Beautiful Mind overrated???? (spoilers)
 

I saw it a couple of weeks ago now and i have to say it dissapointed me.
Now before all the Academy members lynch me i have to say why i surpose....
Though Crowe was at his usual brilliant best i thought it was a bit slow, it tried a bit too hard to be a drama and thus win the hearts of the oscar voting public etc. It just seemed ordinary somehow and not a step up or anything new for that matter. Yes, it was a great story of disability overcoming etc etc but... well, it just didnt do it for me and i consider myself relatively open to a good drama.

For a 'best picture' it was somewhat wanting anyway. Certainly worthy of some Oscar nominations and perhaps wins but not the biggie.

I can see why it won, but i dont agree with it. First of all, Lord of the Rings is a sci-fi/fantasy movie so that automatically discludes it from winning. Pretty soon the academy is going to have to let a sci fi movie win. I am getting real sick of them winning only best special effects, editing etc. Beautiful Mind was more politically correct. Even though it was only about 10% true, it still was pleasing to the academy. Lord of the Rings should have won, but didnt. Thats all there is to it

I think the film's quite overrated. I saw the film early, and knew that this film would win all the Oscars. It's just the kind of movie that wins Oscars, deserving or not.

I agree with Untouchable. The Academy has also not "honored" any comedies with Best Picture for several decades. Sometimes I wish the Oscars would just go away and let an awards show with less politics and stupid ideals take over as #1.

HELL YES
:furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious: :furious:

Doesnt it just P**S you off. Only dramas or epics seem to win. There are some great movies made each year and they only seem to get it right about half the time.
Its depressing to be a Kiwi and finally have a world quality piece to offer at the oscars and have it turned away because its not a 'human drama.' I was hoping for a LoTR win but i guess reality was the given on the day.

I hope some academy members read this thread. They send us all to see the 'best picture' and have probably disapointed millions.

i hope some academy members read this board! could you imagin having like Tom Hanks on here!

Tom Hanks rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd like to give those academy people a piece of my mind. There have been some romantic/comedies that have won, but no comedies. dont even get me started on Titanic. that should fall in the "never watch these movies again unless you really want to see a waste of time and money" category

You're absolutely right, and too kind!
 

BEAUTIFUL MIND was interesting but confused, and three years from now NO ONE will remember that it won or care.

OF THE OTHER FIVE NOMINATED FILMS"

I usually like Altman, but GOSFORD PARK was way WAY way WAY too much about nothing. It had all the trappings of an arthouse coolfest, but it didn't deliver. Whhhhiiiimmmmpppeeeerrr...

IN THE BEDROOM was a great first and second act, but the minute the gun was picked up the movie revealed fell apart, storywise at least. It was a common ending to an inventive opening.

LORD OF THE RING DINGS should be disqualified from best picture nominations until it's a complete series. I know people who read the book disagree, but for those who haven't, the first installement wasn't a complete movie or story, and so it instantly disqualifies itself for Best Picture. (Godfather Two was an installment, but it also stood alone just fine, so there, I've answered THAT argument before it begins.)

This leaves MOULIN ROUGE, which I feel was the picture of the year of the five nominated pix. Was it overdone and gushing? Sure, but it did something the other four films couldn't manage to do at the same time:

1. Stun us with surprising good performances from lesser actors
2. Dazzle the cr@p out of us with design
3. Complete a story. That is, it not only set out to do something valid, it pulled it off.
4. Manage a broad, upbeat theme. (I don't dislike downbeat themes, but the other films themes were so lame that this upbeat one took the prize.)

I was just telling a friend that I hope they institute a new Academy Award to address this problem. For this new award to exist, you'd have to dump a new one introduced this year, 'Best Animated Film'. Throw that out and replace it with: 'Best Entertainment'.

What's an entertainment?

FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, MIDNIGHT RUN, MATRIX, ALADDIN, MOULIN ROUGE, etc..

As an aspiring screenwriter, it's easier to write a decent drama than a FERRIS BUELLER. Try it if you don't believe me. I could write a LAST EMPEROR (a truly great movie, not just a cookie-cutter epic), but ANIMAL HOUSE? Good luck. Those are REALLLL HAAAARRRRDD.

In this way, LOTRs would have had a proper catagory to compete in, and it's no slur against the movie. It's an entertainment, it isn't high art. It was executed artfully, extremely so, but Senator, it was no DEER HUNTER.

Did that make sense?

The Godfather II was in my opinion better than the first one. I know most of the world disagrees with me but i like it. Even though Lord of the Rings hasnt shown all of the films, it still can stand alone without the others. It had a good plot, good action scenes, a little confusing dialogue and vocabulary but otherwis..... it should have won

I have another idea. Replace "Best Animated Film" with "Best Picture That Is Praised for Political or Otherwise Stupid Reasons" That way, we could have given it to A Beautiful Mind and let FOTR win the big one, as it should have in the first place.

Some of you already know this, but all of that was merely my opinion. Don't let it upset you too much. :)

Forgive me, but it's plot was non-existant. It was non-existant because it's the first of three acts.

Hobbit receives a Ring. Evil SOB eyeball wants the futhamucker back. Good guys band together to help Hobbit go on quest to bring Ring to where it belongs. Many complications ensue. The Hobbit begins to mature.

END OF MOVIE.

That's not a plot, or a story. It's the beginning of a potentially promising one. Even Star Wars from 77 had the sense to kind of end it in case there wasn't a next movie.

That's bull. You can probably sum up many, many great movies in a sentence or two like that. That doesn't mean they're not great. LOTR: FOTR was three farkin' hours...it was jam-packed. More character development than you can shake a stick at, and so many battles and happenings that it blows my mind. You DID see the massive sequence in Moria, didn't you?

I completely agree. For example, "many complications ensue" is simply just skipping over much of the plot, I think.

For being the 1st of 3, i think it has as much development and characterization that a movie can have. It crammed alot into the begin, which makes you think fast so you get the rest of the movie

You're suggesting I'm playing a trick, and I'm not. I write scripts as a vocation. I know what every book says you have to do, and I try to do it. LOTR's didn't bother. It had a built in audience of rabid fans that simply want the books followed as inspirationally as possible.

I'm not saying they didn't do a good job. I'm saying it wasn't a story.

Here's the Mickey Mouse summation of STAR WARS to prove you wrong:

A young farm boy wants to go to the big city. Daddy says no. Ten seconds later, Daddy and the farm are gonzo. Farm boy now has no choice but to leave. On his way out, he meets a man that teachs him a great destiny awaits him. He meets some goofy people and becomes fast friends with them. Many complications ensue. Then, the big bad a$$ in charge of killing his family has a death star aiming next at a planet he likes. He goes up into space and trusts the force.. that is.. he trusts his friend that he may have a great destiny before him. He closes his eyes, shoots the shot, saves the day. Satisfying feeling, no need to see next sequel if you don't want to. Beginning, middle, and a decent (but not complete) end.

By the way, EMPIRE, which people seem to like the best, wasn't a story. It ends in the midst of everything like LOTR. It's MIDDLE, MIDDLE, MIDDLE. JEDI is MIDDLE, MIDDLE, AND END, which is satisfying.

LOTR is BEGINNING, MIDDLE, MIDDLE. Don't say that's bull, because anyone who hasn't read the books agrees with me.[b]

And like a grey Eagle swooping out of the mists flies the Silver Bullet....

Let me get this straight?
You write screenplays? You know what every book says? You do what they say to the best of your ability? Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood? Well?

So you're saying, and not very well for a writer, that in order for a film to be good, it must have a beginning, a middle and an end, and it must make nice sense to the audience who know what is going to happen for them because it's a story and all stories are told in the way that your precise books tell you that they should be and so on and so forth?

Nup. You're wrong.

Firstly. Let's discussing beginnings, middles and ends, and satisfying films that don't do what your books say. Books. Ha. Al Pacino once said that if you go to acting school you need to unlearn everything the moment you get out. It's the same with screenwriting books. It's an art for Christsake. Not a law.

But anyway.

In ways, Memento doesn't have a beginning, middle and an end, per se. It's told backwards, and all over the place. You could say that Life of Brian ends, and quite abruptly so, halfway through one of your precious "middles", with a death and a song. Meaning of Life has no middle and no end. It's various things floating around in space. The "end" is a sudden musical number when some rich folks go to heaven. What about films that begin with the middle? Or the end? And then end with the start? What about Pulp Fiction? Did that film not work for you? There are lots of films that end of cliffhangers and sudden surprises and questions flying out of it's every crevice and Lord of the Rings is a mere one. Ditch your screenwriting books. Your becomming another product on the conveyer belt.

And next time, we'll discuss your counter attack, which will probably try to generalise the entire thing by going up a step further and talk about breaking convention in general. And then I'll bring up Mulholland Drive.

And then it's time for you to go and live in Peking.

Books are not proof, and your vocation does not make you an authority, anymore than it would for the writer of Jason X.

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? I sincerely hope you're not berading the movie simply because it was a book adaption. Much was changed from the book, and much was left out. It was a BRILLIANT adaption, and the movie itself deserves no negativity simply because it was originally conceived in another medium.

Prove me wrong? Your summation is 100% raw opinion. You chose how to phrase it, and, as a result, it served your own purpose and agenda. How does that constitute proof? Well, short answer: it doesn't.

In your summary, you mention "young farm boy wants to go to the city." A minor, pointless detail. If you were going to be even-handed (obviously you have no interest in such a thing), you'd have opened your little LOTR: FOTR summation with something along the lines of "young hobbit doesn't want to leave the Shire." But instead, to serve your own purposes, you broke it down into a few sentences...with vague sentences that are meant to cover the entire sequence of Moria, the battles with the Orcs, Rivendell, and the Nazgul. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

Step away from what you've read screenplays OUGHT to do, and focus on the movie alone. If you do, perhaps, like MANY, MANY others, you'll actually enjoy it, and appreciate it the way most moviegoers have, regardless of what some writer somewhere claims is the way to do things. Personally, I would never let one man's raw opinion rule my taste in movies like that.

Wait.
Chris and I agree on such a thing?!

Sound, sound, sound the trumpets, fill the air with loud hosannas!!

Let me get this straight? You write screenplays? You know what every book says? You do what they say to the best of your ability?Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood?

I'm sorry if that came off as arrogant and hackish to you. What I meant to get across is quite simple. All books on screenwriting say many different things, but when you look at them all, they say the same basic thing. Present the same basic recommendations.

In fact, EVERY book or article on any type of creative writing will tell you: beginning, middle, end.

Here's the proof. I'm going to tell you a funny joke, okay? Are you ready? It's really hilarious! Check it out:

A penguin chewing bubble gum in tennis shoes walks into a bar with a bowling ball. He sits at the bar and puts the bowling ball on the bar. Knowing it will roll off, the penquin removes his gum and puts it on the bar. Then, he positions the bowling ball on it and- yes- it stays in place. Placing his tennis shoes on the bar, he asks for a cold one.

Well, what did you think? Did you like my joke! Isn't that great?!?

Wait, you didn't like it?!? Why not?!? Oh come now, don't tell me all jokes must have a beginning, middle, and end?!? What kind of boorish hack are you?!? Just because every other joke in the world has a beginning, middle, and end-- that doesn't mean they should!

Are you boring and lifeless and predictable and the same as every other hack in Hollywood? Well?

Actually, I just wrote a script that breaks many steadfast rules. The protoganist dies on page 60, a rarely pulled off trick, which requires a keen understanding of plotting and story to pull off.

So you're saying, and not very well for a writer

Perhaps I'm not saying it well, or perhaps you're not a good listener. Yes, many writers are more interested in how they say things versus what they're saying, which is your tragic affliction if you wish to exchange barbs Chumly.

So you're saying, and not very well for a writer, , that in order for a film to be good.. it must make nice sense to the audience who know what is going to happen for them because it's a story and all stories are told in the way that your precise books tell you that they should be and so on and so forth?

Firstly, that's one mess of a run on, and so I wouldn't be criticizing the writing style's of others until YOU learn how to write. Secondly, that's NOT what I said, proving you don't listen. I said a story must make 'nice' to the audience who doesn't know what is going to happen.

Firstly. Let's discussing beginnings

Damn, I can not only learn how to write better than you, but grammar as well! How lucky I am!

It's the same with screenwriting books. It's an art for Christsake. Not a law.

That's the gospel of people who don't know how to write, or have written bad scripts. Yes, screenwriting is an art, but it is the art of a.) following the storytelling formula and then b.) knowing when to adhere to it and when to drift from it... ever so slightly.

You mention Memento as an example of a movie that doesn't use the formula. I haven't seen it, so I can't tell you that it actually does and you just wouldn't know it. However, I'd bet it follows the formula, despite outward appearances of not doing so.

When Pulp Fiction came out, people like yourself praised it for being innovative and formula crushing. It isn't. You were had. It does follow the formula- to the letter- only in an innovative way. PSYCHO is one of the famed 'who needs a formula?' debates as well. It follows the formula to the letter as well, even though it ices it's protagonist on page 20.

You could say that Life of Brian ends, and quite abruptly so, halfway through one of your precious "middles", with a death and a song.

Wrong. There once was a guy Brian. He was mistaken for the messiah. Many complications ensue. Then, he was crucified, like Christ. Beginning, middle, end. Did you miss it?

Meaning of Life has no middle and no end. It's various things floating around in space. The "end" is a sudden musical number when some rich folks go to heaven.

Wrong again! Wow, are you facing forward when you go to the cinema, or do you see this shaft of light projecting out of a hole the entire time?!? MOLife BEGINS with a bunch of fish seeking the meaning of life. DURING the movie, a series of skits chronicle life from birth to death. In the middle, the fish remind us that they haven't heard much about the meaning of life. The end ISN'T a dance number. It's Palin in drag reading to us the meaning of life.

There are lots of films that end of cliffhangers and sudden surprises and questions flying out of it's every crevice and Lord of the Rings is a mere one.

End OF? Again, such great writing. You must send my a private email with as many tips as possible..

1.) A good film might end with a great cliffhanger, but a great story doesn't. A great story ends. It doesn't have to completely end, all nice and neat as you fail to infer I'm suggesting.

2.) Yes, many great stories end with great surprises, like the Sixth Sense. This, of course, is irrelevant, but since you're not listening to what I'm saying, you thought you'd educate us all anyhow. Know any good quiche recipes while you're at it?

3.) If a story ends with questions flying out of every crevice, it is incomplete, as my penquin joke, which based on your logic, must be hilarious indeed.

[i]And then I'll bring up Mulholland Drive.

Save your breath. If you're ignorant enough to present Mul as an excellent example of how story telling doesn't need to follow rules, you are more clueless than words can express.

MULHOLLAND DRIVE is THE ALL-TIME BEST EXAMPLE of how stories need a reasonable ending. How can I state this as fact?!? It was a PILOT for an extended TV series. When the pilot was rejected, Lynch slapped together a stupid ending and pretended it was a movie.

You ever see Bergman's PERSONA? It's the type of style you're actually trying to praise but failing miserably to do so. It's story is odd and twisting and seems to leave you in the dust. That is, if you weren't paying attention. If you were, you'd find it was following the very formula I'm referring to.

Look, beginnings, middles, and ends are allowed to be cryptic. I'm no Nazi that way. In fact, LOST HIGHWAY holds together much better than MUL in this manner, as wacked a movie as that is.

But none of this evasive argument of your's proves that it's okay for LOTRs to start a story and simply leave you hanging. As cliffhangers go, it blows. It wasn't even an exciting what will happen next, edge of the mountain cliffhanger.

It was an-- okay, our times up, see you next time- non-ending. Although the movie collected an interesting enough series of characters, I've got news for you rabid Hobbitfreaks: they weren't THAT interesting. They were poor graphic novel characters, for the most part. The characters in MULHOLLAND DRIVE were about ten times more interesting, since they weren't all based on stereotypes.

So, you give an only okay lead character a ring, he rounds up a bunch of okay characters to go on an exciting quest, and after many, repetitive ensuing complications (fun visual battles), they simply stop telling the story.

Not a great story. At best, it's only the beginning of a great story, and I think that's be generous..

Tell me how THAT is wrong, and stay ON TOPIC this time if you can manage it. And let's leave our criticism of each other's writing behind, "Or I shall taunt you a second time.."

I don't think that applies to a trilogy like this. What we saw was the end of the beginning. It was turned into a mini-story with its only little beginning/middle/end within the larger story. Makes perfect sense to me. Just because it was a story within a story like that, it doesn't make it worse at ALL.

There's a significant difference. A joke is supposed to be funny. If it's funny, nothing else matters, usually. A movie is supposed to be entertaining or worthwhile in some way. If it is, nothing else matters, usually. What makes it entertaining varies from person to person. I can live with someone not digging LOTR: FOTR as much as I do...but the implication I get from you is that it broke some sort of law...as if it's wrong by definition, rather than opinion.

Don't be so pompous. There are many forms of writing. This form of writing is mostly akin to actually talking; it's much more casual.

You speak of "proof" so often, even though the overwhelming majority of this discussion revolves around subjective issues. There's not going to be proof concerning such things, period...so please stop claiming you have proof, and please stop demanding it of others.

Oh, and it should be "yours," instead of "your's." I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that you seemed to want to play that game. :)

Again, you state it as fact. It is "news," apparently. Well, say what you like: it was not the hobbits that were interesting. It was their situation. Frodo represents heroism, period: reluctant, peace-loving, but so caring for his freedom and his friends that he will endure the most awful of hardships to preserve them both. Don't get so caught up in individual characters and by-the-book plot development that you lose sight of the message of the film, and the story as a whole.

Again, you have to change the point to refute mine. You Hobbitheads always use THIS as your great explanation: it was a BRILLIANT adaption.

You don't get it. A movie can't be judged primarily on how well it adapts a book. That is irrelevant.

A movie is judged on how good a movie it is. Period.

Take pop music. I'm sure every one of us has had to watch someone younger than ourselves fall for a cover version of a song we know. 9 times out of 10, we'll say, "Oh, that version is garbage. You should hear the original version."

This statement, albeit typically true, is irrelevant to the listener who thinks Mariah Carey's version of is fantastic.

Why?

We've lost our ability to hear the song as new. It's gone.

Most fans of LOTRs can't view it for what it is. They see it as a brilliant adaption, and I don't question this judgement, since y'all ARE the people to consult on this issue.

But that's not the issue at hand. It is: is the first installment a great story, or not?

You'll find that most people who are over 12 and new to this story found it visually stunning, repetitive, full of one-note characters, and ended in an unsatisfactory, times up manner.

I changed no such point: that was merely an addendum. I don't see how you could miss the fact that, in addition to saying that, I addressed damn near everything you said. It's only changing the subject if I don't address the subject at hand, which I did.

No, you don't get it: I can mention that a movie is a brilliant adaption without necessarily judging it solely on that alone.

Yes, yes it is.

Thanks for telling me what I'll find. :rolleyes: Fact of the matter is I've already found what I would find, and it's nothing like what you describe. Maybe you run with a different crowd. Did that cross your mind? :)

[quote]Originally posted by TWTCommish
What we saw was the end of the beginning.

And with these words you make my point. Thank you.

It was turned into a mini-story

And that mini-story was at best, okay. I'll give you that once the three are seen together I may like this segment of the maxi-story better, but by itself, it was really only okay.

A joke is supposed to be funny. If it's funny, nothing else matters, usually.

Incorrect. A joke has a beginning, middle, and end-- designed to create a humorous response. It's is the simplest of stories.

"Take my wife- please!"

Beginning: "Take my wife (infered words: "for example")
Middle: mysterious, comic pause...
End: "Please!" Sudden turn, twist of words, suggesting that the speaker doesn't wish you to consider his wife, but literally take her away from him because he's sick of her.

A movie is supposed to be entertaining or worthwhile in some way. If it is, nothing else matters, usually.

Porkys II meets your criteria. So does Xanadu..

I can live with someone not digging LOTR: FOTR as much as I do...but the implication I get from you is that it broke some sort of law...as if it's wrong by definition, rather than opinion.

It's not an inference. It's a statement. It failed to provide a satisfactory enough story within a story. I'm not saying I walked out of the theater. It was fun visually, and I kept hoping it would tie together somewhat at the end. Not entirely, just somewhat. It barely did. That's why I said it wasn't a complete story, and I wasn't alone in this. Many reviewers said the same thing. Many people hated THE PHANTOM MENACE for the same EXACT reason. The story within the story sucked.

You speak of "proof" so often, even though the overwhelming majority of this discussion revolves around subjective issues. There's not going to be proof concerning such things, period...so please stop claiming you have proof, and please stop demanding it of others.

Look, if someone's going to say WRONG to me, they present subjective knowledge of their own. So I'm only responding as I get. Sorry if it comes off pompous.

Oh, and it should be "yours," instead of "your's." I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that you seemed to want to play that game. :)

Actually, I don't. It's just pompous to me when someone suggests I'm not as good a writer as they are, and so I picked their words apart to prove them as vulnerable. Again, I care more about what you're saying, and not how you're saying it.

Don't get so caught up in individual characters and by-the-book plot development that you lose sight of the message of the film, and the story as a whole.

You don't get it. The film didn't provide compelling characters for me to engage with. The reason why you know Frodo's name is because you've read the books and liked them. Most people over 12 who saw the film and hadn't read the books can't tell you the leads name at this point. It's forgotten, because it's forgettable. The 'message' of the film was only clear to those who knew what the message of the trilogy is.

To someone like me who needed to be sold the story, not just told the story, it's message was vague and trite. Again, this film may be a brilliant adaption, and when completed, the story's message may ring loud and clear, but as a single installment, it's story lacks.

That is just an opinion, but I've been willing to support it.

PEACE

Hardly. If you'd bothered to put that little snippet into context, you'll notice that I referred to it as a story within a story. Besides, your point has been to find some sort of undeniable fault with the film. Therefore, no point has been made/proven. Not even close.

Well, I, and many, many others, disagree with your assessment. Think what you like, I stand by my appraisal: brilliant film.

That's flat-out wrong. The ONLY purpose of the joke is to make you laugh. The ONLY purpose of a movie is to entertain you in one way or another. Therefore, if a joke can make you laugh without a beginning, middle, or end, it's STILL a good joke.

No it doesn't. Porky's Revenge, or whatever it's forsaken title was, was NOT entertaining, and certainly not worthwhile.

At least you're starting to speak of your feelings as opinion, rather than fact. That I can definitely live with.

I completely agree with that last sentence, but I don't know that Matt (Silver) was implying that he was a better writer than you...if he was, I guess I can only say not to take it personally: he probably didn't mean it.

I can think of only one person, out of dozens, that I've spoken to, offline or on, that did not know Frodo's name. I'm sorry you didn't find anything compelling. Personally I feel I got the message of the film. I've always felt that the message is that there are some things bigger than us as individuals. Ironically, you need to see past inidividual characters in that way to appreciate what they represent, IMO.

It rings clear as a bell for me so far.

Uh-uhh
 

With all respect TWT, it gets hard to keep responding to responses of responses. So here's what's notable to me:

You said a movie is supposed to be entertaining or worthwhile in some way. If it is, nothing else matters, usually. I said Porkys II meets your criteria. So does Xanadu. You then say:

Porky's Revenge, or whatever it's forsaken title was, was NOT entertaining, and certainly not worthwhile.[/i]

Now who's being pompous? Porky's had YET another sequel or two after that movie. For many people, those movies were entertaining and worthwhile in some way, to exactly quote you. I know this guy (and I wish I didn't) who's a fan of Xanadu. I thought he was kidding..

Think what you like, I stand by my appraisal: brilliant film.

What I responded to was that it was a brilliant adaption.

That's flat-out wrong. The ONLY purpose of the joke is to make you laugh.

Now you have some laws I must follow, correct? And I'm not talking about the purpose of a joke, but that all jokes are essentially micro-stories. I illustated this by providing a one liner, which couldn't possibly have a beg, mid, and end. Then I showed it did. You didn't refute my illustration. Why not?

The ONLY purpose of a movie is to entertain you in one way or another.

Then it's purpose failed on me. Also, you just validated Porkys and Xanadu again. They entertained some people one way in aoother. Xanadu's total lack of quality entertains me, so it's purpose has been met, according to you thrice quoted criteria.

Therefore, if a joke can make you laugh without a beginning, middle, or end, it's STILL a good joke.

Prove it: name a funny, stand alone, verbal joke without a beginning, middle, and end?

They don't exist. I'll give you another example. Robin Williams was known to do this hilarious impression of Elmer Fudd singing Springsteen's fire. It wouldn't seem to have a beginning, middle and end, but it does.

BEGINNING: Now I'm going to do Elmer Fudd singing Springsteen:
MIDDLE: I'm dwwiving in my caah.. turn on da waddio.."
END: He stops the impression and pauses for laughter.

At least you're starting to speak of your feelings as opinion, rather than fact. That I can definitely live with.

You might want to get over this, and here's how: EVERYTHING I SAY IS MY OPINION. Okay? So if I say George W. Bush is evil, Bill Gates is a criminal, and LOTRs is overrated, these are all opinions, but I'm not going to keep saying this.

If you don't like an opinion of mine, you're free to dissect it or present an example to disprove it.

I don't know that Matt (Silver) was implying that he was a better writer than you...if he was, I guess I can only say not to take it personally: he probably didn't mean it.

If someone wishes to suggest that my writing isn't so hot, they imply it should be better. Better than what? I only had his to compare it to, and so I did.

I've always felt that the message is that there are some things bigger than us as individuals.

And to me, respectfully, that is trite. STAR WARS apparantly stole this theme from LOTR, because it's there too. But STAR WARS isn't compelling because of this message. Did kids line up at cinema's in the late 70's to see this great movie about how we as individuals are smaller than some mysterious, great force?

No. They wanted to see war in the stars, in a (then) really new, cool way. They wanted to see light sabres hum and clash and burn.

LOTRs draws in people because it a beautiful geographic tour of many unimaginable realms, with wonderful creatures and pals on a journey together. It ain't Shakespeare. Of these genre movies, it's one of the best take my hand into this dark cave adventures.

However, the STORY-- which is the topic at hand- is just okay. Since you already know the entire story, it's most likely you can't see this. If you knew that Luke was Vadar's son from the word go, you'd have had a very profound understanding of him in movie one. You'd look at him as a young future hero.

If like me you had no idea, it's an ENTIRELY different experience.

Can you grant that? Be honest.

Holden likes that flick, too. I'm not being pompous...I'm saying that I don't like them. But if someone did, great, good for them. The film isn't bad just because I say so. Just as a film isn't bad just because it doesn't perfectly follow some beginning/middle/end routine as precisely as you may like.

No, there are no laws...but I thought it common sense that a joke is told to be funny or amusing. If it's funny and amusing, does it really matter how it got there?

You speak universally. I "validate" these films for SOME with this critera, but not for others. That's the way movies are: it's never across the board. Ever.

How about two words spoken in a goofy voice? If you want to get down to it, you could, TECHNICALLY, declare any three words to be a beginning, middle, and end. But we're all reasonable people here, I hope.

Believe me, I know what you say is opinion. My only concern was that you may not necessarily think so...and believe me, I don't think it came off that way at *all*. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here right now. We've had folks around here who didn't like LOTR: FOTR all that much...and we never end up talking like this, because we simply disagree...but it's this odd accusation that LOTR has broken some undeniable cinematic rule that has me arguing with you, for the most part.

Quite frankly, I think you're wrong. I think some cinematic themes connect with us on a very deep level, whether we realize it or not. Star Wars is compelling for lots of reasons...if it were not, I wouldn't like it now, with it's heavily outdated technology.

And no, it didn't "steal" things. Some things are so universal and recurring that no one can claim ownership to them...and, IMO, themes like that are among them. I just don't recall any film portraying it as beautifully and masterfully as LOTR: FOTR...at least not offhand. Then again, I've got some learning to do...but I'm still in awe of the way it makes its point.

Well, I completely and totally disagree. I've always found the story to be riveting. Think about it: I read the books first. What kept me reading them? The story...there were no special effects...no masterful scores. Just the story. To me, the story is briliant (albeit somewhat boring at certain points in book form...but that's just a matter of taste, of course)...and the film did a good job of summarizing that story in another medium. So, if the story is brilliant to me, and the film emphasizes new things and keeps the spirit of the story alive and well, it should come as no surprise that I regard the film as brilliant.

I did not ALWAYS know the entire story. I thought the first book was brilliant before I read the second. And I think the second is brilliant even though I'm not done with the third.

I wasn't discussing the ending in Mulholland Drive.
Sigh.

If only you could listen. You obviously suck at listening. Ya, ya, ya.

:roll eyes:


So what, you're calling yourself pompous now? I was picking apart your writing style. I had nothing to pick apart, you may recall. I was saying that the chances out, your spurning out conveyor belt work. Chances are strong, bubbles. Screenwriting books will do that to you. I don't believe I called myself a better writer at any stage. Infact I didn't.

What a great listener!! Holy Mackeral!
No double-standards at all!!

:rolleyes:

If you could only read some of my writing that wasn't written as a post on a board in less than two and a half minutes. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm going to let you just wallow in your own self-assured pomp.

Have fun and look before you leap, bubbles.

I surrender! :-)
 

Like my Dad always used to say to me, "In life son, don't waste your time explaining the story shortcomings of LOTR to a yoda."

You win. I give up. Tell Chumly the same..

Love,

Bubbles

Bah, I'm not A Yoda. I'm Yoda. It's his name, not his race. Ironically, I embarked on a morning-long quest not long ago to discover just what race Yoda belonged to...I even ended up emailing an "expert" on the subject. Unfortunately, I found that it has never been revealed. Crap.

Oh, you geek.

I just have to put in my two cents here. A Beautiful Mind is, in fact, overrated. Highly.