 
|
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 |
70.136.153.187
In Reply to: Already been done ("LoTR in 30 Seconds," a parody cleverly edited together with stills), ... posted by Audiophilander on January 12, 2006 at 12:07:48:
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
Follow Ups:
> > > "...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 ]
