 
|
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 |
207.200.116.68
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Victor Khomenko on June 27, 2005 at 11:15:21:
No but that was a nice try. It means that to a large extent we get out from a movie or music or any other art depends highly on what we bring to it ourselves. If I don't speak the language I won't like Bicycle Thief. There is a nice easy remedy for that problem, subtitles. That rmedy is simply not available for so many other things that a veiwer may need but not have at his or her disposal. I don't think you bring the neccessary things to the table to appreciate Lord of the Rings. That, or you are simply holding them back because of your biases toward blockbuster movies. What would you think if some hick from Oklahoma said "I saw this Kabuki thing the other day. There was this guy in a bad hooker makeup posing like he had to take a dump. Well, kaka." Where is the problem here? The Kabuki or the critic?
But in a sense yeah, to each his own. No one is obligated to get Kabuki or genre movies either. But if you don't get them to begin with you are simply not in a position make an insightful comentary.
Follow Ups:
Kubuki should be judged as Kubuki, not as something it isn't, is that your point? Well, it's a good one.Victor's criticism of LoTR, however, has nothing to do with its being fantasy. It may be that he'd not like what he saw no matter how it was filmed, but I doubt that.
LoTR is inept filmmaking and story-telling through-and-through. I grew up with Tolkien, and while I still wax nostalgic over his work, I don't regard it as high literary art, though I do regard Middle Earth to be a great fiction. I don't, therefore, hold the original sacrosanct--in general, I understand that the translation of a literary work to film requires processes of restructuring, compression, and re-imagination, and all with an artistic integrity on the part of the translating filmmaker. In the adaptation of a novel to film, the film should be a free adaptation. Neither film nor novel should have a parasitic relationship to the other. In the end, the film should be judged on the extent to which it's a good film, not on the extent to which it was faithful to its source.
That said, the list of Jackson's departures in content and style, not to mention his interpolations, had the effect of making me realize that Tolkien was a much more accomplished story teller than I'd given him credit for. I think Tolkien has ample cause to be rolling in his grave because of those films, though maybe he's resting well knowing how many readers were sent to his novels after viewing them.
Seriously, though. I've seen no effort on the part of LoTR defenders here to defend the film as a film. "Oh, Victor doesn't like orcs on wargs!--or was it goblins? [That's the lingo, Victor, for 'animal-looking "people" riding wild boars-like "horses"'] He just doesn't get it!" Well, I have nothing against that sort of thing per se and I thought that whole sequence of the film to be outragiously stupid.
I could go on and on and on. I think I have here before.
s
... you could fill-in for Jon Anderson when his voice goes south. ;^)AuPh
Don't say that! His voice will never go south ::crosses fingers:: besides you can't join Yes and hate LotRs. Just isn't allowed.
But you can like Yes and not like LoTR. And I'm not the only one!
nt
"Victor's criticism of LoTR, however, has nothing to do with its being fantasy."
Victor's critism of LotR has been nothing more than calling it kaka. So I can't say that it is or is not due to the genre or the movie. I'm still waiting for Victor to name an epic fantasy that he likes.
" It may be that he'd not like what he saw no matter how it was filmed, but I doubt that."
What was it about how it was filmed that makes you think that?
"LoTR is inept filmmaking and story-telling through-and-through."
How so?
" I grew up with Tolkien, and while I still wax nostalgic over his work, I don't regard it as high literary art, though I do regard Middle Earth to be a great fiction."
That makes you one of many millions. But the vast majority of those many millions, myself included < don't share your opinion of the films.
" I don't, therefore, hold the original sacrosanct--in general, I understand that the translation of a literary work to film requires processes of restructuring, compression, and re-imagination, and all with an artistic integrity on the part of the translating filmmaker. In the adaptation of a novel to film, the film should be a free adaptation. Neither film nor novel should have a parasitic relationship to the other. In the end, the film should be judged on the extent to which it's a good film, not on the extent to which it was faithful to its source."
If it is faithful to the source and the source is a good one it stands to reason that the film will likely also be good. History has supported this basic logic.
"That said, the list of Jackson's departures in content and style, not to mention his interpolations, had the effect of making me realize that Tolkien was a much more accomplished story teller than I'd given him credit for. I think Tolkien has ample cause to be rolling in his grave because of those films, though maybe he's resting well knowing how many readers were sent to his novels after viewing them."
Among the millions of fans of his books you are in the vast minority when it comes to the film. That doesn't make you wrong but it certainly makes you less right in a way. Think for a moment what it would have meant had Jackson made a movie you liked but the vast majority of Tolkien fans didn't.
"Seriously, though. I've seen no effort on the part of LoTR defenders here to defend the film as a film."
What's to defend. Calling it kaka is a comentary that is completely devoid of substance. If somebody were to make specific points od substance I'd be happy to take them on if I disagreed with them.
" "Oh, Victor doesn't like orcs on wargs!--or was it goblins? [That's the lingo, Victor, for 'animal-looking "people" riding wild boars-like "horses"'] He just doesn't get it!" Well, I have nothing against that sort of thing per se and I thought that whole sequence of the film to be outragiously stupid."
OK so you have called it a name. Now tell us why it was stupid. Then we will have something to talk about.
"I could go on and on and on. I think I have here before."
I hope your previous comentaries had more substance than "it was stupid."
Victor's critism of LotR has been nothing more than calling it kaka. So I can't say that it is or is not due to the genre or the movie. I'm still waiting for Victor to name an epic fantasy that he likes.Like what other epic fantasy might that be? If there were no other epic fantasy he liked, what would that prove?
There are no epic fantasy films I like. I think they're bad films. I think people apologize for their badness on generic grounds when there's no generic necessity to film them the way they're filmed. Critics who gave the LoTR films praise or even a pass by and large abandoned the kind of critical standards to which they hold other films. Why? The soft bigotry of low expectation. Most people assume genre fantasy is bad and therefore don't expect much out of it. "For epic fantasy, this is great!" Back-handed praise.
What was it about how it was filmed that makes you think that?
Do a search for previous posts of mine on this topic. If that doesn't suffice (it's been a while, and my memory's conflating what I've written here and in private exchanges), lemme know and maybe I'll get back to you. I don't have any great stake in writing a monograph on the cinematic offenses of the LoTR, but a monograph on that subject could very easily be written.
"I grew up with Tolkien, and while I still wax nostalgic over his work, I don't regard it as high literary art, though I do regard Middle Earth to be a great fiction."
That makes you one of many millions. But the vast majority of those many millions, myself included < don't share your opinion of the films.
And a million people can't be wrong. Can you offer a better defense of the film than recourse to its popularity? What have you offered in the way of analysis that's any more substantial than Victor's "kaka"?
" I don't, therefore, hold the original sacrosanct--in general, I understand that the translation of a literary work to film requires processes of restructuring, compression, and re-imagination, and all with an artistic integrity on the part of the translating filmmaker. In the adaptation of a novel to film, the film should be a free adaptation. Neither film nor novel should have a parasitic relationship to the other. In the end, the film should be judged on the extent to which it's a good film, not on the extent to which it was faithful to its source."
If it is faithful to the source and the source is a good one it stands to reason that the film will likely also be good. History has supported this basic logic.
That makes no sense whatsoever. It does not follow that faithfulness to a "good" source will result in a "good" adaptation. A bad director is perfectly capable of botching a good script just as a good director can salvage a bad one. And Jackson's faithfulness to Tolkien is only superficial at best.
"That said, the list of Jackson's departures in content and style, not to mention his interpolations, had the effect of making me realize that Tolkien was a much more accomplished story teller than I'd given him credit for. I think Tolkien has ample cause to be rolling in his grave because of those films, though maybe he's resting well knowing how many readers were sent to his novels after viewing them."
Among the millions of fans of his books you are in the vast minority when it comes to the film. That doesn't make you wrong but it certainly makes you less right in a way. Think for a moment what it would have meant had Jackson made a movie you liked but the vast majority of Tolkien fans didn't.
Again, have you an argument outside of lazy populism? It doesn't make me less right in any way whatsoever. Had Jackson made a film I liked and that a majority of Tolkien fans did not it would only prove, as their liking what in fact he did make proves, their poor reading of Tolkien, the poverty of their imaginations, and their complete lack of reflection upon the expressive possibilities of film. I think most Tolkien fans who creamed themselves over Jackson's films did so primarily because they felt themselves somehow affirmed by them: "See, these books I've been charishing? They're the real thing, man! Cultural stamp of approval!" Whatever.
Does that bug you? Deal with it. My opinions are not up for vote by the masses. I would not think very highly of anyone whose were.
"Seriously, though. I've seen no effort on the part of LoTR defenders here to defend the film as a film."
What's to defend. Calling it kaka is a comentary that is completely devoid of substance. If somebody were to make specific points on substance I'd be happy to take them on if I disagreed with them.
Fair enough, I suppose. I also think it a pretty basic critical exercise to offer an explanation as to why you like something, why it works for you. We expect as much from positive as from negative reviews, but of course tend to let it slide when the pronouncement is in accordance with our own. Those who agree with Victor that the films are kaka would probably regard elaboration tedious and superfluous; those who don't agree want an explanation. It's the same with those who agree they're good, though often such people like to have conversations about what it is they thought was good. I've not seen that here, however.
" "Oh, Victor doesn't like orcs on wargs!--or was it goblins? [That's the lingo, Victor, for 'animal-looking "people" riding wild boars-like "horses"'] He just doesn't get it!" Well, I have nothing against that sort of thing per se and I thought that whole sequence of the film to be outragiously stupid."
OK so you have called it a name. Now tell us why it was stupid. Then we will have something to talk about.
A laughably fake CGI action squence (that, like all such sequences in the film, was so over-the-top in a Jerry Bruckheimerish way as to divest the action of any genuine sense of danger) patently contrived to separate Aragorn from the group in order to elaborate on the silly, interpolated Aragorn/Arwen (is that her name?) story line, culminating with one of those aweful, gozzy, breathy, Liv Tyler sequences. What the hell's to like about that--especially as a Tolkien fan?
"I could go on and on and on. I think I have here before."
I hope your previous comentaries had more substance than "it was stupid."
Why don't you take a look?
Victor's critism of LotR has been nothing more than calling it kaka. So I can't say that it is or is not due to the genre or the movie. I'm still waiting for Victor to name an epic fantasy that he likes.
Like what other epic fantasy might that be? If there were no other epic fantasy he liked, what would that prove?"There are no epic fantasy films I like."
What a surprise that is.
" I think they're bad films."
I think you just don't like the genre and are confusing your taste with some fundimental truism about films.
" I think people apologize for their badness on generic grounds when there's no generic necessity to film them the way they're filmed."
Could you possibly paint your biases with a larger brush? I doubt it. As if every fantasy epic has been filmed the same way. You just look ignorant when you say things like this.
" Critics who gave the LoTR films praise or even a pass by and large abandoned the kind of critical standards to which they hold other films."
I see they all told you this in confidence or you are just a great mind reader?
Why? The soft bigotry of low expectation.
cough (bullshit)
Most people assume genre fantasy is bad and therefore don't expect much out of it. "For epic fantasy, this is great!" Back-handed praise.
Speak for yourself.
What was it about how it was filmed that makes you think that?
Do a search for previous posts of mine on this topic.
I have. I see nothing more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Get back to me when you can muster a post of substance on the subject.
If that doesn't suffice (it's been a while, and my memory's conflating what I've written here and in private exchanges), lemme know and maybe I'll get back to you. I don't have any great stake in writing a monograph on the cinematic offenses of the LoTR, but a monograph on that subject could very easily be written.
Go for it. So far the name calling has been most unimpressive.
"I grew up with Tolkien, and while I still wax nostalgic over his work, I don't regard it as high literary art, though I do regard Middle Earth to be a great fiction."
That makes you one of many millions. But the vast majority of those many millions, myself included < don't share your opinion of the films.
And a million people can't be wrong.
Those millions on this subject? Most unlikely.
Can you offer a better defense of the film than recourse to its popularity?
I think in this case it is a very strong argument. Both the masses and the hard core fans and the critics in general have all praised this movie. What makes you smarter than all of them? There does come a point where predominate genreal opinions do have weight. Or maybe everybody is wrong about Shakespeare and DiVinci as well. In the face of such all encompasing praie the onus is on you to offer something of substance that uggests the masses, the hard core fans and the crittics are all wrong. Good luck.
" What have you offered in the way of analysis that's any more substantial than Victor's "kaka"?"
Take your own advise and do a search. Are you really hard up for such comentary?
" I don't, therefore, hold the original sacrosanct--in general, I understand that the translation of a literary work to film requires processes of restructuring, compression, and re-imagination, and all with an artistic integrity on the part of the translating filmmaker. In the adaptation of a novel to film, the film should be a free adaptation. Neither film nor novel should have a parasitic relationship to the other. In the end, the film should be judged on the extent to which it's a good film, not on the extent to which it was faithful to its source."
If it is faithful to the source and the source is a good one it stands to reason that the film will likely also be good. History has supported this basic logic.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Well if basic deductive reasoning doesn't work for you i don't really know where to go from there. Further, if you are willing to ignore the history of films adapted from books what is the point in discussing the issue with you?
It does not follow that faithfulness to a "good" source will result in a "good" adaptation.
It certainly does follow that the results are "likely" to be good.
A bad director is perfectly capable of botching a good script just as a good director can salvage a bad one.
You mean I have to state the obvious that a good movie requires skill on the part of the film makers?
And Jackson's faithfulness to Tolkien is only superficial at best.
Fine, defend the claim.
"That said, the list of Jackson's departures in content and style, not to mention his interpolations, had the effect of making me realize that Tolkien was a much more accomplished story teller than I'd given him credit for. I think Tolkien has ample cause to be rolling in his grave because of those films, though maybe he's resting well knowing how many readers were sent to his novels after viewing them."Among the millions of fans of his books you are in the vast minority when it comes to the film. That doesn't make you wrong but it certainly makes you less right in a way. Think for a moment what it would have meant had Jackson made a movie you liked but the vast majority of Tolkien fans didn't.
Again, have you an argument outside of lazy populism?
The argument Works if you understand math. Reconsider the above question again for amoment and consider the fact that you much less any individual is a reference absolute excellence in the arts. There is something to the fact that the numbers in all catagories of filmgoers have overwehlmingly praised this movie. It isn't just the populus aproval hear. It is the aproval of the hard core fans, the critics and the real world film makers you are disagreeing with. Like I said, it doesn't make yo wrong but it does suggest that you are outside the bounds and are likely basing your opinions on personal biases and not common biases.
"It doesn't make me less right in any way whatsoever."
It does, you just ned to consider the sources of praise, all of them. The actual content of tht praise as well.
" Had Jackson made a film I liked and that a majority of Tolkien fans did not it would only prove, as their liking what in fact he did make proves, their poor reading of Tolkien, the poverty of their imaginations, and their complete lack of reflection upon the expressive possibilities of film."
oh balony. Get over yourself dude. When you make a film that proves your objetive superiority to all the critics, fans and real film makers that praised this film get back to me. Till then enjoy your island soap box along with all the other dime a dozen cynics.
" I think most Tolkien fans who creamed themselves over Jackson's films did so primarily because they felt themselves somehow affirmed by them: "See, these books I've been charishing? They're the real thing, man! Cultural stamp of approval!" Whatever."
More mind reading...whatever
"Does that bug you? Deal with it."
i am dealing with it. Swatting flies is a guilty pleasure of mine.
" My opinions are not up for vote by the masses."
So long as you get that they are personal opinions. you seem to think they are objective truths. They are not.
" I would not think very highly of anyone whose were."
I have news for you pal, in the world of film making film makes do just that every time they produce a movie. Deal with it.
"Seriously, though. I've seen no effort on the part of LoTR defenders here to defend the film as a film."What's to defend. Calling it kaka is a comentary that is completely devoid of substance. If somebody were to make specific points on substance I'd be happy to take them on if I disagreed with them.
Fair enough, I suppose. I also think it a pretty basic critical exercise to offer an explanation as to why you like something,
Fair enough. I will do so.
why it works for you. We expect as much from positive as from negative reviews, but of course tend to let it slide when the pronouncement is in accordance with our own. Those who agree with Victor that the films are kaka would probably regard elaboration tedious and superfluous; those who don't agree want an explanation. It's the same with those who agree they're good, though often such people like to have conversations about what it is they thought was good. I've not seen that here, however.
" "Oh, Victor doesn't like orcs on wargs!--or was it goblins? [That's the lingo, Victor, for 'animal-looking "people" riding wild boars-like "horses"'] He just doesn't get it!" Well, I have nothing against that sort of thing per se and I thought that whole sequence of the film to be outragiously stupid."OK so you have called it a name. Now tell us why it was stupid. Then we will have something to talk about.
A laughably fake CGI action squence (that, like all such sequences in the film, was so over-the-top in a Jerry Bruckheimerish way as to divest the action of any genuine sense of danger) patently contrived to separate Aragorn from the group in order to elaborate on the silly, interpolated Aragorn/Arwen (is that her name?) story line, culminating with one of those aweful, gozzy, breathy, Liv Tyler sequences. What the hell's to like about that--especially as a Tolkien fan?
OK your basic argument is that it wasn't ralistic? It was over the top? yeah it was. Epic stories of epic heroes traditionally include super human acts of strength, speed, skill and bravery. It is part of the fantasy. It is the same thing that makes stories told around the camp fire interesting to some of us. If you find it distasteful to allow for such things in film making that is a mattr of personal tatse. Most people through out the ages have enjoyed epic tales of heroes who are above and beyond the real limits of human beings. I know some very smart people who loe film and literature but will not alow themselves this sort of suspension of disbelief. That is fine but it is again a matter of personal tatse. As for the CGI that is a problem but not a movie killer for me. By and large the visual efects were remarkably excellent but of course some things work better than others. Such is the nature of the beast. But hey, do you hate the original King Kong because th effects sucked? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater and hate film for some bad visuals even though there were so many wonderful ones? I don't."I could go on and on and on. I think I have here before."
I hope your previous comentaries had more substance than "it was stupid."
Why don't you take a look?
Then you're stupid and a liar.Victor's critism of LotR has been nothing more than calling it kaka.
And it's really got you worked up. Why is that?
So I can't say that it is or is not due to the genre or the movie.
That's good. We wouldn't want to suppose things about people in the absence of disclosure.
I'm still waiting for Victor to name an epic fantasy that he likes.
And he's maybe waiting for the same thing. I know I am.
"There are no epic fantasy films I like."
What a surprise that is.
Sarcasm!
"I think they're bad films."
I think you just don't like the genre and are confusing your taste with some fundimental truism about films.
Well you'd be wrong, smart guy.
" I think people apologize for their badness on generic grounds when there's no generic necessity to film them the way they're filmed."
Could you possibly paint your biases with a larger brush? I doubt it.
Why don't you point out the bias in that statement of mine. Can you do that? I doubt it.
As if every fantasy epic has been filmed the same way. You just look ignorant when you say things like this.
I never said they were filmed the same way. Until you can point out where I did, you look pretty ignorant saying things like that.
" Critics who gave the LoTR films praise or even a pass by and large abandoned the kind of critical standards to which they hold other films."
I see they all told you this in confidence or you are just a great mind reader?
Awwww. Here we have someone presuming to know my and Victor's biases vis-a-vis a particular genre in the absence of any kind of disclosure, complaining about my assertion about a critical phenomenon easily and empirically observed.
Why? The soft bigotry of low expectation.
cough (bullshit)I stand by it. Caugh away.
Most people assume genre fantasy is bad and therefore don't expect much out of it. "For epic fantasy, this is great!" Back-handed praise.
Speak for yourself.
LOL. Excuse me?
You asked: What was it about how it was filmed that makes you think that?
I said: Do a search for previous posts of mine on this topic.
You respond: I have. I see nothing more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Get back to me when you can muster a post of substance on the subject.
I provided you links below. If you really read my posts there and this is your response you're a liar and an idiot. Don't waste your time responding to me anymore, because I'm not going to waste my time responding to you. What a fucking joke you are.
"If that doesn't suffice (it's been a while, and my memory's conflating what I've written here and in private exchanges), lemme know and maybe I'll get back to you. I don't have any great stake in writing a monograph on the cinematic offenses of the LoTR, but a monograph on that subject could very easily be written."
Go for it. So far the name calling has been most unimpressive.
What name-calling would that be? And, anyway, I've already gone for it. In previous posts. Helpfully linked for lazy you.
[Sarcastically] "And a million people can't be wrong."
Those millions on this subject? Most unlikely.
Most unlikely? Really? Well that settles it then.
Can you offer a better defense of the film than recourse to its popularity?
I think in this case it is a very strong argument. Both the masses and the hard core fans and the critics in general have all praised this movie. What makes you smarter than all of them? There does come a point where predominate genreal opinions do have weight. Or maybe everybody is wrong about Shakespeare and DiVinci as well. In the face of such all encompasing praie the onus is on you to offer something of substance that uggests the masses, the hard core fans and the crittics are all wrong. Good luck.
It's a non-argument, especially if the only argument those millions have to make on the films' behalf is that those millions all love it.
Smarter than them? Not in any absolute sense. Not necessarily at least. But who knows. Anything is posssible.
" What have you offered in the way of analysis that's any more substantial than Victor's "kaka"?"
Take your own advise and do a search. Are you really hard up for such comentary?
Not hardup for such commentary at all. Especially not from you. And I'm not saying that to be mean.
I said: " I don't, therefore, hold the original sacrosanct--in general, I understand that the translation of a literary work to film requires processes of restructuring, compression, and re-imagination, and all with an artistic integrity on the part of the translating filmmaker. In the adaptation of a novel to film, the film should be a free adaptation. Neither film nor novel should have a parasitic relationship to the other. In the end, the film should be judged on the extent to which it's a good film, not on the extent to which it was faithful to its source."
You said: If it is faithful to the source and the source is a good one it stands to reason that the film will likely also be good. History has supported this basic logic.
I said: That makes no sense whatsoever.
Your response: Well if basic deductive reasoning doesn't work for you i don't really know where to go from there. Further, if you are willing to ignore the history of films adapted from books what is the point in discussing the issue with you?
You look like such a fool here. You have no business lecturing anyone on his reasoning.
I said: It does not follow that faithfulness to a "good" source will result in a "good" adaptation.
You said: It certainly does follow that the results are "likely" to be good.
Again, you have no business lecturing anyone on reason. Because it certainly does not follow that the results are likely to be good. That's just a baseless, stupid thing to say.
"A bad director is perfectly capable of botching a good script just as a good director can salvage a bad one."
You mean I have to state the obvious that a good movie requires skill on the part of the film makers?
No, I have to state the obvious, and even in the face of that, you toss off ridiculous propositions.
"And Jackson's faithfulness to Tolkien is only superficial at best."
Fine, defend the claim.
Read the links I offered you for starters.
I said: "That said, the list of Jackson's departures in content and style, not to mention his interpolations, had the effect of making me realize that Tolkien was a much more accomplished story teller than I'd given him credit for. I think Tolkien has ample cause to be rolling in his grave because of those films, though maybe he's resting well knowing how many readers were sent to his novels after viewing them."
You said: Among the millions of fans of his books you are in the vast minority when it comes to the film. That doesn't make you wrong but it certainly makes you less right in a way. Think for a moment what it would have meant had Jackson made a movie you liked but the vast majority of Tolkien fans didn't.
I said: "Again, have you an argument outside of lazy populism?"
You respond: The argument Works if you understand math.
Good God.
Reconsider the above question again for amoment and consider the fact that you much less any individual is a reference absolute excellence in the arts.
I see. But an opinion, when held not by one individual but my millions of individuals, does have some kind of hold on absolute truth? That's so logical!
There is something to the fact that the numbers in all catagories of filmgoers have overwehlmingly praised this movie.
What would that something be?
It isn't just the populus aproval hear. It is the aproval of the hard core fans, the critics and the real world film makers you are disagreeing with. Like I said, it doesn't make yo wrong but it does suggest that you are outside the bounds and are likely basing your opinions on personal biases and not common biases.
Yawn.
" Had Jackson made a film I liked and that a majority of Tolkien fans did not it would only prove, as their liking what in fact he did make proves, their poor reading of Tolkien, the poverty of their imaginations, and their complete lack of reflection upon the expressive possibilities of film."
oh balony. Get over yourself dude.
The defensiveness of your response to criticism of these hallowed films, your repeated, desperate arguments, and your insistance that you have right and the masses on your side sounds question begging to me. Get over yourself.
When you make a film that proves your objetive superiority to all the critics, fans and real film makers that praised this film get back to me.
My ability to please the masses or even to make a film that lives up to my own standards of art don't make or break the validity of my argument. Should I ever produce either, you can be sure I won't bother getting back to you.
" My opinions are not up for vote by the masses."
So long as you get that they are personal opinions. you seem to think they are objective truths. They are not.
But the approval of the masses seems to be a stamp of truth, no? Please.
"I would not think very highly of anyone whose were."
I have news for you pal, [you can practically see his face turning red] in the world of film making film makes do just that every time they produce a movie. Deal with it.
Did you really mean to write that? That film makers adjust their opinions according to the dictates of the masses? Really?
"A laughably fake CGI action squence (that, like all such sequences in the film, was so over-the-top in a Jerry Bruckheimerish way as to divest the action of any genuine sense of danger) patently contrived to separate Aragorn from the group in order to elaborate on the silly, interpolated Aragorn/Arwen (is that her name?) story line, culminating with one of those aweful, gozzy, breathy, Liv Tyler sequences. What the hell's to like about that--especially as a Tolkien fan?"
OK your basic argument is that it wasn't ralistic? It was over the top? yeah it was. Epic stories of epic heroes traditionally include super human acts of strength, speed, skill and bravery.
Except this brings us back to the matter of Jackson's faithfulness to his source. This exact scene is a perfect example of his faithlessness. Tolkien's world was realistic (apart from the obvious, like the fact that Dragons and elves live there, but yes, it is fantasy); Jackson's is a cartoon.
It is part of the fantasy.
Had it been part of Tolkien's his novels would never have been as successful as they were, and we would never have had to watch Jackson's botching of them.
It is the same thing that makes stories told around the camp fire interesting to some of us. If you find it distasteful to allow for such things in film making that is a mattr of personal tatse. Most people through out the ages have enjoyed epic tales of heroes who are above and beyond the real limits of human beings. I know some very smart people who loe film and literature but will not alow themselves this sort of suspension of disbelief. That is fine but it is again a matter of personal tatse. As for the CGI that is a problem but not a movie killer for me. By and large the visual efects were remarkably excellent but of course some things work better than others. Such is the nature of the beast. But hey, do you hate the original King Kong because th effects sucked? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater and hate film for some bad visuals even though there were so many wonderful ones? I don't.
I can't bring myself to read this last paragraph. Sorry.
...but with several levels of quations, all not properly done, this is an impossible to understand post. I got hopelessly lost after first few lines. Who said what?
nt
"Like what other epic fantasy might that be? If there were no other epic fantasy he liked, what would that prove?"Well, it would indicate that the genre is not to his taste. Which is fine. But it certainly skews his credibility, as to LOTR. Answer me this: Critic says upfront that he does not like the sound of turntables? Would you trust his critism/review of a turntable? Critic states he has never heard a solid state amplifier that he has liked? Trust his review of a solid state amplifier? As an editor of a magazine, would you assign that reviewer a solid state amplifier to review? Well, maybe Victor's obvious dislike of the genre, despite protestations to the contrary, explains the much used "kaka" method of reviewing. As others have written, no analysis is supplied. Your retort, if I may call it one, is twofold: look it up, and, supporters, where is YOUR analysis.
To which I respond: Victor started this thread, perhaps he should look up the prior posts, read them, and move on, as you suggest. Because he started the thread, made a conclusion, presumably for comment (there are easier ways to talk to yourself), it is only fair for him to provide the analysis, which then allows others to comment to specific points. But kaka is difficult to respond to with something other than "it is not kaka." Or don't your comments apply to those you agree with?
"Where do you get this notion that the films' detractors are a bunch of frowning grumps?"
Well, I am here most every day. I see the films that most posters post about. I suspect that most posters post on movies that they appreciated. And while I agree with most of Victor's and other's comments about "serious" films, as I too see them, there is very little posting on films that are made to strictly entertain, rather than to educate, to generate serious thought, such as looking for symbolism to learn the point of a film. Which leads me to believe that they do not see them, or if they do see them, it is merely to tell us how bad the film was. Which leads to "it was kaka." Um, okay.
"I don't see the LoTR films as the Beatle's to some imagined alternate version as Bach. I see them more as, I don't know."
Fair enough. But when the analysis is limited to "kaka", it is difficult to respond, because those of us who enjoyed the films strictly as entertainment are left guessing as to the poster's frame of mind in criticising the film, such whether LOTR was compared to an artier film that was more appreciated by Victor and his supporters, or was compared to another fantasy film. Films, and music, do not exist in a vacuum. People make judgments about them because there are other comparisons. Why does Victor think the film is "kaka?" He does not say. But certainly his opinions were derived because of comparisons with other films that he does not think were "kaka." Nothing is good or bad. It is only good or bad to someone, based upon comparisons of other things that are good and bad to that person. If LOTR were the only film ever made, it would be neither good, or bad. Only there.
I must presume these facts because Victor did not state them. Which is why I used the Beatles. Are the Beatles good or bad? Well, the first question is, compared to what? Compared the Slim Whitman? Yes. Compared to Bach? Some classical diehards would say no.
"What do you think I wish it had delivered instead? "
I do not know. Maybe you should provide some information and analysis as to why it fell short of being a good film, what it should have done, comments subject to public comment rather than merely telling those of us who enjoyed the film "it was kaka."
You seem to live under wrong presumption that I would like to spend more time discussing the reasons LOTR is bad film... not so, I am not looking to relieving that wonderful experience.I posted on my emotions of meeting it once again, this time in expanded time frame, not anything else. It always makes me feel funny when someone demands that I say more than I am inclined to say at the moment... well, just as you, I say what I feel like. If subject warrants, I say more, if not, then, well, not.
You are welcome to address something I specifically stated in my post. But I am not inclined right now to go into the LOTR - we already spent more time on it than it deserves.
I still, of course, strongly disagree with your notion of evaluating films, etc. based on their categories, as I simply see no one category as lower than others. The reason we sometimes don't see significant works in Category A is simply because no good director ever made a movie in it. Great movie can be made in ANY category or genre, just like great paintings have been produced in any sort of genre too.
BTW - in my post above the work kaka referred not to the film (which IS kaka, in my view...) but a particular aspect of it. If you want, you can replace it with the word shit, and see how it reads.
You do not want to spend time discussing a film you thought was kaka? Too late. And which begs the question, why start in the first place, knowing the responses you would likely invite. Which seems to suggest that your purpose in beginning this dialog was not intelligent dscourse, but rather to fan flames. And spending MORE time discussing why it is a bad film? You have not spent ANY time discussing WHY it is a bad film. Why start now?
It is important to know of the individual's biases in assessing the value of their opinion. If a reviewer was a dyed in the wool tube-o-phile, and they disparaged a solid state design, what would you conclude about their opinion? Probably, they like the sound of tube amplifiers, not solid state, and were therefore given to dislike the solid state amplifier before they even listened to it, and their opinion is probably too colored to be of any value, unless you too are a dyed in the wool tube-o-phile. And writing that they like the fantasy genre, even though they have never seen one they liked, is like saying they like solid state amplifiers, but have never heard one they liked. Makes no sense. And I loved the Sinbad films, warts and all.I think the point of the folks who defend LOTR is that there are many different kinds of films which attempt to achieve different results, and are designed to satisfy different tastes. Do you listen to the Beatles with the same frame of mind and with the same goals you do Bach? Do you compare The Beatles with the same analysis you do Bach? Would you judge The Beatles with the same criteria you would Bach? LOTR is not "high-art", nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be escapist fun, the operative word being fun. If your life is always serious, and devoid of fun, then LOTR is not the film for you. Save yourself time and energy.
Do you not listen to some music just because it makes you feel good? Do you always look for some amorphous concept of "art" in music or films? Do you not watch some films simply for entertainment? To escape reality? To enter a different world? If not, then I would respectfully suggest you are missing a large part of the fun of films in general, and LOTR in particular.
At the end of the day, the only question is whether you had fun watching LOTR, because that is all is asks. Because you concentrated on the warts and logical gaps, it was more of a mental exercise, and you disliked the film. Fine. I concentrated on the visuals, and the escapist trappings, the hollow fun and joy of filmmaking that was evident on the screen, and, despite flaws, had fun.
How smart can you be in asking a film to deliver something it never intended to deliver, and then criticising it for it's failure? Obvously, too smart. To paraphrase Quint, film's philosopher extrodinaire: "It proves you college boys do not have the education to admit when you are wrong."
LOTR is not "high-art", nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be escapist fun, the operative word being fun. If your life is always serious, and devoid of fun, then LOTR is not the film for you. Save yourself time and energy.What do you mean by high art? What do you mean by fun? Where do you get this notion that the films' detractors are a bunch of frowning grumps?
I don't see the LoTR films as the Beatle's to some imagined alternate version as Bach. I see them more as, I don't know:
"Stonehenge, where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live and they do live well
Stonehenge
Where a man is a man and the children dance to
the pipes of pan
Stonehenge
Tis a magic place where the moon doth rise
With a dragon's face
Stonehenge
Where the virgins lie
And the prayer of devils fill the midnight sky
And you my love, won't you take my hand
We'll go back in time to that mystic land
Where the dew drops cry and the cats meow
I will take you there
I will show you how"How smart can you be in asking a film to deliver something it never intended to deliver, and then criticising it for it's failure?
What do you think I wish it had delivered instead?
I am glad you brought up the music subject, as it demonstrates how wrong you are.One does not evaluate (intuitively) works of art based on their genre.
When I am driving and a catchy and beautiful country song hits the air, I do not think: "This is a country song, so I better quickly change my scale to properly evaluate it".
No, I simply instantly know whether it speaks to me.
And I instantly do the same for jazz, classical, folk, pop... doesn't matter one bean. There are great things to be found everywhere, and you know when you find them. If thing is beautiful then you can see it right away... provided, of course, you have sufficient education, experience, intuition etc.
Same with movies. I completely reject the notion of defining genre. If you have to mention the genre as a crutch, then the movie is deficient. I don't usually watch animations, but I took a look at the Shrek, and it hit a good note, in a matter of a couple of minutes.
Nothing like that is present in the LOTR. It simply didn't matter to me whether it was on or off, I could have walked away any second. With Shrek I wanted to continue watching.
Shrek?????????!!!??????????!!!!!!???????
I did not see the whole movies, probably about 3/4 of it, but what I saw was funny and well made, with good human touch, some witty lines, wonderful voice over and animation.But this was by far NOT my guiltiest pleasure. Patrick might tell you I also love Clueless... he-he... I think it is a great film.
;^)
nt
;^)
Who reads yesterday newspapers on the net?
Are you?
In fact, I may be overly tolerant of grey poupon snake-oil salesmen with no respect for Peter Jackson's epic Tolkein trilogy.When a couple of BS nancy-boys spew prattle to tear down a series of fantasy films destined to become classics for the ages they deserve whatever nastiness can be mustard, ...err mustered. ;^)
AuPh
;^)
Victor, you missed my point. Does country music satisfy the same emotions, intellectual needs or desires, or the same impulse in you, as, say classical music? I do not know your music preferences, but is there a reason, at some time in the day, you choose to listen to classical versus pop? Why? Are there some times in the day you prefer to listen to pop over classical? Or country? If so, then it is because there is some emotion, some need that one form of music addresses, and one does not. I am not suggesting that you "listen" to one with a different frame of mind. Unless of course you only listen to classical, or rock, or country. Which would be consistent with you enjoying a specific genre.Again, the use of the word "art." I am not sure what that means to you. Define it please. I suspect that if you view every film with an eye toward whether it satisfies your definition of "art", you will inevitably dislike most films, particularly those that are made to do nothing other than provide escapist entertainment. Those films will have value which you will not see, because they do not satisfy your notion of "art." Which is fine. But I can only imagine how much time you are wasting. Or is there a reason you enjoy watching films you know you will not like. What need does that exercise satisfy?
I wish we would take the same enthusiasm for any film worth of it.
Translation: Stupid people are more apt to like stupid films such as Lord of the Rings .What a reductio ad absurdem your whole argument is.
Vic is pretty thick though, so why he didn't take a fancy to this unintelligent, overblown spectacle is a mystery. The books are pretty awful, too.
"Translation: Stupid people are more apt to like stupid films such as Lord of the Rings.
What a reductio ad absurdem your whole argument is.Vic is pretty thick though, so why he didn't take a fancy to this unintelligent, overblown spectacle is a mystery. The books are pretty awful, too."
It is ironic that some one would say someething so stupid while accusing others of stupidity. Yeah JRR Tolkien was an idiot and you are a genius. Thanks for setting the literary world straight on this one.
Tolkien had a turgid, muddy style, but sci-fi/fantasy nerds don't care a whit about aesthetics.Go watch another inane CGI extravaganza and wallow in your smug anti-intellectualism.
AS
"Tolkien had a turgid, muddy style, but sci-fi/fantasy nerds don't care a whit about aesthetics.
Go watch another inane CGI extravaganza and wallow in your smug anti-intellectualism."
OK so you are a pseudo-intelectual snob with a snotty attitude. Guys like you are a dime a dozen. Anyone can get on a soapbox and call anything crap. BFD. Get back to me when you have something to say with substance.
J.R.R. Tolkien didn't make the LoTR films, Peter Jackson did, as I'm sure you know.Irony upon irony.
"J.R.R. Tolkien didn't make the LoTR films, Peter Jackson did, as I'm sure you know."
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid. 1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid. So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Irony upon irony."
Indeed.
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid.1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically
Bingo!
or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid.
Try again!
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
Like I said, do a search.
I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you.
But that said, so what? That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest. In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted. Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success. That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films.
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid.
1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically"Bingo!"
or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid.
"Try again!"
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Like I said, do a search."
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd.
"I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
"But that said, so what?"
You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium.
"That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."
You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books.
" Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."
I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=films&m=19848Some stuff by the way here, but not the focus of the thread:
http://db.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=films&m=22338
"My son in law had two free tickets for the show and ask me if I would like to come along with him for this film, after an indecisive time of reflexion ( 3 hours for THIS kind of flim..) I remember the polemic on this board and decide to see if I could change my prejudice....Short, no I could not.
Loud, digital for images and sound, in one word depictable.
I wonīt go any longer or deeper on this as every thing is utterly wrong. I can understand for some to have some fun seeing it.
The worst was the never ending end."
This is your idea of substance? OK.........
Doh!
nt
?
...Bulkington's post is further down the thread. I hope you will check out the thread again and respond. I've often enjoyed your posts on this board, and look forward to hearing (reading) what you might say in response to Bulkington's original comments.
and read your posts on LoTR. Excellent points, nicely expressed. Wish I was around to jump in then. Thanks!
.
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.I understand the meaning of either, and your either/or was assinine. Thus: "try again!"
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Like I said, do a search."
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd.
I'm not here to do you any favors. The effort it would have taken you to do a search using the terms "Bulkington" and "Tolkien" or "LoTR" is minimal. Detailed argumentation takes time, as you well know. Instead of making an honest effort to engage my opinions on these films, which I'm pretty sure are just a quick search away, tell me where your real interests lie. It's convenient for you to assume I wrote long posts reducable to variations on "kaka." Whatever makes you feel good.
"I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
Your refusal to do a search for my previous posts leads me to believe you're not in any way genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say. If you show genuine interest, maybe I'll indulge you. I don't have much at stake in this however, and the dumb shit you've written in response to me doesn't make me very interested in defending my credibility against the likes of you.
"But that said, so what?"
You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium.
What you just wrote is so outragious naive it's staggering. Literature and film are two totally different media, and the success of both is measured not by content alone--content being, apparently, your only standard of faithfulness. Again, Jackson's films could have been faithful in content (they weren't, and I'm not sure why you'd need someone to point this out to you) and style (which determins how the content is experienced), and still it would not necessarily have been successful. Tolkien's books weren't screenplays. "Faithfulness" to his books results in a worthy film as a matter of course no more than a great screenplay of a great film, if re-shot, would result in anywhere near as great a film.
"That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
You're grasping.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."
You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books.
I get to talk about whatever the fuck I want when I want. Do you seriously have a problem with the principle as stated? If so, I'm not sure you're worth bothering over. I'm totally serious.
" Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."
I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
I seriously cannot fucking believe you just took that line of argument.
I can't believe it.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
Sigh.
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.
I understand the meaning of either, and your either/or was assinine. Thus: "try again!"
Riiiiight. one of them was a big bingo but the either or was assnine. Dude, really, grow a brain.
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth."Like I said, do a search."
Like i said get off your lazy ass and bring some substance to the table. Stop asking me to do your work.
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd.I'm not here to do you any favors.
I'm not asking you for a favor dimwit I'm asking you to do yourself a favor and support your assertions.
The effort it would have taken you to do a search using the terms "Bulkington" and "Tolkien" or "LoTR" is minimal.
Then get off your lazy ass and do it. I'm not here to support your assertions.
Detailed argumentation takes time, as you well know. Instead of making an honest effort to engage my opinions on these films, which I'm pretty sure are just a quick search away, tell me where your real interests lie.
An ctual conversation regarding the merits of the films would have ben nice. My interest in dealing with rude assholes is putting them in their place.
It's convenient for you to assume I wrote long posts reducable to variations on "kaka." Whatever makes you feel good.
Dude try to keep track of the facts. Victor's criticism was the subject you jumped into.
"I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
Your refusal to do a search for my previous posts leads me to believe you're not in any way genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say.
Look I have told you once. I am not going on any Easter egg hunts on your behalf. If it were so easy then why didn't you do the search and post your "comentary of substance?"
If you show genuine interest, maybe I'll indulge you.
If you offer something of substance I'll indulge you. do you always have this much trouble following directions?
I don't have much at stake in this however, and the dumb shit you've written in response to me doesn't make me very interested in defending my credibility against the likes of you.
Back at you dude. You are an idiot and boring.
"But that said, so what?"You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium.
What you just wrote is so outragious naive it's staggering.
Blah blah balh. Is this your idea of substance?
Literature and film are two totally different media, and the success of both is measured not by content alone--content being, apparently, your only standard of faithfulness.
Really? What is there besides "content" in either a book or a movie? Do you know what content means? Are you trying to make an ass of yourself? Here's a dfinition. Content: 1 a : something contained usually used in plural
b : the topics or matter treated in a written work
2 a : SUBSTANCE, GIST b : MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE c : the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art; Do tell me one would find in a movie or book that is not content? Good luck.
Again, Jackson's films could have been faithful in content (they weren't, and I'm not sure why you'd need someone to point this out to you)
I suppose they could have been perfectly faithful in content to the books but we would have had about 20 hours of material some of which would not have been cinematically justifiable. I never said he was completely faithful in content but I believe he was mostly faithful, that his choices of omission and contraction were by and large good choices. I think he was quite faithful to the themes and intent of the books.
and style (which determins how the content is experienced),
Do tell how a *film* maker can stylistically be true to a novel a *literary* work. Good luck.
and still it would not necessarily have been successful.
It was quite successful as it was.
Tolkien's books weren't screenplays. "Faithfulness" to his books results in a worthy film as a matter of course no more than a great screenplay of a great film, if re-shot, would result in anywhere near as great a film.
And whwere did I say it would? Are you struggling with the word "likely?" Are you still ignoring the rich history of faithful films basd on excellent books? Do you need a list?
"That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
You're grasping.
Calling you on your B.S.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books.
I get to talk about whatever the fuck I want when I want.
Talk to the hand dude.
Do you seriously have a problem with the principle as stated?
I don't see how the word serious can be a part of this argument. I can't take you seriously at all.
If so, I'm not sure you're worth bothering over. I'm totally serious.
I believe you are and that's just sad. But yeah, I realize that a faithful adaptation of a great literary work done poorly will not as likely produce an excellent film. You have yet to name anything that was done poorly in the films at isue. Now I make no claim that these films are perfect. They are far from it. but no film is perfect. IMO the merits of these films vastly outnumber the flaws.
" Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
I seriously cannot fucking believe you just took that line of argument.
I can't believe it.
Nice rebuttal. Not.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
Sigh.
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - Victor Khomenko 12:00:13 06/27/05 (2)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2005 at 11:30:03:
You might have a small point here, had I not had plenty of experience with ALL kinds of movies. If you had been keeping an eye on my posts, I do love plenty of different movies, and I only divide all films into two categories - good and bad.Things like Kabuki I don't discard even though I can't relate to them - for I can see the beauty in it, the one I perhaps don't find too captivating myself, but one that is impossible to miss.
Therefore, while I would not attempt to pass any judgement on Kabuki, I can do so on most movies... unless it is something completely outside the norm. I don't think LOTR quite falls into that category.
BTW - the opening post in this thread was - hopefully obviously - written with a major tongue planted firmly in the cheek. That alone is bound to get one in trouble with those not having their muscles relaxed sufficiently, but this is the risk we all take sometimes. This is not, after all, an Ebert page, this is place where we can horse around with jokes and overstatements.
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - Analog Scott 12:47:11 06/27/05 (1)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Victor Khomenko on June 27, 2005 at 12:00:13:
"You might have a small point here, had I not had plenty of experience with ALL kinds of movies. If you had been keeping an eye on my posts, I do love plenty of different movies, and I only divide all films into two categories - good and bad."
Well maybe I have missed something you have posted. What epic fantasy movies or books for that matter to you feel excel where Lord of the Rings falls short?
"Things like Kabuki I don't discard even though I can't relate to them - for I can see the beauty in it, the one I perhaps don't find too captivating myself, but one that is impossible to miss."
But any number of people will fail to see the beauty in it. Just as any number of people will fail to see the merits of The Lord of the Rings. Are you sure that you are simply not failing to see it's merits? I think your position on Kabuki is a wise one. I don't think that wisdom has served you with your position on Lord of the Rings. Do you really think all those people who have praised this movie and the books upon which they were based are merely idiots on the matter?
"Therefore, while I would not attempt to pass any judgement on Kabuki, I can do so on most movies... unless it is something completely outside the norm. I don't think LOTR quite falls into that category."
It may not fall oustside the norm but it seems that genre falls outside your tastes. But, as you said, I may have missed something you have posted on the genre. So, if the genre as a rule does not fall outside your tastes what epic fantasies do you love and what merits do you see in them that you do not see in Lord of the Rings?
"BTW - the opening post in this thread was - hopefully obviously - written with a major tongue planted firmly in the cheek. That alone is bound to get one in trouble with those not having their muscles relaxed sufficiently, but this is the risk we all take sometimes. This is not, after all, an Ebert page, this is place where we can horse around with jokes and overstatements."
I am aware of the history on film asylum that you and others have with this particular film. I know this is an on going joke with you. No problem there. Also I have no problems with people making claims that one film or another is crap. There are crap films. But I think this film carries far more than enough merit to require such a claim to be well supported. That has yet to be seen from you. You don't like the films, fine. They are kaka? Fine support the claim with some insightful intelegent arguments.
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - Victor Khomenko 14:09:31 06/27/05 (0)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2005 at 12:47:11:
I can't think of any fantasy movie that I like, not off the top of my fead, but this is not because I dislike the genre - it is because I do not recall any well made movie in it.Actually, come to think of it, the Seventh Voyage of Sinbad was nice, albeit for its time.
***Are you sure that you are simply not failing to see it's merits?
Yes, I am quite sure, for whatever it is worth. The movie has, I believe, so many areas in which it faults that it is easy not to like. I don't feel like repeating our old arguments, though, as we have done that more than once already. Anyone interested should be able to find our discussions.
Yes, this has been an ongoing joke. But I honestly already forgot all about it, until that night...
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - patrickU 11:39:24 06/27/05 (3)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2005 at 11:30:03:
One view of the father, one glance at his face, and you have a masterpiece.
You do not need more, you got it all.
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - Analog Scott 11:59:48 06/27/05 (2)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by patrickU on June 27, 2005 at 11:39:24:
"One view of the father, one glance at his face, and you have a masterpiece. You do not need more, you got it all."You think this is a universal truth rather than a personal truth? I doubt it is. Of course there are no doubt hard core Kabuki lovers that would say the same thing about the guy in bad drag striking a ridiculous pose.
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - patrickU 12:54:50 06/27/05 (1)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2005 at 11:59:48:
Universal? Maybe. We have an universal language out there. Made of course of different sensibilities.
Mostly a common language above nationalities. Above native cultures.
Donīt you think?
Or let it put me this way: a personal truth may also be a universal one too.
Yes no doubt.
- Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! - Analog Scott 16:27:12 06/27/05 (0)
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by patrickU on June 27, 2005 at 12:54:50:
"Universal? Maybe. We have an universal language out there. Made of course of different sensibilities.
Mostly a common language above nationalities. Above native cultures.
Donīt you think?"
I think there are universal truths but not universal conventions. I have no doubt that great art largly deals with those universal truths at the core of it's themes. It is the conventions that are learned and are culturally diverse and often non=interchangable. I have no doubt that the Kabuki lover often cannot understand how the western world cannot see exactly what he sees. With time we are often numbed to that which we have learned and aquired with time and experience. As I listen to Coltrane I have a hard time remebering when I didn't get him.
"Or let it put me this way: a personal truth may also be a universal one too.
Yes no doubt."No doubt. And when all is said and done we knew the truth already most of the time.It is the comunication of that truth That distiguishes the art. I don't think *that* is so universal. Not always.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
You can not post to an archived thread.
[Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
