Music & Movies

Indeed, Tolkien is the father of the fantasy genre as we know it. His world is so full, so complete, so incredibly complex that you can scarce but think it really exists somewhere. He's written out languages for 2-3 languages of elf, 2 or more dark speech languages, systems of belief, gods, origins of the world, vast ages of conquest and decline.. I dont think the depth of the Lord of the Rings has been matched anywhere, seriously.

Sorry about my strawman counter-argument about the not-liking-the-popular things. Yes, clearly, there is a difference between empty hype and true talent, but Tolkien, god bless him, falls fully in the latter category.

The Beach... I didnt like it. It was trying to be too much, and then went bizarre with that Apocalypse Now moment where Leo goes mad. Better to see Apocalypse Now. That's a hell of a movie.

I agree with your point of view of the Beach, actually. It was an ok movie at the most, but not really worth discussing (especially in comparison to Apocalypse Now).

Back to The Lord of the Rings though, aren't you guys a little disappointed with the outcome of what seems to have been an incredible story? I didn't feel the level of intelligence you describe from the Tolkien stories in the movie.

Crab, I love literature and even if a book is complex, if it's well written and captivating it will keep you interested no matter how many characters there are. I'm thinking of the Foundation & Robot series by Asimov (which I'm sure everyone of us pray to every evening before bed time). But, how do you translate captivating writing into a movie? Thus said, I'm sure I would/will be terribly disappointed in the Hollywood versions of the Foundation books. Finally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Tokien's work was just a mass-consumption hype machine, unless I actually read the books (which I'm starting to seriously consider, yet I've got a list of about 6 books that I've been really wanting to read for a long time now, so they'll have to wait their turns).I've got this feeling that the movie was mainly appreciated by those who had previously been captivated by the "full story". Hollywood's lifework on the other hand...

The first thing to go in any movie adaptation of a book are the details, and so those were lacking in LotR. Scenes and history and background and details were sparking in my mind throughout the entire movie, and that's what anyone who hadnt read the books was lacking. But that crowd grows ever-smaller. Tolkien is the #1 selling author right now.

I noticed that when I've been taking public transportations lately... everyone's got a copy.

My girlfriend came down with the sickuser's cough it seems, so we took advantage of a long boring day off work to rent:
- 1984
- Lady Chatterlay's lover (I'm not sure about the exact title)
- The Day After
- Time Bandits
- The Time Machine

And two of these movies are based on novels that I've read, so let me just say that I'm in a perfect frame of mind to totally agree that the details are lost in adaptations. Fun viewing none the less.

My eyeballs are kind of stinging though, so I'm going to bed now.

Lady Chatterly's Lovers is a not the sort of movie you could rent at Blockbuster.. unless there's more than one version.

I honestly wouldnt mind a 10 hour movie that contained ALL the details and ALL the dialogue of books. I'd watch it in 1-2 hour installments, like a book. And though my eyeballs would eventually fall out, I'd enjoy it immensely.

The only version of LCL I've seen is that goofy soft-porn version they used to show on Cinemax

They used to make 9 and 10 hour movies. Von Strohiem's silent masterpiece "Greed", based on Frank Norris' excellent novel "McTeague", was inally 9 hours long, but years later when it was edited down to 2.5 hrs they burned the stock and lost it forever.

The short one tells the story very well, but it is a very detailed novel, so I can just imagine how many things were lost.

In early Hollywoood, they didn't have any concept of an "ideal movie length" and people didn't complain if a movie was 5 horus long.

I heard, and I would love to believe, that Altman's director's cut of "Nashville" was 8 hours. I wou;dn't mind seeing that. In instalments, of course.

The LCL I saw couldnt be shown on Cinemax, either.

TV miniseries are often longer than 2 hours and they can hold your attention when split up into smaller segments. In fact, you have an audience captive for that much longer. I suppose that works better on TV/Cable/Satellite anyways because then you show more commercials. And I would hesitate to head to the movie theater every night for a week.

Wasn't expecting that much of a response to that LCL movie! It's really old you know. So there were a couple nipples in it... if someone was ever passing it as some kind of soft porn, I'm confused. The book is amongst the top 50 novels of all time, that's all I know. The movie was produced sometime in the 50's I think, so it would have had to have been pretty friggin' soft.

Well, it seems then that someone made ANOTHER movie about it, where there wasnt a scene without nipples in it. But enough on that!

Ooh ooh ooh! Super Troopers is coming out soon! Today maybe even! Has anyone seen the trailer with the "Pull Over" segment. I laughed so hard I cried. Though one trailer has a better version of it than another.

I American Pie is this generation's Porky's, that is this generation's Police Academy.

Have you seen it?

I just saw Donnie Darko tonight. It was a fantastic movie. The only place in Atlanta you could see it was through the Peachtree Film Society. There was only one showing. I just dont get it. Anyways, it was dark and funny and sci-fi and very very original and cool. If you get the chance somehow to see it, I recommed it!