You're certainly entitled to your opinion -- I'll grant you that wholeheartedly. Still, given that the bulk of your references are to MAD and the Harvard Lampoon, I tend to wonder just how... ah... informed (or unbiased?) they are.
In defense of "Moxie and Pepsi," Jackson does a good job of maturing them by the end -- but then, you haven't seen that. Still, for the purposes of film, they had to start somewhere; indeed, they did move from that start. Be ye joyful.
The cliff crap in TTT I would rather have done without. There are better ways to show 1) that there was a 10000 orc army coming, and 2) that Eowyn has the hots for him.
Although, one must admit, there are few better ways to get Aragorn kissed by a horse. Spectacular, I'd say. (That's the sequence, I mean... not really the kiss. It lacked passion.)
The omission of the Palantir made his character make little or no sense.
Now, Denethor didn't bother me all that much in terms of making sense or not, I must admit. Granted, someone would need to look at the Two Towers EE to get the full arc of how his madness would develop in Return of the King (at least in the theatrical -- who knows with the EE?). His devotion to Boromir and the subsequent loss fractured him fairly deeply. As it was on screen, I wouldn't have much trouble going with it -- hell, I've heard of people who have gone completely mad after losing a pet. Madness after losing the favored son wouldn't be all that much of a stretch.
But what really burns my biscuits is the number of people who come back and say that Gandalf murdered Denethor. Uh, no. That's the only Denethor bit I'll go to war over.
Actually, a population taught logic, basic philosophy, is far more difficult to manipulate, because they know spurious reasoning when they see it. If you think that a basic understanding of anything technical hinders manipulation, think about expert testimony in courtrooms. It's all about the more convincing presentation, because it takes a layperson's entire faculties just to follow along.
I don't think I was shooting for "a basic understanding of anything technical" so much as I was after some demonstration and acceptance of the scientific method -- under which a phenomenal amount of that courtroom testimony would collapse upon itself (or would only if those in control of it were willing to use the method... for real this time...). A lot of the general issue science books I see have some detail on the method included throughout, so there would be some exposure to the importance of "testing" ideas. Of course, philosophical logic would be another road to Rome.:]
For one thing, we might get to the point where a majority of the population values and doesn't fear it, and we can ditch superstition forever.
And with it an unfortunate raw nerve by which the media seems to exert an inordinate amount of control by sensationalism -- remember the "Anthrax Virus" scares after 9/11?
"Benefit of a doubt?" What about that load of bollocks you spewed about coming up with applications primarily to justify continued funding?
You're not in the field, but you know enough about it to proclaim that any applications someone proposes (maglevs and better power grids, in this case) are simply meant to justify funding...?
In a way, I lament those who share your lament. Denis Miller (I'm morbidly curious at times) thinks Mars rovers, and NASA in general are a waste of money. What's ironic is he says this on a program bounce off a satellite; proving, once again, it doesn't hurt to have an education to go together with a vocabulary.
Not to get off on a rant here, but...
Actually, simply "an education" doesn't quite cut it. Better to make sure that the education includes the sciences, or else the idiot communication majors who have to take sciences classes and complain about it bitterly will force the concept that "an education" doesn't need such... how would they put it -- dead weight, maybe? (!!), and without advocacy for the sciences, idiot college administrators will go with the idea. You can thank that kind of thinking for things like warnings about the "Anthrax Virus" after 9/11.
These guys keep talking about superconductors but the fact remains that this is fundamental research with no real applications now or even in the near future.
Oh, I'm sorry -- is this your field? Yes, now I understand. You are entirely qualified to discuss the viabilities of this research for the purposes of application now or down the road, you brilliant slashdotter, you.
Just what makes that "fact?" Surely facts are universal -- so would I be getting a reflection of that if I went to a chemistry Ph.D. friend of mine (who happens to specialize in development of superconductors) and asked about honest prospects regarding applications?
Smacks like "gotta tell them at least about some possible application to keep us funded"-talk.
Smacks of "if it ain't instant gratification it's worthless"-talk to me, actually...
You can blame that on all those 'easy-to-read' books on quantum physics. I'm not quite sure, someone might let me know - what is the attraction of attempting to explain something as abstract as quantum physics to lay people.
Considering that the majority of the people who read/. are likely not quantum physicists, this sounds an awful lot like flamebait. Really, there's no point in writing such things... they should just send their research to you, right? At least you understand it, unlike those of us "lay people" who aren't so enlightened. Bah, waste of paper, those books. Yup. Uh-huh. Yessir.
What, precisely, is wrong with explaining science to the general populace? I would consider such a thing a laudable goal, regardless of discipline to be disseminated, not only because of the sheer enlightenment value, but also because a population taught to think scientifically and flexibly, as from exposure to the sciences, is far more difficult to manipulate than one that has no understanding of any of it!
Interesting that the three-fingered salute to the machine thanks to this fellow has given people so much reason to present a one-fingered salute to Bill Gates.
I read this story and couldn't help wondering if Bill ended up helping to make the technique famous not only by advancing software that made it vital, but by demonstrating it himself -- didn't he need this to restart the machine during an OS crash that happened most precipitously while he was bragging at a trade show?
At least he was demonstrating the software as it would work... or wouldn't... in real life.
Sorry, I love Peter Jackson's films, but you're way off base. You can't blame the audience for what they do or do not know going into the film. No one should have to read the books in order to appreciate the films. And not having read them does not disqualify a person from disparaging the movie. On the contrary, if anything, the opposite is true. The films should be judged first and foremost on their own merit, irrespective of the source material.
I think that the fact that the film derives from a literary source should not be discounted at all -- since the movie is, by definition, dependent on a literary work, then its consideration (in any sort of depth, anyway) should take into account its treatment of said work. The film is, after all, even before an audience gets to decide its quality as a standalone film, meant to be Lord of the Rings. If the film is absolutely expected to stand alone, it may in those things that do not have a dependence on the book as a source, but ignoring the source for dependent cases is a little bit like expecting someone to stand while one leg gets cut off at the knee.
My gripe regarding people not having read the book but disparaging the movie stems largely from the fact that when I read those disparagements, they sound as though the person doesn't necessarily know their case. Some sound like a person disparaging for the sake of disparagement. Just saying they didn't like something is one thing... saying that they didn't like it because XYZ that could be remedied by considering the source (that is, the book and the genre, not PJ) is something else.
An example of this would be a friend of mine who insists upon never seeing Lord of the Rings simply because it's popular. He doesn't have any problem with the story at all, at least not that he's voiced, but he refuses to see it because, according to him, it's a bad movie. It has too much "hype" associated with it -- it must be bad. It's not worth his attention. I would have a much easier time accepting Brian's valid (??) opinion if he knew what he was talking about. A lot of the complaints I see here about Lord of the Rings fit that same bracket -- someone doesn't like LotR because it isn't their kind of movie, therefore it's not a good movie, and therefore a movie of their preferred type is worthy of more adulation. Uh, no. I can't accept that.
I will readily concede that someone who has a problem with the way the film is presented and expresses that has an entirely valid opinion -- but when that person takes their disparagement and makes it an indication of a "flaw" to be recognized by all, I tend to get a bit irked. Oh, just a notch.
My idea of a flaw is something that can be demonstrated unilaterally, which, generally speaking, opinions cannot. An example is the continuing discussion about Eowyn vs. the Witchking (somewhere upstairs in this topic...). One person expresses a problem with a scene. Another person expresses that they had no problem with that scene. Is that scene then flawed? Is that perception of flaw binding?
"It's in the book" is not a valid defense for a flaw in the film. Peter Jackson had the opportunity -- if not the responsibility -- to overcome the book's flaws. In most cases, I think he did. In some others, he didn't. In a few places, he exacerbated them, or introduced flaws of his own. All of this, good and bad, is Peter Jackson's fault. For instance, he didn't have to include the "no living man" mythology in his film. God knows he made much more drastic changes elsewhere. Personally, I liked it, but if someone else didn't, that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it whether they've read the books or not.
I can't remember saying anywhere that people needed to like the movie, but rather that they should at least give the source some consideration when weighing the film's quality. Some of the gripes are regarding things inherent to the genre and the story meant to be told. There's a difference between those and
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.
Its own physics...? There was some mention of a clear-cut overarching who-can-kill-whom physics in this to begin with? Okay, let's go with this example.
I don't remember the WitchKing being mentioned at Helm's Deep. He is mentioned at Minas Tirith, and I do think Gandalf says it to Pippin. OK. The word 'man' is used.
You mention that traditionally, "man" is used to refer to men and women. That works with Saruman's dictum before Helm's Deep -- but step back and look at the other statements. "No man may kill me," and "He can be killed by no man," aren't necessarily statements referring to race. Nothing precludes either statement from referring to the dominant sex in warfare at that time -- the fact that the term used in reference to each shouldn't be all that jarring, considering that we use "man" to refer to an adult male human or to the human race in general. This is a judgment call made in communication on a daily basis. What abstracts it so when it's onscreen?
I would be wondering what the statement meant, if it weren't for the clarification from a certain duo ramming swords into the WitchKing's carcass. Ah, so that's what he meant...
My main problem with those kinds of analyses of "physics" is that they put a filter on what's happening that need not necessarily be there. I remember hearing PJ say somewhere along the line that the approach was to produce the film as a history -- not a historical documentary but a demonstration of culture within Middle-Earth and an illustration of one period in its history as it occurred. That said, it never fails to get my hackles up when someone responds to the film as though it were something happening down the street, within the boundaries of their mores. Quite obviously, the world on that screen isn't playing by our rules.
Interpretation based on experience is valuable, true, but it doesn't always prove fruitful when that which to be interpreted does not fit into its own niche within modern human experience. Adapting the story based upon modern human mores might work to a point, but it would not do so kindly to a source that is as imbued with its own mores as this one is. That's part of the problem with working up a generally accepted adaptation of this story.
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).
It's hard to know what the rules are in fantasy in general. Much of it entails watching what happens and analyzing it as specifically as possible -- not much unlike being dumped into that world as if by magic and having to make a living within it. Fantasy having its own "physics," as you say, is not a failing or a handicap, but rather a difference best dealt with by the viewer and the filmmaker. This genre simply comes with another nuance.
This is where the analogy to Master and Commander fails. True, there are probably a number of historians that would be quick to say that a ship during that era was its own world, and that it would h
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.
Honestly, given the nature of the film, I'm not 100% sure what you would have considered believable. My point, and apparently I needed to sledgehammer it a bit, is that this is a gripe you would have to take up with Tolkien -- he originally wrote the scene. It was, I'm given to understand, a fairly popular sequence among those who read the book (including the adapting team) -- hence its inclusion.
I expect that Tolkien meant something of a play on words on the surface, but note that the deed is eventually done by both woman and hobbit. Eowyn's problem, as illustrated in both book and film, is that she is relegated to the background while she would rather be demonstrating her mettle. Merry suffers from the same frustration. Ultimately, woman and hobbit forge ahead for themselves into battle despite urgings to the contrary from those above them (who, incidentally, just happen to be Men -- both by sex and race), and in so doing they end up bringing down what was (by that point, at least) the most feared agent of Mordor on the battlefield.
This subplot does, I imagine, make some modicum of sense.
I would indicate to you that the synopsis I detail above could have been gleaned simply by watching the films and paying attention. There is nothing to suggest "a joke" or that "women are magical." Each of those items appears somewhere in Return of the King or Two Towers as it showed in the theater -- there is, of course, more, but the Academy people who are concerned with how well movies "stand by themselves" would not be watching Extended Editions to make their determinations. In terms of dry exposition with regards to Eowyn and the WitchKing, RotK did indeed work on its own. (Sorry.)
This is not necessarily a spoon-feeding movie. Something like X-Men might only need a surface interpretation, but something like Lord of the Rings is much more complex -- as much so on film as in text. You do yourself a great disservice if you feel that your opinions on the film are eminently valid -- apparently above and beyond others' -- primarily because it did not pass your initial gloss analysis. As far as the film is concerned, you apparently "missed the point" -- which is lamentable, considering that the point, in this case, was in plain view. There is only so much watering-down that can be done for an audience member with something of this scale.
If, however, you expected this film to fit the status quo -- with a plot presented in blinking neon lights for one and all to follow without having to think too much about it, much less remember information from an hour previous (let alone another film) -- well then, I'm sorry. Genuinely. I can tell you that I, for one, would have resented LotR as some sort of "mainstream" rendering that saps it of its innate intelligence. The source deserves more respect.
I think Jackson could have adapted the movie to suit both audiences: those who have read the trilogy and those who haven't.
This is an incredibly easy suggestion to make -- moreso, perhaps, than mine that you read the book. Anyone with a vague dissatisfaction with the movie could have said that. Still, please elaborate. What do you have in mind? Just how would you plan on adapting this as you describe? (Know that, among the people who have read the book, much is said of it being overly adapted for those who had not read the text. Not clear cut in the slightest, is it?)
Consider that, at least in the case of the edition I have handy, the whole book, from "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits," to "'Well, I'm back,' he said," runs about 1008 pages, and the type is small. With the inclusion of the Appendices, which make various appear
I actually like reading interviews with Linus. At least when it's coming from the horse's mouth it doesn't seem to be as bad as reading a rehash of a misunderstood reference to a retelling of a press release.
It shall be forevermore preferable to get news from the horse's mouth rather than from the horse's ass.
I've just finished slogging through this battery of responses, and I can't help but feel a little bit disturbed by some of the remarks made in vague attempts to pass oneself off as knowledgeable, or to demonstrate that [insert name of movie here] was better than RotK 'just because.'
Folks, I realize that I may be offensive to some of you when I say this, but it looks like an astounding number of you are forgetting that RotK was, first and foremost, a book. Much (admittedly not all) of that book was conserved in the transition to film, within the context of one person's vision rooted in the text. How's abouts cracking open that illustrious tome every now and again to see if that which you disparage as horrible screenwriting or acting did or did not, in fact, originate in Tolkien's text -- itself the famous source much of the audience hopes the film will respect in its adaptation? Just how is it that so many people feel adequately prepared to comment on the validity of the construction of the film (itself an adaptation) without demonstrating a proper familiarity with the source? There's more here to consider than only what's in the textbooks to "Introduction to Film" and its ilk.
A woeful demonstration of this would be the people who have problems with the adaptation, yet have not read the book. Listen, people, I have some bad news for you -- Lord of the Rings, in general, is not meant to be a Cliff's Notes film or book. You do have to set up more than a few postsynaptic potentials to catch all that is going on. There are details in the films, true, that people who have read the books will pick up, while a general viewer who hasn't read the books will not. The solution to this seemingly widespread dilemma is either to view the films as someone putting together a puzzle and trying to discern what might be justifying what's happening on screen within the context of the story, or to haul thy carcass to the nearest library or bookstore, get the book, and read it. Contrary to popular belief, PJ and company didn't make this film simply to pander to the James Cameron/I-can't-believe-the-ship-sank generation -- take a look at the structure of Two Towers (particularly its opening) if you need evidence. Silly as it might seem to any stuffed shirts in the crowd, much of the intention behind a lot of this film was to get the audience to think, or short of that, to read. Can't stand the idea of being sent after a book by some movie at the multiplex? Aww. Poor baby. Perhaps Return of the King wasn't meant for you in the first place -- might I suggest a riveting Will Farrell tale instead?
I saw one post concerning a comparison between RotK and Monster that left me wondering. Point one this author made in his argument that Monster consisted of "what RotK lacked" was something to the order of the difference between one movie centering about elves and magic (not quoting directly, admittedly) vs. another revolving around prostitution -- ostensibly itself a film centered on 'reality,' at least in the modern history sense.
Uh, OK.
Let's, for one moment, forget the whole "apples and oranges" thing. Maybe I misunderstood, but is that 'modern angst' element of Monster supposed to be an essential component that RotK "lacks" to its loss? Listen, if poor souls dealing with prostitution in whatever context is important in your preferred kinds of films, fine. Have at it. Enjoy. Please, however, don't point to the absence of a gritty prostitution/drug/crime/name-yer-poison element in Lord of the Rings as some manner of general shortcoming. We are, after all, talking fantasy here -- even in the germane sense of Wizards'n'Elves fantasy. If I wanted a story that looked like something out of City Confidential or Cops, I'd be watching that. Lord of the Rings, either on the bookshelf or at the theater, was not meant to be anything of the sort. Nature of content alone,
>> 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.
Did I understand your post correctly to mean that you have not read the book? I would suggest you develop some familiarity with it. IIRC, that particular bit was not intended solely as an element of "adaptation."
Makes a case for knowing your sources, n'est-ce pas?
Honestly, my following has been off-and-on. I was pretty much just responding to the idea that SCO could get away with holding off on presenting its evidence, as it came up in the parent post. I'm pretty much grasping it as it goes via/..
I see it getting tossed out rather quickly. I have extreme doubts that any judge will take this case seriously... and even if the judge briefly entertains SCO's notions, there will be enough backlash to toss SCO's case just by momentum.
On the other hand, SCO may have their legal livers impaled on pikes if they spend extended periods of time playing "hide the evidence." My understanding is that, at some point in advance of the courtroom proceedings (or at least the proceedings relative to the specific evidentiary item), SCO must put up their cards so the Defense can get its game on. I don't think a judge would take too kindly to a case otherwise.
Barred from travel? Nah. Just bring along a personal anesthetic canister for the exploratory surgery.
I hear that the TSA agents practice their surgical technique in between playing with yo-yos in airport lobbies and swabbing laptops for explosives.
--Paula
Slashdot Mirror
You're certainly entitled to your opinion -- I'll grant you that wholeheartedly. Still, given that the bulk of your references are to MAD and the Harvard Lampoon, I tend to wonder just how... ah... informed (or unbiased?) they are.
In defense of "Moxie and Pepsi," Jackson does a good job of maturing them by the end -- but then, you haven't seen that. Still, for the purposes of film, they had to start somewhere; indeed, they did move from that start. Be ye joyful.
The cliff crap in TTT I would rather have done without. There are better ways to show 1) that there was a 10000 orc army coming, and 2) that Eowyn has the hots for him.
Although, one must admit, there are few better ways to get Aragorn kissed by a horse. Spectacular, I'd say. (That's the sequence, I mean... not really the kiss. It lacked passion.)
The omission of the Palantir made his character make little or no sense.
Now, Denethor didn't bother me all that much in terms of making sense or not, I must admit. Granted, someone would need to look at the Two Towers EE to get the full arc of how his madness would develop in Return of the King (at least in the theatrical -- who knows with the EE?). His devotion to Boromir and the subsequent loss fractured him fairly deeply. As it was on screen, I wouldn't have much trouble going with it -- hell, I've heard of people who have gone completely mad after losing a pet. Madness after losing the favored son wouldn't be all that much of a stretch.
But what really burns my biscuits is the number of people who come back and say that Gandalf murdered Denethor. Uh, no. That's the only Denethor bit I'll go to war over.
See also AncalagonTheBlack's (sp?) List of Movie Changes on www.tolkienonline.com.
Actually, a population taught logic, basic philosophy, is far more difficult to manipulate, because they know spurious reasoning when they see it. If you think that a basic understanding of anything technical hinders manipulation, think about expert testimony in courtrooms. It's all about the more convincing presentation, because it takes a layperson's entire faculties just to follow along.
:]
I don't think I was shooting for "a basic understanding of anything technical" so much as I was after some demonstration and acceptance of the scientific method -- under which a phenomenal amount of that courtroom testimony would collapse upon itself (or would only if those in control of it were willing to use the method... for real this time...). A lot of the general issue science books I see have some detail on the method included throughout, so there would be some exposure to the importance of "testing" ideas. Of course, philosophical logic would be another road to Rome.
For one thing, we might get to the point where a majority of the population values and doesn't fear it, and we can ditch superstition forever.
And with it an unfortunate raw nerve by which the media seems to exert an inordinate amount of control by sensationalism -- remember the "Anthrax Virus" scares after 9/11?
"Benefit of a doubt?" What about that load of bollocks you spewed about coming up with applications primarily to justify continued funding?
You're not in the field, but you know enough about it to proclaim that any applications someone proposes (maglevs and better power grids, in this case) are simply meant to justify funding...?
You're standing on two shores. Pick one.
Why didn't this get modded offtopic or troll?
In a way, I lament those who share your lament. Denis Miller (I'm morbidly curious at times) thinks Mars rovers, and NASA in general are a waste of money. What's ironic is he says this on a program bounce off a satellite; proving, once again, it doesn't hurt to have an education to go together with a vocabulary.
Not to get off on a rant here, but...
Actually, simply "an education" doesn't quite cut it. Better to make sure that the education includes the sciences, or else the idiot communication majors who have to take sciences classes and complain about it bitterly will force the concept that "an education" doesn't need such... how would they put it -- dead weight, maybe? (!!), and without advocacy for the sciences, idiot college administrators will go with the idea. You can thank that kind of thinking for things like warnings about the "Anthrax Virus" after 9/11.
These guys keep talking about superconductors but the fact remains that this is fundamental research with no real applications now or even in the near future.
Oh, I'm sorry -- is this your field? Yes, now I understand. You are entirely qualified to discuss the viabilities of this research for the purposes of application now or down the road, you brilliant slashdotter, you.
Just what makes that "fact?" Surely facts are universal -- so would I be getting a reflection of that if I went to a chemistry Ph.D. friend of mine (who happens to specialize in development of superconductors) and asked about honest prospects regarding applications?
Smacks like "gotta tell them at least about some possible application to keep us funded"-talk.
Smacks of "if it ain't instant gratification it's worthless"-talk to me, actually...
You can blame that on all those 'easy-to-read' books on quantum physics. I'm not quite sure, someone might let me know - what is the attraction of attempting to explain something as abstract as quantum physics to lay people.
/. are likely not quantum physicists, this sounds an awful lot like flamebait. Really, there's no point in writing such things... they should just send their research to you, right? At least you understand it, unlike those of us "lay people" who aren't so enlightened. Bah, waste of paper, those books. Yup. Uh-huh. Yessir.
Considering that the majority of the people who read
What, precisely, is wrong with explaining science to the general populace? I would consider such a thing a laudable goal, regardless of discipline to be disseminated, not only because of the sheer enlightenment value, but also because a population taught to think scientifically and flexibly, as from exposure to the sciences, is far more difficult to manipulate than one that has no understanding of any of it!
Interesting that the three-fingered salute to the machine thanks to this fellow has given people so much reason to present a one-fingered salute to Bill Gates.
Something of a distillation, isn't it?
I read this story and couldn't help wondering if Bill ended up helping to make the technique famous not only by advancing software that made it vital, but by demonstrating it himself -- didn't he need this to restart the machine during an OS crash that happened most precipitously while he was bragging at a trade show?
At least he was demonstrating the software as it would work... or wouldn't... in real life.
Sorry, I love Peter Jackson's films, but you're way off base. You can't blame the audience for what they do or do not know going into the film. No one should have to read the books in order to appreciate the films. And not having read them does not disqualify a person from disparaging the movie. On the contrary, if anything, the opposite is true. The films should be judged first and foremost on their own merit, irrespective of the source material.
I think that the fact that the film derives from a literary source should not be discounted at all -- since the movie is, by definition, dependent on a literary work, then its consideration (in any sort of depth, anyway) should take into account its treatment of said work. The film is, after all, even before an audience gets to decide its quality as a standalone film, meant to be Lord of the Rings. If the film is absolutely expected to stand alone, it may in those things that do not have a dependence on the book as a source, but ignoring the source for dependent cases is a little bit like expecting someone to stand while one leg gets cut off at the knee.
My gripe regarding people not having read the book but disparaging the movie stems largely from the fact that when I read those disparagements, they sound as though the person doesn't necessarily know their case. Some sound like a person disparaging for the sake of disparagement. Just saying they didn't like something is one thing... saying that they didn't like it because XYZ that could be remedied by considering the source (that is, the book and the genre, not PJ) is something else.
An example of this would be a friend of mine who insists upon never seeing Lord of the Rings simply because it's popular. He doesn't have any problem with the story at all, at least not that he's voiced, but he refuses to see it because, according to him, it's a bad movie. It has too much "hype" associated with it -- it must be bad. It's not worth his attention. I would have a much easier time accepting Brian's valid (??) opinion if he knew what he was talking about. A lot of the complaints I see here about Lord of the Rings fit that same bracket -- someone doesn't like LotR because it isn't their kind of movie, therefore it's not a good movie, and therefore a movie of their preferred type is worthy of more adulation. Uh, no. I can't accept that.
I will readily concede that someone who has a problem with the way the film is presented and expresses that has an entirely valid opinion -- but when that person takes their disparagement and makes it an indication of a "flaw" to be recognized by all, I tend to get a bit irked. Oh, just a notch.
My idea of a flaw is something that can be demonstrated unilaterally, which, generally speaking, opinions cannot. An example is the continuing discussion about Eowyn vs. the Witchking (somewhere upstairs in this topic...). One person expresses a problem with a scene. Another person expresses that they had no problem with that scene. Is that scene then flawed? Is that perception of flaw binding?
"It's in the book" is not a valid defense for a flaw in the film. Peter Jackson had the opportunity -- if not the responsibility -- to overcome the book's flaws. In most cases, I think he did. In some others, he didn't. In a few places, he exacerbated them, or introduced flaws of his own. All of this, good and bad, is Peter Jackson's fault. For instance, he didn't have to include the "no living man" mythology in his film. God knows he made much more drastic changes elsewhere. Personally, I liked it, but if someone else didn't, that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it whether they've read the books or not.
I can't remember saying anywhere that people needed to like the movie, but rather that they should at least give the source some consideration when weighing the film's quality. Some of the gripes are regarding things inherent to the genre and the story meant to be told. There's a difference between those and
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.
Its own physics...? There was some mention of a clear-cut overarching who-can-kill-whom physics in this to begin with? Okay, let's go with this example.
I don't remember the WitchKing being mentioned at Helm's Deep. He is mentioned at Minas Tirith, and I do think Gandalf says it to Pippin. OK. The word 'man' is used.
You mention that traditionally, "man" is used to refer to men and women. That works with Saruman's dictum before Helm's Deep -- but step back and look at the other statements. "No man may kill me," and "He can be killed by no man," aren't necessarily statements referring to race. Nothing precludes either statement from referring to the dominant sex in warfare at that time -- the fact that the term used in reference to each shouldn't be all that jarring, considering that we use "man" to refer to an adult male human or to the human race in general. This is a judgment call made in communication on a daily basis. What abstracts it so when it's onscreen?
I would be wondering what the statement meant, if it weren't for the clarification from a certain duo ramming swords into the WitchKing's carcass. Ah, so that's what he meant...
My main problem with those kinds of analyses of "physics" is that they put a filter on what's happening that need not necessarily be there. I remember hearing PJ say somewhere along the line that the approach was to produce the film as a history -- not a historical documentary but a demonstration of culture within Middle-Earth and an illustration of one period in its history as it occurred. That said, it never fails to get my hackles up when someone responds to the film as though it were something happening down the street, within the boundaries of their mores. Quite obviously, the world on that screen isn't playing by our rules.
Interpretation based on experience is valuable, true, but it doesn't always prove fruitful when that which to be interpreted does not fit into its own niche within modern human experience. Adapting the story based upon modern human mores might work to a point, but it would not do so kindly to a source that is as imbued with its own mores as this one is. That's part of the problem with working up a generally accepted adaptation of this story.
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).
It's hard to know what the rules are in fantasy in general. Much of it entails watching what happens and analyzing it as specifically as possible -- not much unlike being dumped into that world as if by magic and having to make a living within it. Fantasy having its own "physics," as you say, is not a failing or a handicap, but rather a difference best dealt with by the viewer and the filmmaker. This genre simply comes with another nuance.
This is where the analogy to Master and Commander fails. True, there are probably a number of historians that would be quick to say that a ship during that era was its own world, and that it would h
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.
Honestly, given the nature of the film, I'm not 100% sure what you would have considered believable. My point, and apparently I needed to sledgehammer it a bit, is that this is a gripe you would have to take up with Tolkien -- he originally wrote the scene. It was, I'm given to understand, a fairly popular sequence among those who read the book (including the adapting team) -- hence its inclusion.
I expect that Tolkien meant something of a play on words on the surface, but note that the deed is eventually done by both woman and hobbit. Eowyn's problem, as illustrated in both book and film, is that she is relegated to the background while she would rather be demonstrating her mettle. Merry suffers from the same frustration. Ultimately, woman and hobbit forge ahead for themselves into battle despite urgings to the contrary from those above them (who, incidentally, just happen to be Men -- both by sex and race), and in so doing they end up bringing down what was (by that point, at least) the most feared agent of Mordor on the battlefield.
This subplot does, I imagine, make some modicum of sense.
I would indicate to you that the synopsis I detail above could have been gleaned simply by watching the films and paying attention. There is nothing to suggest "a joke" or that "women are magical." Each of those items appears somewhere in Return of the King or Two Towers as it showed in the theater -- there is, of course, more, but the Academy people who are concerned with how well movies "stand by themselves" would not be watching Extended Editions to make their determinations. In terms of dry exposition with regards to Eowyn and the WitchKing, RotK did indeed work on its own. (Sorry.)
This is not necessarily a spoon-feeding movie. Something like X-Men might only need a surface interpretation, but something like Lord of the Rings is much more complex -- as much so on film as in text. You do yourself a great disservice if you feel that your opinions on the film are eminently valid -- apparently above and beyond others' -- primarily because it did not pass your initial gloss analysis. As far as the film is concerned, you apparently "missed the point" -- which is lamentable, considering that the point, in this case, was in plain view. There is only so much watering-down that can be done for an audience member with something of this scale.
If, however, you expected this film to fit the status quo -- with a plot presented in blinking neon lights for one and all to follow without having to think too much about it, much less remember information from an hour previous (let alone another film) -- well then, I'm sorry. Genuinely. I can tell you that I, for one, would have resented LotR as some sort of "mainstream" rendering that saps it of its innate intelligence. The source deserves more respect.
I think Jackson could have adapted the movie to suit both audiences: those who have read the trilogy and those who haven't.
This is an incredibly easy suggestion to make -- moreso, perhaps, than mine that you read the book. Anyone with a vague dissatisfaction with the movie could have said that. Still, please elaborate. What do you have in mind? Just how would you plan on adapting this as you describe? (Know that, among the people who have read the book, much is said of it being overly adapted for those who had not read the text. Not clear cut in the slightest, is it?)
Consider that, at least in the case of the edition I have handy, the whole book, from "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits," to "'Well, I'm back,' he said," runs about 1008 pages, and the type is small. With the inclusion of the Appendices, which make various appear
I actually like reading interviews with Linus. At least when it's coming from the horse's mouth it doesn't seem to be as bad as reading a rehash of a misunderstood reference to a retelling of a press release.
It shall be forevermore preferable to get news from the horse's mouth rather than from the horse's ass.
I've just finished slogging through this battery of responses, and I can't help but feel a little bit disturbed by some of the remarks made in vague attempts to pass oneself off as knowledgeable, or to demonstrate that [insert name of movie here] was better than RotK 'just because.'
Folks, I realize that I may be offensive to some of you when I say this, but it looks like an astounding number of you are forgetting that RotK was, first and foremost, a book. Much (admittedly not all) of that book was conserved in the transition to film, within the context of one person's vision rooted in the text. How's abouts cracking open that illustrious tome every now and again to see if that which you disparage as horrible screenwriting or acting did or did not, in fact, originate in Tolkien's text -- itself the famous source much of the audience hopes the film will respect in its adaptation? Just how is it that so many people feel adequately prepared to comment on the validity of the construction of the film (itself an adaptation) without demonstrating a proper familiarity with the source? There's more here to consider than only what's in the textbooks to "Introduction to Film" and its ilk.
A woeful demonstration of this would be the people who have problems with the adaptation, yet have not read the book. Listen, people, I have some bad news for you -- Lord of the Rings, in general, is not meant to be a Cliff's Notes film or book. You do have to set up more than a few postsynaptic potentials to catch all that is going on. There are details in the films, true, that people who have read the books will pick up, while a general viewer who hasn't read the books will not. The solution to this seemingly widespread dilemma is either to view the films as someone putting together a puzzle and trying to discern what might be justifying what's happening on screen within the context of the story, or to haul thy carcass to the nearest library or bookstore, get the book, and read it. Contrary to popular belief, PJ and company didn't make this film simply to pander to the James Cameron/I-can't-believe-the-ship-sank generation -- take a look at the structure of Two Towers (particularly its opening) if you need evidence. Silly as it might seem to any stuffed shirts in the crowd, much of the intention behind a lot of this film was to get the audience to think, or short of that, to read. Can't stand the idea of being sent after a book by some movie at the multiplex? Aww. Poor baby. Perhaps Return of the King wasn't meant for you in the first place -- might I suggest a riveting Will Farrell tale instead?
I saw one post concerning a comparison between RotK and Monster that left me wondering. Point one this author made in his argument that Monster consisted of "what RotK lacked" was something to the order of the difference between one movie centering about elves and magic (not quoting directly, admittedly) vs. another revolving around prostitution -- ostensibly itself a film centered on 'reality,' at least in the modern history sense.
Uh, OK.
Let's, for one moment, forget the whole "apples and oranges" thing. Maybe I misunderstood, but is that 'modern angst' element of Monster supposed to be an essential component that RotK "lacks" to its loss? Listen, if poor souls dealing with prostitution in whatever context is important in your preferred kinds of films, fine. Have at it. Enjoy. Please, however, don't point to the absence of a gritty prostitution/drug/crime/name-yer-poison element in Lord of the Rings as some manner of general shortcoming. We are, after all, talking fantasy here -- even in the germane sense of Wizards'n'Elves fantasy. If I wanted a story that looked like something out of City Confidential or Cops, I'd be watching that. Lord of the Rings, either on the bookshelf or at the theater, was not meant to be anything of the sort. Nature of content alone,
>>
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.
Did I understand your post correctly to mean that you have not read the book? I would suggest you develop some familiarity with it. IIRC, that particular bit was not intended solely as an element of "adaptation."
Makes a case for knowing your sources, n'est-ce pas?
Honestly, my following has been off-and-on. I was pretty much just responding to the idea that SCO could get away with holding off on presenting its evidence, as it came up in the parent post. I'm pretty much grasping it as it goes via /. .
I see it getting tossed out rather quickly. I have extreme doubts that any judge will take this case seriously... and even if the judge briefly entertains SCO's notions, there will be enough backlash to toss SCO's case just by momentum.
--Paula
On the other hand, SCO may have their legal livers impaled on pikes if they spend extended periods of time playing "hide the evidence." My understanding is that, at some point in advance of the courtroom proceedings (or at least the proceedings relative to the specific evidentiary item), SCO must put up their cards so the Defense can get its game on. I don't think a judge would take too kindly to a case otherwise.
Barred from travel? Nah. Just bring along a personal anesthetic canister for the exploratory surgery. I hear that the TSA agents practice their surgical technique in between playing with yo-yos in airport lobbies and swabbing laptops for explosives. --Paula