|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I disagree with this so heavily, and I think it's ridiculous to compare Tolkien's work with Harry Potter. >___<
|
On December 12 2011 23:11 Manical wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. How can you seriously say the lotr trilogy has low artistic value? Hundreds of people worked on those movies for 6+(?) years, and if you'd seen some of the backstage content you would realize how much artistic work is needed to make a movie based on a book. Plus it was made by a pretty much unknown director, crew and actors (Orlando Bloom for example they picked up straight out of acting school). So to sum it up: - Unknown crew - Unknown actors - World built from scratch based on books - Unique location - Revolutionizing technology Can it get more artistic than that? I know the cinephile type, and they only praise movies in foreign language with 50 subliminal messages and an upset ending. Movies like Old boy, Jacob's ladder, Let the right one in etc. And dont get me wrong I love those movies as well, but lotr trilogy will always be superior for what it is.
From what i see this whole argument started by someone hailing Jackson as one of the best directors comparing him to the Coen brothers and del Torro. I really don't agree as imo LotR to me was just another big budget blockbuster movie and both the Lonely Bones and King Kong were average/below average at best.
Saying "I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile" is more or less an invite for these kinds of discussions.
On December 12 2011 23:19 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 12 2011 21:07 Psychobabas wrote:On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway. I'm just saying that the way LOTR is filmed, the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting and that therefore it's probably not appealing to what one would call a cinephile. What one can like is the content; for everything that is related to cinema as an art, Jackson goes for speed, efficiency, effect. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages, just of creativity from a director. Again, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just a style, very commercial, appealing to global audience of action packed blockbuster. I find that deadly boring and repetitive, but that's just my taste. I would also add that in order to make a superproduction with thousand of actors, big battles and everything and still do something artistic, you better be a fucking genius (and I really don't think Jackson is a genius at all). The only one that come to my mind is Kurosawa. And although he filmed the most epic and incredible battles that I have ever seen, in comparison on which LOTR looks like a boring and mindless video game (I think of Kagemusha in particular), he has never been super popular among american teenagers and young people, which is the condition to make a movie as expensive as the ones Jackson does. Everytime I see someone write something like that I can't help but to think that if we were living in other times they'd probably be saying the same thing of Victor Hugo or Shakespeare... The "commercial" aspect doesn't have anything to do with its quality. Some (a lot of) commercial films are pure shit, tLotR isn't one of them. Honestly if you can't tell the difference between Peter Jackson and Michael Bay I don't think you can call yourself a cinephile... Also "the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting" doesn't mean anything...
So now you are comparing Jackson to Shakespeare? What's with your constant "if you don't think X then you can't call yourself a cinephile", it's not like your opinion on movies and cinephiles is some kind of universal truth.
|
On December 12 2011 23:16 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 23:08 Naphal wrote:On December 12 2011 22:45 karpo wrote:On December 12 2011 22:39 Zorkmid wrote:On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know.... On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels. Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless. The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema. Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work. the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general? it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!" You come of as kind of a fanboy. For example, the guy you quoted said he found Tolkiens writing monotone and unimaginative. Those are valid complaints and i kinda feel the same way, his imagination is awesome but the actual writing is pretty bland and slow paced to me. You retaliate by putting words in the guys mouth AND talk about the history and mythology thereby totally missing the actual point.
i quoted you because you did not understand why me and others disagreed with the criticism, i think my response is perfectly fine as an answer, furthermore the guy that talked about tolkiens writing style was also the same guy that uttered that nonesense about artistic value and cinephiles, apart from that i did not put words in anyones mouth, i simply tried to find a comparison for weird expectations not met, and i really fail to see where i talked about history and mythology.
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
I couldn't disagree more. What is "artistic value" in your sense???
Also I can see how Tolkien's writing could be considered unusual and such purely from a literary standpoint, but in the end it made little difference because it was simply a story taking place in a world with its own history and dynamic, as you said.
It's all based on what you're considering "good". Tolkien's writing may not be "good literature" in the same sense that some cinephiles would say the films aren't good cinema, but I think both arguments are based in similar "monocle logic." LOTR (films) might not have many layers of depth and complexity that gives film tryhards a boner but to call it a cinematographic blockbuster compared to most film of the past 5-10 years is simply arrogant. They are masterpieces.
|
On December 12 2011 23:31 Naphal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 23:16 karpo wrote:On December 12 2011 23:08 Naphal wrote:On December 12 2011 22:45 karpo wrote:On December 12 2011 22:39 Zorkmid wrote:On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know.... On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels. Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless. The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema. Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work. the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general? it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!" You come of as kind of a fanboy. For example, the guy you quoted said he found Tolkiens writing monotone and unimaginative. Those are valid complaints and i kinda feel the same way, his imagination is awesome but the actual writing is pretty bland and slow paced to me. You retaliate by putting words in the guys mouth AND talk about the history and mythology thereby totally missing the actual point. i quoted you because you did not understand why me and others disagreed with the criticism, i think my response is perfectly fine as an answer, furthermore the guy that talked about tolkiens writing style was also the same guy that uttered that nonesense about artistic value and cinephiles, apart from that i did not put words in anyones mouth, i simply tried to find a comparison for weird expectations not met, and i really fail to see where i talked about history and mythology.
Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is. Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels. Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
It's right there. The guy clearly says that he disliked the writing and your counterargument is that Tolkien took you to another universe with it's own history, mythology and feel. What does that have to do with the actual writing? A book can have horrible writing and still have it's own universe with great history, mythology and feel.
|
i am sorry, but that poster is called zorkmid^^
|
On December 12 2011 23:40 Naphal wrote:
i am sorry, but that poster is called zorkmid^^
Ah sorry misquoted then. 
|
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote:
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile. I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller). I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
lol i disagree first 2 movies were amazing I dont think you know what your talking about
|
On December 12 2011 20:53 frantic.cactus wrote:
I emplore all who are critcising him on his handeling of LotR to watch other movies of his, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, Braindead, Meet the Feebles and The Lovely Bones
You're forgetting his best one: Bad Taste
definitely his most funny and creative 
|
I really don't think that ANYONE who writes on these boards needs to be criticizing JRR Tolkien's writing ability.
I mean, really. Come back to me when you've written one of the most influential books of all time, the single most influential fantasy of all time, and countless other books that have been on multiple bestseller lists in multiple languages.
What next?
"I think Tolkien was severely lacking in the linguistics dept. He was a good writer, but his understanding of language is juvenile at best..."
|
I feel like the people that are criticizing Tolkien's writing ability are the same people that got bored reading because it takes 200+ pages for the hobbits to get to Rivendell.
While the books may not be as action packed right of the bat like the movies are, Tolkien really shows his mastery of language. He has a way of evoking the feel of hobbit culture (and elf, dwarf, etc) merely through syntax. I think its genius.
|
On December 13 2011 03:29 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
I really don't think that ANYONE who writes on these boards needs to be criticizing JRR Tolkien's writing ability.
I mean, really. Come back to me when you've written one of the most influential books of all time, the single most influential fantasy of all time, and countless other books that have been on multiple bestseller lists in multiple languages.
What next?
"I think Tolkien was severely lacking in the linguistics dept. He was a good writer, but his understanding of language is juvenile at best..."
Just because no one here is a globally known author doesn't mean we cannot criticize literature -_-
|
Because no one here comes close to being half the writer that Tolkien was; or has even a fraction of his understanding of the use of language; means that they cannot criticize his skill in writing, or the quality of his books.
Especially not when the criticism is about as well-written as the average forum post.
|
On December 13 2011 04:00 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
Because no one here comes close to being half the writer that Tolkien was; or has even a fraction of his understanding of the use of language; means that they cannot criticize his skill in writing, or the quality of his books.
Especially not when the criticism is about as well-written as the average forum post. How do you know that the people criticizing are not well read people?
You do not need to be a world class X to criticize another X.
|
I'm reading some good points here but you guys are trying to convince each other that YOUR opinion is the right one. Focus on explaining your view instead of emphasizing its importance. (LOTR sucked BECAUSE, instead of LOTR SUCKED!)
It's like saying Red is better than Blue, and then explaining by saying that Blue sucks.
|
|
|
I don't claim to know much about film or what it is that makes something "good" or "bad" in terms of high-level film-making so I will just come out and ask:
What is it about the LotR movies makes them "bad" or "meh" as people are saying here? I'm not interested in what makes them average because of the book - I mean what as a film makes them seem poorly done to those cinephiles here?
What films would you point me to as something "done right" or "done exceptionally well" for comparison.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything. I just realize I have no idea what makes a movie "great" in terms of execution and wouldn't mind learning a bit about what to look for.
|
On December 13 2011 03:29 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:
I really don't think that ANYONE who writes on these boards needs to be criticizing JRR Tolkien's writing ability.
I mean, really. Come back to me when you've written one of the most influential books of all time, the single most influential fantasy of all time, and countless other books that have been on multiple bestseller lists in multiple languages.
What next?
"I think Tolkien was severely lacking in the linguistics dept. He was a good writer, but his understanding of language is juvenile at best..."
Fame doesn't make a good book or a good writer. Nor do you need to be an engineer to identify a broken bridge.
|
Are people actually saying the LOTR films are bad? I'll agree the later half of helms deep was boring [just endless fighting], but the LOTR trilogy as a whole was amazing, especially fellowship. I'm both shocked and angered by any opinion that differs from mine in that respect.
|
Been listening to the LOTR audio books while driving to work for the last month. Nearly done with TT. Read the books a while ago and haven't watched the movies in a while. Its been fun listening to the old tale. Looking forward to the hobbit
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
