Why would Bush be afraid of the youth vote? In the 2000 presidential election, the 18-29 year old vote closely matched the general vote.
Personal anecdotes suggest to me that men tend to become more liberal with age. However, a lot depends on the society that they grew up in. A person who grew up in the 1950s will probably have more conservative ideals than somone from the 1960s. So seniors are more conservative than the current youth, but less conservative than themselves when they were young.
I saw Going Upriver in the theatre last week. I didn't know what to expect going in. I came out with a lot on my mind. This is not a boring film.
The story is larger than just Kerry. It's about Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry organized. Before I saw the movie, I didn't know that their protests were so difficult and so significant. I had heard about some things before: Kerry's testimony before Congress, and the veterans throwing away their medals. I just shrugged them off until this film gave me the context to appreciate those events.
It's a not-so-subtle reminder that we should consider the lessons of Vietnam in our current affairs. Do not dismiss Going Upriver as just an "image-building" piece for Kerry.
The idea that [Iraq] is going to go the way
[the Bush administration] planned is ludicrous.
There's no analogy whatsoever between
the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after
the second world war in Germany and Japan.
We have a growing, maturing insurgency group.
Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.
There's a significant majority [of military officials]
believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose
interests have been advanced have been
the Iranians and al-Qaida.
I wondered, how good is this analysis?
On one hand, it's entirely consistent with the
news coming out of Iraq: the U.S. is suffering
a lot of damage despite its lack of accomplishments.
On the other hand,
an op-ed by a former Clinton aide appearing
in The Guardian may not be the most objective
source for analysis. I wondered if
I was missing something.
I decided to check Fox News for a counterpoint.
Indeed, I found a viewpoint linked from the main page,
titled
"
Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal".
It was dated Friday, one day after the Guardian article,
which had a few comparisons to the Vietnam war.
Bingo. This should be a good read.
It says Vietnam is the wrong analogy
for Iraq. WWII is is a far more accurate comparion
because "both wars began for the U.S. with
a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared
enemy."
Huh? Is that a reference to 9/11? Did Iraq
destroy the World Trade Center?
Oh, I see: he's using "Iraq" and "Al Qaeda"
interchangeably. Apparently, he disagrees
with the 9/11 commission's determination that
the U.S. had no reason to believe that
Saddam had significant cooperation with terrorists
despite some incidental contact between them.
He continues his WWII comparison saying:
We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents
about Al Qaeda and Islamist terrorism
(the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998;
the USS Cole bombing (in 2000),
but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence
requisite to convince a country at peace
that it was about to pitched into war.
Still talking about Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Moving on...
Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II:
Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission...
...except when they don't have to be.
In Iraq, the U.S. did have other options
besides invasion. The U.S. could have continued containment.
The reason that America didn't do that is because
Bush insisted that Saddam had WMD and that he was
a severe and urgent threat to America.
And now for the conclusion:
We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001,
and we cannot now afford to walk away from
the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq
any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.
Thanks for that fine comparison of World War II
to the war on terrorism. Brilliant analysis.
But what about Iraq?
Longhorn reminds me of replacing my decent VCR with a DVD player.
It's more trouble than it's worth.
I bought a DVD player anticipating features like
bonus content on disks, random access to anywhere
on disk, etc.
The extra movie footage was never worthwhile.
Surprisingly, the ability to skip around the disk
was not good either. I kept losing
my spot inadvertently
(when trying to pause or rewind usually).
I prefer the continuity of a tape
rather than the random access of a DVD.
I gave up my recording ability to get those features.
I miss tapes because they always worked.
Half of my rented DVDs
won't play some part of the movie... but the DVDs
still cost twice as much as the tapes.
The DRM-ed CDs will also cost more,
and they will also fail to work,
and the bonus tracks will also be junk.
The extra tracks are
just cover for the higher cost of production --
a Microsoft tax. Soon you won't be able
to have it any other way.
"For more about this story see the documentary 'The Corporation'"
That film gave me the best laugh that I've had at the theatre all year (the Christmas carolers at the office of Philip Morris). Highly recommended, and it has a great overview of the Monsanto-FoxNews flap.
"Take "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century
Threatens Economy and Democracy".
It is filled with zero-sum fallacies..."
Their analysis is clearly not
filled with zero-sum fallacies. Read the article:
During the short boom of the late 1990s,
conservative analysts asserted that,
yes, the gap between rich and poor was growing,
but that incomes for the poor were still increasing
over previous levels. Today most economists,
regardless of their political persuasion,
agree that the data over the last 25 to 30 years
is unequivocal. The top 5% is capturing
an increasingly greater portion of the pie
while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground,
and the highly touted American middle class
is fast disappearing.
The article is not complaining about the rich
getting richer; it is warning about the consequences
of the poor getting poorer.
"statements such as "As rich countries,
strip poorer countries of their natural resources
in an attempt to re-stabilize their own,
the people of poor countries become
increasingly desperate." are presented with
absolutely no supporting evidence."
A comprehensive analysis is beyond the scope
of their 1000-word piece, but perhaps you could
follow their links at the bottom of the page
or buy the reports from the United Nations
(such as the
recent publications by UN-habitat) which they refer to.
You can go to your favorite search engine
and try queries like "privatization of natural resources".
There's a lot to study on this topic; you just don't see it in the mainstream news.
Nukes won't work because they don't have the power to counter the hurricane. A better approach is to build a giant plexiglass shield off the coast. This is also a solid defense against shark attacks.
"Specialty channels are a great idea, except they only have 4-6 hours a day of unique programming"
Do you really want to spend more than 25% of your awake life watching television? I don't think that leads to a very fulfilling lifestyle. A specialty channel that re-runs their best hour of television all week would be just fine with me. If I could count on one hour per week of worthwhile content, then that would be a feature that would fit into my life (currently, I don't watch TV at all).
The Wall Street Journal offered the usual explanation for why Mac had fewer malicious programs:
"Security experts say this state of affairs primarily reflects the Mac's very small share of the personal computer market, which makes it an unattractive target for virus writers looking to spread mayhem."
I think that's the lazy analysis. The primary reason is because Mac OS X is much better organized and configured by default. However, it's hard to explain that to your readership without sacrificing credibility. They don't want the Windows crowd to think they're Apple zealots. Journalists don't even care what the real deal is; they just write whatever people expect and believe.
"Security experts say..." is just code for "This journalist figured..."
"Recipes were one of the first things I ever saw posted on the Internet"
I noticed that too. My first use of the internet was to learn how to make a Long Island Ice Tea. I looked it up with Netscape 1.1 in black and white on a classic Mac. Six hours later, I had the best drink ever. I marveled at the sight of the vapors rising from the glass. But it was so tasty!
Men are preparing for battle. One of them
says that the WitchKing cannot be killed any mortal man.
At this point, I'm thinking: "man"?
Is that a poetic synonym for "human", like in Star Trek
("to boldy go where no man has gone before")?
So perhaps the WitchKing won't go away
until the ring is destroyed. Or...
maybe he'll be beaten by one of the
various undead things in the movie.
That seems reasonable.
Alternatively, "man" might just mean
someone who isn't a woman.
But why could a woman cut down
the WitchKing whereas a man could not?
Women are special? The WitchKing's magic
is conditional? That would be a wierd rule;
how could that possibly be the case?
So the first interpretation ("man" == "human")
must be the correct one, right?
... unless RotK intends to suprise us
if we made the wrong assumption.
Back to the movie. We see Eowyn suiting up
and sneaking off to battle.
Now I'm thinking: "Is she the answer to the WitchKing?
If that's it, then I will be disappointed!"
The movie continues and we finally meet the WitchKing.
He reminds us again that he cannot be killed by
any mortal man.
But Eowyn is there. I see her and I'm going: "oh no,
here it comes. RotK is going to teach a lesson
that we shouldn't assume that work can only be done
by men."
She slays it. Me: "ARRRRRRRRRGH!" I didn't need
this lesson. I needed to believe in the legend, for drama's sake.
"In terms of dry exposition with regards to Eowyn
and the WitchKing, RotK did indeed work on its own."
Well, I could see that Eowyn and the hobbit made
a vital contribution to winning the battle.
That significance was not lost on me.
What I didn't understand was: how did it physically happen?
At Helm's Deep, we hear that the WitchKing "cannot be killed
by any man". Later, the WitchKing himself reminds us
of that again. Traditionally, the word "man"
has been used to refer to all of mankind, women included.
For example: "There will be no dawn for man."
(a quote from the movie, if I remember correctly).
So the movie deliberately stresses the fact that "men"
(mankind) cannot slay the WitchKing, but then it happens.
The movie breaks its own physics in a way that is hard
for casual moviegoers to figure.
You could say that the WitchKing's invulnerability
was just a legend. It could be beaten once a warrior
is not afraid of it, even if that warrior is a woman
or a hobbit.
However, there are many rules about the LotR world
that appear to be literally true. For example,
the ring can only be destroyed in Mount Doom.
Except for the narrative at the beginning of
The Fellowship,
we count on the characters' own dialog to let us know
about their world. Even for a sophisticated viewer,
it's hard to know what the rules are in this fantasy --
especially in the WitchKing battle.
The movie could have been made to work
independently of the novel
(much like Master and Commander did).
There are many moments that us uninitiated heathens
can appreciate. For example, the chain of signal fires
across the mountain range.
That was beautiful both visually and in spirit.
There is a another moment in which the steward
of the throne sends his son into a suicidal battle,
then entertains himself with songs and fruit. Brilliant.
However, some of the other sub plots in the movie
are just dead end diversions when taken out of the context
of the book. I'm sure that the adaptation
could've been improved, at least for us unwashed peons.
One approach is to simply cut the bastard scenes
from the movie, then glue in something
that makes the rest of it more consistent.
I bet that there are lots of possibilities.
Let's return to the WitchKing example.
After Eowyn slays it, she emphasizes that she is a "woman"
(and therefore not a "man"?). I think that's goofy.
Instead, her victory speech should've been something
to the effect of: "I am not intimidated by your legend" --
a statement that is believable, and not just an apparent
play on words.
We've already seen that she had to sneak into the battle,
hidden in armor, because men believed that she couldn't
contribute. The significance of her accomplishment
won't be lost simply because
it wasn't explicitly pointed out.
The revised dialog may be different than the book,
but who gives a damn? Adapt. The movie should be an
adaptation, not a blunt recreation of the book.
"Jackson's answer... was to present
an act of love to the fans"
Okay, you could say that Jackson's top priority
was to recreate the books faithfully for the benefit
of the Tolkien heads. The rest of the moviegoing public
is second priority. That's fine.
But that doesn't help his case for Best Picture
or Best Director at the academy awards.
Why should the rest of the world give special consideration
to a movie that wasn't optimized for them?
Because everyone has a duty to spend 30 hours
reading the books? I don't think so, despite your
fanboy rave. I think it's very reasonable to judge
the movie independently of the book, because that's how
many people will see it. They're not ignorant and stupid.
They just have other plans besides memorizing
the entire Tolkien universe.
I didn't sincerely believe that the "I am woman" thing was meant to be a joke, but what was it? Are women magical? Or was it just a play on words? From the movie, it looks like they won the fight by playing word games. It was really jarring and unbelievable.
You suggested that I read the book. But you missed my point. Let me restate it: "Lord of the Rings sometimes falters as a stand-alone movie for those of us without the book knowledge."
I think Jackson could have adapted the movie to suit both audiences: those who have read the trilogy and those who haven't. In the preceding example, the movie didn't work on its own.
It's easy for you to recommend reading the trilogy. However, I also saw Seabiscuit and Master and Commander. Both of those movies are based on books. When they are considered for the Best Picture award, I bet only a handful of voters will have read them. Those movies had to stand by themselves. So should the Lord of the Rings movies.
"Everything else will only be appreciated by tolkien-lovers who already know the background for all the characters and can inject their own knowledge into the movie, making the movie seem better than it is in aspects in which it fails."
I agree with this particular remark, even though your post got flagged as -1 Troll.
Lord of the Rings sometimes falters as a stand-alone movie for those of us without the book knowledge.
Remember in The Two Towers, there is a pointless battle with some furry hogs, after which Aragorn gets thrown off a cliff? Aragorn is resurrected moments later, and he carries on like nothing ever happened. It's not dramatic when you "kill" the star whom you know will come back to finish the movie. Instead, it's annoying when the other characters pretend to be stunned at his return.
In Return of the King, there is an evil warlord who cannot be killed by any man. Later, Eowyn sticks him with her sword: "but I am a woman!". Was this supposed to be comedy? I saw the punchline coming, and it didn't work.
How do these dead ends make the movie a better adaptation of the book?
"It's possible that RotK could win Best Film and Best Director. Best Director seem almost obvious..."
I think Peter Jackson's effort was a mixed bag of good and bad.
Technically, it was a huge achievement. This is obvious if you look at the trilogy as a series of still images: Hobbits in the Shire. The Ents gathering in the forest. Armies of orcs marching. Shelob's lair. That's great fantasy.
The battle scenes had a powerful setup, but when they actually got rolling, it was boring. It was well rendered, but the fights were blunt and obvious. Any decent martial arts film has more entertaining fights, with crazy footwork, interesting character interaction, etc.
Jackson's work is like a huge industrial skyscraper. It's a big accomplishment, but it's not pretty like a cathedral.
Lord of the Rings didn't develop relationships between characters properly. Where is the romance between Aragorn and his elf bride? Where is the friendship between Sam and Frodo? Jackson needed some better dialog to establish that friendship, and he did not deliver. Consequently, you see comments about those two hobbits being "gay". Jackson needed to give people a reason to believe that they were friends. Without that reason, they are just "gay".
What Jackson did is standard movie fare: the characters give dramatic looks, but all they say is: "Sam!" or "Gandalf!"
Contrast that to Lost in Translation or In America,
two movies with dialog and human interaction
that is actually worth remembering. They were emotional
and enjoyable in ways that Peter Jackson was insensitive to.
"I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation."
LotR is a mixed bag of good and bad.
I think LotR is wonderful if you see it as a series of still images: Hobbits in the Shire. The Ents gathering in the forest. Armies of orcs marching. Shelob's lair. That's great fantasy.
The battle scenes had a powerful setup, but when they actually got rolling, it was boring. It was well rendered, but the fights were blunt and obvious. Any decent martial arts film has more entertaining fights, with crazy footwork, interesting character interaction, etc.
LotR didn't develop relationships between characters properly. Where is the romance between Aragorn and his elf bride? Where is the friendship between Sam and Frodo? Jackson needed some better dialog to establish that friendship, and he did not deliver. Consequently, you hear about those two hobbits being "gay" all of the time. Jackson needed to give people a reason to believe that they were friends. Without that reason, they are just "gay".
What Jackson did is standard movie fare: the characters give dramatic looks, but all they say is: "Sam!" or "Gandalf!"
Contrast that to Lost in Translation or In America, two very emotional movies with moving dialog and human interaction. In my opinion, those were the two most unique movies that I saw last year.
So don't riot when Return of the King loses to a better movie at the Oscars.
"50% of the Oscar voting body is women, who have historically voted for whatever the most romance-based movie is of the bunch (Cold Mountain in this case.)"
Cold Mountain wasn't a good romance. I expect many women to notice that.
In Cold Mountain, the main guy is shy and never says much to the girl. Then he leaves for war. Just before he leaves, he gives her a first kiss -- a bad kiss. It looks too forceful and ugly. During the war, they write boring letters to each other, but most of the letters are lost and are never replied to. There wasn't enough romantic material to make me believe in it.
However, relief comes from the supporting cast and the sub plots. In particular, a perky Renee Zellweger character. She really lights it up. Cold Mountain was the only movie that I ever left wondering "who was that actress?" She won a Golden Globe for her role.
I enjoyed Cold Mountain, but not because of its romance. It has drama, historical flavor, and a colorful supporting cast.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would Bush be afraid of the youth vote? In the 2000 presidential election, the 18-29 year old vote closely matched the general vote.
Personal anecdotes suggest to me that men tend to become more liberal with age. However, a lot depends on the society that they grew up in. A person who grew up in the 1950s will probably have more conservative ideals than somone from the 1960s. So seniors are more conservative than the current youth, but less conservative than themselves when they were young.
I saw Going Upriver in the theatre last week. I didn't know what to expect going in. I came out with a lot on my mind. This is not a boring film.
The story is larger than just Kerry. It's about Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry organized. Before I saw the movie, I didn't know that their protests were so difficult and so significant. I had heard about some things before: Kerry's testimony before Congress, and the veterans throwing away their medals. I just shrugged them off until this film gave me the context to appreciate those events.
It's a not-so-subtle reminder that we should consider the lessons of Vietnam in our current affairs. Do not dismiss Going Upriver as just an "image-building" piece for Kerry.
"Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?"
I think that many people don't differentiate between the two. Let me tell you about two editorials that I read.
First, I read this opinion piece about the Iraq war. The author interviews military experts who say:
I wondered, how good is this analysis? On one hand, it's entirely consistent with the news coming out of Iraq: the U.S. is suffering a lot of damage despite its lack of accomplishments. On the other hand, an op-ed by a former Clinton aide appearing in The Guardian may not be the most objective source for analysis. I wondered if I was missing something.
I decided to check Fox News for a counterpoint. Indeed, I found a viewpoint linked from the main page, titled " Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal". It was dated Friday, one day after the Guardian article, which had a few comparisons to the Vietnam war.
Bingo. This should be a good read.
It says Vietnam is the wrong analogy for Iraq. WWII is is a far more accurate comparion because "both wars began for the U.S. with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy."
Huh? Is that a reference to 9/11? Did Iraq destroy the World Trade Center?
Oh, I see: he's using "Iraq" and "Al Qaeda" interchangeably. Apparently, he disagrees with the 9/11 commission's determination that the U.S. had no reason to believe that Saddam had significant cooperation with terrorists despite some incidental contact between them.
He continues his WWII comparison saying:
Still talking about Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Moving on...
...except when they don't have to be. In Iraq, the U.S. did have other options besides invasion. The U.S. could have continued containment. The reason that America didn't do that is because Bush insisted that Saddam had WMD and that he was a severe and urgent threat to America.
And now for the conclusion:
Thanks for that fine comparison of World War II to the war on terrorism. Brilliant analysis. But what about Iraq?
"Why did you replace your VCR with a DVD player rather than add?"
I gave my VCR and tape collection to my mom.
"Tell the cashier at the video store [about the DVD failure] and he or she will probably give you a free rental."
Thanks for the tip.
"Why do customers want to upgrade to Longhorn?"
Longhorn reminds me of replacing my decent VCR with a DVD player. It's more trouble than it's worth.
I bought a DVD player anticipating features like bonus content on disks, random access to anywhere on disk, etc.
The extra movie footage was never worthwhile. Surprisingly, the ability to skip around the disk was not good either. I kept losing my spot inadvertently (when trying to pause or rewind usually). I prefer the continuity of a tape rather than the random access of a DVD.
I gave up my recording ability to get those features. I miss tapes because they always worked. Half of my rented DVDs won't play some part of the movie... but the DVDs still cost twice as much as the tapes.
The DRM-ed CDs will also cost more, and they will also fail to work, and the bonus tracks will also be junk. The extra tracks are just cover for the higher cost of production -- a Microsoft tax. Soon you won't be able to have it any other way.
"This means he's off the ballot in 16 states: AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX and VA."
Nader failed to get on the Michigan ballot as a Reform candidate, but he succeeded as an independent.
In 2000, Al Gore won 51.3% of the Michigan vote, Bush won 46.1%, and Nader won 2%.
"For more about this story see the documentary 'The Corporation'"
That film gave me the best laugh that I've had at the theatre all year (the Christmas carolers at the office of Philip Morris). Highly recommended, and it has a great overview of the Monsanto-FoxNews flap.
"Take "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy". It is filled with zero-sum fallacies..."
Their analysis is clearly not filled with zero-sum fallacies. Read the article:
The article is not complaining about the rich getting richer; it is warning about the consequences of the poor getting poorer.
"statements such as "As rich countries, strip poorer countries of their natural resources in an attempt to re-stabilize their own, the people of poor countries become increasingly desperate." are presented with absolutely no supporting evidence."
A comprehensive analysis is beyond the scope of their 1000-word piece, but perhaps you could follow their links at the bottom of the page or buy the reports from the United Nations (such as the recent publications by UN-habitat) which they refer to. You can go to your favorite search engine and try queries like "privatization of natural resources". There's a lot to study on this topic; you just don't see it in the mainstream news.
Nukes won't work because they don't have the power to counter the hurricane. A better approach is to build a giant plexiglass shield off the coast. This is also a solid defense against shark attacks.
I never thought I'd say this on Slashdot, but whoever modded my comment "Insightful" is nuts.
"It would only take one overly extroverted person to annoy dozens of normal people."
With a name like "Dodgeball", you ought to be able to strike them with something if you want them out of the network.
"Specialty channels are a great idea, except they only have 4-6 hours a day of unique programming"
Do you really want to spend more than 25% of your awake life watching television? I don't think that leads to a very fulfilling lifestyle. A specialty channel that re-runs their best hour of television all week would be just fine with me. If I could count on one hour per week of worthwhile content, then that would be a feature that would fit into my life (currently, I don't watch TV at all).
"Let's get it out of the way: even our comic book heroes are being outsourced, wtf!"
So, instead of having this comment appear where people may or may not read it, you put it on the front page where everyone will read it.
Just let the readers speak for themselves and let the moderators do their work. You may be suprised at the results.
In fact, I'm developing an application right now that requires Caps Lock.
Press CAPS LOCK to proceed.
Press SCROLL LOCK to cancel.
Please don't take my CAPS away from me!
The Wall Street Journal offered the usual explanation for why Mac had fewer malicious programs:
"Security experts say this state of affairs primarily reflects the Mac's very small share of the personal computer market, which makes it an unattractive target for virus writers looking to spread mayhem."
(quoted from "Apple Computer Probes Report of Music-File Virus" -- note the headline says "virus" not "trojan")
I think that's the lazy analysis. The primary reason is because Mac OS X is much better organized and configured by default. However, it's hard to explain that to your readership without sacrificing credibility. They don't want the Windows crowd to think they're Apple zealots. Journalists don't even care what the real deal is; they just write whatever people expect and believe.
"Security experts say..." is just code for "This journalist figured..."
"Lane's family has hired lawyers to decide how to proceed..."
Interesting... I wonder what they will argue in court?
"My child was killed twice," she said. "The first time he did it to himself. The second time, online did it to him."
Uh huh.
"Recipes were one of the first things I ever saw posted on the Internet"
I noticed that too. My first use of the internet was to learn how to make a Long Island Ice Tea. I looked it up with Netscape 1.1 in black and white on a classic Mac. Six hours later, I had the best drink ever. I marveled at the sight of the vapors rising from the glass. But it was so tasty!
The End User License Agreement won't have a "disagree" option.
Let me recreate part of Return of the King.
Men are preparing for battle. One of them says that the WitchKing cannot be killed any mortal man.
At this point, I'm thinking: "man"? Is that a poetic synonym for "human", like in Star Trek ("to boldy go where no man has gone before")? So perhaps the WitchKing won't go away until the ring is destroyed. Or... maybe he'll be beaten by one of the various undead things in the movie. That seems reasonable.
Alternatively, "man" might just mean someone who isn't a woman. But why could a woman cut down the WitchKing whereas a man could not? Women are special? The WitchKing's magic is conditional? That would be a wierd rule; how could that possibly be the case? So the first interpretation ("man" == "human") must be the correct one, right?
... unless RotK intends to suprise us if we made the wrong assumption.
Back to the movie. We see Eowyn suiting up and sneaking off to battle.
Now I'm thinking: "Is she the answer to the WitchKing? If that's it, then I will be disappointed!"
The movie continues and we finally meet the WitchKing. He reminds us again that he cannot be killed by any mortal man.
But Eowyn is there. I see her and I'm going: "oh no, here it comes. RotK is going to teach a lesson that we shouldn't assume that work can only be done by men."
She slays it. Me: "ARRRRRRRRRGH!" I didn't need this lesson. I needed to believe in the legend, for drama's sake.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
"In terms of dry exposition with regards to Eowyn and the WitchKing, RotK did indeed work on its own."
Well, I could see that Eowyn and the hobbit made a vital contribution to winning the battle. That significance was not lost on me.
What I didn't understand was: how did it physically happen? At Helm's Deep, we hear that the WitchKing "cannot be killed by any man". Later, the WitchKing himself reminds us of that again. Traditionally, the word "man" has been used to refer to all of mankind, women included. For example: "There will be no dawn for man." (a quote from the movie, if I remember correctly). So the movie deliberately stresses the fact that "men" (mankind) cannot slay the WitchKing, but then it happens. The movie breaks its own physics in a way that is hard for casual moviegoers to figure.
You could say that the WitchKing's invulnerability was just a legend. It could be beaten once a warrior is not afraid of it, even if that warrior is a woman or a hobbit.
However, there are many rules about the LotR world that appear to be literally true. For example, the ring can only be destroyed in Mount Doom. Except for the narrative at the beginning of The Fellowship, we count on the characters' own dialog to let us know about their world. Even for a sophisticated viewer, it's hard to know what the rules are in this fantasy -- especially in the WitchKing battle.
The movie could have been made to work independently of the novel (much like Master and Commander did). There are many moments that us uninitiated heathens can appreciate. For example, the chain of signal fires across the mountain range. That was beautiful both visually and in spirit. There is a another moment in which the steward of the throne sends his son into a suicidal battle, then entertains himself with songs and fruit. Brilliant.
However, some of the other sub plots in the movie are just dead end diversions when taken out of the context of the book. I'm sure that the adaptation could've been improved, at least for us unwashed peons. One approach is to simply cut the bastard scenes from the movie, then glue in something that makes the rest of it more consistent. I bet that there are lots of possibilities.
Let's return to the WitchKing example. After Eowyn slays it, she emphasizes that she is a "woman" (and therefore not a "man"?). I think that's goofy. Instead, her victory speech should've been something to the effect of: "I am not intimidated by your legend" -- a statement that is believable, and not just an apparent play on words. We've already seen that she had to sneak into the battle, hidden in armor, because men believed that she couldn't contribute. The significance of her accomplishment won't be lost simply because it wasn't explicitly pointed out.
The revised dialog may be different than the book, but who gives a damn? Adapt. The movie should be an adaptation, not a blunt recreation of the book.
"Jackson's answer ... was to present
an act of love to the fans"
Okay, you could say that Jackson's top priority was to recreate the books faithfully for the benefit of the Tolkien heads. The rest of the moviegoing public is second priority. That's fine. But that doesn't help his case for Best Picture or Best Director at the academy awards. Why should the rest of the world give special consideration to a movie that wasn't optimized for them? Because everyone has a duty to spend 30 hours reading the books? I don't think so, despite your fanboy rave. I think it's very reasonable to judge the movie independently of the book, because that's how many people will see it. They're not ignorant and stupid. They just have other plans besides memorizing the entire Tolkien universe.
I didn't sincerely believe that the "I am woman" thing was meant to be a joke, but what was it? Are women magical? Or was it just a play on words? From the movie, it looks like they won the fight by playing word games. It was really jarring and unbelievable.
You suggested that I read the book. But you missed my point. Let me restate it: "Lord of the Rings sometimes falters as a stand-alone movie for those of us without the book knowledge."
I think Jackson could have adapted the movie to suit both audiences: those who have read the trilogy and those who haven't. In the preceding example, the movie didn't work on its own.
It's easy for you to recommend reading the trilogy. However, I also saw Seabiscuit and Master and Commander. Both of those movies are based on books. When they are considered for the Best Picture award, I bet only a handful of voters will have read them. Those movies had to stand by themselves. So should the Lord of the Rings movies.
"Everything else will only be appreciated by tolkien-lovers who already know the background for all the characters and can inject their own knowledge into the movie, making the movie seem better than it is in aspects in which it fails."
I agree with this particular remark, even though your post got flagged as -1 Troll.
Lord of the Rings sometimes falters as a stand-alone movie for those of us without the book knowledge.
Remember in The Two Towers, there is a pointless battle with some furry hogs, after which Aragorn gets thrown off a cliff? Aragorn is resurrected moments later, and he carries on like nothing ever happened. It's not dramatic when you "kill" the star whom you know will come back to finish the movie. Instead, it's annoying when the other characters pretend to be stunned at his return.
In Return of the King, there is an evil warlord who cannot be killed by any man. Later, Eowyn sticks him with her sword: "but I am a woman!". Was this supposed to be comedy? I saw the punchline coming, and it didn't work.
How do these dead ends make the movie a better adaptation of the book?
"It's possible that RotK could win Best Film and Best Director. Best Director seem almost obvious..."
I think Peter Jackson's effort was a mixed bag of good and bad.
Technically, it was a huge achievement. This is obvious if you look at the trilogy as a series of still images: Hobbits in the Shire. The Ents gathering in the forest. Armies of orcs marching. Shelob's lair. That's great fantasy.
The battle scenes had a powerful setup, but when they actually got rolling, it was boring. It was well rendered, but the fights were blunt and obvious. Any decent martial arts film has more entertaining fights, with crazy footwork, interesting character interaction, etc.
Jackson's work is like a huge industrial skyscraper. It's a big accomplishment, but it's not pretty like a cathedral.
Lord of the Rings didn't develop relationships between characters properly. Where is the romance between Aragorn and his elf bride? Where is the friendship between Sam and Frodo? Jackson needed some better dialog to establish that friendship, and he did not deliver. Consequently, you see comments about those two hobbits being "gay". Jackson needed to give people a reason to believe that they were friends. Without that reason, they are just "gay".
What Jackson did is standard movie fare: the characters give dramatic looks, but all they say is: "Sam!" or "Gandalf!"
Contrast that to Lost in Translation or In America, two movies with dialog and human interaction that is actually worth remembering. They were emotional and enjoyable in ways that Peter Jackson was insensitive to.
"I know that movies like LOTR only come once or twice (if we're lucky) in a generation."
LotR is a mixed bag of good and bad.
I think LotR is wonderful if you see it as a series of still images: Hobbits in the Shire. The Ents gathering in the forest. Armies of orcs marching. Shelob's lair. That's great fantasy.
The battle scenes had a powerful setup, but when they actually got rolling, it was boring. It was well rendered, but the fights were blunt and obvious. Any decent martial arts film has more entertaining fights, with crazy footwork, interesting character interaction, etc.
LotR didn't develop relationships between characters properly. Where is the romance between Aragorn and his elf bride? Where is the friendship between Sam and Frodo? Jackson needed some better dialog to establish that friendship, and he did not deliver. Consequently, you hear about those two hobbits being "gay" all of the time. Jackson needed to give people a reason to believe that they were friends. Without that reason, they are just "gay".
What Jackson did is standard movie fare: the characters give dramatic looks, but all they say is: "Sam!" or "Gandalf!"
Contrast that to Lost in Translation or In America, two very emotional movies with moving dialog and human interaction. In my opinion, those were the two most unique movies that I saw last year.
So don't riot when Return of the King loses to a better movie at the Oscars.
"50% of the Oscar voting body is women, who have historically voted for whatever the most romance-based movie is of the bunch (Cold Mountain in this case.)"
Cold Mountain wasn't a good romance. I expect many women to notice that.
In Cold Mountain, the main guy is shy and never says much to the girl. Then he leaves for war. Just before he leaves, he gives her a first kiss -- a bad kiss. It looks too forceful and ugly. During the war, they write boring letters to each other, but most of the letters are lost and are never replied to. There wasn't enough romantic material to make me believe in it.
However, relief comes from the supporting cast and the sub plots. In particular, a perky Renee Zellweger character. She really lights it up. Cold Mountain was the only movie that I ever left wondering "who was that actress?" She won a Golden Globe for her role.
I enjoyed Cold Mountain, but not because of its romance. It has drama, historical flavor, and a colorful supporting cast.