Subject:
|
Re: LoTR # 1 on IMDB
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:54:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
539 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Erik Olson writes:
> > Now, was anything really confusing in your viewing? Were you not
> > entertained? Did just one line of the movie make you stop and think?
>
> 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 mythology.
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.
> The only memorable part of the plot was when the Liv Tyler character seems
> to be sacrificing immortality or some kind of longevity in giving her
> champion a necklace as a token of her affections. I got the gist of it, but
> I had no idea who she was, why she was immortal, or the significance of the
> jewelry. Can you see what I am saying about the films shortcomings? I
> understood only in part, and I didn't really come to care about the
> characters at all.
Hmm... Liv Tyler (Arwen) is Elven. She is like her father Elrond, whom I
hope you figured out has been around a while. It's too bad there is not more
development of the particular races. Anyway she cannot marry Aragorn without
becoming mortal like him. Peter Jackson added this to the film, trying to
give some motivation to Aragorn.
The songs have been cut out. In the book Aragorn sings a good deal to Frodo
and company on the journey to Rivendell. In particular the lay of Luthien,
an elf who wed the mortal Beren and became mortal herself. So, knowing that
legend, Aragorn and Arwen are foreshadowed. But that doesn't help you....
The family relations are also maddening. You see, Arwen is Elrond's
daughter, who was himself born mortal, but became an elf, because his mother
was half-elven, though his brother did not, and in fact Aragorn is descended
from Elrond's brother through Isildur's son Valandil, which makes him a
cousin of Arwen removed by several millenia. Got that? Thankfully, genealogy
is NOT important to the film. Still, Elrond is not too keen on Aragorn
having his daughter.
> > What's not self-contained here? The story of the Fellowship of the Ring, is >that the Ring shatters the Fellowship.
>
> It's not self-contained because we know precisely what the characters are
> supposed to be on their way to do -- destroy the ring in the flames of Mount
> Doom.
Oh, ok.
They don't get that far -- offhand, I'd guess our heroes are about a
> third of the way there...right?
Yeah. There's also a full arc of how Frodo and Sam change, and they have
only just begun. So, the major lessons in character haven't even been
touched in this movie.
> You claim the story being told is one of the corrupting influence of the
> ring and the damage it does to the fellowship -- and that's not actually
> that clear, if that is indeed the story that is supposed to have been
> delivered by the movie.
No, I picked on this because it's the only thing I can think of that the
movie completes. The Fellowship is put together, goes as far as it can, and
breaks up. That's the action here... Most everybody has been tempted by the
Ring, a theme which the movie has magnified. Some other consequences come
from Saruman trying to get the Ring himself.
We start with eight fellows -- two die, two others
> are momentarily captured, two depart on their own, and two (or was it four)
> go off to fight Orcs. Some of these decisions/actions are NOT strictly the
> result of the corrupting influence of the ring, but just the results of
> being on a quest. I would assert that the movie doesn't actually succeed in
> making the point that the ring is to blame for the variety of misfortunes
> that befall the fellowship (not with pronounced particularity in any case)
> -- I did understand that the ring tries to seduce it's wearers or those in
> very close proximity to it. That much I got.
Keep in mind the Orcs were sent by Saruman to get the Ring, or some
halflings carrying it.
> > Yeah, this is what happens when films are made from books.
>
> Fine. I am willing for the film industry to do this less with works that do
> not translate well to the narrative techniques of film. No arguments there.
And I like more of what it was they did less with. Possibly tongue-twisters
here; no argument has yet emerged.
>
> > Of all your favorite movies, does more than one of those bear a passing
> > resemblance to any book?
>
> All of the first 8 have literary origins, as do Blade Runner, Orlando, and
> The Piano -- that's actually most of them.
Movies can succeed as movies when they try to incorporate less. Better to
have a short story than a novel, especially a 1200-page novel.
> By contrast, and even though I like the movie that resulted from the attempt
> to make "Naked Lunch" into a movie -- it should probably have never been
> tried. It's not really the kind of book that lends itself to translation to
> film very easily.
Ooh, another troublesome untranslatable book!
> > How many characters do you expect to know well in a 2-hour script?
>
> Okay, in fairness some of these are longer than 2 hours. But I happen to
> think that Barry Lyndon and Moll Flanders both do a great job with character
> development in truly self-contained films. I think They are both approx. 3
> hrs, BTW.
Do they have 10 major characters?
> > And who connects to 'Hamlet'on the first try?
>
> Well, I have always connected easily to Elizabethan drama, and I was also an
> English major at university so you can draw your own conclusions about my
> facility with this kind of material.
Yeah. But what about your first try?
> And a truly good movie operates as an independent entity, without reliance
> on other sources for a complete enjoyment of the subject matter.
Yeah, no argument here. These things may ultimately remain big moving
illustrations.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
