 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Quite simply, it's a yarn for posted by tinear on December 23, 2003 at 05:28:01:
I guess we really are living in a spiritually impoverished time!
Follow Ups:
nope
It's that these movies act like they have philosophical depth because of their somber and serious nature when, as already said, the stories are predictable and lightweight childrens fare.These movies are ponderous and pretentious self-important tripe. They will date badly.
Variations on classic mythic themes are generally fairly predictable(at least after you have read several of them), but there are some novel elements in Tolkien's trilogy. It is rather unlike the Greek and Roman mythic stories that the humblest character is the only one capable of the act that would defeat evil. And it was not entirely predictable that even Frodo would turn out to be incapable of willingly parting with the Ring. And Gollum is a rather unique character. And while it was stated repeatedly that he would have a crucial role in facilitating the defeat of evil, it would have been impossible to predict the precise role that he would play, beyond the obvious role of guiding Frodo to the Mountain of Doom. The Hobbit characters and the roles they play, the dynamics of the relationship between Samwise and Frodo, and the way that the humble gardiner helps keep Frodo focused are unlike anything I know of in Homer, Virgil, or Wagner (I have taught Homer and Virgil in college courses annually for the last 15 years). Tolkien's treatment of Frodo's ultimate failure to willingly resist the power of the Ring is more profound than Wagner's treatment of Parsifal's ultimate resistence to Kundry. And speaking of Parsifal, I think Tolkiens' view that it is the lust for power that is the ultimate obstacle to the defeat of evil is more true than Wagner's view in Parsifal that is is sexual lust that threatens to prevent Parsifal from performing his redemptive role. And I was stunned to see that Alex Ross apparently failed to understand the appeal of the Ring. It is not merely a hyperbolically facinating trinket! Incidentally, I am much more of fan of Wagner's Ring than Tolkien's. But this has not made me incapable of seeing the great superiority of the Lord of the Ring to Harry Potter or Star Wars.
s
nt
These films will hardly be dated one whit in my estimation! They are accessible to anyone, regardless of age, with an imagination and love of the fantasy genre. Furthermore, these films have greater philosophical depth than 90% of the so-called adult fare coming out of Hollywood today, but that's a rather foolish argument anyway since large scale productions are intended as broadly accessible entertainment first and foremost. I'm sorry that you never acquired a taste for sombre and serious fantasy films, but I don't recall Tolkien's Ring trilogy EVER being slated as a Monty Python project! ;^)BTW, nearly every epic story of heroism is predictable to a greater or lesser extent, and especially those which are based on myths and legends. You may find Tolkien's Ring Trilogy ponderous, but one man's ponderous is another's masterpiece; I'm sure that there are films you like that I would find tedious in the extreme, but such differences may be merely a matter of tastes or preferences, are they not? If I called films that you considered great artistic achievements "children's fare" I'm pretty sure that you would take umbrage to my demagoguery of your tastes on some level, so how about lightening up about the LoTR trilogy before someone decides to get medieval on your Orcish arse, metaphorically speaking, of course.
AuPh
but I don't recall Tolkien's Ring trilogy EVER being slated as a Monty Python project!Yeah, they had their hands full with the King Arthur and Jesus thing. Had these movies come out before MP was in existence, I'm not so sure that they would have left it alone . . . it's exactly the kind of overbearing portentious junk that so many take so seriously that they make fun of.
The FX and general look will be as dated in 30 years as the 10 Commandments are today. Except that instead of a story that millions take to be true that can carry it to new generations, the hobbit stories are just silly and predictable childrens fiction.
And yes, one mans meat is another mans pudding, obviously. BBs are designed for people to put forth their opinons, whether you agree or not. My opinion that it's nothing more than a comic-book story is just that, my opinion. Some agree, some don't. Don't take it so personally.
nt
Your's, obviously are not; that is my informed opinion.> > > "Don't take it so personally." < < <
Why not? You're insulting the personal tastes of others. If you don't like the films, that's fine! However, those of us who appreciate this series are not interested in your blathering on about how childish you consider films based on Tolkien's works to be. Your comments are short on substance, but long on ridicule, although I do peceive an agenda as alluded to in these comments:
> > > "The FX and general look will be dated in 30 years as the 10 Commandments are today. EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF A STORY THAT MILLIONS TAKE TO BE TRUE THAT CAN CARRY IT TO NEW GENERATIONS, THE HOBBIT STORIES ARE JUST SILLY AND PREDICTABLE CHILDRENS FICTION." < < <
So, apparently what we have here is someone proselytizing for his own belief system. Disengenuous criticism of Tolkien's works, it would seem, based on evangelical salesmanship rather than merit.
Still not clear on what I'm getting at? Allow me to be more blunt:
I'm sure that many folks here are aware of the fact that certain protestant denominations abhor LoTR and other fantasies; they preach the spreading filth about the series to their brainwashed congregations, urging them to shun the series and condemn it at every opportunity. They do this because they consider such fantasies as anti-christian and consider them threats to good moral virtue.
Now Troy, I wouldn't accuse you of being one of THOSE theological lemmings, but your posts on this subject certainly convey that distinctive aroma.
In conclusion, one is left to wonder how you would feel about someone expressing the opinion that, Charlton Heston's wooden film performance notwithstanding, the 10 Commandments were dated long before being committed to film? ;^)
Regards,
AuPh
Boy howdy, do you have ME pegged incorrectly!No bible thumper here, bro. I am if anything, the exact opposite. How can anyone believe in any religeon? All religeons say basically the same things, including that they are the only way. Well, if they all say this, then they must all be wrong, right? It's only logical. Nope, no sky-pilot here, my man.
I used the 10 Commandments comparison as an example of just how dated the LOTR movies will be in 30 years as technology and movies change. As good as Gollum looks, in as little as 5 years from now, he's gonna look like The Incredible Mr. Limpet. Yes, Heston is an absolute stiff in 10C, and what, Viggo isn't in LOTR? Well, he's no Mark Hammil!
I read the first Ring book as a teenager. I thought it was a trifle. Pure fantasy with all the good and evil too spelled out and obvious. I saw the first 2 films and thought they took that obviousness and amplified it. The films take themselves too seriously. As pretentious as it gets, these movies pretend to have something important to say about humanity and the nature of good and evil, but it's all so simplistic, like it's written for children. Ultimately, the series is just boring. Is that substance enough?
However, those of us who appreciate this series are not interested in your blathering on about how childish you consider films based on Tolkien's works to be.
How's this: those of us who don't appreciate this series are not interested in your blathering on about how important you consider films based on Tolkien's works to be?
It goes both ways, AuPh.
As is typical of epics, the lines between good and evil are sharply drawn. But with all due respect, if you think the Ring's treatment of how evil is defeated is simplistic, then you have simply failed to understand the story.
. . . my true biblical colors, here's the post I made on this film yesterday:http://www.videoasylum.com/films/messages/19635.html
Glad to see that your agenda isn't religious conversion; that gets you points in my book. Still, your problem with the films & Tolkien in general is vindictive in nature and comes off sounding like a personal insult to those who like the series. I'd recommend a bit more tact instead of outright condescension, that is unless you like pickin' fights you can't win.Regards,
AuPh
I'm not being condescending. You just don't like what I have to say. Perhaps you're being sensitive.There is no winner or loser, merely 2 differing viewpoints.
It does come across as condescending when you insult the informed opinions of others, even if you do it indirectly. Allow me this hypothetical scenario: If Troy says "I like this film series and agree with the general concensus that these are masterpieces for the ages" and then Audiophilander comes along and says "...the stories are predictable and lightweight children's fare" then I've either intentionally or inadvertantly insulted the viewer's tastes.See what I mean?
In other words, it's one thing to be critical based on reasonable criteria which assesses a film's merit based on personal criteria (i.e., pacing, plot, character interpretation, effects, etc.), but entirely another to be judgmental in a way that ridicules those that enjoy the films (i.e., calling the series "...lightweight children's fare").
Have a pleasant holiday; cheers,
AuPh
It does come across as condescending when you insult the informed opinions of others, even if you do it indirectly. Allow me this hypothetical scenario: If Troy says "I like this film series and agree with the general concensus that these are masterpieces for the ages" and then Audiophilander comes along and says "...the stories are predictable and lightweight children's fare" then I've either intentionally or inadvertantly insulted the viewer's tastes.See what I mean?
No, I honestly don't.
Well first of all, the general consensus be damned. The general consensus is that Thomas Kincade (the painter) is a genius. How right is THAT?
Secondly, you're welcome to voice your opinion here just as much as I am. Why do you think my opinion isn't as informed as yours? Isn't that just as condescending? You're welcome to call me a moron for having my opinion. Your words will not hurt me as mine seems to have hurt you.
Take a look around you. If you want to play on BBs and have strong opinions either way, you better grow yourself a thicker skin, or you will get hurt often. You take MY opinion far too personally.
In other words, it's one thing to be critical based on reasonable criteria which assesses a film's merit based on personal criteria (i.e., pacing, plot, character interpretation, effects, etc.), but entirely another to be judgmental in a way that ridicules those that enjoy the films (i.e., calling the series "...lightweight children's fare").
Go back and read all my posts in this thread. I've explained in detail about why I feel this way about these movies. I've been just as judgemental about this movie as you have. I've made plenty of comments on pacing, plot and FX. It seems you can't get past that first blush of "Childrens fare". Your eyes just glaze over in anger and all you see is red.
You can call me a troll for saying "childrens fare", that I did it to goad you, but that's just not the case at all. If I was a troll, I'd have handled my responses differently than I have, goading you even further. I won't apologize for calling these stories childrens fare because that's how I feel about them. But I am sorry that you have over-reacted so strongly.
Relax, bub, relax.
Holiday cheer,
Troy
I never refered to you as a troll, but if that's what is on your mind, then there's probably a reason for it. :o)> > > "Why do you think my opinion isn't as informed as yours?" < < <
Because, on this subject it apparently is nowhere near as informed as mine, at least based upon what you've posted thus far; I don't have enough information about opinons you may have on other subjects to make a blanket statement that your opinions are ALL uninformed.
> > > "Isn't that just as condescending?" < < <
That WOULD be a good point, had you not demonstrated that your opinion on the Ring trilogy lacked substance in the prior post! Furthermore, it's certainly LESS condescending. FYI, my comment was based on evidence which YOU provided; your's was an opinion borne of personal dislike. Intentionally or not, refering to these works as "children's fare" was a dig at everyone who admires JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson's interpretation of the Ring trilogy.
> > > "You're welcome to call me a moron..." < < <
You must be kidding; that was never my intent. Besides, the Asylum boards have rules even if you've chosen not to take them seriously; I respect these boards and try to abide by the rules. However, if you still insist on taking a rhetorical flogging from your's truly, then venture over to the Outside Forum and within that Forum's guidelines I'll gladly take the kid gloves off.
> > > "Take a look around you. If you want to play on BBs and have strong opinions either way, you better grow yourself a thicker skin, or you will get hurt often." < < <
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously Troy, you may THINK that I have "thin skin" but that's just another example of an uninformed opinion clouding your judgment. Folks who know me, know better. ;^D
> > > "Go back and read all my posts in this thread." < < <
So what? I've read them all; once was enough to know where you're coming from and why you're getting nowhere.
> > > "I've explained in detail about why I feel this way about these movies. I've been just as judgmental about this movie as you have." < < <
Apples and oranges. Being judgmental says noting about whether one's views are condescending toward the opinions of others or not; that's a nice change-up, but it's still easy to hit your pitches out of the park.
> > > "I've made plenty of comments on pacing, plot and FX." < < <
I'm fully aware of this, but that wasn't the issue! You just couldn't leave it there; you had to remark on the film in a derogatory manner that went beyond objective criticism, dismissing the film on grounds that were too subjectively personal in nature.
> > > "It seems that you can't get past that first blush of 'Children's fare'." < < <
That's because this is how you summed up the value of the film! Unfortunately, all the other critical points you offered were merely a means to this end. I could argue that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the pacing, plot and FX or I could quibble about minor Directorial choices, the look of certain shots, editing choices, etc., but what is there to gain by ignoring the grand achievement (i.e., the BIG picture) while focusing on minor flaws? YOU, on the other hand, apparently wanted to build your case on loose accusations rather than evidence.
> > > "Relax, bub, relax." < < <
You do likewise, 'chum', and watch out for the sharks when you're using yourself as the bait! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
I never refered to you as a troll, but if that's what is on your mind, then there's probably a reason for it.It's all implied in the way you're responding to my posts.
Seriously Troy, you may THINK that I have "thin skin" but that's just another example of an uninformed opinion clouding your judgment. Folks who know me, know better.
Then stop acting like my words hurt you. As if calling these stories "Childrens Fare" is like telling you your mother wears army boots (or a more poignant anecdote). Why does calling these stories CF bug you so much? Because it's true?
you had to remark on the film in a derogatory manner that went beyond objective criticism, dismissing the film on grounds that were too subjectively personal in nature.
The whole crux of this silly exchange is that you take umbrage with me dismissing the Tolkien stories as "Childrens Fare". What's the big deal? Why does that continue to rile you so? Why do you insist on taking this in such a derrogatory manner? Why so sensitive about it? Plenty of adults read comic books, Harry Potter and Winnie the Pooh too. Heck, enjoy yourself with the Ring flicks, but don't try and make this juvenile fantasy story into something deeper than it is. They are no more philosophically complex than the Star Wars movies.
-> > > "It seems that you can't get past that first blush of 'Children's fare'." < < <-
That's because this is how you summed up the value of the film! Unfortunately, all the other critical points you offered were merely a means to this end.
Yes, that's true. You asked me to validate why I called it childrens fare and I explained that it's ultimately simplistic and obvious lowest common denominator material, ergo, made for children to understand. That is STILL how I sum up this series of movies.
but what is there to gain by ignoring the grand achievement (i.e., the BIG picture) while focusing on minor flaws? YOU, on the other hand, apparently wanted to build your case on loose accusations rather than evidence.
What loose accusations? Do I have to spell out the corny and obvious nature of every scene in the movie for you? As if that's going to change your mind! Why waste both of our time? You liked, no, loved these stories and it pisses you off to have someone like me come along and say that it's corny, pretentious and terribly obvious in it's depiction of human nature and the nature of good and evil.
-> > > "Relax, bub, relax." < < <-
You do likewise, 'chum', and watch out for the sharks when you're using yourself as the bait!
Cute. But there again, you seem to take this as being competitive in some way. Like you can win with me, as if I'm trying to win, myself. As if there is something TO win. I'm just stating my opinions here, however (incorrectly) unfounded you seem to think they are. Each time I call these stories CF and you take it personally only shows that you have some problem with being told that you like CF when there really is nothing wrong with it. Why are you the only one getting so upset about it?
> > > "It's all implied (i.e., Troy-trolling) in the way you're responding to my posts." < < <No, that's just the way you interpret it.
> > > "...stop acting like my words hurt you." < < <
Not ONCE have your words distressed me (i.e., personally) in the slightest; I have no fear of words, your's or anybody else's. Sorry, but if that is your belief then you have an overly elevated image of yourself.
> > > "The whole crux of this silly exchange is that you take umbrage with me dismissing the Tolkien stories as *Children's Fare*." < < <
True enough, because in your zeal to paint both books and films with the drab sophomoric brush of children's fare, you've demeaned literature that is considered by many adults to be on a par with the greatest works of Cervantes, Longfellow, Conrad, et al. I take umbrage, not because it hurts me, but rather because you've chosen to insult all those who, having read Tolkien's books and/or seen Peter Jackson's films, come away enriched by the experience.
You could have avoided this exchange by not having been so unequivocal in your biases. You still persist in lamely lumping Tolkien's works in with Harry Potter, Winnie the Pooh, etc., and then suggesting that it's all juvenile fantasy, but it isn't! You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but that doesn't make your opinion correct, much less informed.
> > > "...it pisses you off to have someone like me come along and say that it's corny, pretentious and terribly obvious in it's depiction of human nature and the nature of good and evil." < < <
Someone like you? BWAHAHAHA! C'mon Troy, now THAT'S pretentiousness! FTR, I don't find this series of films corny in the slightest and the good/evil depictions are probably more genuine & reflective of human nature than in most films contemporary to the time when Tolkien wrote his epic novels.
> > > "I'm just stating my opinions here, however (incorrectly) unfounded you seem to think they are." < < <
I think, probably correctly, that the opinions you've expressed here are informed by biases.
> > > "Why are you the only one getting so upset about it?" < < <
I'm not upset, and your very mistaken to assume that I am! I'm just a rhetorical poker player who likes to keep the game honest. Others have probably dropped out because they don't see any percentage in staying in. Don't you think it's about time to cash in your chips on this losing hand thread before the weight of the Ring causes you to annoint yourself emporer and comments start rolling in about your new clothes? ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
Well, Ph, feel free to keep deluding yourself that Tolkien is as deep and enriching as Conrad and Wagner. Like Lucas's Star Wars stories, Tolkien's are nothing more than simplistic rehashes of traditional and time honored themes. The fact that you call Tolkien's books "Literature" when they are merely pulpy pop-culture entertainment speaks volumes.Not sure why you keyed on the "someone like me" statement as being some egotistical remark . . . It could just as easily been the word "someone" by itself.
If my words have not bothered you, why continue harping on them so much for days and days? To what end? And again, I said these things not as an insult to those that enjoyed the Tolkien stories, it's YOU that chose to take them that way.
You can continue with your weak and unfounded complaints about my being "uninformed", but the reality is that you choose to read much more into the Tolkein stories than is actually there.
Again, with the winning and losing analogies (WRT to the poker comment)! You are the only man on the battlefield. Talk about chasing windmills . . . !
I think that you're still Lost in La Mancha! :o)BTW, I could be mistaken, but one possible reason "we just don't see eye to eye" on RoTK is that after Frodo completed his epic sojourn to Mount Doom your's crumbled! ;^D
Just teasin'!
Cheers,
AuPh
"Pretty Woman."
The sociological insights of "Pretty Woman" you missed because they aren't there. I don't think it is just your ear that is tin.
there, hence the film's outrageous popularity. It is the quality of the insights which are lacking. Similarly, the pseudo-philosophical blatherings of LOTR are great pablum, for the masses.
But, hey, maybe I missed them. Could you please share what intellectual strengths you found in this epic? As a fan of Beowulf, the Aeneid, etc. I'd like to know.
After all, one is alloted so much time to enjoy art: one must be selective. What makes LOTR so worthy of one's time?
I briefly touched on a few points in another post in this complex of threads. I don't have time for much more, and I don't think you are really open enough to the possility of the Ring having some literary merit to make anything I might say plausible to you. LOTR has been said to be the most detailed depiction of a fantasy world in all of literature. It deals with the universal theme of the conflict between good and evil, and between love and the lust for power in the context of an imaginaary world described in incredible detail, complete with the characterization of another language. The metaphysical and ethical underpinnings are essentially Christian, rather than pagen, which yields some novel and interesting variations on the classic mythical themes. If you don't get off on it, hey thats ok with me. But there really is a great deal of literary and philosophical substance that you are missing. I hate to whip out any unverifiable credentials, but I say this as a professor of philosophy who has some capacity to recognize literature that is rich in philosophical content.
terse effort, Le Mort d'Artur, is superior (and I won't go into "The Song of Roland...").
himself borrow from Icelandic and Norse myth and legend to construct the "Ring"?
there is a comparison between Wagner and...Tolkien.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
