 
|
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: OK, AuPh, you asked for it, so my wife speaks of LOTR posted by Victor Khomenko on January 27, 2004 at 12:41:45:
Either you like it or you don't. There's really no need to explain it further, anymore than you should have to explain why Ghostbusters didn't make you laugh or Titanic didn't make you cry. Movies are simply entertainment designed to put paying customers into theater seats, hopefully after they stop at the concession stand for a 40oz drink, a Theodin-sized tub of buttered popcorn and a box of Milk Duds.I was recently extremely bored and realized the situation couldn't get much worse if I took the time to see ROTK. It wasn't that bad. At least it had a real ending(s) unlike the first two LOTR movies. The ring was melted, and as we know from Terminator 2, where that crucial microchip was dispatched with in a similar way, that's absolutely conclusive. Jar Jar (or whatever his name was) fell into the molten lava with the ring so we can be nearly 50% sure he won't show up again in a sequel. Sam overcame his homosexual attraction to Frodo and settled for a female hobbit. The black-haired human rose to the throne of that battle-ravaged wedding cake of a city and immediately got his subjects to work completely restoring it in record time for his coronation. Frodo and Dildo set sail for the New World where the horse paths are paved with gold that (hopefully) doesn't reveal reddish-hued Elvish script when heated.
So that, after 9 hours of viewing, is what it all came down to. I had no life-changing epiphany. I don't understand myself, humanity, God or the universe in a new, enlightened way. But the truth is, I NEVER expect this from any "film" I see, even if it is a "superior" work of art from France or Russia, so I agree with Audiophilander and his wife.
Follow Ups:
You may agree, but for the wrong reasons.
AND.
Worse, you make a fatal error....First it is stupid to cite countries, as all nations are capable to bring up " good films ".
But the main point is, you put all at the same level! Have you ever seen a film like.." Wild Strawberries", or like " The Seven Samurai " or John Hustonīs " The Dead " or..or..
You can not tell me that you can NOT appreciate some differences.
I must suppose you donīt eat an Hamburger every day, do you?
Both films are excellent in their own ways; the former may be more artistic and original, but the latter is more enjoyable on repeated viewings. Of my 500 or so DVDs, The Magnificent Seven is in my film library, but The Seven Samurai is not. In the long run, both of these films will have their place in the pantheon of film classics, but there's no reason to insult The Magnificent Seven because it reached a more mainstream audience than The Seven Samurai; it just makes the critic appear petty and elitist. If you still want to make it into an issue of taste, go ahead and eat your Russian fish eggs; I'll stick with a good ol' juicy homemade American hamburger anyday!I'd rather not get into Bergman, your preference for Wild Strawberrys notwithstanding. He's certainly a great film-maker (i.e., for instance, I happen to have the Criterion DVD version The Seventh Seal in my collection), but his films aren't something I would screen at a film party in my home unless I was subtly trying to let folks know it was time to leave. John Huston turned out a number of remarkable films, but I think a movie like The Treasure of Sierra Madre is probably a better example than The Dead.
I appreciate Dalton's comments about LoTR even though I somewhat disagree with his assessment that it's a "children's sword and sorcery fantasy" because I'm of the opinion that it's so much more even if it isn't on a par with Tolkien's novels, and besides, that isn't even the dominent emphasis of the films or the author's works. If I were to point toward any of Tolkien's books as children's fantasy, it would probably be The Hobbit, which was intended for younger readers.
AuPh
That is all about that you will not understand. The " Seven " are a unique REAL masterpiece, the" Magnificent " is not it is just an Hollywood ham, it just lost his soul in the process of translation, it has mute and has been mutilated.
You can not do it better.
It was when it came out, just another fun movie...Have you had really had a look recently at it ? I did for and hour...dull..way too long...modestly played...Too bad that you are not in Germany..I would have kill you for that!
I am desesperate at you.
> > > "Have you really had a look recently at it?" < < <Yes, and it's still magnificent! From the acting of leads Yul Brenner & Steve McQueen and it's epic vistas to it's rousing film score, this movie is a classic in it's own rite!
No doubt that the Seven Samurai is a masterpiece, but bores with repeated viewings. The irony is that it's length can be justified even less than the extended versions of each film in the LoTR trilogy. How one can view The Seven Samurai as a masterpiece and LoTR as anything less eludes me!
> > > "Too bad that you are not in Germany..I would have to kill you for that!" < < <
Too bad you aren't in America, I'd have to provide you with a brutal Three Stooges down dressing, me being Moe and you, Larry or Curly; your pick! ;^)
AuPh
Well you know the Italian tune......
***How one can view The Seven Samurai as a masterpiece and LoTR as anything less eludes me!Easy. The masterpiece draws you in, you want to continue watching it.
With the rest you want to switch the channel. I flipped chhanenls dozens of times on the Magnificent. One time is more than enough.
It will probably surprize you to no end that I shall side with Patrick on this one.
It is becoming an infernal situation, we MUST find some ways to agree NOt to agree as they so smoothly says....
I fell asleep on Seven Samurai the last time I tried to watch it all the way through; it was like Sominex or Solaris (either version)! Lord of the Rings, OTOH, was rich, riveting entertainment that has never bored me, my wife or our friends. In the case of Seven Samurai, I found myself needing to stretch, go to the kitchen to make sandwiches, take breaks and grind coffee to stay awake.Perhaps if I'd made my sandwich with Grey Poupon instead of spicy mustard I might've made it through Samurai again, but instead I found myself considering Harakiri! ;^)
AuPh
It would have take the pain I would have to ...slowly but steadily strangle you....
;^)
It will come back as sharp one can be.
I promess.
...if your wit is anything like your whet-stone, how can I trust it? ;^)AuPh
***If I were to point toward any of Tolkien's books as children's fantasy, it would probably be The Hobbit, which was intended for younger readers.Not according to a person I respect and who actually managed to read most of the first book... she said it plainly that it was a book for children, and not to bother with it.
Since I know and value her knowledge and depth, I will take her word for now over yours - OK?
She got bored with it (she ain't a child any longer) and never read more of it.
I'm not criticizing the opinion of a person whose knowledge and depth you respect (i.e., after never finishing the first book), but we're discussing subjective view points, are we not? If testimonials were that important, I'd simply toss out the name of someone like Steve Hoffman, an intelligent, highly regarded audio engineer who's opinions are respected by many on these boards as well as his own! He not only claims to have read Tolkien's Ring trilogy, but rereads them annually! My point being that one intelligent person's viewpoint is just as good as another's; it's just different strokes, and critics don't always agree.AuPh
You made a strong statement that - obviously inspite of many opposite opinions - the book is not children book.So far I see no justification for that. It is commonly called children's book and I think for a good reason.
I think those who happen to like it, took serious offense in others calling it children's book, as they must feel that diminishes their idol's standing... well, that's THEIR problem.
Actually, that person was even harsher in her statement, but I shall spare you that part.
Those who revere these works don't regard them as children's books any more than you might regard, say, Tolstoy's War and Peace as a children's book!> > > "...many opposite opinions..."
Not that many, unless you're counting your's & Patrick's repeated over & over again, ad infinitum. ;^)
AuPh
You apparently don't get it.The books on sorcerers, little kids fighting dragons, cute monsters, Tooth Fairy, and all that shit are ALL presumably children's, unless proven otherwise.
It is that "proven otherwise" that you are missing.
The burden is on YOU.
On the other hand, only a complete idiot would claim the War and Peace to be in that category - I don't know if you are grasping that difference.
Only the thinking of putting this two in a phrase, make me shivers.
The profundness of the first equal the dumbness of the other.
It is some mysterious "young adults" versus... versus... Gee, I don't even know.But I agree - the sense of proportion is completely missing here.
;^)
> > > "You apparently don't get it." < < <No, I get it just fine; you seem to be locked into a stubborn tunnel viewpoint that would even have your optometrist throwing up his arms in defeat!
If you had described Tolkien's books as a series originally recommended for young adult reading we might've found room for compromise, because regardless of the author's intent these novels have been marketed as such and I can provide reams of evidence to that end. BTW, "young adult" does not mean "children's" literature; young adult tends to imply post adolescent literature.
In numerous reviews I've read concuring with this viewpoint most readers of Tolkien develope a passionate desire to reread the novels later in life, because they take on a different significance. IMHO, this is what the BEST literature does, because an initial reading or surface understanding of such a complex work will grow and changes with subsequent readings.
> > > "...only a complete idiot would claim War and Peace to be in that category..." < < <
Even though I won't bother categorizing you as "a complete idiot" because you felt insulted that someone would dare to tread upon the hollowed name of Tolstoy by comparing one of his weighty works with another more contempoorary author's weighty work which you hold in much lower esteem, I will say that you are much like book 2 of any 3 book trilogy (i.e., no one can figure out where you started or where you're going nor what you'll do when you get there). ;^)
AuPh
Must be the same ones that still real comic books.I didn't say anything about their age, BTW... but I think your response says it as it is... even if you didn't intend it that way.
Bad Victor, ...bad, bad! You certainly made an inferrence about the age of Tolkien's readers & viewers; no offense, but that's the sort of slippery manuever one might expect to see Outside!> > > "Must be the same ones that still real[sic] comic books." < < <
See ya in the funny papers, big Vic! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
...that getting personal when you have nothing to answer with, is really bad form.It is something that "young adults" should not do.
But I guess you still just don't get how much of your white underbelly you exposed with that silly "young adults" line?
Speaks volumes.
...such a blatantly hypocritical statement should amuse even those who might agree completely with your rigidly inflexible and subjectively vapid viewpoint on LoTR; I'm genuiniely embarrassed for you Victor.> > > Your mama should've taught you that getting personal when you have nothing to answer with, is really bad form." < < <
Wha-? You're whining now because I indicate that you might be weaseling and calling you (i.e., but NOT name-calling) on something you clearly did through innuendo!
> > > "But I guess you still just don't get how much of your white underbelly you exposed with that silly "young adults" line?" < < <
LOL! Oh, I get it, you're having difficulty grasping the distinction! Well, I'm sorry if this plays havoc with your perceptions, but there is a verifiable difference between children's literature and that which is regarded appropriate for a young adult and adult market. If pressed I'll gladly point you to sites containing INFORMED opinions which concur with my own, but I'd rather not contribute further responsibility for raising your blood pressure (i.e., any more than has already apparently occured).
> > > "Speaks volumes." < < <
The Library of Congress couldn't spin you out of your LoTR malapropisms.
Regards,
AuPh
Hey - that is your constitutional right: you like children's books and films - enjoy, no need to get this defensive, or try to force those who don't want to.My only objection is when you start presenting the naive and poorly made children's opus as something on par with... with... well, there is that life outside the children's books.
But I guess the War and Peace comparisson already told us the whole story.
I recall, when my daughter was around 13, she would argue and rather hotly, that Michael Jackson was the second Mozart.
OTOH, your attitude on this subject is another matter, but let's not go there.> > > "I recall, when my daughter was around 13, she would argue rather hotly, that Michael Jackson was the second Mozart." < < <
Naw, that would probably be Joe Bonamassa! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
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 ]
