Viewing Thread:
"Daily Mail have sunk to a new low"

My parents get the Mail (yes, they're that type of people) and I really enjoy reading it. It's hilariously old fashioned, always posting opinion as fact and taking sides in pointless arugments. The last week or so have been almost ENTIRELY devoted to the Blair scandal (which I still don't understand, as I refuse to read about it)

Anyway, today... they said LOTR The Two Towers is one of the greatest films ever made... What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, they also said that about the first LOTR film... and we all know how bad that turned out

Stupid Daily Mail

You reckon you're an 18 year veteran film expert ? Oooookay, I'd bet you aren't much older than 18 anyway... Titanic was, again, crap, and disneyfied the whole story massively, and doing it from the point of view of the old Rose was - whilst initially good - soon pretty pointless. T'was cliche upon cliche, wrapped in a big shiny SFX boat and Kate Winslet. Enjoyable ? Yes, masterpiece ? No.

And Willow IS crap, and well done to beards for his LOTR stuff - Respect due !

~~Belldandy~~

Ah, yes, can't forget that

Andre the Giant? Classic

But The Princess Bride is better than all of them.

Belldandy wrote:
> Aren't you doing some kind of media/film making course ?

------

Yes, yes I am. But I've been a film expert for the last 18 years. Since I'm planning on making a living on film, you'd better believe I know all about it.

I always tend to go against the norm. I thought Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator etc were average. Good, but not great. But I did find Armageddon, Pearl Harbour and even Titanic very enjoyable, and great films.

It came as no surprise, then, that I didn't enjoy LOTR. If they cut it down to about 2 hours, so the action didn't have big gaps between it, then it would've been better. But as it stands, it was one long, dull affair.

My mate Mick hated it too, and he's into film just as much as I. He even likes that sort of thing, but he, and all my mates, share my opinion. LOTR was the poop. And Willow is the boy, heh

I'm a geek too. But a geek waging war on fantasy novels.

OK, maybe I'll read it again, this time as a satire on Blairite Britain :P

Well said BEARDS. I think the unknown kernel wasnt reading enough into the book himself.

And yes, I am a geek. I even read slashdot.

unknown kernel wrote:
> Shakespeare's plays are still relevant today because they teach us
> about love, life, loss, despair, hope, tragedy, desire etc etc. The
> Lord of the Rings teaches us about hobbits.

LotR is about resisting the use of overwhelming power, and how power corrupts all those it has hold over.

In the book, the ring is refused by the characters it is offered to. Though these characters are seen as being those that are worthy of weilding the ring and with enough compassion and wisdom to use it fairly, they themselves realise that having so much power in their hands would lead them and everyone else to ruin.

The characters that seek to hold the ring for themselves are entranced by it and seek it above all else. Boromir reaches the point where he is almost prepared to break his promise to defend Frodo if it will allow him to take control of the ring. In a society where honour is valued abve much else, this is a much more serious mater than it would be seen as today.

In Gollum we see the effect that power can have on a person. Though he was once a man, centuries of possesion of the ring have led him to a twisted state, even though he never realised its true power. Though people believe that the power is controllable, it has only one true master, itself. The ring is seeking to get itself in power, and cares not for those that it may ruin in trying to attain this.

Yes, it may use Hobbits, Elves and walking trees to make it's point, but it is still a relevant book. Moreso now that overwhelming power is capable of being taken by an individual.

It's also a book about friendship, promises, and taking great risks for those that you have never met. It encourages trust between races, self belief and I've even seen it be used as an argument against genetic engineering.

And it's an excuse to make some films with what should be some bloody marvelous fight scenes.

Shakespeare's plays are still relevant today because they teach us about love, life, loss, despair, hope, tragedy, desire etc etc. The Lord of the Rings teaches us about hobbits. Hobbits are not a universal theme that transcends age and language: they are stupid made up creatures. The Lord of the Rings is just a very long dull book about hobbits. A book is not profound because it is long. Length is something to be admired in, say, a roll of toilet paper or a ruler; a book should only be long if there is a lot to say. If Tolkein had nothing very useful to say then he should have said it quickly, and left out the fairies. At the very least he should have written a preface along the lines of 'This is just a story about wizards and goblins: stop reading so much into it, you spotty nerds'.

MoJoJoJo wrote:
> It totally alienated anyone who hadn't read the books. I had enough
> trouble keeping up with what was going on, without them boring me to
> death every two seconds

I think perhaps you may find some brain exercises quite useful then. I hadnt read the books before going to see the film and i found it very easy to follow.