Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Hobbit out on DVD
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Clams Canino
Mar 20, 2013, 1:45:56 PM3/20/13
to
At least in Region 1 (US etc)
This time watching it with a more critical eye:
Two major things "stuck out" at me. (and some minor stuff).
A) The fractured timeline history regarding Azog vs the Dwarves.
(This I didn't mind too much. Probably because I can understand why it was
done to enhance the films "pucker factor" a bit.)
B) The radical change in Lore regarding the Witch King. (and therefore the
Nazgul in general)
This did bother me.
I understand why a Necromancer needs to seem to BE a Necromancer of sorts.
However, there were ways to achieve this, even using the Nazgul as an
"example", without directly violating the correct lore of the Nazgul.
The more that conversation about the Morgul Blade went on (and on) the
deeper Mr. Jackon dug his hole on this one. It was almost painful to listen.
-W
Paul S. Person
Mar 28, 2013, 1:24:15 PM3/28/13
to
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:45:56 -0400, "Clams Canino"
<cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
It appears that you are ... unique.
Congratulations!
>At least in Region 1 (US etc)
>
>This time watching it with a more critical eye:
>
>Two major things "stuck out" at me. (and some minor stuff).
>
>A) The fractured timeline history regarding Azog vs the Dwarves.
>(This I didn't mind too much. Probably because I can understand why it was
>done to enhance the films "pucker factor" a bit.)
I take it you have confirmed that Azog has a prosthesis in the later
scenes?
>B) The radical change in Lore regarding the Witch King. (and therefore the
>Nazgul in general)
I take it you have confirmed that Galadriel tells at least part of the
"buried Witch-King" story, not just Saruman.
>This did bother me.
>I understand why a Necromancer needs to seem to BE a Necromancer of sorts.
>However, there were ways to achieve this, even using the Nazgul as an
>"example", without directly violating the correct lore of the Nazgul.
>The more that conversation about the Morgul Blade went on (and on) the
>deeper Mr. Jackon dug his hole on this one. It was almost painful to listen.
But Jackson & accomplices (thanks to Troels for that excellent
phrase!) have no interest in "correct lore of the Nazgul". They are
only interested in Action Sequences. Everything else is just padding
or, at best (as in this case), foreshadowing (for a future Action
Sequence).
I have decided not to purchase the film on DVD until I have seen all
three parts and verified that each is as well done as the first. After
all, unlike the situation with /Lord of the Rings/, I already have an
acceptable movie of /The Hobbit/. A second trilogy that starts well
and then loses its way is not attractive.
The real question is whether I will be able to see the next two films
in the theater. The theater I have relied on for decades (since at
least 1990 or so) was sold by Landmark to Sundance and, after some
delay in which it was business-as-usual, Sundance is finally
converting it to their kind of theater. The promised future format is:
a) All seats for all shows are reserved (ie, assigned).
b) Alcohol (beer, apparently) will not only be available inside the
building but (if their pre-film cards can be believed) actually served
in the theater proper.
c) In addition to the ticket price, an "amenities charge" will be
levied.
I don't know about anyone else, but the prospect of being required to
sit next to a drunk does not appeal to me.
OTOH, it is possible that, for the afternoon shows I go to, the booze
will not be available, the amenities charge will, as a result, not be
levied, and I will only have to deal with assigned seating.
Other theaters do exist, but (except for the remaining Landmark
theaters, which are showing art-house films) not within walking
distance, so going (say) downtown will require additional time and
expense. The harder or less appealing it is to go to a theater, the
fewer films I will see in one. It is just as easy to wait and use Red
Box or Amazon Instant Video to rent the film and watch it at home.
It is, of course, possible that, once the Sundance conversion is
complete, the art films will go to the Sundance theater, leaving the
Landmark theaters to show the more popular films. You know, the ones
people actually /want/ to see. Even when they aren't drunk. Such as
the next two Hobbit films.
The next film I /know/ I will want to see in a theater (this could
change, depending on what shows up this summer) is /Catching Fire/,
the second Hunger Games film, which should be out a month or so before
the second Hobbit movie. So, currently, it looks like /Catching Fire/
will provide a clue of how, if at all, I see films in a movie theater
in the future.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
<cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
It appears that you are ... unique.
Congratulations!
>At least in Region 1 (US etc)
>
>This time watching it with a more critical eye:
>
>Two major things "stuck out" at me. (and some minor stuff).
>
>A) The fractured timeline history regarding Azog vs the Dwarves.
>(This I didn't mind too much. Probably because I can understand why it was
>done to enhance the films "pucker factor" a bit.)
scenes?
>B) The radical change in Lore regarding the Witch King. (and therefore the
>Nazgul in general)
"buried Witch-King" story, not just Saruman.
>This did bother me.
>I understand why a Necromancer needs to seem to BE a Necromancer of sorts.
>However, there were ways to achieve this, even using the Nazgul as an
>"example", without directly violating the correct lore of the Nazgul.
>The more that conversation about the Morgul Blade went on (and on) the
>deeper Mr. Jackon dug his hole on this one. It was almost painful to listen.
phrase!) have no interest in "correct lore of the Nazgul". They are
only interested in Action Sequences. Everything else is just padding
or, at best (as in this case), foreshadowing (for a future Action
Sequence).
I have decided not to purchase the film on DVD until I have seen all
three parts and verified that each is as well done as the first. After
all, unlike the situation with /Lord of the Rings/, I already have an
acceptable movie of /The Hobbit/. A second trilogy that starts well
and then loses its way is not attractive.
The real question is whether I will be able to see the next two films
in the theater. The theater I have relied on for decades (since at
least 1990 or so) was sold by Landmark to Sundance and, after some
delay in which it was business-as-usual, Sundance is finally
converting it to their kind of theater. The promised future format is:
a) All seats for all shows are reserved (ie, assigned).
b) Alcohol (beer, apparently) will not only be available inside the
building but (if their pre-film cards can be believed) actually served
in the theater proper.
c) In addition to the ticket price, an "amenities charge" will be
levied.
I don't know about anyone else, but the prospect of being required to
sit next to a drunk does not appeal to me.
OTOH, it is possible that, for the afternoon shows I go to, the booze
will not be available, the amenities charge will, as a result, not be
levied, and I will only have to deal with assigned seating.
Other theaters do exist, but (except for the remaining Landmark
theaters, which are showing art-house films) not within walking
distance, so going (say) downtown will require additional time and
expense. The harder or less appealing it is to go to a theater, the
fewer films I will see in one. It is just as easy to wait and use Red
Box or Amazon Instant Video to rent the film and watch it at home.
It is, of course, possible that, once the Sundance conversion is
complete, the art films will go to the Sundance theater, leaving the
Landmark theaters to show the more popular films. You know, the ones
people actually /want/ to see. Even when they aren't drunk. Such as
the next two Hobbit films.
The next film I /know/ I will want to see in a theater (this could
change, depending on what shows up this summer) is /Catching Fire/,
the second Hunger Games film, which should be out a month or so before
the second Hobbit movie. So, currently, it looks like /Catching Fire/
will provide a clue of how, if at all, I see films in a movie theater
in the future.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Clams Canino
Mar 28, 2013, 5:38:18 PM3/28/13
to
"Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
> I take it you have confirmed that Azog has a prosthesis in the later
> scenes?
> I take it you have confirmed that Galadriel tells at least part of the
> "buried Witch-King" story, not just Saruman.
> But Jackson & accomplices (thanks to Troels for that excellent
> phrase!)
> I have decided not to purchase the film on DVD until I have seen all
> three parts and verified that each is as well done as the first. After
> all, unlike the situation with /Lord of the Rings/, I already have an
> acceptable movie of /The Hobbit/. A second trilogy that starts well
> and then loses its way is not attractive.
I plan to do the same with the other 2 and only buy the "boxed set" once I'm
sure that no "extended versions" are coming out later. (This I doubt, as the
films are already "extended" of sorts)
-W
j
Mar 28, 2013, 6:52:18 PM3/28/13
to
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
news:jaidncIbnqm2JcnM...@earthlink.com...
set of the standard edition LOR, and a complete set of extended edition
LOR - and they were not cheap, of course everyone wants to watch it as soon
as they have seen it in the theater (hence the standard set) and curious
(hence the extended set)
I havent even see the Hobbit yet - won't be rooked into the commercialism
again, I have the books and my imagination!!
Stan Brown
Mar 28, 2013, 7:02:34 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:38:18 -0400, Clams Canino wrote:
> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > I take it you have confirmed that Azog has a prosthesis in the later
> > scenes?
>
> Yes.. absolutely.
>
Is this /The Hobbit/ or /Boogie Nights/?
> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > I take it you have confirmed that Azog has a prosthesis in the later
> > scenes?
>
> Yes.. absolutely.
>
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Clams Canino
Mar 28, 2013, 10:36:23 PM3/28/13
to
"j" <j...@j.org> wrote in message news:0P35t.2991$DW5....@fed13.iad...
>
> This is what I am going to do this time as well.
I did that last time too. Saved me a bundle when the extended version came
out.
I promptly bought that one. :)
-W
Paul S. Person
Mar 29, 2013, 12:17:04 PM3/29/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:02:34 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:38:18 -0400, Clams Canino wrote:
>> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> > I take it you have confirmed that Azog has a prosthesis in the later
>> > scenes?
>>
>> Yes.. absolutely.
>>
>
>Is this /The Hobbit/ or /Boogie Nights/?
Well, since I have never seen /Boogie Nights/, my guess would be
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:38:18 -0400, Clams Canino wrote:
>> "Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> > I take it you have confirmed that Azog has a prosthesis in the later
>> > scenes?
>>
>> Yes.. absolutely.
>>
>
>Is this /The Hobbit/ or /Boogie Nights/?
/TH:1/.
Paul S. Person
Mar 29, 2013, 12:23:06 PM3/29/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:52:18 -0700, "j" <j...@j.org> wrote:
>
>"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
>news:jaidncIbnqm2JcnM...@earthlink.com...
>
>"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote in message
>news:jaidncIbnqm2JcnM...@earthlink.com...
>> I rented it and ripped it to my HTPC hard drive. :)
>> I plan to do the same with the other 2 and only buy the "boxed set" once
>> I'm sure that no "extended versions" are coming out later. (This I doubt,
>> as the films are already "extended" of sorts)
>
>> I plan to do the same with the other 2 and only buy the "boxed set" once
>> I'm sure that no "extended versions" are coming out later. (This I doubt,
>> as the films are already "extended" of sorts)
>
>This is what I am going to do this time as well - I already own a complete
>set of the standard edition LOR, and a complete set of extended edition
>LOR - and they were not cheap, of course everyone wants to watch it as soon
>as they have seen it in the theater (hence the standard set) and curious
>(hence the extended set)
>I havent even see the Hobbit yet - won't be rooked into the commercialism
>again, I have the books and my imagination!!
I'm still waiting for the EEs to come out in an acceptable edition --
>set of the standard edition LOR, and a complete set of extended edition
>LOR - and they were not cheap, of course everyone wants to watch it as soon
>as they have seen it in the theater (hence the standard set) and curious
>(hence the extended set)
>I havent even see the Hobbit yet - won't be rooked into the commercialism
>again, I have the books and my imagination!!
each film on one side of one disc and watchable as such (no popping
back to the menu to select the second half), with the standard
editions available in the same box (on the same disc with seamless
branching would be fine). Note that the DVD set that did this made the
standard editions into flippies, a definite reduction in value. The
current BR sets don't have both versions in the same box.
The closest I have come so far is, actually, the ones in Amazon
Instant Video. However, they were never rentable and, IIRC, the last
time I checked they weren't even available for purchase any more.
While I was checking, they were never available for rental.
I guess some marketing wienee decided that letting people have a
version of the EE that isn't in two parts was a violation of artistic
integrity. Or something.
Clams Canino
Mar 29, 2013, 10:09:27 PM3/29/13
to
"Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:52:18 -0700, "j" <j...@j.org> wrote:
> I'm still waiting for the EEs to come out in an acceptable edition --
> each film on one side of one disc and watchable as such (no popping
> back to the menu to select the second half), with the standard
> editions available in the same box (on the same disc with seamless
> branching would be fine). Note that the DVD set that did this made the
> standard editions into flippies, a definite reduction in value. The
> current BR sets don't have both versions in the same box.
I did that myself with the freeware "DVDShrink 3.2"
> I'm still waiting for the EEs to come out in an acceptable edition --
> each film on one side of one disc and watchable as such (no popping
> back to the menu to select the second half), with the standard
> editions available in the same box (on the same disc with seamless
> branching would be fine). Note that the DVD set that did this made the
> standard editions into flippies, a definite reduction in value. The
> current BR sets don't have both versions in the same box.
It has a crude editing feature that allows you to "splice" two (or 6) titles
together.
I made one LONG movie out of the 3 EEs on my HTPC hard drive.
Seamless playback.....
http://www.mrbass.org/dvdshrink/dvdshrink32setup.zip
-W
Clams Canino
Mar 29, 2013, 10:11:07 PM3/29/13
to
Message has been deleted
Paul S. Person
Mar 30, 2013, 2:26:52 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:00:06 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <hnt8l81m0lc0kttc8...@4ax.com>
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>> The real question is whether I will be able to see the next two films
>> in the theater. The theater I have relied on for decades (since at
>> least 1990 or so) was sold by Landmark to Sundance and, after some
>> delay in which it was business-as-usual, Sundance is finally
>> converting it to their kind of theater. The promised future format is:
>
>> a) All seats for all shows are reserved (ie, assigned).
>
>I've never understood this. Seems it would just slow down purchasing.
I expect to find that the "best" seats, which, inevitably, will be the
ones I prefer, are "reserved for Gold Card [or whatever] members", who
pay $50 a year for the privilege. But I could be wrong.
>> b) Alcohol (beer, apparently) will not only be available inside the
>> building but (if their pre-film cards can be believed) actually served
>> in the theater proper.
>
>That's quite common around here, including at our Landmark.
It isn't here.
The title cards are touting this as a major distinguishing factor:
that the Sundance Cinimas serves "adult beverages".
>> c) In addition to the ticket price, an "amenities charge" will be
>> levied.
>
>eh?
That is what I understand. Think of it as a "cover charge".
Basically, you pay for the booze even if you don't indulge.
>> Even when they aren't drunk.
>
>Oh, you're one of those who equates alcohol with drunkenness? That's rather juvenile.
OK, try this alternative:
[The kind of films people can enjoy] even when they don't have a buzz
on.
The point is that, while most of the best-reviewed art-house films are
certainly worth watching (and even buying on DVD), some of them (and
so, by extension, most or all of the not-so-well reviewed art-house
films) are probably a lot easier to take if you are somewhat
intoxicated than if you are sober, so serving alcohol to patrons would
make sense for an art-house theater.
I don't equate alcohol with drunkenness. I equate alcoholics with
drunks.
And people who have been drinking do not have to be drunk to be
obnoxious. It just helps.
>> The next film I /know/ I will want to see in a theater (this could
>> change, depending on what shows up this summer) is /Catching Fire/,
>> the second Hunger Games film, which should be out a month or so before
>> the second Hobbit movie. So, currently, it looks like /Catching Fire/
>> will provide a clue of how, if at all, I see films in a movie theater
>> in the future.
>
>Hmm. I have every Friday of May planned (Iron Man 3, Great Gatsby, Star
>Trek, Before Midnight) and there are at least a dozen films before
>Catching Fire that are on my must-see list.
I loathed and despised /Iron Man/, and he was one of the three losers
(Thor and Captain America being the other two) who made /Marvel's the
Avengers/ (which was basically a /Thor/ sequel, to be followed, if I
understood the ending correctly, by a /Captain America/ sequel) quite
unendurable. I made the mistake of watching the latest /Jane Eyre/
film and I don't intend to repeat it any time soon, at least, not for
any book that tends to be praised rather than reviewed. I despised
/Trek/ because of it's utter idiocy both as a film and as a Star Trek
film and have no intention of continuing with its sequels, although I
must admit that it's villain could have given Khan lessons in what
"wrath" is (Khan never reached "wrath"; the best he ever managed was
"temper tantrum" or possibly "hissy fit"). As to /Before Midnight/, it
would have to get incredible reviews for me to even consider it, as
the information I just accessed positively screams "Chick Flick" and
that is not a genre I am very tolerant of.
Since yesterday, I did recall a reference to /RED 2/: if this is a
sequal to /RED/, I might decide to see it in a theater. Since I am not
frequenting the movie theater, and so not seeing as many trailers, it
is possible that there will be others. At the moment, the
Metro/Sundance has half its screens in operation (the other five are
being "improved"), and so it is likely to be business as usual (albeit
with only half the usual number of choices) for some time to come, so
anything is possible. Indeed, I cannot be certain that the conversion
will be done before /TH:2/, although I expect it will be.
A couple of years ago, I realized that most of the films I was
watching, even those reviewed as being good films and being solidly
embedded in genres I enjoy (such as Comic Book or Brain-Dead Summer
Action) were not worth the time and money required to see them. This
led me to convert to Red Box and Amazon Instant Video, where I can see
films that /should/ be films I will enjoy more conveniently (if
considerably later). And, in the case of AIV, to catch up with films I
missed back before I retired, when I was impeded by the time
constraints imposed by employment from seeing every film I wished.
Some have suggested that my taste has changed. However, it has been
long enough for me to see, at one per night, most if not all of the
films I have purchased on DVD and I still enjoy those as much as I
ever did. And a few new films have still appeared from time to time
that turned out to be worth seeing and even buying on DVD. So I think
that the film industry has simply, for the most part, but with a few
exceptions, gone down a path that I have no interest in following.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <hnt8l81m0lc0kttc8...@4ax.com>
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>> The real question is whether I will be able to see the next two films
>> in the theater. The theater I have relied on for decades (since at
>> least 1990 or so) was sold by Landmark to Sundance and, after some
>> delay in which it was business-as-usual, Sundance is finally
>> converting it to their kind of theater. The promised future format is:
>
>> a) All seats for all shows are reserved (ie, assigned).
>
I expect to find that the "best" seats, which, inevitably, will be the
ones I prefer, are "reserved for Gold Card [or whatever] members", who
pay $50 a year for the privilege. But I could be wrong.
>> b) Alcohol (beer, apparently) will not only be available inside the
>> building but (if their pre-film cards can be believed) actually served
>> in the theater proper.
>
It isn't here.
The title cards are touting this as a major distinguishing factor:
that the Sundance Cinimas serves "adult beverages".
>> c) In addition to the ticket price, an "amenities charge" will be
>> levied.
>
That is what I understand. Think of it as a "cover charge".
Basically, you pay for the booze even if you don't indulge.
>> Even when they aren't drunk.
>
OK, try this alternative:
[The kind of films people can enjoy] even when they don't have a buzz
on.
The point is that, while most of the best-reviewed art-house films are
certainly worth watching (and even buying on DVD), some of them (and
so, by extension, most or all of the not-so-well reviewed art-house
films) are probably a lot easier to take if you are somewhat
intoxicated than if you are sober, so serving alcohol to patrons would
make sense for an art-house theater.
I don't equate alcohol with drunkenness. I equate alcoholics with
drunks.
And people who have been drinking do not have to be drunk to be
obnoxious. It just helps.
>> The next film I /know/ I will want to see in a theater (this could
>> change, depending on what shows up this summer) is /Catching Fire/,
>> the second Hunger Games film, which should be out a month or so before
>> the second Hobbit movie. So, currently, it looks like /Catching Fire/
>> will provide a clue of how, if at all, I see films in a movie theater
>> in the future.
>
>Trek, Before Midnight) and there are at least a dozen films before
>Catching Fire that are on my must-see list.
I loathed and despised /Iron Man/, and he was one of the three losers
(Thor and Captain America being the other two) who made /Marvel's the
Avengers/ (which was basically a /Thor/ sequel, to be followed, if I
understood the ending correctly, by a /Captain America/ sequel) quite
unendurable. I made the mistake of watching the latest /Jane Eyre/
film and I don't intend to repeat it any time soon, at least, not for
any book that tends to be praised rather than reviewed. I despised
/Trek/ because of it's utter idiocy both as a film and as a Star Trek
film and have no intention of continuing with its sequels, although I
must admit that it's villain could have given Khan lessons in what
"wrath" is (Khan never reached "wrath"; the best he ever managed was
"temper tantrum" or possibly "hissy fit"). As to /Before Midnight/, it
would have to get incredible reviews for me to even consider it, as
the information I just accessed positively screams "Chick Flick" and
that is not a genre I am very tolerant of.
Since yesterday, I did recall a reference to /RED 2/: if this is a
sequal to /RED/, I might decide to see it in a theater. Since I am not
frequenting the movie theater, and so not seeing as many trailers, it
is possible that there will be others. At the moment, the
Metro/Sundance has half its screens in operation (the other five are
being "improved"), and so it is likely to be business as usual (albeit
with only half the usual number of choices) for some time to come, so
anything is possible. Indeed, I cannot be certain that the conversion
will be done before /TH:2/, although I expect it will be.
A couple of years ago, I realized that most of the films I was
watching, even those reviewed as being good films and being solidly
embedded in genres I enjoy (such as Comic Book or Brain-Dead Summer
Action) were not worth the time and money required to see them. This
led me to convert to Red Box and Amazon Instant Video, where I can see
films that /should/ be films I will enjoy more conveniently (if
considerably later). And, in the case of AIV, to catch up with films I
missed back before I retired, when I was impeded by the time
constraints imposed by employment from seeing every film I wished.
Some have suggested that my taste has changed. However, it has been
long enough for me to see, at one per night, most if not all of the
films I have purchased on DVD and I still enjoy those as much as I
ever did. And a few new films have still appeared from time to time
that turned out to be worth seeing and even buying on DVD. So I think
that the film industry has simply, for the most part, but with a few
exceptions, gone down a path that I have no interest in following.
Clams Canino
Mar 30, 2013, 6:31:55 PM3/30/13
to
"Paul S. Person" <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote in message
> I don't equate alcohol with drunkenness.
> I equate alcoholics with drunks.
Paul, you need to study more about alcoholism. :)
> I equate alcoholics with drunks.
The true "physical" alcoholic rarely (if ever) appears or acts drunk.
A certain BAC merely brings them back to "normal", and without it they
withdraw. (sometimes fatally if it's bad enough)
-W
WrongWayWade
Apr 1, 2013, 2:10:31 PM4/1/13
to
alcoholic.
Troels Forchhammer
Apr 22, 2013, 9:53:09 AM4/22/13
to
In message <news:hnt8l81m0lc0kttc8...@4ax.com>
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
It is, in my opinion, important to understand that there are two
distinct universes under scrutiny here (these are not the only two
'Middle-earth' universes, but I'll leave the others as a parallel
excersise for the reader ;-) ), and mingling them does not, in my
considered opinion, lead to anything good; rather it leads to
misunderstandings and misperceptions about Tolkien and his work.
The films are not merely 'a different interpretation' -- they portray
a completely different story, happening in a completely different
universe to completely different characters. It is that which it is
necessary to emphasize again, and again, and again!
This possibly makes me a grumpy purist in the eyes of many (though I
don't quite see the point of any fondness for this phrase: what does
it make of those who think differently? Pollutists? That would be
quite apt, actually, since they tend to pollute /both/ universes with
ideas from the other), but I am not saying that there is nothing to
appreciate or even love about the universe, story and characters of
any one of the cinema adaptations, but these are not Tolkien's, and
mixing them with Tolkien's makes you misunderstand Tolkien's story,
universe and characters even more.
But actually I make absolutely no value judgement in this --
regardless of my personal preferences there is absolutely nothing
wrong with preferring Bakshi's, or Rankin & Bass' or Jackson's /The
Lord of the Rings/ universes: they are of course inherently just as
good as Tolkien's Middle-earth, but they are different.
In his essay, Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, Tolkien writes:
The habit, for instance, of pondering a summarized plot of
Beowulf, denuded of all that gives it particular force or
individual life, has encouraged the notion that its main
story is wild, or trivial, or typical, even after treatment.
Yet all stories, great and small, are one or more of these
three things in such nakedness. The comparison of skeleton
'plots' is simply not a critical literary process at all.
Once we start claiming that Tolkien's story is the same as those of
the various films, we are precisely pondering this kind of
summarized, or skeleton, plots, and we are looking at /all/ of these
stories 'denuded of all that gives it particular force or individual
life'. Mixing them is as much a refusal of that which gives the films
their particular force and life as it is a refusal of these elements
in Tolkien's story. Were I a fan of e.g. Jackson's LotR films, I
would probably be just as infuriated at people insisting on mixing it
with that long-winded, breathless old book ...
There are a lot of bad things in the world that I may not be able to
change (war, famine, torture, discrimination ...), but that doesn't
mean that I need to accept them, much less to help perpetuate them,
but when I speak here of the evils of the world, I do not speak of
any of the Lord of the Rings films themselves -- I speak exclusively
of confusing and mixing of what are completely different stories and
universes, denying /both/ their power to enchant those under their
spell.
Let us celebrate Jackson's films for everything that gives to them
their force, their individual life, their power to enchant the
audience -- whether or not any one of us may be susceptible to that
particular enchantment is besides the point: trying to deny the films
that power and force is, given the evidence of the many that have
seen and loved them, foolish (to say the least).
However, let us also recognize that in order to celebrate Jackson's
work in this way we need to recognize that it is fundamentally a
different story and a different universe from Tolkien's: what gives
to Jackson's films their force and power has, by and large, nothing
to do with anything Tolkien ever wrote.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left
the path of wisdom.
- Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:45:56 -0400, "Clams Canino"
> <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>>
>> This time watching it with a more critical eye:
[...]
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:45:56 -0400, "Clams Canino"
> <cc-m...@earthdink.net> wrote:
>>
>> This time watching it with a more critical eye:
> But Jackson & accomplices (thanks to Troels for that excellent
> phrase!) have no interest in "correct lore of the Nazgul".
Nor should they be!
> phrase!) have no interest in "correct lore of the Nazgul".
It is, in my opinion, important to understand that there are two
distinct universes under scrutiny here (these are not the only two
'Middle-earth' universes, but I'll leave the others as a parallel
excersise for the reader ;-) ), and mingling them does not, in my
considered opinion, lead to anything good; rather it leads to
misunderstandings and misperceptions about Tolkien and his work.
The films are not merely 'a different interpretation' -- they portray
a completely different story, happening in a completely different
universe to completely different characters. It is that which it is
necessary to emphasize again, and again, and again!
This possibly makes me a grumpy purist in the eyes of many (though I
don't quite see the point of any fondness for this phrase: what does
it make of those who think differently? Pollutists? That would be
quite apt, actually, since they tend to pollute /both/ universes with
ideas from the other), but I am not saying that there is nothing to
appreciate or even love about the universe, story and characters of
any one of the cinema adaptations, but these are not Tolkien's, and
mixing them with Tolkien's makes you misunderstand Tolkien's story,
universe and characters even more.
But actually I make absolutely no value judgement in this --
regardless of my personal preferences there is absolutely nothing
wrong with preferring Bakshi's, or Rankin & Bass' or Jackson's /The
Lord of the Rings/ universes: they are of course inherently just as
good as Tolkien's Middle-earth, but they are different.
In his essay, Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, Tolkien writes:
The habit, for instance, of pondering a summarized plot of
Beowulf, denuded of all that gives it particular force or
individual life, has encouraged the notion that its main
story is wild, or trivial, or typical, even after treatment.
Yet all stories, great and small, are one or more of these
three things in such nakedness. The comparison of skeleton
'plots' is simply not a critical literary process at all.
Once we start claiming that Tolkien's story is the same as those of
the various films, we are precisely pondering this kind of
summarized, or skeleton, plots, and we are looking at /all/ of these
stories 'denuded of all that gives it particular force or individual
life'. Mixing them is as much a refusal of that which gives the films
their particular force and life as it is a refusal of these elements
in Tolkien's story. Were I a fan of e.g. Jackson's LotR films, I
would probably be just as infuriated at people insisting on mixing it
with that long-winded, breathless old book ...
There are a lot of bad things in the world that I may not be able to
change (war, famine, torture, discrimination ...), but that doesn't
mean that I need to accept them, much less to help perpetuate them,
but when I speak here of the evils of the world, I do not speak of
any of the Lord of the Rings films themselves -- I speak exclusively
of confusing and mixing of what are completely different stories and
universes, denying /both/ their power to enchant those under their
spell.
Let us celebrate Jackson's films for everything that gives to them
their force, their individual life, their power to enchant the
audience -- whether or not any one of us may be susceptible to that
particular enchantment is besides the point: trying to deny the films
that power and force is, given the evidence of the many that have
seen and loved them, foolish (to say the least).
However, let us also recognize that in order to celebrate Jackson's
work in this way we need to recognize that it is fundamentally a
different story and a different universe from Tolkien's: what gives
to Jackson's films their force and power has, by and large, nothing
to do with anything Tolkien ever wrote.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left
the path of wisdom.
- Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Stan Brown
Apr 23, 2013, 9:27:33 AM4/23/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:53:09 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> The films are not merely 'a different interpretation' -- they portray
> a completely different story, happening in a completely different
> universe to completely different characters. It is that which it is
> necessary to emphasize again, and again, and again!
I agree 100%.
> The films are not merely 'a different interpretation' -- they portray
> a completely different story, happening in a completely different
> universe to completely different characters. It is that which it is
> necessary to emphasize again, and again, and again!
The problem is that Jackson and his accomplices try to pretend it's
not true. Perhaps if we could tattoo it on his forehead?
0 new messages