|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
|
|
Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star. |
|
In Reply to: Re: I don't get your analogy posted by Analog Scott on June 28, 2005 at 11:25:48:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- " I see nothing more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread" - Bulkington 15:21:46 06/28/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
