|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well, I tried to watch LOTR. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
By the way there was a reason for the bugs and things coming from the Black riders. It was a visual way to get across the frightening and sickening presence they had about them. I assumed as much but find that both condesending and patronizing, as though I am too stupid to understand evil.
I'm a little confused on why you pictured them looking okay but feeling wrong. Go back to the Inn and the discussion in their room after Frodo's stupidity in the Common Room. It was a comment based on the quote about Aragon, that he look foul yet felt fair. Evil does not succeed by looking foul. Evil succeeds by looking fair. And that is the threat IMHO that we in the US are facing right now. (Admins: since the LOTR is meant as a commentary on life I don't think this is too OT) Today there are many forces similar to Mordor. They are succeeding by seeming fair. They go under the guise of returning Morality, a return to a Christian Society. I believe the Black Riders should have seemed far more normal (after all their steeds were normal horses) if the real horror was going to be revealed. We don't have to worry about evil that appears as evil, that can be recognized. It is the evil that appears fair we have to fear. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4708 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
there are other tales I could tell... Yah, Jar? You get to first base!? *wink wink* *nudge nudge* Know what I mean? Well, if you don't like movies that much in the first place why did you watch LOTR? I like some movies and the French auteurs like Goddard are just flat out superior to the mindless trash Hollywood pumps out. But a huge world like Tolkien created is so well suited to novels and so poorly suited to film. I'm fine with anyone enjoying the movie but I am not going to watch it. I have my memories and I don't want them mixed with the movie. I know I would hate to see my vision of the novels compromised and would hate the movie so I don't watch it. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, if you don't like movies that much in the first place why did you watch LOTR? Well, I felt it was mandatory. Kind of a rite of passage. I don't want to give the impression that I don't like movies. There are quite a few movies I've enjoyed over the years, many I'd like to see again. I'd love to see Orfeu Negro again as well as Never on Sunday. But the LOTR simply bored me. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
In the defense of small televisions I also only have a 13" TV that came with my wife. My huge in comparison 19" TV died a while ago and I haven't bothered to replace it. However, since my computer has a DVD player, a nice sound system and a 17" monitor (all monitors are high definition I might add), I am comfortable watching DVD's there. We have a couch in the office and we watch movies after the 2 year old is asleep. I enjoyed LOTR in the theater and on the 17" monitor.
Just to add to the "fanboy" element of this thread, my grandmother bought me the books when I was in grade school and I thought they were fantastic when I first read them. Having read them many times since then I appreciate them even more now than I did then. I thought that to adapt books of that size to three movies was a huge feat which Jackson accomplished admirably. Sure he changed the story some but I can forgive that because the important elements were still in place. Anyway, just my $0.02.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I assumed as much but find that both condesending and patronizing, as though I am too stupid to understand evil. But this isn't just bad-guys-in-robes taking-candy-from-babies evil. This isn't just "don't like the looks of this guy" evil. This is "evil flowing off of them in waves, like cheap cologne" evil, evil that you're supposed to feel, even if you can't see them. But since movies can't transmit feelings directly, they have to do it in pictures. Now you may say "no, I got all that without the bugs bit", but I submit that you didn't, and had that scene been ommitted, we might have seen you say "you know, I just don't think the Nazgul looked evil enough" and you might have faulted the costuming, or something. In short I think the bugs bit had the intended effect on you, but because you don't watch a lot of movies, you weren't able to recognize that it was the bugs that made you get that sense about them. Much as most people - including me - knew that there was a great wrongness about Grima Wormtongue the minute we laid eyes on him, but until someone said something about it, we had no idea that the reason he looked so evil was because he had no eyebrows. Subtle, yet, right there out in the open.
Evil does not succeed by looking foul. Evil succeeds by looking fair. Tolkien describes them this way:
quote: Not very "fair", I would say. So this isn't so much the movie not adhering to the books; it's your imagination not adhering to the books. AbE: Didn't realize that that passage is actually from the Silmarillion.
It is the evil that appears fair we have to fear. Like, say, the One Ring? Do you think that maybe that's what Tolkein was symbolically referring to? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-12-2004 08:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4708 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
But since movies can't transmit feelings directly, they have to do it in pictures. I thought that was what the sound track and music was for, to enhance the mood. Ingmar Bergman was a master of the profoundly disturbing visual though. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
(Admins: since the LOTR is meant as a commentary on life I don't think this is too OT) According to Tolkien himself the LOTR was categorically not intended as a commentary on life - he viewed alegory as the insipid and loathsome form of literature and strongly rejected any suggestion that LOTR was intended to be anything of the sort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
According to Tolkien himself the LOTR was categorically not intended as a commentary on life - he viewed alegory as the insipid and loathsome form of literature and strongly rejected any suggestion that LOTR was intended to be anything of the sort. no truly great author should ever be listened to on the topics of his own books. i was watching the special features on lotr-rotk extended (i work in a video store, yay) and when they discussed tolkien's writings, they never ceased in comparing it to other literature and especially the bible. there certainly are elements borrowed, maybe not in a strict allegorical sense. but then again, the hobbit, lotr, and the silmarillion are on my "to read" pile after the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Don't bother with the Silmarilion - no, really, don't. It's awful painful drivel, even less fun to read than the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I assumed as much but find that both condesending and patronizing, as though I am too stupid to understand evil. Crash already covered this, but I think it is important to reemphasize this point. This is a movie and it has to use visuals and sound to communicate its message. And indeed it cannot assume that anyone has read the books. This was a visceral way to communicate the fear and nausea that pervaded their aura. Ham handed? Maybe. But these guys were not supposed to be subtle.
I believe the Black Riders should have seemed far more normal (after all their steeds were normal horses) if the real horror was going to be revealed. Well then you are simply asking them to ruin the Books for your own vision. While I totally agree that the worse evils are fair, and indeed that is what we are facing now, the Black Riders were up front in your face evil. That is exactly how they were written. And in a way your requirement of showing them that way makes me feel like maybe you are missing the point. The story starts with evil that is unseen (the ring), but once recognized brings out a series of people and events that move from obvious and in your face, to eventually the most subtle and fair. It was a range of evil, including the worst of the fair evils... that you yourself are the only hope for everyone else. That is what Frodo and every other good guy faced within themselves and had to give it up. I thought it was showing all sides of evil and the Black Riders (I mean come on, even their name does not allow for fairness) are blatant evil. It lulls one into a sense that all evil one will meet is like that when it is not. But to defend your position, even though you have not seen it all the way to the end, they cut out the last chapter about the scouring of the shire. And of course that is also about the encroaching of evil in this case using the fair face of protecting onesself for greater security. How seductive and evil. I thought it was a shame that they had cut that out and left in some of the sappier ending bits. Then again, I hear the extended DvD has some scenes which cover some of the aspects of that last chapter. So you are right that at least one reference to the most foul evil was removed, but the Black Riders were not that. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Don't bother with the Silmarilion - no, really, don't. It's awful painful drivel, even less fun to read than the Bible. I think that's debatable. Though this whole comparison raises an interesting question. Are Xians simply early age Tolkein-fanboys? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6497 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
You're next in line for the whuppin' stick after Crash.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I entirely agree. Although I've read it about eight times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Man, i'd really have liked you to name a movie with better special effects, but since you never watched LOTR, you obviously can't Personally i seldom watch films on TV. Its just not the same thing, and especially with LOTR.
And what does fox have to do with LOTR? It was a New Line Cinema who coughed about 500 million$ for these productions. AFAIK, fox had nothing to do with it. I think you have a very strong opinion about the technical quality of a film you haven't seen more than 1/10 of. If you felt that the characters didn't fit into you view of middle earth, thats fine- everyone has a different one. Some people choose not to watch it at all, so that they can keep their own images of it intact. But having that low oppinion about the quality of the production, which is so very nicely done, strikes me only as weird.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Don't bother with the Silmarilion - no, really, don't. It's awful painful drivel, even less fun to read than the Bible. i like the bible! ...well, parts of it anyways. honestly, i couldn't get through the hobbit, but i hear lotr reads much better.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024