What's new
By:

The Perfect Movie

LogGrad98 said:
I guess that is part of being different people. I don't get worked up over it, I just don't ever watch it again. I view it as wasted money and time, so why waste my money and time again.

The Tolkien thing was actually the first questions I asked my english teacher in 9th grade when he encouraged us all to read the series. I asked why Gandalf didn't just take it himself to Mordor, or why they didn't just get one of the eagles to fly Frodo there. He got mad, started talking about the way it all intermeshed in Middle Earth and how the eagles were not subject to the whims of man, and blah blah blah. He went nuts when I said "so you don't know why either huh?"

No work of fiction is ever going to be perfect. I think that is a huge duh. But if I run into things that dumb down the story enough to pull me out of it and I start seeing the mistakes, or plot holes, or obvious deus ex machina, more than I see the story, especially on the first viewing, then it isn't worth rewatching imo. If you never see anything in a movie that pulls you out of the story then kudos to you, as I imagine from your point of view every movie must be the best movie ever made since nothing could ever diminish it as a work of pure entertainment. I guess you are different from me. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

I see the same things you do, I just don't react the same way. That doesn't mean I think that "every movie must be the best movie ever made," it just means that most things that don't make a lot of sense I shrug off. I don't find LOTR any less powerful because of the stupid eagles. I roll my eyes once when they show up and then forget about them. For the other 11 hours of those films (and the books) it's not a problem. Yeah, I remember being annoyed the first time I read the books and the eagles saved Frodo and Sam -- I would have rather they died, frankly, rather than be saved in such a silly way -- but I'm not going to never read the books or watch the movies again because of it. They're too damned good for that. Do you really view LOTR as a waste of time? Because the eagles are much worse than the cliff in Jurassic Park.

In any case, yes, different strokes. I feel bad for you that you can't enjoy films because of meaningless stuff like that.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
I see the same things you do, I just don't react the same way. That doesn't mean I think that "every movie must be the best movie ever made," it just means that most things that don't make a lot of sense I shrug off. I don't find LOTR any less powerful because of the stupid eagles. I roll my eyes once when they show up and then forget about them. For the other 11 hours of those films (and the books) it's not a problem. Yeah, I remember being annoyed the first time I read the books and the eagles saved Frodo and Sam -- I would have rather they died, frankly, rather than be saved in such a silly way -- but I'm not going to never read the books or watch the movies again because of it. They're too damned good for that. Do you really view LOTR as a waste of time? Because the eagles are much worse than the cliff in Jurassic Park.

In any case, yes, different strokes. I feel bad for you that you can't enjoy films because of meaningless stuff like that.
Click to expand...

For the thing like the eagles, I just assume Tolkien has background story on them in his mind, but doesn't feel the need to explain it. You can take pretty much every movie ever made and think of ways they could have done stuff more pragmatically and efficiently.

I like doing that and thinking about it for fun, but I would never let it ruin a movie for me.
 
Oh the infamous Eagles. That never really bugged me. What greater way to say hey we are coming to destroy your magic ring where you live and before we do it we wouldn't mind some tea. Don't forget to call the Nazguls and their flying thingies.
 
AtheistPreacher said:
I see the same things you do, I just don't react the same way. That doesn't mean I think that "every movie must be the best movie ever made," it just means that most things that don't make a lot of sense I shrug off. I don't find LOTR any less powerful because of the stupid eagles. I roll my eyes once when they show up and then forget about them. For the other 11 hours of those films (and the books) it's not a problem. Yeah, I remember being annoyed the first time I read the books and the eagles saved Frodo and Sam -- I would have rather they died, frankly, rather than be saved in such a silly way -- but I'm not going to never read the books or watch the movies again because of it. They're too damned good for that. Do you really view LOTR as a waste of time? Because the eagles are much worse than the cliff in Jurassic Park.

In any case, yes, different strokes. I feel bad for you that you can't enjoy films because of meaningless stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I don't know why, it doesn't bother me one bit. And I'm sorry I have a different definition of meaningless than you do. I promise I won't hold it against you.

I seriously doubt you have fully enjoyed every single movie you have ever seen (and if you have then my first comment was more right than wrong) and I'm sure there is always a reason for everyone when that is the case. And I am willing to bet some people disagree with the validity of that reason. Not sure it is ever a cause for pity, because I think it is perfectly ok for you to not like a movie I do like for whatever reason you choose, and vice versa, and it's ok if we disagree on that reason. But to each his own, or not if that makes you feel bad that each person has their own point of view. Not really sure.

Oh and I never said I view LOTR as a waste of time, just that I noticed that part early on, and thought it was funny how mad that teacher got that someone would point out that there was a potential flaw in what he viewed as a perfect piece of art. I still read them all, and watched the movies and have more than once. To me that is much more explainable (as CT said, there is probably just a missing piece of backstory) than a physical change to a fixed landscape.
 
VINYLONE said:
Absolutely. Have you ever seen Gangster No.1 or The Krays?
Click to expand...

Haven't seen them. Any good?

I have been watching some Japanese stuff lately when I have time. Mostly stuff that was in festivals like Hara Kiri and Outrage. Battle Royale is what the Hunger Games should have been.

Also, I'm curious what you thought of Man Bites Dog?
 
LogGrad98 said:
I don't know why, it doesn't bother me one bit. And I'm sorry I have a different definition of meaningless than you do. I promise I won't hold it against you.

I seriously doubt you have fully enjoyed every single movie you have ever seen (and if you have then my first comment was more right than wrong) and I'm sure there is always a reason for everyone when that is the case. And I am willing to bet some people disagree with the validity of that reason. Not sure it is ever a cause for pity, because I think it is perfectly ok for you to not like a movie I do like for whatever reason you choose, and vice versa, and it's ok if we disagree on that reason. But to each his own, or not if that makes you feel bad that each person has their own point of view. Not really sure.

Oh and I never said I view LOTR as a waste of time, just that I noticed that part early on, and thought it was funny how mad that teacher got that someone would point out that there was a potential flaw in what he viewed as a perfect piece of art. I still read them all, and watched the movies and have more than once. To me that is much more explainable (as CT said, there is probably just a missing piece of backstory) than a physical change to a fixed landscape.
Click to expand...

Um, wait, you can't possibly think that this is what I meant? I hate lots of movies. I just don't hate them for the reasons you're talking about. In fact, I'm more of a movie snob than a lot of people I know who to me seem a lot less discerning. But the way you've been responding has made it sound like you think I just indiscriminately like everything, and/or have no sense of taste. Not so.

I'm also perfectly okay with people having different criteria by which they judge films. In this case I just find it odd that you don't seriously object to something like the LOTR eagle thing which seems to make the entire journey look silly, as opposed to something like Jurassic Park, where the inconsistency we've discussed doesn't really affect anything important in the story. Like I said, if they had just moved the big 'ol drop a little to the right or left of where the t-rex was, the problem goes away. It's embarrassing for the filmmakers, but has no effect on the film's story. I guess I just don't get why you write off a whole film for something like that, and then rationalize things like LOTR. Seems arbitrary to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top