Just Saying -- the soapbox thread

[nzCdog]

Huge Tolkien fan since school!  Totally freaked out when the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy was filmed in NZ.   Wasn't so hot on the Hobbit movies however

[alanp]

The Hobbit movies felt like too much of a money-grab, to me.

[rockola]

I was poking through some of Jay Leno's Garage episodes on youtube, and saw a "Husqvarna Motorcycles" video. ...
*The* chainsaw company... have been making motorcycles since 1903??? That's like learning that the Bernina Sewing Machine outfit make big rig trucks!

Dunno about Bernina, but Singer used to make cars, a friend has one (1955 model I believe).

[Muadzin]

I can't understand most dislike of Tolkien's writing, even if I can accept that it's not everyone's cup of tea. I feel like some of them are just received wisdom. Tolkein is a damn good writer.

LOTR doesn't take 100 pages for the action to start. The action becomes progressively more sinister as the hobbits get further from their home, until they are literally trudging through hell on earth. The first chapter's like 30 pages in small paperback pages and it's the only mostly frivolous part of the book (even though some important things about the ring's effect on people are shown at that point), but necessary because it bookends the Scouring of the Shire, and shows what actually got damaged in the war.

The prose is often beautiful, despite its actual simplicity. The dialog is consistent with the tone of the rest of the book, which is more than can be said about most fantasy writers. The book is thematically consistent not just with itself but with another thousand pages of legendarium, and its level of detail rewards casual reading as well as the deepest possible probing. It's one of the most popular books on earth, and we can't all be wrong. It's also the subject of a great deal of serious literary criticism.

I agree with what you are saying, but playing devil's advocate here, saying that because something is popular it can't be wrong can mean that by that same yard stick the Kardashians should be high culture as well.

There aren't plot holes.

I can think of at least one. If the Eagles could fly into Mordor to rescue Frodo and Sam, why not fly the whole Fellowship into Mordor from the start. This has always been a source of great debate. Where were the damn Eagles and why couldn't they be arsed until the very last second when Middle Earth was already plunged into total war?

There aren't characters just going around doing nonsensical things against their nature because a plot demands it. There are shades of gray (people often ignore them), even among the main characters, and even in a world with actual, literal embodiments of evil and good walking around.

Tolkien mentions the lineage of ONE horse. People still keep track of stuff like that, you know, and I'm not even talking about people whose military culture depends on horses ...

Also, lol at the idea of Tolkien not being a professional writer. The dude published quite a bit during his life and it was still only a fraction of the stuff Christopher dug up after his passing.

I've once read that his son Christopher deserves to be right up there next to his father for his contribution to literature. Because indeed most of Middle Earth's history has been edited and published by the son, a labor of love for the father. And if anything we shouldn't be talking about Tolkien, but the Tolkiens.

[midwayfair]

There aren't plot holes.

I can think of at least one. If the Eagles could fly into Mordor to rescue Frodo and Sam, why not fly the whole Fellowship into Mordor from the start. This has always been a source of great debate. Where were the damn Eagles and why couldn't they be arsed until the very last second when Middle Earth was already plunged into total war?

It's not a plot hole, it's people misunderstanding or misapplying the lore of the world. Tolkien addresses the eagles in letters, though you can work it out with nothing more than what's in The Hobbit and LotR.

Destroying the ring is a stealth mission. The least powerful people carry out a plan that Sauron can't even imagine they would think of, because he can't imagine people throwing away power like that, and the weakness of hobbits makes them virtually invisible to him. This is discussed at the Council of Elrond.

Beings in middle earth have a body that exists in the corporeal realm and another that exists in the spiritual realm. The nazgul can't even manage to be visible in the corporeal realm but they are easily seen in the spritual realm, because they're really powerful (because Sauron put some of his considerable spiritual power into them). To creatures like Sauron that see the spiritual nature of things in Middle Earth, someone like Gandalf probably looks like a fireworks display. This is talked about when Frodo is stabbed with the Nazgul's knife and he starts becoming a wraith -- he can see their true forms.

Eagles are the same way. They're either maiar and air spirits (in the Silmarilion) or higher level animals (in later stuff), and they're servants of the king of the gods. They don't fly anywhere with any sort of stealth as far as Sauron and his most powerful servants are concerned. They can be shot down by bows just like any bird (they're worried about humans' bows in The Hobbit). They can be destroyed by the Nazgul's vulture thingies. They're not invincible by any stretch of the imagination. It's even possible that at the time of writing LotR, since Tolkien was considering them maiar at the time, that they would have taken the ring from Frodo and used it.

Basically you need a couple quiet commandos to complete the mission and everyone's who says the plan has a flaw is wondering why you don't roll up in a loud helicopter. Any plan in which you include someone more powerful than a hobbit is going to fail, because even a hobbit fails at the end, despite making it farther than anyone else could have. (It's actually destiny, to the point where there's literal deus ex machina at the end -- Eru pushes Gollum into the volcano.)

[bamslam69]

Absolutely loved LOTR when I first read it many years ago.
My only 2 gripes are:
1. Frodo was just plain annoying.
2. No battle of Hobbiton in the last movie. That was a friggin ripoff. And the fact those 2 hobbits that got into the Entwine didn't come back a bit taller.

[nzCdog]

Tom Bombadil was another interesting character who never made the films

[Muadzin]

It's not a plot hole, it's people misunderstanding or misapplying the lore of the world. Tolkien addresses the eagles in letters, though you can work it out with nothing more than what's in The Hobbit and LotR.

Destroying the ring is a stealth mission. The least powerful people carry out a plan that Sauron can't even imagine they would think of, because he can't imagine people throwing away power like that, and the weakness of hobbits makes them virtually invisible to him. This is discussed at the Council of Elrond.

Beings in middle earth have a body that exists in the corporeal realm and another that exists in the spiritual realm. The nazgul can't even manage to be visible in the corporeal realm but they are easily seen in the spritual realm, because they're really powerful (because Sauron put some of his considerable spiritual power into them). To creatures like Sauron that see the spiritual nature of things in Middle Earth, someone like Gandalf probably looks like a fireworks display. This is talked about when Frodo is stabbed with the Nazgul's knife and he starts becoming a wraith -- he can see their true forms.

Eagles are the same way. They're either maiar and air spirits (in the Silmarilion) or higher level animals (in later stuff), and they're servants of the king of the gods. They don't fly anywhere with any sort of stealth as far as Sauron and his most powerful servants are concerned. They can be shot down by bows just like any bird (they're worried about humans' bows in The Hobbit). They can be destroyed by the Nazgul's vulture thingies. They're not invincible by any stretch of the imagination. It's even possible that at the time of writing LotR, since Tolkien was considering them maiar at the time, that they would have taken the ring from Frodo and used it.

Basically you need a couple quiet commandos to complete the mission and everyone's who says the plan has a flaw is wondering why you don't roll up in a loud helicopter. Any plan in which you include someone more powerful than a hobbit is going to fail, because even a hobbit fails at the end, despite making it farther than anyone else could have. (It's actually destiny, to the point where there's literal deus ex machina at the end -- Eru pushes Gollum into the volcano.)

Now you're just trying to reason away a plothole. Just like Star Wars tried to reason away why the Death Star had this stupid vulnerability with Rogue One. If Gandalf was this shining beacon to Sauron, why was he still included in the original plan to travel with the Fellowship into Mordor? If anything then he should have been going the complete other way to distract him. The Eagles are a plothole. Not that it bothers me in the least because in the end every story is about the journey and I enjoy this journey immensely, but I acknowledge that it is a plothole.

Absolutely loved LOTR when I first read it many years ago.
My only 2 gripes are:
1. Frodo was just plain annoying.

That's because Sam is the real hero of the story.  If LOTR was a sarcastic comedy then Frodo would be the Prince of Wales, a blithering idiot, and Sam be his sarcastic servant. And Gollum his disgusting stupid sidekick with a turnip fixation.

Seriously though. The ring corrupts whoever carries it. And the book and the movie does a great job showing us how it turns Frodo from a happy go lucky young Hobbit into a pale gaunt former shadow of its former self. Who becomes a dick and ultimately falls to its corrupting influence.

2. No battle of Hobbiton in the last movie. That was a friggin ripoff. And the fact those 2 hobbits that got into the Entwine didn't come back a bit taller.

You can't do everything in a movie. Everybody was already bitching and moaning about the 'many endings' as it was already. I think in the books Tolkien got away with it, but from a story point telling it made no sense to have an additional story climax after the main ending. If anything it helped to show us the feeling of alienation that Frodo and his friends experienced when they returned home and found that nothing had happened there and they were seen as odd and crazy. To know that outside of the Shire people would bow to their sacrifices, whereas in the Shire they were seen as 'odd fellows'. I love that part. It also draws comparisons to the experiences of modern day military veterans who return back to civil society.

Tom Bombadil was another interesting character who never made the films

He really was a story stopper. Another crime against conventional story telling that Tolkien committed. Did it work in the books? Some loved Tom, I hated him, as to me it was a full on hitting the breaks on the main story. I can only surmise that in the movies it would have been even worse. Hey, here's a character on which the Ring has no influence and to whom they could have given it. Potential end of story right here. But lets not do it. Yeah, it would have confused the hell out of people not familiar with the books. Could they have shot Tom Bombadil for the extended version? I reckon they could. But it makes no sense to shoot scenes that you know will not end up in a theatrical release.

[alanp]

Can't remember if I linked these, here. Very, very well executed. The only part I have a problem with is believing that those planes could fly with no real maintenance for that long.

[Willybomb]

Tolkien mentions the lineage of ONE horse. People still keep track of stuff like that, you know, and I'm not even talking about people whose military culture depends on horses ..

I was actually being sarcastic with that comment, making a random reference to Micheal Douglas' character in The Wonder Boys, where is suffers from the opposite of writer's block and can't finish his book.  One of the chapters is devoted to the horse's linage...

[Willybomb]

Just thought I'd let everyone know I've had a stack of builds work first go after missing 3 or 4 cuts on a Seventhheaven vero build.

This week, I've nailed: Jok3rX's Blackforest, an X-fuzz, (although, technically while it worked, I'd wired the pre-gain wrong), an Arachnid, a 1-knob fuzz (messed something up, it's really bassy), a jfet blend, a Peper's Dr Boogie with Tonemender, and a Storyboardist Exemplar (left out a cap on that one, so it worked but didn't make unity.  Finding that missing cap sorted it).  Mostly on vero.

So, maybe not quite "nailed", but certainly working first go in some aspect.

[bamslam69]

Can't remember if I linked these, here. Very, very well executed. The only part I have a problem with is believing that those planes could fly with no real maintenance for that long.

Cool Vids, AlanP.
You sent me down a rabbit hole watching a few of them.
Always love the post-apocalyptic themes, regardless of any technical flaws in the story... I usually pick up on it, but just shrug and roll with it.
Happy that in the Mad Max universe, civilization died around the late 70's and the cars reflect that. I mean beggars can't be choosers but no one wants to be left modifying a champagne camry into a war machine.

[alanp]

I think one of the Fury Road behind the scenes vids talked about that... in their opinion, modern cars just would not last long enough to exist in the Fury Road universe.

[bamslam69]

I was impressed with Fury Road. I ducked down to the Opera House when they were promoting it the movie and a lot of the cars, the War Rig and Doof Wagon were there. The sheer size of the Doof Wagon was as impressive in real life as it was on screen.
I was a massive fan of the originals, watched it all the time with my cousins.
Also loved that every vehicle was fully functional as was told - if they said it was a twin turboed V16, it truly was.
Epic movie.

[Rockhorst]

I just want to mention that I went to see X-Men: Dark Phoenix today and I thought it was EXCELLENT for the most part, as far as I'm concerned. It gets shit reviews but I only got a little bit distracted in the middle of the train scene at the end. I see some possible improvements (like the aliens being actually quite redundant) but it felt REAL and convincing to me. Something most MCU movies, especially the Avengers ones, fail me on. It think, together with Logan and Days of Future Past it makes my top 3 of X-men movies. Sadly, most X movies aren't that much to write home about. This one was, I believe, well executed at least.

On a related note, I'm always a little amazed at the insanely high ratings, by critics and audience, the Avengers movies receive. Other example: Pacific Rim. I'm going to rewatch that to see what I think about it now...I just remember it did NOT live up to the rave reviews as far as I'm concerned.

Related note #2, tying in to the LOTR 'plot hole' discussion: the way Midwayfair explained that one actually makes sense in that universe. All powerful beings in other films, like a Captain Marvel in Avengers, are much less satisfying. My girlfriend said that Jean in Dark Phoenix is a little like Captain Marvel in that regard, which sold the story short for her...and I can see that in hind sight, but it didn't bug me in the theater (Captain Marvel DID though).