogue.
Regarding the ending being "sappy"?
Rubbish. Read the Silmarillion, find out the amazing pre-history of Middle Earth. Realize how long the Elves have been in Middle Earth (think thousands of years). The fact that all the Elves are leaving Middle Earth is beyond earth-shattering. It is the end of an age. Those guys aren't coming back, ever. The light of the Quenya is leaving the face of Middle Earth, the world is being diminished. The three Elven Rings of Power, seconds only to the One Ring's power, are finally revealed to have been wielded by Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf (because Cirdan the Shipwright loaned the ring to Gandalf). This scene is a climactic event in Middle Earth...no more Elves. Sappy? Maybe if you don't know what it's all about.
Regarding the argument between Torrifile and Eugene?
I really did interpret Torrifile's complaint to have been a more general comment on how slamming movies has become "cool". With the advent of the internet it's like there are 50 million clones of the guy from the comic book store on the Simpsons, all mercilessly slamming movies, TV shows, books...whatever...because it's entertaining. It's like being the class clown. I don't know if Torri ever meant for that comment to hit Eugene, but I didn't interpret it as a direct attack...but he's ready for a good fight when it happens!
Originally posted by drewprops
Sappy? Maybe if you don't know what it's all about.
The sap doesn't come with the history. The sap comes from the formulaic step-by-step appearance of Gandalf, then Merry and Pippin wriggling, then Gimli, then Aragorn and Legolas, and finally the extended lover's gaze between Sam and Frodo. And then at the dock, nobody really cares about the elves in the flick. The Hobbits don't get all teary until Frodo informs them he's leaving. And then there's 5 minutes more of huggy-huggy forehead kissing action.
The end of the movie just leaves out all the rich history you're talking about. Legolas and Gimli? Everybody else? The fact that Sam sails to Valinor near the end of his days too (he did bear the ring after all).
And obviously the 'internet' has a much more positive influence on these types of movies than negative. Is RotK really this good? ... soon to be #1 on that list I'd bet.
Personally, I think the whole LotR blows away just about anything else I've seen, with the exception of some old movies. I mean, Peter Jackson isn't Orson Welles by a long shot, but perhaps that is comparing apples to oranges.
But the book is still so much better. I'm not complaining. I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job, although the Arwen stuff was a bit over the top--her life was tied to defeating Sauron.
I'm looking at the list you have posted and any list that has Schindler's List at #7 should have RotK in the top 3.
Schindler's List - 7
The Pianist - 33
Best movie lists are stupid.
My big question is: do you think they'll release the EE DVD before November of '04? They staged the previous two releases to help build momentum for the upcoming theatrical releases. Now that all the movies are out it doesn't seem necessary to delay the DVD's until next November......unless they're still in-production of the content...
Originally posted by drewprops
....unless they're still in-production of the content...
^^ ding.