The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

→ in
Tools    





Originally Posted by Django
Lord of the Rings...

Was this whole movie trilogy vastly overrated or what?

But let's face it... there was no plot to speak of, other than a totally arbitrary chain of events, the characters were pretty shallow and two-dimensional and the movie just didn't have any sort of emotional depth at all. All in all, a somewhat blandly entertaining spectacle and not much else!
I believe i speak for everybody in this thread when i must say that you should go back and make sure it wasnt the cartoon version you were watching.
The trilogy had its downfalls, of course, but No plot? NO EMOTIONAL DEPTH??
Lord of the Rings doesnt just have a plot, it has THE plot! A quest to rid the world of an ageless impending doom that could invariably wipe out all that is green and good in the world? A quest that involves peoples and races from the expanse of the world, large and small, mythical creatures and magical sorcerers all completley ready to give their lives to preserve the quality of life for further generations? No plot?

Originally Posted by Django
and the movie just didn't have any sort of emotional depth at all. All in all, a somewhat blandly entertaining spectacle and not much else!
I dont even know if that statement deserves justification, considering the outright blasphemous-ness of it all. I witnessed grown men cry in the theaters, trying vainly to hide it from their girlfriends of wives. You would have to be completley void of all emotion yourself to not feel something at one point or another.

Are you sure you saw the right movies?



HA! Leave it to Django to cause strife in a movie thread. If he doesn't like it, so what? Don't argue with him or try to change his opinion. He's entitled to it.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Zeiken
I believe i speak for everybody in this thread when i must say that you should go back and make sure it wasnt the cartoon version you were watching.
The trilogy had its downfalls, of course, but No plot? NO EMOTIONAL DEPTH??
Lord of the Rings doesnt just have a plot, it has THE plot! A quest to rid the world of an ageless impending doom that could invariably wipe out all that is green and good in the world? A quest that involves peoples and races from the expanse of the world, large and small, mythical creatures and magical sorcerers all completley ready to give their lives to preserve the quality of life for further generations? No plot?

I dont even know if that statement deserves justification, considering the outright blasphemous-ness of it all. I witnessed grown men cry in the theaters, trying vainly to hide it from their girlfriends of wives. You would have to be completley void of all emotion yourself to not feel something at one point or another.

Are you sure you saw the right movies?
Whoa! lol! If you get emotionally moved by fairy-tale characters, then that's you, I guess!

The plot was totally arbitrary. I guess if you like "Dungeons and Dragons" it might qualify as a good plot!

Hey... don't get me wrong... the movies were entertaining and enjoyable... but that's pretty much it!



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
HA! Leave it to Django to cause strife in a movie thread. If he doesn't like it, so what? Don't argue with him or try to change his opinion. He's entitled to it.
Exactly! I'm entitled to my opinion! Question is, are you mature enough to accept that fact?



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Zeiken
Yeah, your right Slayton. And Django- nothin personal at all. (well, maybe a little )
Okay... cool! No harm done, I hope!



Originally Posted by Django
Was this whole movie trilogy vastly overrated or what?
No, it wasn't.


Originally Posted by Django
But let's face it... there was no plot to speak of, other than a totally arbitrary chain of events
Originally Posted by Django
The plot was totally arbitrary. I guess if you like "Dungeons and Dragons" it might qualify as a good plot!
What made its plot any more "arbitrary" than any other work of fiction?


Originally Posted by Django
the characters were pretty shallow and two-dimensional and the movie just didn't have any sort of emotional depth at all.
Frodo's dualistic relationships with Gollum and Sam are about as non-shallow as you can get. He's torn between his lifelong friend and a haggard addict, who he sympathizes with because he realizes that the object which turned Gollum into the wretch he is today is the one he wears around his neck. To distrust Gollum is to admit that his quest will forever taint him.

As for emotional depth: maybe you fell asleep when the scenes concerning Aragorn, Arwen, and Eowyn were on-screen. Or Faramir and Denethor, for that matter.


Originally Posted by Django
Whoa! lol! If you get emotionally moved by fairy-tale characters, then that's you, I guess!
The Lord of the Rings is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fairy tale. It is a full-blown mythology, and a metaphor for any number of classic concepts, from the brutal inevitability of war, to the corruptive abilities of power.



Originally Posted by Yoda
The Lord of the Rings is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fairy tale. It is a full-blown mythology, and a metaphor for any number of classic concepts, from the brutal inevitability of war, to the corruptive abilities of power.
AMEN Reverand!



Originally Posted by Django
Exactly! I'm entitled to my opinion! Question is, are you mature enough to accept that fact?
I believe my statement proved that I do accept the fact everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Though I believe the motivation behind your opinion is to cause aggravation. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Not again! Anyway, here goes!

Originally Posted by Yoda
No, it wasn't.
Well, I think it was!

Originally Posted by Yoda
What made its plot any more "arbitrary" than any other work of fiction?
Well, there were no real motivations underlying the action, as such... I mean, the whole story revolved around some far-fetched artifacts--all pretty arbitrary. The story lacked substance. It was reminiscent of "Dungeons and Dragons"--had about as much depth as the fantasy game.

Originally Posted by Yoda
Frodo's dualistic relationships with Gollum and Sam are about as non-shallow as you can get. He's torn between his lifelong friend and a haggard addict, who he sympathizes with because he realizes that the object which turned Gollum into the wretch he is today is the one he wears around his neck. To distrust Gollum is to admit that his quest will forever taint him.
Yeah, well, that was real deep for a fairy tale, I guess, but pretty trite and commonplace by conventional standards.

Originally Posted by Yoda
As for emotional depth: maybe you fell asleep when the scenes concerning Aragorn, Arwen, and Eowyn were on-screen. Or Faramir and Denethor, for that matter.
Yeah, like I said, real deep! (See above)

Originally Posted by Yoda
The Lord of the Rings is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fairy tale. It is a full-blown mythology, and a metaphor for any number of classic concepts, from the brutal inevitability of war, to the corruptive abilities of power.
It's basically a glorified fairy tale with some cute moralizing along the way, however you cut it!



Originally Posted by Django
Well, there were no real motivations underlying the action, as such...
Rather than list the major characters and their specific, detailed motivations (the film is quite thorough about most of them), perhaps you could tell me just which scence you thought had no reason for being, or which actions you thought were comitted by a character with no motivation for doing them.

Originally Posted by Django
I mean, the whole story revolved around some far-fetched artifacts--all pretty arbitrary. The story lacked substance. It was reminiscent of "Dungeons and Dragons"--had about as much depth as the fantasy game.
You're being pretty vague, and more or less just repeating yourself. "Arbitrary" refers to something impulsive, done more out of whim than necessity or reason. What events in the film, then, were arbitrary?

Originally Posted by Django
Yeah, well, that was real deep for a fairy tale, I guess, but pretty trite and commonplace by conventional standards.
Well, it's no Rocky IV, but it'll have to do.

Originally Posted by Django
It's basically a glorified fairy tale with some cute moralizing along the way, however you cut it!
Anyone even remotely familiar with the depth of Middle-Earth wouldn't dream of labeling it a "fairy tale." As I said, it's an entire mythology, and a renowned literary achivement which draws on many classic texts, from Beowulf to The Bible. Not to mention the fact that the majority of characters are even named appropriately, as Tolkien often used actual root words to name his creations.

But hey, yeah, you're "entitled to your opinion." And I'm entitled to mine. Mine is as follows: you're out of your ever-loving mind.



Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
You just can't flippin' stop yourself can you?
Given the fact that there's probably half a dozen threads lying around here which ended with Django dodging arguments, rather than with me making them, I'd say I can.

Why? Is this causing anyone severe amounts of emotional distress?



Lets go with something else then. I Really liked the song sung when Faramir and his men attempted to reclaim osgiliath. Anyone know if that was actually billy boyd singing? (it was boyd, or.....the other one). Or what it was called? Is it on the Soundtrack?
I was looking forward to seeing Sam bust out some of that elvish seed too, that would have been fun. Oh,Well.



Originally Posted by Yoda
Given the fact that there's probably half a dozen threads lying around here which ended with Django dodging arguments, rather than with me making them, I'd say I can.

Why? Is this causing anyone severe amounts of emotional distress?
I'm suffering from Djangoitismositosis. Every time you reply to his asinine argument, you're adding fuel to the fire. His initial post was an aggressive tongue lashing of what everyone, but him, considers a cinematic masterpiece. It was posted to incite this very type of argument and will only keep on, and on, and on, if people keep on replying to it. Don't give him what he wants!



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Yoda
Well, it's no Rocky IV, but it'll have to do.
Hey, don't knock Rocky IV! lol! That was a true cinematic masterpiece!

Originally Posted by Yoda
Anyone even remotely familiar with the depth of Middle-Earth wouldn't dream of labeling it a "fairy tale." As I said, it's an entire mythology, and a renowned literary achivement which draws on many classic texts, from Beowulf to The Bible. Not to mention the fact that the majority of characters are even named appropriately, as Tolkien often used actual root words to name his creations.

But hey, yeah, you're "entitled to your opinion." And I'm entitled to mine. Mine is as follows: you're out of your ever-loving mind.
Well, I've read Beowulf and much of the Bible, and nowhere do I find any mention of elves or dwarves or hobbits or wizards or giant eagles or walking trees! lol! What I'd like to know is why wasn't Tinkerbell the fairy in it too! Anyway, about root words... "Bilbo Baggins"? "Took"? "Frodo"? "Gandalf"? "Smeagol"? "Sauron"? etc., etc. What are the root words?



Originally Posted by Django
Hey, don't knock Rocky IV! lol! That was a true cinematic masterpiece!
In your grand tradition of meaningless smilie-based replies:

Originally Posted by Django
Well, I've read Beowulf and much of the Bible, and nowhere do I find any mention of elves or dwarves or hobbits or wizards or giant eagles or walking trees! lol!
I said it takes from them, and it does. I'm guessing you haven't read the books, though, and therefore wouldn't know. A small example would be the creation story in The Silmarillion, which explains that Middle-Earth was created by music, a concept touched upon in the Book of Job, which asks "where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?," and three verses later extends this with "when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This is exactly what happens in The Silmarillion, as Iluvatar (the God figure in Tolkien's mythology) creates the Ainur; angels of sorts (they are the "sons of God"), who sing Middle-Earth into existence.

You'll find a similar creation account in C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, as well, wherein Aslan sings as a means to create the titular world (you can find this near the end of The Magician's Nephew,which was the sixth published, but would be the first in those awful chronologically-ordered sets).

And, as anyone who knows anything about Tolkien's life story would also know, it was his horrific experiences in WWI that inspired a great deal of the story. The hobbits are reflective of the orindary young men who were thrown into battle, and ultimately rose to the occasion. They are farmers and sometimes borderline children, tossed into a violent conflict, giving themselves over only because they believe they must to protect their home. And some of them, like Frodo, ultimately never recover.

A story is a mirror; you get out of it what you put in, to some degree. You went in expecting a "fairy tale," and you, looking at everything through that uninformed expectation, found just that.

Originally Posted by Django
What I'd like to know is why wasn't Tinkerbell the fairy in it too! Anyway, about root words... "Bilbo Baggins"? "Took"? "Frodo"? "Gandalf"? "Smeagol"? "Sauron"? etc., etc. What are the root words?
No, Tinkerbell isn't in it. No fairies are, to my recollection, which is partially the reason for my insistence that it's better classified as a mythology. Fairy tales do not contain entire invented languages, nor do they take twelve years to write. Tolkien was an extremely learned man, and any attempt to dismiss his vast, epic work so off-handedly speaks far worse of the speaker than his target.

As for root words; a good example would be Mordor, which derives from the Old English word "morthor," meaning "murder." The word "hobbit," also, is said to have come from the Old English words "hol" and "byldan" -- meaning "hole" and "builder." As one word, it is "holbytla," Notice the "holl-bit" it begins with, and how very like "hobbit" it sounds.

Gollum comes from "Golem," a figure in Jewish lore, described as robot-like and sometimes lacking speech. Theoden is Old English for "lord of the people," and Sauron comes from Icelandic/Old Norse stems meaning "unclean" or "filth." Tolkien often named characters in meaningful ways, though sometimes he simply spat something out. Being a philologist, however, his more impulsive names were still generally rooted in some sort of applicable source. He is also said to have subjected his chosen names to a rigorous linguistic cross-examination, to ensure that they held up under real literary scrutiny. Being a professor, he was more than capable of this.

"Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents and chapters has been laboriously pondered."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, 1950
Still waiting for so much as a single example of arbitrariness, by the way.