About the movie (no spoilers)
by
DeafDumbBlind
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
caught a press preview this week:
1) much more action than the first one 2) less dramatic/emotinal slowdown. 3) Golum is the best done CGI character to date.
can't wait to see it again
--
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Re:About the movie (no spoilers)
by
TC+(WC)
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually... I was reading in Time (?) at the barber's that Jackson thinks, while it's still the stame story, that this upcoming movie is the least faithful of the three. He thinks, however, that it makes it a better movie than it would otherwise be.
Yeah, let's see. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings starting in 1940. I guess it reflects British immigration worries in 1950.
Tolkien's main characters are white. Why? It's a British epic story, set in Britain 7,000 some odd years ago. The "bad guys" are not actually humans, but orcs. That hardly constitutes racism.
Tolkien was contacted in 1938 by a German publisher interested in translating and printing a German edition of The Hobbit. Tolkien wrote a letter to his publisher expressing outrage at the idea that Jewish heritage might be a prerequisite for a German edition and didn't want to give proof he wasn't Jewish (although he did happen to have proof).
Since it was really his publisher who had to decide the issue, Tolkien wrote two letters, one politer and the other refusing to give proof of lack of Jewish heritage. Since the politer one still exists, it seems the more angry one got sent to the German publisher. Good for Unwin-Allen. These are letters 28 and 29.
Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung [confirmation] (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probably) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.
Re:my sister...
by
pVoid
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
My litterature teacher once told me a very interesting anecdote:
He said one day, he was visiting an old castle in France (made to be a museum), and as he was standing on a balcony, someone said "this is where so and so (from Balzac's novels) used to live". To which my teacher replied "you know, that person is ficticious", and the guy's answer was "what, you think the life of a real person from 200 years ago is anywhere nearly as interesting?"
My point is, there are many arguments about Tolkien's stories about how... lame they are or what not. But LoTR is just a part in a masterpiece that Tolkien dedicated his whole life to. He was a great author, among the Greats, and it's not to be taken lightly. Middle Earth is a complete realm from creation to the present. For all intents and purposes, this place actually existed. The details he put into this are astonishing.
As Tolkien himself says, he created Middle Earth because he felt the lack of a good Mythology that had a Celtic feel. He wanted something a-la Scandinavian, Greek, or Egyptian mythology, but for his homeland. And so, he friggin went ahead and created one. Take it as such: LoTR is a Myth of old. Like David and Goliath, or whatever...
Btw, I saw the first movie, and saw the trailer for the second, and I'm creaming my jeans (as filthy critic would say). But I must also add that they are only a shadow of the books.
Super-Hero Prime Minister
by
coloth
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The prime minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, is showing off her country, as featured in the LOTR movies, by jetboating, ice-picking, rappelling into sinkholes, and overall doing some incredible things for a head of state.
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing
Re:Gollum Song Video
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Most adult film goers don't care that much about spoilers. I assume that people go to films for reasons other than to see punch lines and surprises. If otherwise, they'd best not discuss films or books or any narratives with me at all. The only exception to that is the true plot twist, a la Crying Game. As Andrew O'Hehir says:
Actually, my view is that the spoiler obsession, born of the Internet's fan-geek culture, is the enemy of real criticism, real discussion and maybe even real thought, but that's a subject for another time.
Not just plot spoilers, visual spoilers too!
by
Polyphemis
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Chill out, man. While I do agree that the book should be read first, it should be noted that the movie isn't a perfect translation from the book. For FOTR, the whole love story was practically squat in the book, there was no Lurtz, Frodo wasn't the one that found the password, etc. I realize those aren't huge plot points but there are a lot of departures from the book.
And apart from that, there's simply the whole visual aspect of things being spoiled. I don't recall seeing that huge, badassed 3D Balrog in the book, for example. Obvious, but I think that it's a pretty good point. I've been trying to minimize my exposure to this movie, PARTICULARLY with the Ents, just so I can behold their total coolness on the big screen. That'd still be just as much a spoiler as if I hadn't read the book.
Your real point is still quite valid though. Any self-respecting human that hasn't read LOTR yet should buy a copy immediately:)
There's daily coverage on stuff.co.nz as well
by
Karora
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Stuff also has daily coverage. This is the site for the major Wellington newspaper, The Dominion Post, (among others) and Wellington's really where the major LOTR action has been in New Zealand, especially since it's where Peter Jackson lives.
...heellpppp! I've been captured by little green penguins!
How come Grauman's Chinese Theatre is not showing?
by
antdude
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Does anyone know why the famous Grauman's Chinese Theatre (aka Mann's Chinese), in Hollywood, CA, is not showing LOTR movie? Same thing happened with the last movie. Yet, it is currently showing Star Trek: Nemesis. The theatre did show last two Star Wars movies. This theater is a perfect place for LOTR movies and big revenues. This calendar of events does not show this movie listed.:(
-- Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Minor Nit: Tolkien HATED allegory
by
FreeUser
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, let's see. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings starting in 1940. I guess it reflects British immigration worries in 1950.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not (apologies if you were), but...
Tolkien would likely take great offense at this characterization, were he alive and able to hear (read) it. He truly disliked, one could perhaps even say DESPISED, allegory, and emphatically stated time and time again that his mythos was in no way allegorical about any of the political, social, or economic conditions of the time. It was intended as a MYTHOS drawing upon the rich historical and cultural heritage of Britain, and unlike so many novels of the era, had ABSOLUTELY NO MESSAGE with respect to current potitics, economics, or social commentary WHATSOEVER.
Other than that, I think you post is dead on (and find the tidbit you bring up about German translation very interesting).
Slashdot Mirror
caught a press preview this week:
1) much more action than the first one
2) less dramatic/emotinal slowdown.
3) Golum is the best done CGI character to date.
can't wait to see it again
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Yeah, let's see. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings starting in 1940. I guess it reflects British immigration worries in 1950.
Tolkien's main characters are white. Why? It's a British epic story, set in Britain 7,000 some odd years ago. The "bad guys" are not actually humans, but orcs. That hardly constitutes racism.
Tolkien was contacted in 1938 by a German publisher interested in translating and printing a German edition of The Hobbit. Tolkien wrote a letter to his publisher expressing outrage at the idea that Jewish heritage might be a prerequisite for a German edition and didn't want to give proof he wasn't Jewish (although he did happen to have proof).
Since it was really his publisher who had to decide the issue, Tolkien wrote two letters, one politer and the other refusing to give proof of lack of Jewish heritage. Since the politer one still exists, it seems the more angry one got sent to the German publisher. Good for Unwin-Allen. These are letters 28 and 29.
Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung [confirmation] (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probably) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.
He said one day, he was visiting an old castle in France (made to be a museum), and as he was standing on a balcony, someone said "this is where so and so (from Balzac's novels) used to live". To which my teacher replied "you know, that person is ficticious", and the guy's answer was "what, you think the life of a real person from 200 years ago is anywhere nearly as interesting?"
My point is, there are many arguments about Tolkien's stories about how... lame they are or what not. But LoTR is just a part in a masterpiece that Tolkien dedicated his whole life to. He was a great author, among the Greats, and it's not to be taken lightly. Middle Earth is a complete realm from creation to the present. For all intents and purposes, this place actually existed. The details he put into this are astonishing.
As Tolkien himself says, he created Middle Earth because he felt the lack of a good Mythology that had a Celtic feel. He wanted something a-la Scandinavian, Greek, or Egyptian mythology, but for his homeland. And so, he friggin went ahead and created one. Take it as such: LoTR is a Myth of old. Like David and Goliath, or whatever...
Btw, I saw the first movie, and saw the trailer for the second, and I'm creaming my jeans (as filthy critic would say). But I must also add that they are only a shadow of the books.
The prime minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, is showing off her country, as featured in the LOTR movies, by jetboating, ice-picking, rappelling into sinkholes, and overall doing some incredible things for a head of state.
Makes George Bush look sedentary!
(article)
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. -A. Turing
Chill out, man. While I do agree that the book should be read first, it should be noted that the movie isn't a perfect translation from the book. For FOTR, the whole love story was practically squat in the book, there was no Lurtz, Frodo wasn't the one that found the password, etc. I realize those aren't huge plot points but there are a lot of departures from the book.
:)
And apart from that, there's simply the whole visual aspect of things being spoiled. I don't recall seeing that huge, badassed 3D Balrog in the book, for example. Obvious, but I think that it's a pretty good point. I've been trying to minimize my exposure to this movie, PARTICULARLY with the Ents, just so I can behold their total coolness on the big screen. That'd still be just as much a spoiler as if I hadn't read the book.
Your real point is still quite valid though. Any self-respecting human that hasn't read LOTR yet should buy a copy immediately
Check out this cool map :-)
Does anyone know why the famous Grauman's Chinese Theatre (aka Mann's Chinese), in Hollywood, CA, is not showing LOTR movie? Same thing happened with the last movie. Yet, it is currently showing Star Trek: Nemesis. The theatre did show last two Star Wars movies. This theater is a perfect place for LOTR movies and big revenues. This calendar of events does not show this movie listed. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Yeah, let's see. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings starting in 1940. I guess it reflects British immigration worries in 1950.
...
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not (apologies if you were), but
Tolkien would likely take great offense at this characterization, were he alive and able to hear (read) it. He truly disliked, one could perhaps even say DESPISED, allegory, and emphatically stated time and time again that his mythos was in no way allegorical about any of the political, social, or economic conditions of the time. It was intended as a MYTHOS drawing upon the rich historical and cultural heritage of Britain, and unlike so many novels of the era, had ABSOLUTELY NO MESSAGE with respect to current potitics, economics, or social commentary WHATSOEVER.
Other than that, I think you post is dead on (and find the tidbit you bring up about German translation very interesting).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy