 
|
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 |
67.173.212.229
In Reply to: Remake of "Lord of the Rings" ! - - Includes my complete script posted by Bambi B on January 12, 2006 at 09:24:10:
...but on a serious note, I differ with your criticisms and especially the assertion that Peter Jackson's filmed Lord of the Rings trilogy is bloated, annoying and illogical.>>> "Having seen the three episodes of "Lord of the Rings" directed by Peter Jackson, I've decided that this bloated set of computer generated is deserves a remake. This is in the interest of correcting the annoying and illogical aspects of the Jackson original as well as cutting out the numerous scenes contrived to unecessarily pad out the story and distract the audience with filler material." <<<
No offense, and I do appreciate your sense of humor, I can't take your criticisms of LoTR seriously; perhaps you only meant it in jest, but your denouncement was rather blunt. Maybe you've just been overexposed to Victor and patrick's indulging in grey poupon fare and as a result lack an appreciation for more down to Middle Earth entertainment. :o)
What "annoying and illogical aspects" ...? If you seriously didn't like the CGI, that's fine, but why rain on other folk's parade? Not everyone finds special effects utilized to suspend disbelief in an epic fantasy offensive, you know, and those effects were superbly rendered.
IMIO, Peter Jackson's LoTR is nothing short of a magnificent series of films, true epics, far from "bloated" (my wife, myself and just about everyone we know loved all three of these films, and that's in their extended versions). Of course some folks may feel "bloated" trying to sit comfortably through any 3 hour movie after too much soda, which theater chains, quite literally, promote constantly (AD infinitum, so to speak ;^D), but that isn't the fault of the filmmaker trying to faithfully recreate an epic story, is it?
Maybe theater chains should bring back intermissions, like filmmakers provided for epic films of the past such as Selznik's Gone With the Wind and David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, but that would probably require hiring more ushers to keep track of audiences in busy multi-plex cinemas in our in-and-out in 90 minute rush to judgment culture.
BTW, regardless of of comparisons, Jackson's take on Tolkein was vastly superior to Disney's pond-water sucking Chronic Ills of Nurdia which, in spite of it's running time, felt incomplete and uneven. But just to prove that I'm a good sport and enjoy parody when it isn't predisposed to a critical agenda, I tried to locate and link a clever LoTR parody someone linked a few months ago. Unfortunately, "Lord of The Rings in 30 Seconds" is currently unavailable. It has apparently been pulled or moved, but it was quite funny, even for die-hard fans of the film series like myself.
Cheers,
AuPh
Follow Ups:
AuPH,Of course, the my criticisms of LoTR are mostly part of my dubious kind of humour, as this triology of mives is an astounding technical effort.
But, it obviously has not escaped the notice of others as well that in the final scenes of "Return" when Frodo, having seen to it the Ring is destroyed, and Sam are clinging to the side of the volcano, that they are rescued quite easily by Gandalf and the Eagles. If the eagles could reach this place for a rescue, we must ask why Gandalf didn't just fly Frodo and the Ring there in the first place.
The reason this is not addressed is that there had to be a way to rescue Frodo and Sam, but if the idea of just flyig to the volcano in the first 20 minutes of the first movie would have circumvented the reamaining 8 hours- and any potential for the battles and action.
There are many logical lapses in fantasy movies, but this one is little insulting- either Gandalf is an idiot or we are!
But, there is amore serious failing generally in LotR concerning the Ring iteself. Tolkien, like William Blake before him, was desperate to create a kind of pre-Christian mythology for England and he drew heavily from another fellow despserate for a retro-styled mythology for his country- Richard Wagner. Like Wagner's Ring Cycle, Tolkien, makes the central focus this ring of power that everyone is after, but this main character that creates the entire action- doesn't really have much to do- it doens't contribute to the events except the obsession it produces. We really don't care about the story as strongly as we might because the ring itself- this center of the story doesn't seem all that important.
I much admire Jackson's work, but it's the original Tokien story that is a little thin iin some important reasepcts and the easy way out of the eagles, the varying effectiveness of magic powers that occur at convenient times to solve story problems that detract a bit from the trilogy. But, certainly, the Jackson set is well worth seeing more than once to understand the depth, skill, and complexity with which it was made- we just have to go easy on intellectual analysis and enjoy it for what it does so well.
Cheers,
Bambi B
> > > "...we must ask why Gandalf didn't just fly Frodo and the Ring there in the first place." < < <Well Bambi, actually, that was a fairly easy one I resolved to my own satisfaction at the time (read on).
> > > "There are many logical lapses in fantasy movies, but this one is little insulting- either Gandalf is an idiot or we are!" < < <
Not at all; here's why: We learn from the outset that some creatures are more susceptable to the Ring's power than others. Neither you nor I, nor Gandalf for that matter, is an idiot! Why would one assume that a giant eagle wouldn't fall under the spell of the One Ring? After all, the eagles were easily susceptable to the power of a Wizard's suggestion and we are already keenly aware that Gandalf wouldn't risk trying to take the Ring to Mount Doom himself.
Does this work for you? It sure worked for me! :o)
> > > "But, there is amore serious failing generally in LotR concerning the Ring iteself. Tolkien, like William Blake before him, was desperate to create a kind of pre-Christian mythology for England and he drew heavily from another fellow despserate for a retro-styled mythology for his country- Richard Wagner. Like Wagner's Ring Cycle, Tolkien, makes the central focus this ring of power that everyone is after, but this main character that creates the entire action- doesn't really have much to do- it doens't contribute to the events except the obsession it produces. We really don't care about the story as strongly as we might because the ring itself- this center of the story doesn't seem all that important." < < <
Well, we may just have to disagree about that I guess, because to my way of thinking in an epic fantasy tale strong central characters can be created through the lust or greed of it's central characters overcome by their own weaknesses and surroundings; given this scenario, the Ring is merely a McGuffin, as Hitchcock would say.
Whether it's the revenge and political intrigue of Wagner's Nordic/Germanic Ring Cycle mythology (centering around Siegfried's sacrifice and death for his love Valkyrie Brunhilde who returns the Ring destroying the Gods), or Tolkein's multi-cultural Hobbit-centric (weakest is the strongest among us) sojourn with it's focus on race comraderie and self sacrifice to achieve a common goal with romantic elements taking a back-seat to defense against oppression, these are both strong stories within the framework established for epic fantasy.
Nevertheless, I do understand your point of view even though I don't concur with it. One of the things about epic fantasy as well as the books upon which epic films are produced is that people will draw varying conclusions about the mythology's strengths and weaknesses. This doesn't mean that either of us are wrong in our viewpoints, per se.
My way of assessing fiction films boils down to whether the finished film(s) faithfully represent the author's work and whether filmmakers have, in translating the works to a different medium, satisfy the expectations of both the mythology's fans and audiences unacquainted with the original works. Fortunately, for the impassioned audiences of both Tolkein's original works and Jackson's films this has been handsomely achieved in all three LoTR films.
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 ]
