 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.16.125.131
In Reply to: Re: Forgive me Patrick, for I've sinned! posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2005 at 11:30:03:
Translation: Stupid people are more apt to like stupid films such as Lord of the Rings.What a reductio ad absurdem your whole argument is.
Vic is pretty thick though, so why he didn't take a fancy to this unintelligent, overblown spectacle is a mystery. The books are pretty awful, too.
Follow Ups:
"Translation: Stupid people are more apt to like stupid films such as Lord of the Rings.
What a reductio ad absurdem your whole argument is.Vic is pretty thick though, so why he didn't take a fancy to this unintelligent, overblown spectacle is a mystery. The books are pretty awful, too."
It is ironic that some one would say someething so stupid while accusing others of stupidity. Yeah JRR Tolkien was an idiot and you are a genius. Thanks for setting the literary world straight on this one.
Tolkien had a turgid, muddy style, but sci-fi/fantasy nerds don't care a whit about aesthetics.Go watch another inane CGI extravaganza and wallow in your smug anti-intellectualism.
AS
"Tolkien had a turgid, muddy style, but sci-fi/fantasy nerds don't care a whit about aesthetics.
Go watch another inane CGI extravaganza and wallow in your smug anti-intellectualism."
OK so you are a pseudo-intelectual snob with a snotty attitude. Guys like you are a dime a dozen. Anyone can get on a soapbox and call anything crap. BFD. Get back to me when you have something to say with substance.
J.R.R. Tolkien didn't make the LoTR films, Peter Jackson did, as I'm sure you know.Irony upon irony.
"J.R.R. Tolkien didn't make the LoTR films, Peter Jackson did, as I'm sure you know."
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid. 1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid. So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Irony upon irony."
Indeed.
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid.1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically
Bingo!
or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid.
Try again!
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
Like I said, do a search.
I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you.
But that said, so what? That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest. In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted. Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success. That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films.
Well that leaves one of two possibilities if you thought the movies were stupid.
1. You thought jackson failed miserably to realize the books cinematically"Bingo!"
or 2. whether you know it or not you think the books are also stupid.
"Try again!"
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Like I said, do a search."
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd.
"I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
"But that said, so what?"
You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium.
"That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."
You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books.
" Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."
I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=films&m=19848Some stuff by the way here, but not the focus of the thread:
http://db.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=films&m=22338
"My son in law had two free tickets for the show and ask me if I would like to come along with him for this film, after an indecisive time of reflexion ( 3 hours for THIS kind of flim..) I remember the polemic on this board and decide to see if I could change my prejudice....Short, no I could not.
Loud, digital for images and sound, in one word depictable.
I won´t go any longer or deeper on this as every thing is utterly wrong. I can understand for some to have some fun seeing it.
The worst was the never ending end."
This is your idea of substance? OK.........
Doh!
nt
?
...Bulkington's post is further down the thread. I hope you will check out the thread again and respond. I've often enjoyed your posts on this board, and look forward to hearing (reading) what you might say in response to Bulkington's original comments.
and read your posts on LoTR. Excellent points, nicely expressed. Wish I was around to jump in then. Thanks!
.
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.I understand the meaning of either, and your either/or was assinine. Thus: "try again!"
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
"Like I said, do a search."
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd.
I'm not here to do you any favors. The effort it would have taken you to do a search using the terms "Bulkington" and "Tolkien" or "LoTR" is minimal. Detailed argumentation takes time, as you well know. Instead of making an honest effort to engage my opinions on these films, which I'm pretty sure are just a quick search away, tell me where your real interests lie. It's convenient for you to assume I wrote long posts reducable to variations on "kaka." Whatever makes you feel good.
"I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
Your refusal to do a search for my previous posts leads me to believe you're not in any way genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say. If you show genuine interest, maybe I'll indulge you. I don't have much at stake in this however, and the dumb shit you've written in response to me doesn't make me very interested in defending my credibility against the likes of you.
"But that said, so what?"
You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium.
What you just wrote is so outragious naive it's staggering. Literature and film are two totally different media, and the success of both is measured not by content alone--content being, apparently, your only standard of faithfulness. Again, Jackson's films could have been faithful in content (they weren't, and I'm not sure why you'd need someone to point this out to you) and style (which determins how the content is experienced), and still it would not necessarily have been successful. Tolkien's books weren't screenplays. "Faithfulness" to his books results in a worthy film as a matter of course no more than a great screenplay of a great film, if re-shot, would result in anywhere near as great a film.
"That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
You're grasping.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."
You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books.
I get to talk about whatever the fuck I want when I want. Do you seriously have a problem with the principle as stated? If so, I'm not sure you're worth bothering over. I'm totally serious.
" Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."
I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
I seriously cannot fucking believe you just took that line of argument.
I can't believe it.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
Sigh.
Are you not bright enough to understand the meanng of "either?" Why should I try again when #1 was a bingo? Use your brain dude.
I understand the meaning of either, and your either/or was assinine. Thus: "try again!"
Riiiiight. one of them was a big bingo but the either or was assnine. Dude, really, grow a brain.
So if you think Jackson failed to bring the original content and intent of Tolkien please feel free to tell us how and why. Otherwise deal with the fact that you just stuck your foot in your mouth."Like I said, do a search."
Like i said get off your lazy ass and bring some substance to the table. Stop asking me to do your work.
Get back to me when you have something of substance to support your rants. I'm not going on some easter egg hunt on your behalf. I'll bet all you previous posts were no more substantial than the drival you have posted on this thread. Ge back to me when you ae willing o get off your intelectual ass and make a valid point. Till then you ae dismissd.I'm not here to do you any favors.
I'm not asking you for a favor dimwit I'm asking you to do yourself a favor and support your assertions.
The effort it would have taken you to do a search using the terms "Bulkington" and "Tolkien" or "LoTR" is minimal.
Then get off your lazy ass and do it. I'm not here to support your assertions.
Detailed argumentation takes time, as you well know. Instead of making an honest effort to engage my opinions on these films, which I'm pretty sure are just a quick search away, tell me where your real interests lie.
An ctual conversation regarding the merits of the films would have ben nice. My interest in dealing with rude assholes is putting them in their place.
It's convenient for you to assume I wrote long posts reducable to variations on "kaka." Whatever makes you feel good.
Dude try to keep track of the facts. Victor's criticism was the subject you jumped into.
"I'll try getting back to you. I've got a job to do here. But, no, Jackson did not bring the original content and intent of Tolkien to film. I'd be more than happy to debate the point with you."
Fine ball is in your cour. You have made your assertions now try to suport them. Til then....
Your refusal to do a search for my previous posts leads me to believe you're not in any way genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say.
Look I have told you once. I am not going on any Easter egg hunts on your behalf. If it were so easy then why didn't you do the search and post your "comentary of substance?"
If you show genuine interest, maybe I'll indulge you.
If you offer something of substance I'll indulge you. do you always have this much trouble following directions?
I don't have much at stake in this however, and the dumb shit you've written in response to me doesn't make me very interested in defending my credibility against the likes of you.
Back at you dude. You are an idiot and boring.
"But that said, so what?"You don't see the value in faithfulness o an original work that is loved by millions and has an intene dvevoted fan base? You are unaware of the history of highly successful films that were faithful to original works as apposed to the very spotty record of films hat were far less faithful to their originals? No, it isn' a requirement for a good movie to be faithful to a book upon which it is based. But if the book is outstanding enough it stands to reason that a fiathful skillful film adaptation is very likely to be outstanding as well. Books and movies re both forms of stroy telling. Tell the same story well enough nd you likely get the same results with either medium.
What you just wrote is so outragious naive it's staggering.
Blah blah balh. Is this your idea of substance?
Literature and film are two totally different media, and the success of both is measured not by content alone--content being, apparently, your only standard of faithfulness.
Really? What is there besides "content" in either a book or a movie? Do you know what content means? Are you trying to make an ass of yourself? Here's a dfinition. Content: 1 a : something contained — usually used in plural
b : the topics or matter treated in a written work
2 a : SUBSTANCE, GIST b : MEANING, SIGNIFICANCE c : the events, physical detail, and information in a work of art; Do tell me one would find in a movie or book that is not content? Good luck.
Again, Jackson's films could have been faithful in content (they weren't, and I'm not sure why you'd need someone to point this out to you)
I suppose they could have been perfectly faithful in content to the books but we would have had about 20 hours of material some of which would not have been cinematically justifiable. I never said he was completely faithful in content but I believe he was mostly faithful, that his choices of omission and contraction were by and large good choices. I think he was quite faithful to the themes and intent of the books.
and style (which determins how the content is experienced),
Do tell how a *film* maker can stylistically be true to a novel a *literary* work. Good luck.
and still it would not necessarily have been successful.
It was quite successful as it was.
Tolkien's books weren't screenplays. "Faithfulness" to his books results in a worthy film as a matter of course no more than a great screenplay of a great film, if re-shot, would result in anywhere near as great a film.
And whwere did I say it would? Are you struggling with the word "likely?" Are you still ignoring the rich history of faithful films basd on excellent books? Do you need a list?
"That doesn't prove Jackson's stupidity in the slightest."
Your name calling certainly doesn't prove it either.
You're grasping.
Calling you on your B.S.
" In "failing" to be faithful to the content and intent of the original, or in pointedly departing from them, a good film still might have resulted."You get to talk about that when you have shown how Jackson strayed substantially from the content and intent of the original books.
I get to talk about whatever the fuck I want when I want.
Talk to the hand dude.
Do you seriously have a problem with the principle as stated?
I don't see how the word serious can be a part of this argument. I can't take you seriously at all.
If so, I'm not sure you're worth bothering over. I'm totally serious.
I believe you are and that's just sad. But yeah, I realize that a faithful adaptation of a great literary work done poorly will not as likely produce an excellent film. You have yet to name anything that was done poorly in the films at isue. Now I make no claim that these films are perfect. They are far from it. but no film is perfect. IMO the merits of these films vastly outnumber the flaws.
" Likewise, faithfulness doesn't assure success."I disagree. Skillful intelegent faithful cinematic adaptaions of great literary works pretty much inevitably make for an excellent films. If you can think of any exceptions feel free to name them.
I seriously cannot fucking believe you just took that line of argument.
I can't believe it.
Nice rebuttal. Not.
"That you can't seem to see that I assume to be characteristic of most of the praise for the films."
That you can't demonstrate that I assume to be characteristic of most of the criticism of the films.
Sigh.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
You can not post to an archived thread.
[Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
