Jump to content

Nick1Ø66

Members
  • Content Count

    4940
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    19

Nick1Ø66 last won the day on June 5

Nick1Ø66 had the most liked content!

About Nick1Ø66

  • Rank
    I am not what I am.
  • Birthday May 4

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oxford, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

  1. Do you listen to it ensconced in velvet?
  2. I started to type a response, but then I remembered this was a Dune thread and suddenly I lost interest. Sorry. And really mate, there’s no reason to devolve every conversation into a battle over excruciating minutiae. Read Dune and decide what Paul is for yourself.
  3. You’re confusing mere tragedy with the tragic hero. Well, yes, and tragic character is exactly what I said. You’re the one who called Michael a tragic hero, I was responding to that.
  4. I don’t necessarily see Michael Corleone as a tragic hero. He’s certainly a tragic character, but he’s most assuredly a villain, even if he’s one we can occasionally sympathise with. Michael isn’t a good person with flaws. He starts out relatively good and eventually becomes irredeemably corrupted. Others might disagree, and that’s fine, but I see Michael more as Macbeth, not Hamlet. He’s a protagonist who also happens to be a villainous thug. On the other hand, Lean’s Lawrence probably is a tragic hero, his flaw being vanity. But as I said, those comparisons only take yo
  5. Yeah I think this is right. He’s not a tragic hero, at least in the way Tolkien, or even Shakespeare thought of a tragic hero. But he’s also most certainly not an anti-hero. He’s a complex creation, and there aren’t many like him in literature. Villenueve compared Paul to Michael Corleone, and he’s also been compared to the T.E. Lawrence of the film. I don’t think either quite captures who Paul is, but I also wouldn’t call the comparisons unfair. I think part of Herbert's message is that there are no heroes, and if there are they aren’t to be trusted. In any event, while
  6. I think there's some truth to this, but I also think Tolkien's dislike of Dune comes from much more basic level. Tolkien's characters are largely mythological archetypes. He's interested in morality, grace, and virtue, and thought his stories should reflect those things. He wanted to tell heroic tales, and if he has characters with shades of grey (mostly in The Silmarillion), it's typically because they were on their way to falling from grace. Tolkien didn't have "anti-heroes" as we'd think of them today, at most he had heroes who were flawed and Tolkien made clear they were flawe
  7. The real question is, how would Zimmer do a Tolkien score? ”Drums in the Deep”. I’m getting chills already.
  8. Completely unsurprising, it's definitely not his cup of tea.
  9. DUNE is the Lord of the Rings of science fiction.
  10. Very well put, I feel the exact same way. There's really a kind of magic in that bit, it really conveys the passage of time in such a simple, yet wondrous and almost nostalgic kind of way. I love it. Again, well said. I've seen a lot of readers complain about how long the Shire stuff takes in Lord of the Rings, but those are among my favourite parts of the book, and The Shadow of the Past may even be my favourite chapter. Tolkien once said that the primary complaint readers had of his book was that it wasn't long enough, and with this I can agree. I could have
  11. It was indeed more economical storytelling, but really sort of devolves into a mess the second half. The first half of the Bakshi's film is quite good though. It really goes of the rails after the Breaking of the Fellowship. As personal preference, one thing Bakshi kept true to the book that I really liked, that Jackson did away with, was acknowledging the gap between Bilbo's birthday party and Gandalf's return ("17 years passed sleepily in the Shire"). It was just a single line, but I liked that it gave a nod to Tolkien's very leisurely start to things before the main action kick
  12. This is irrelevant to what we're talking about though. Whether you want to say the film covered the 1/2 or 2/3 of Lord of the Rings really isn't the point. The point is it was an unfinished adaptation of a single novel (though Tolkien preferred "heroic romance").
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.