Jump to content
Issues with GMAIL - UPDATED ×
Issues with GMAIL - UPDATED

Chen G.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,843

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Chen G.

  1. Chen G.
    I'm not a fan of the second age stuff anyway. Originally, Tolkien had no conception of ages, since what we now know as the events of "The First Age" were meant to be the entirety of his Legendarium. Tolkien was so enamored with his own creation that even short stories he concieved of (Tom Bombadil, Rovarandom, The Hobbit) were being linked to elements of that world, and when he wrote The Lord of the Rings he contextualized The Hobbit by placing it at in the same geography as the world of his "Great Tales" but in a different timeframe - hence The Third Age was born. As a result, Tolkien had two decently fleshed-out ages, but - outside of the fall of Numenor - The Second Age functions as little more than an interstitial piece.
  2. Chen G.
    Fair point, but I'm fine with it either way.
  3. Chen G.
    The Arwen thing - I understand the issue there. Really, I can see how someone would have an issue with the subplot as a whole. With Sam I think you're off-base. His and Frodo's relationship is strained throughout The Two Towers, so you can't say the seeds of their parting weren't planted much earlier. In fact, as a piece of drama its very well structured, too: it starts with a small disagreement in Emyn Muil (when Frodo decides to unleash Gollum), it escalates to a vocal argument and eventually reaches its lowest point when Frodo sends Sam away, right before resolving itself triumphantly as Sam saves Frodo from Shelob. And while I see @Holko's issue with the specific scene where Sam is shown going down the stairs, to me its perfectly understandable that Sam would feel so dejected at that point that he would start going back. Like I said, its also valuable because it pits Sam and Frodo's friendship head-to-head with the hold of the Ring over Frodo's psyche. This, to me, makes meaningful the destruction of the ring where the juxtaposition of the ring sitting on the lava, glowing, maks it seem like the Ring is calling Frodo down to the fires, and eventually his friendship with Sam prevails over the seduction.
  4. Chen G.
    Is it such a big change, though? Its taken directly from the appendices: as long as its from Tolkien, I'm not going to fuss about where exactly in his body of work its from.
  5. Chen G.
    It wasn't meant as an insult. Sorry if it reads as such. But what I mean is that there are book purists and there are book purists. Some want the book to be transferred to the screen as-is. Others would stomach a lot of "changes" as long as they're superficial - shuffling a setpiece from one place in the narrative to another here, removing sections of the source material there, etc - but not much else. Both are book purists. The fact of the matter is, to make a truly good adaptation you need to make changes that go a bit deeper than that, and such changes are always (with this series and otherwise) met with disregard on this board, so I just called out the pattern.
  6. Chen G.
    Trailers rarely have the same color palette as the finished film.
  7. Chen G.
    In cosmological terms, Hobbits are just a form of man, not unlike the Beornings and Drúedain.
  8. Chen G.
    I grant you that it comes without much setup, much like everything to do with this relationship. But it is important to tie Arwen back to the main plot, otherwise it all shouldn’t be there in the first place: films shouldn’t have side-plots, they have subplots. As for Sam leaving Frodo - that’s even more vital to the drama. Sam’s relationship with Frodo has to have ups and downs, and at some point it has to be pitted head-on against the temptation of the Ring. That’s exactly what it is. And unlike Arwen’s illness, this does receive set-up: in The Two Towers they fight, and Frodo later points Sting at Sam. When two people are together for such a long time and under such duress, they’ll eventually spar. It happens. I’m sorry, but to me, both arguments amount to little more than “bat dat is not haw it waz in da buk.”
  9. Chen G.
    It has to tie back to the main conflict of the series (i.e. the war of the ring). Otherwise it would be redundant. Tolkien attributes the death of Finduilas of Amroth to a similar cause, so why not use it to dramatize Arwen and Aragorn's relationship?
  10. Chen G.
    How so? Its what convinces Elrond to reforge Narsil!
  11. Chen G.
    As it is in the films. But for one to be invested in the tragedy of a relationship, one has to first be invested in the relationship itself. It works well enough for me, but I can understand how someone else might have an issue with it.
  12. Chen G.
    I know someone who has a similar problem: he can’t get emotionally involved with the relationship of Arwen and Aragorn, which I can understand: it doesn’t have a lot of setup: it’s just there from the word go. There’s a deleted scene that may have helped with that. I don’t mind as much, because the main themes of this series are family (we don’t see a complete family until the last frame) and same-sex friendships; the romance is kind of disposable.
  13. Chen G.
    If its more emotionally effective - it is the better movie. Not to mention the better score. Really, with this trilogy, all this "pick a favorite" sport is much more of an exercise of splitting hairs. All three films and scores are cut from the same cloth. They're not separate entries - they're different parts of a single entry.
  14. Chen G.
    I think some movies are effectively perfect, in the sense that their flaws are too minor to really merit mention. And yes, even a film that isn’t that may be deserving of the full rating. Certainly in my book.
  15. Chen G.
    I suppose I'll be Khen, than!
  16. Chen G.
    Because it truly isn’t science fiction, at its core. Science Fiction, being the setting, is of course vital to this series: It’s certainly not a traditional fantasy, but it’s fantasy nonetheless. An action-adventure fantasy set in a science fiction setting. That’s Star Wars in a nutshell for you.
  17. Chen G.
    I don't think so. But its largely based on film cues from the Jabba sequences.
  18. Chen G.
    Plus, Azog counts as "diversity" in the cast: he represents cripples! 😉
  19. Chen G.
    I don't, either; but Azog's final design is superior, which to my mind takes the cake.
  20. Chen G.
    Agreed. Its a much better design than the original Azog: its that of the Orc that Azog kills on Weathertop.
  21. Chen G.
    That it does, indeed. Interestingly, when it came time to craft "Star Wars: A Musical Journey" and "Star Wars: In Concert", the Jawa material was used essentially to describe Tatooine itself, more so than the Jawas.
  22. Chen G.
    Its not. Its a FANTASY series, in a sci-fi setting. Case in point, the plot of the original Star Wars: "a young farmer, a wizard, gilded tinman and dwarf - joined by a walking lion and a pirate, whom they meet at the tavern - go on a quest to save the warrior princess from the fortress of the evil sorcerer." Another case in point: the concept of The Force - introduced ostensibly as magic. Once George Lucas got around to explaining it in science fiction terms - people lost their damn minds.
  23. Chen G.
    I don't think the design's too bad: I like that he has all this metal attached to his body. Looks like a frankenstein-type monster. He's got bear claws for epaulets - referring to what Beorn says about Azog (and, evidentally, Bolg as well) torturing skin-changers. Its just that sometimes the CG on him is shoddy. Other times it looks fine. He's a minor character, anyway.
  24. Chen G.
    I'm sure it was used as a plot device elsewhere in the series, as well. Although, to be fair, there's a difference between using it at one junction of the plot and using it as the premise on which one of the film's three subplots hinge. A tad too sci-fi, for me, is all.
  25. Chen G.
    The Imperial motif - absolutely. The Jawa one - not so much. Its really more of a self-contained musical setpiece than a recurring motif. Its used in one section of the film, only broken up by a brief section of imperial material. Sure, it does a very fine job describing not just the Jawas but Tatooine itself, but still. I really like the Rebel Fanfare (which, indeed, the original liner notes describe as a "rebel spaceship fanfare"). If you want to talk about a concise motive that says "This is Star Wars" - that's the one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.

  I accept