 | | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) It's just an initial reaction, based in part on enthusiasm. Yes, I enjoyed it (note that it is up for a Golden Globe for Best Picture already!), no it isn't the best movie of all time, but in my view it is only the first third of an (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) I might have used a different metaphor, but I agree. One of my problems with the current LOTR movie is that I REALLY don't have a lot of prior knowledge of the material. Noeckel suggests that this film should be viewed as the first part of a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) It's possible that you and I (and probably a few others around here) are the only ones who've seen and enjoyed Barry Lyndon--a good pick, though! (...) Haven't seen that in a few years, and it's not a particular favorite for me, but it's (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) This line of argument is of course only fair when taken as "of course there is a deficiency in its incompleteness, but the next film will turn that into an asset." (You will probably be let down again at its ending... it too should have the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) No, I was entertained. The movie is good , just perhaps not great. But no, nothing about the movie made me stop and think about anything save its obvious visual beauty. Most of the stuff passing as a plot is little more than rehashed Norse (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) I meant to ask you who and when is being rehashed. I was also going to bring up earlier that Tolkien is the guy who put Beowulf in the 20th-century curriculum. (...) Hmm... Liv Tyler (Arwen) is Elven. She is like her father Elrond, whom I hope (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) Eh? I am not sure what this means... (...) I don't know anything about Tolkien -- was he a university professor? In what way did he put Beowulf on the map? I am not sure that people have really ever forgotten their myths and folklore, although (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB, Beowulf on NYTimes bestseller list
|
|
(...) Your remark 'rehash of Northern European mythology', could you elaborate? (...) Tolkien was Professor of Anglo-Saxon (and other languages.) Maybe I am overstating this, but I just looked in the new Beowulf that was on the NY Times bestseller (...) (23 years ago, 23-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) I just think it has great style -- way more style than most films. In a way the story is almost incidental to the main agenda of presenting a series of blacker than black comments and political criticisms about the modern world, and often (...) (23 years ago, 23-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) "Heathers" springs to mind, as does "Doom Generation," and even "A Clockwork Orange," to a certain point (though admittedly in a different direction. Even the awful film "Strange Days" addresses the blurring and isolation of the individual. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB, Beowulf on NYTimes bestseller list
|
|
(...) I wonder if you're referring to the recent Seamus Heaney translation, the one that features a chainmail hood in embossed silver on a black hardcover. I haven't read much of that version, but it's stirred up a little controversy among the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) Ah, I have almost no idea what kind of press it got -- I rented it on video some several months later on a whim and was happily surprised. It's funny how things like that can work for and against a film. I had no expectations, and therefore (...) (23 years ago, 24-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB, Beowulf on NYTimes bestseller list
|
|
(...) I wrote: "Most of the stuff passing as a plot is little more than rehashed Norse mythology." Is it the case that you want me to compare and contrast Tolkien's work to Northern European mythology? Seems like a rather thankless task. I am also (...) (23 years ago, 24-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB, Beowulf on NYTimes bestseller list
|
|
(...) Well, I did not go to school for that sort of thing. It would be sufficient to have a few names or titles that come to your mind as primary sources. The National Geographic Explorer special on Middle-Earth last night visited with the world's (...) (23 years ago, 24-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB, Beowulf on NYTimes bestseller list
|
|
Yes, it is the Seamus Heaney translation of Beowulf. I started reading it in the airport. In the foreword he makes clear his intentions to use old words current only among his Irish relatives, and English words clearly inherited from Irish, such as (...) (23 years ago, 25-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
|
(...) Excalibur… HA! They wore their -shiny silver armor- EVERYWHERE, to dinned…to bed…on short walks to the river…to the bathroom… ;) They never changed their armor, *they lived in it!!!* Sure, it looked all shimmerin’ and fanciful, but COME 0N…not (...) (23 years ago, 26-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB, Beowulf on NYTimes bestseller list
|
|
(...) Well, it wasn't the significant focus of my schoolwork, but I have read mythology almost all my life. The reason I am disadvantaged in giving a truly well-rounded answer to your question is that I haven't "read" Tolkien, but only saw this LOTR (...) (23 years ago, 27-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
