|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 22, 2013 1:50:08 GMT 1
Yeah we are. Movies just get people riled up. And you're right, that is a dumb thing to say - it never works.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 22, 2013 1:50:09 GMT 1
Lily I don't think I have to justify and provide sources for everything I said. I'm not saying you have to justify and provide sources for everything you say, I am only suggesting that a little clarification might go a long way. For example: I stated my opinion, and backed it up with examples. Not justifications, not sources, simply examples. It just makes more sense to say "I believe W, because of X, Y and Z." as opposed to "I believe W, but never mind why." Or even what you actually said, which was "I believe W, because other people said so, but I have not watched it myself so I'll just go with what they said." I apologise for trying to have an actual conversation with actual points, as opposed to vague statements that don't explain anything.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 22, 2013 4:11:58 GMT 1
Everyone: "SHUT UP, CALI"
JK.
As to Tolkien, agreed on the world building. I don't think we can fault him for plagiarizing because he was quite open about it. He felt that there was not enough of a mythology for his home country, so he set out to create some that suited him, and pulled from all sources and eventually wound up creating a whole new world. I don't excuse the Tom Bombadil story but it makes sense that Tolkien included it because he was trying comprise an entire world, not just "this is the story of Frodo." Now he used the layout of the story of Frodo to expand a lot of specific sections (It's an west to east map, people!), but he had a much larger story in mind.
As to the "banging" better no banging than terrible banging. You bring banging into things and you really have to dwell on the logistics of elf/human relationships, rather than writing mournful laments about them, which are much more poetic and are an excellent place to expand the story. Banging can fit into books. But more often than not they are better if you leave it to the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 22, 2013 4:20:51 GMT 1
I apologise for trying to have an actual conversation with actual points, as opposed to vague statements that don't explain anything. Snarky, much? It's a conversation about a movie for God's sake. I can write actual points about any number of things, doesn't make my opinion any more valid than Bilbo Baggins opinion on Spiders. So Buch didn't like the movie. Or the reviews. Is this seriously going to disrupt your life? Whether Linders & Gorvar go there and back again on Tolkien (Y'see what I did there? ) won't really bother me. They've shared their piece and I've shared mine. We might take it further we might not. A conversation is about ebb and flow. Buch's talk about Carrie is ebbing. Maybe it's because he's avoiding the issue. Maybe he hates the starlet in it. Maybe he's working on a project for the CIA and doesn't have time to talk... Point is, the conversation ebbed and he backed out. Don't take it as a personal affront. It merely implies he was tired of fighting, not of discussing things with you, not of film, and not of remakes. Deep breaths... SHUT UP CLINT!
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Oct 22, 2013 5:42:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Oct 22, 2013 9:37:12 GMT 1
Everyone: "SHUT UP, CALI" As to the "banging" better no banging than terrible banging. You bring banging into things and you really have to dwell on the logistics of elf/human relationships, rather than writing mournful laments about them, which are much more poetic and are an excellent place to expand the story. Banging can fit into books. But more often than not they are better if you leave it to the imagination. Clint needs more banging. and Dinosaurs. -Gorvar 2013 I think the ebst example of the banging is in the Witcher series, which again can thank its existance thanks to Tolkein. Wouldnt have mind Aragorn and Arwyn being actual lovers, Gimli having loads of Rohan wenches pre-and post Helms deep ( he seems like the guy) and Theoden having a bastard child so the throne of Rohan and its heir would be a bit more in flux. Although i agree maybe characters like Gandalf and Legolas are maybe asexual. Well more so the former then the latter, we all know how "close" he and Gimli are. Brokeback Mountain of Doom. -Gorvar 2013
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Oct 22, 2013 10:11:30 GMT 1
It's amusing that that you insist that Tolkien was open about his borrowing of myth Clint, given that TLotR has numerous similarities to Wagner's "The Ring." Tolkien was especially vehement in denying any correlation. people have made excuses for him in this but that is really all they amounted to, excuses. Anyone else would have been raked incessantly over the coals.
Wanting to show the whole world is laudable. Actually trying to do so at the expense of narrative focus is not. And please don't even get me started on their 6 month stopover in Rivendell that did nothing but give Sauron time to surround them. For an urgent quest they sure took a lot of vacations. I really could go on if I wanted to. I actually managed to get through these books twice. My third attempt is currently on a permanent stall.
I know what he was trying to do. But just because he was not an experienced author who did not know how to avoid some biggest narrative traps possible does not mean I should just go ahead and forget all that and call him the best literary genius in creation. I will judge him by the same standard as I would other writers because that is what you do when you are being objective.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Oct 22, 2013 10:17:06 GMT 1
Again in the Hobbit it made sense they had long stops in between adventures, there was no time limit and they had to rest up. In LOTR they pretty much have to haul ass to Mordor or else Sauron or Saruman could kick surround them, like you said Linders. However I admit his world building IS interesting and his first attempt pretty much faield, but it proved to be a good foundation for other authors like Jordan or Martin.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 22, 2013 10:21:18 GMT 1
I apologise for trying to have an actual conversation with actual points, as opposed to vague statements that don't explain anything. Snarky, much? It's a conversation about a movie for God's sake. I can write actual points about any number of things, doesn't make my opinion any more valid than Bilbo Baggins opinion on Spiders. So Buch didn't like the movie. Or the reviews. Is this seriously going to disrupt your life? ...... Point is, the conversation ebbed and he backed out. Don't take it as a personal affront. It merely implies he was tired of fighting, not of discussing things with you, not of film, and not of remakes. Deep breaths... SHUT UP CLINT! Well, considering that I was legitimately trying to have an actual conversation about something, and all he said was a vague statement about not liking it ( which is fine, BTW - I was not trying to force him to like it) I was simply to contribute to an actual discussion as opposed to just saying that other people's otiginal opinions had convinced him it would suck, and then back out of the conversation by accusing me of starting an argument when all I was doing was asking for clarification. What, am I not allowed to ask questions anymore? Sorry for seeming so-called snarky for having a goddamn curiousity. Oh, and BTW - I was not in any way suggesting his opinion was invalid, I was merely suggesting that I did not know what his real opinion was, since all he did was parrot other opinions. @buch - sorry if my natural curiousity offended you. I won't ask your opinion on movies anymore, and maybe we can all get back to being funny and friendly on here and not all jumping down my throat for asking a simple question.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Oct 22, 2013 10:26:43 GMT 1
I think we should all be done with talking past each other right now. I would greatly appreciate some deep breaths be taken before anyone actually blows up over how we are talking past each other here.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 22, 2013 11:12:43 GMT 1
I don't know what talking past each other means!
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Oct 22, 2013 12:52:25 GMT 1
William Gibson and Frank Herbert are both superior authors to Tolkein or King. I do enjoy Dean Koontz's Moonlight Bay series (Fear Nothing and Seize the Night with a 3rd novel supposedly on the way), it's been a while since I read them, but those books struck me as more cerebral than anything King has attempted aside from Insomnia which was clumsily done.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 22, 2013 21:03:29 GMT 1
Gorvar - Seriously? The plot would suffer tremendously. I've never read the Witcher novels specifically, but I've seen the American Paperback westerns with that style of writing. It detracts from the story for the sake of a dopamine rush. Linders - If I'm going to go against Gorvar for diversions from the plot, then by rights I must agree with you that Tolkien's plots are not very linear. I still enjoy them, and think they make Middle Earth come alive, but they DO distract from the immediate goal. Oh, and to clear something up, I don't laud him above all other writers, not by a long shot. Excellent arguments! Lily - What I am trying to point out is that you are not responsible for getting anyone to firm up their statements. No one's condemning you for having an opinion or for being curious.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Oct 22, 2013 22:44:16 GMT 1
@ Clint ( So we dont get confused)
I read the Sword of dEstiny book, which is a collection of short stories about Geralt's life, and the sex scenes in there are alluded to (Cut to black) or its real quick ( Like four-five lines). Those scenes do all serve a purpose though. With Yenifer its because he adores this woman despite her flaws, with some one night stands its because he needs to satisfy his urge and with the other loves of his life, its mostly so he still has feelings for Yenifer but he loves this woman to. Again the sex scenes are very short but they got an impact on the narrative and it doesnt shy away sexuality like Tolkein's work does. Also the Song of Ice and Fire series does I think a rather good job with sex then its HBO counterpart ( I will never forgive naked Hodor, dont care it was in the books.).
I;m not saying Tolkein is the only one here. Jordan with his Wheel of Time, again im on book 4 so this may change, has been REALLY careful with love scenes. For a series that handles rather mature ways of thinking, i dont see why men who are in their 20-ties are that shy about sex. Espcially when girls put themselves on a self paltter for them. Thats why I think I like Matt and Perrin the msot at this point. Matt obviously has experience with girls ( fitting the Trickster archetpye) while Perrin is in a relationship with someone and treats her like a person rather then a princess like most healthy relationships. Also the fact his girlfriend ( later wife) asks him to grow a beard because it makes him look handsomer and he grudingly does so...struck a home cord to me there
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Oct 22, 2013 23:22:01 GMT 1
Lily - What I am trying to point out is that you are not responsible for getting anyone to firm up their statements. No one's condemning you for having an opinion or for being curious. For those who are curious this is what I mean by talking past each other. Lily does not feel a need or duty to ask people to firm up their arguments. She merely wanted to know where they came from. Making it personal by adding that comic does not help. Buch has every right to not clarify his opinion. Lily has every right to be curious where they are coming from. usually your interjections are constructive Clint but in this case they were rather one sided and have done nothing but inflamed things. Frankly I would rather people tell me through PM that they would like me to tell someone to lay off rather than have this business of others butting and sometimes making things worse. My .02
|
|