Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As noted, I see no sense in trying to argue with anyone as to why they should not like what they like, but your above explanation in no manner ameliorates my complaint. Stating that he has magic which he can use as a trump card is my complaint. No matter what the danger, the trump card can be brought out to save the day. The author can give Gandalf any power needed, tailored to the specific emergency.
The microcosm of this dynamic would be any scene in any fantasy movie where the hero or the villain is able to shoot some sort of power beam from his or her hands. How many times have you seen this....the villain is bombarding the hero with these magical rays and the scene goes on until something or someone intervenes. What bothers me is that we know nothing of these rays...how long can someone be exposed before succumbing? In the films it is never so long as to be fatal, it will always be frustrated by a counter beam or a counter spell which renders the beam harmless....I never have any real sense of just how much jeopardy is taking place. It also annoys me that the villain can shoot the beams at the hero for a minute without the hero perishing, so why would the villain rely on such a slow working weapon when he could much more easily shoot or stab the hero to death?
I'm just not the sort to allow that stuff to flow over me, to accept the fantasy world without questioning the specifics. And the specific never make any real sense.
And that is why I don't like fantasy in general and Lord of the Rings in particular.
But that is just me, clearly there are millions who do not suffer from these problems.
I think the magical parts were the least nonsensical parts of the movie. At least Gandalf's magic had a kind of internal logic. Legolas the elf, on the other hand, could flip through the air, completely disregarding the laws of physics, wiping out hordes of orcs single-handedly. It didn't matter that most of them wore full body armor. He had a knife. I wonder how successful most medieval soldiers would be at taking out mobs of chainmail-armored knights, wielding halberds, swords, flails and crossbows, single-handed, with their knife.
Gimli the dwarf could dive into a pile of a few dozen of those same armed and armored uruk-hai (supposedly bred for war) and knock them all like dominoes, and emerge grinning and without a scratch.
The horses though...the horses were really good at just taking the laws of physics and just burning them all to the ground. Gandalf and Aragorn and their buddies would ride their horses strait into a giant wall of orcs. The orcs in question would be facing them when this happened, with their large spears, pikes, and halberds pointing in their direction...and the horses would push through that impenetrable wall of doom like they were breaking through a thin sheet of saran wrap. That doesn't work. If those things whatever they were, were real horses, they would have been impaled to the point of looking like pin cushions. The most trouble they would have caused the orc horde would have been that it would have taken a long, long time to manage to pull all those halberds, spears, and pikes, from Aragorn and his buddies' barely recognizable corpses.
I almost feel sorry for the orcs in those movies. Not only were they totally flat characters, with no motivation or personality whatsoever besides being the enemies, their sole purpose was to die as soon as some hobit gave them so much as a scratch on the nose, all to make the heroes look better and provide some conflict, one-sided though that conflict was.
I liked the book "Grunts" by Mary Gentle. It's a parody of The Lord of the Rings types of stories where the orcs are the protagonists. They keep getting frustrated because they'll set up these brilliant schemes, and have a hundred times the numbers of their enemies, and then all of a sudden some meter tall hobbit pr other, riding a pony, will come flying through their ranks with an enchanted dagger, shredding through their numbers like they were made of tissue paper.
Eventually the orcs find an interdimensional portal leading to our world. They come back to Middle Earth hauling grenade launchers, machine guns, radio technology, and other useful gadgets and proceed to blow the good guys, the hobbits, elves, dwarves, and humans, to smithereens. That pleased me. I thought the orcs getting grenade launchers and machine guns made things more fair.
Loved that post. Yes. With storytelling and even more film -making of storytelling, you know the story is going to be full of absurdities so that the Plot can be worked out.(1) In fact the film has the Balrog drag Gandalf down rather his pointlessly destroying the bridge under his feet rather than under the Balrog's feet. I can't shake the idea that Gandalf as sacrificing himself and resurrected is no coincidence, and Jackson picks up the Road to Emmaeus appearance in Fangorn.
"Mithrandir! What veil was over my sights?"
The same as over Cleophas' sight until it suited Luke to have Jesus reveal himself.
But, while the battle scenes are stirring enough, one feels that what makes good theatre is in mind, not what makes military sense. To change books, in the film of the battle of the five armies, the Elvish arrows are Taken Out by a counter weapon of aerial mincers. I loved it. But then, Thranduil or anyone there with some military nous should have said: 'We can counter this by triggering that gadget with a feint volley by the front rank, then fire the rest while they are reloading. Or we can first first five ranks direct and rear ranks arching fire. let's see whether they can counter both!"
But what does he do? The same thing thing and the same counter. Ney himself couldn't have done worse.
Jackson tries to make Thorin's charge work as adding Morale, which is the best he can do, as in the Book, his Berserker's dozen Dwarves would make no difference even as a flank attack. And the Dwarvish charge could gave been countered by grounding spears. Even elves know they need pikes to hold against cavalry.
The Rohirrim charge at Pelennor was against Orc -archers No problem. But at Helm's deep, they are going up against Uruk pikes. And given that they are cloned maggots with little or no training, you don't issue a Uruk a pike and not tell him how to use it. Given that the direct sun in their eyes made things hard, they had only to ground pikes and shut their eyes and it would have stood against Eomer's charge.
Rarely do we get a shield- wall; rarely do we get a flanking or a feint. It's always a charge and then a lot of individual Hollywood sword -fights. Though with Jackson at least not the one against 10 method of taking on one at a time while the other nine stand there and wave their swords about.
(1) I remember Wodehouse in his 'Something Fresh' has a detective novelist trying to solve a real crime.
"What does your detective do when he gets stuck?"
"He waits for.an an incredible coincidence".
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-01-2017 at 09:59 AM..
Reason: just a bit of line shifting.
My biggest objection is the royalty stuff. A medieval fantasy written by a guy living in a monarchy will have kings, but the necessity of putting a king on the throne and replacing the steward became tiresome in the last third.
My biggest objection is the royalty stuff. A medieval fantasy written by a guy living in a monarchy will have kings, but the necessity of putting a king on the throne and replacing the steward became tiresome in the last third.
It's a Brit thing. Centuries of peddling the Arthurian meme has left us with what a Uk branch of Fox News might describe as "The England we all Know and Love" (1) with an idea that all these Parlia-ments are like the Master of Lake-town (The Old Men and the Moneybags) and what it Should be is a Real King, in Harry V armour and probably with a golden lion prowling ahead of him..
As I remarked, Tolkien was historically - minded enough to still be in denial about the Battle of Hastings. And, as a Catholick, Gondor was (I think) a metaphor of Constantinople, with a stopgap (Greek Orthodox) Steward holding the Turkis..I mean Orkish..hordes off until The Troo King leads his Anglo-Saxon Riders to the rescue, and Rules on behalf of the (Real..i.e.Vatican-approved) Christianity of the West - anointed by Our Lady Galadriel and the Resurrected Gandalf.
(1) Except for Scotland of course, and Wales, Spain and its' S American colonies... and the rest of Europe, Australia... Russia goes without saying, Indian sub continent, plus Srilanka; China no doubt...and Most of The Rest of The World
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-22-2017 at 09:50 AM..
It's a Brit thing. Centuries of peddling the Arthurian meme has left us with what a Uk branch of Fox News might describe as "The England we all Know and Love" (1) with an idea that all these Parlia-ments are like the Master of Lake-town (The Old Men and the Moneybags) and what it Should be is a Real King, in Harry V armour and probably with a golden lion prowling ahead of him.
It is not just a British thing. I guess it is a universally European thing - longing for leadership that would consist of real men and real leaders, not spineless and inefficient "democracies". We all have it in our blood.
As for Tolkien and the Battle of Hastings, he hated that part of history because of what it did to the English language: infusing what is essentialy a Germanic language with tons and tons of French loanwords. He was a linguist after all, so he felt very strongly about that.
Where does he live? Rhosgobel or somewhere. "These are Rhosghobel rabbits - they will outrun even a defeated theist apologist scampering for cover."
Of course Jackson is a fine film -maker and he did a pretty good job of turning the Hobbit into a creditable three film epic, which I wouldn't have believed possible. And I will suspend the usual beef of the military history Buff with fims. The fight sequences are all about Acting, not about a convincing fight.
Lord of the Rings was a fine epic, Hobbit was a poorly done attempt to milk the story for every cent of profits it could bring. There is nothing in Hobbit that would warrant turning it to another three film-series: one film would be more than sufficient. They had to add a lot of scenes, mostly fight sequences, that were not in the book, plus that entirely unnecessary Elvish female with her entirely superfluous love story (no Hollywood film without a love story, right? ) And the atmosphere of the book is entirely different from that of LOTR - more comfy and fairy-tale like than epic. An attempt to turn it into LOTR 2.0 pretty much ruined that atmosphere.
It is not just a British thing. I guess it is a universally European thing - longing for leadership that would consist of real men and real leaders, not spineless and inefficient "democracies". We all have it in our blood
Keep telling yourself that everyone shares your longing for an authoritarianism that glosses over (but doesn't actually do anything about) the complicated nature of governing.
But here in the real world, by no means do we all share such simplistic fantasies.
Keep telling yourself that everyone shares your longing for an authoritarianism that glosses over (but doesn't actually do anything about) the complicated nature of governing.
But here in the real world, by no means do we all share such simplistic fantasies.
I think you may have mistaken Norne, or maybe I have: I argue that the hankering for authoritarian bullies and dictators rather "The old men and the moneybags" is an evolved tribal -survival instinct. But we are no longer a Natural species and can, should and must do better and NOT be slaves to instincts we don't understand. Including the religious instinct.
I took Norne as agreeing with that, but she will tell us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norne
It is not just a British thing. I guess it is a universally European thing - longing for leadership that would consist of real men and real leaders, not spineless and inefficient "democracies". We all have it in our blood.
As for Tolkien and the Battle of Hastings, he hated that part of history because of what it did to the English language: infusing what is essentialy a Germanic language with tons and tons of French loanwords. He was a linguist after all, so he felt very strongly about that.
Yes. In fact, I rather like the mix of Celtic, Saxon and French, and indeed Danish and Frisian that make up England, and not only is the idea of Pure Saxon English laughable, it is not even desirable.
You are right that the admiration of the hoi polloi for loudmouthed oafs, dictators and arrogant bigots especially if they occupy the Alpha-breeding -pair spot to which we instinctively accord mystical reverence and dress it up in all the tribal cohesion nonsense we accord Religion ceremony, grovelling, songs of praise, funny hats, even anointing and flags,is regrettable and misguided. It is astonishing that the joining at the hip of political authority - whether Royals or their Replacement: Dictators or Permanent Presidents and Dogma, whether Religious or Non-scienceism like Aryanism or Stalinist Marxism (1) isn't seen for the evolved tribal -survival instinct that it is. And the world is trapped in a cycle of useless war, deluded religion and lying politics until we understand this and teach it.
(1) and what an interesting Reveal of what "Deep Down Inside" the Theists know instinctively by using "Darwinism" as a term of abuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norne
Lord of the Rings was a fine epic, Hobbit was a poorly done attempt to milk the story for every cent of profits it could bring. There is nothing in Hobbit that would warrant turning it to another three film-series: one film would be more than sufficient. They had to add a lot of scenes, mostly fight sequences, that were not in the book, plus that entirely unnecessary Elvish female with her entirely superfluous love story (no Hollywood film without a love story, right? ) And the atmosphere of the book is entirely different from that of LOTR - more comfy and fairy-tale like than epic. An attempt to turn it into LOTR 2.0 pretty much ruined that atmosphere.
You may be right. I was surprised that he made the Hobbit and astonished that he made it a three film epic. And I liked it better than I thought I would. And if it is more for kids than serious LoR -totties, so is the Hobbit!
I appreciated the bigger role for Radhaghast. And a lot of genuine Tolkien backup material not in the Hobbit Or LOR was worked in to make it the prequel to LoR. Though it should have been as primitive as LoR 1with Shambling Orcs (remember what the first Alien looked like? A bloke in a rubber crocodile suit) and I agree the Dwarf - Elf love story wouldn't Work and Jackson knew it wouldn't.
The gimmicky self -indulgence we could excuse in LoR (legolas doing in the Mumak) gets Too Much in the excellent but unbelievable acrobatics of the escape down the river. As does the Computa-game Battle CG in the pin ball-footballer reaction of the elves at the battle of 5 armies.
Result - LoR film is alongside the Books in my Library. I haven't bought Hobbit, and probably won't.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-26-2017 at 08:10 AM..
Keep telling yourself that everyone shares your longing for an authoritarianism that glosses over (but doesn't actually do anything about) the complicated nature of governing.
But here in the real world, by no means do we all share such simplistic fantasies.
Ah yes, I knew my remark would ruffle a few star-and-striped feathers. I would like to be governed by men who are part of the folk and who would, if necessary, go to fight and die defending their people - like Aragorn or Theoden did. Not by people who hide from their very own citizens in armored limos and high-security zones, like our modern "democratic" governments do. I would also like to have rulers who devoted their time to working for the good of the nation, not vying for votes. If that is authoritarian, I do not care.
But anyway, I would not like to needlessly politicize this thread.
In fact, I rather like the mix of Celtic, Saxon and French, and indeed Danish and Frisian that make up England, and not only is the idea of Pure Saxon English laughable, it is not even desirable.
I love German because of its Germanic character (indeed, much of the English vocabulary that is of Germanic/Saxon origin is very close to German), but I also love English because of its discinctive mix of various cultures. Remaking English into a second German would be undesirable indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Loved that post. Yes. With storytelling and even more film -making of storytelling, you know the story is going to be full of absurdities so that the Plot can be worked out.(1) In fact the film has the Balrog drag Gandalf down rather his pointlessly destroying the bridge under his feet rather than under the Balrog's feet. I can't shake the idea that Gandalf as sacrificing himself and resurrected is no coincidence, and Jackson picks up the Road to Emmaeus appearance in Fangorn.
No problem. But at Helm's deep, they are going up against Uruk pikes. And given that they are cloned maggots with little or no training, you don't issue a Uruk a pike and not tell him how to use it. Given that the direct sun in their eyes made things hard, they had only to ground pikes and shut their eyes and it would have stood against Eomer's charge.
are like the Master of Lake-town (The Old Men and the Moneybags) and what it Should be is a Real King, in Harry V armour and probably with a golden lion prowling ahead of him.. 
) And the atmosphere of the book is entirely different from that of LOTR - more comfy and fairy-tale like than epic. An attempt to turn it into LOTR 2.0 pretty much ruined that atmosphere.
