|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 19, 2009 09:14 AM |
|
|
A typical Death-post: OFF-topic and straight past everything everyone else said.
Quote:
Quote:
A sentient intelligent being that CANNOT be evil, isn't good, because it has no choice.
Actually it's not being WILLING to do it rather than not being ABLE.
But that wouldn't be CANNOT (which is what YOU said, not me), that would be WANT NOT. Or maybe DARE NOT. In any case WANT NOT isn't cannot and
Quote:
There are lots of things that I can choose to do, and a LOT of them I am absolutely not even WILLING to do at all
well, that's YOU. For WANT NOT you don't need angels. All humans have one or another want-not they still do - and now tell me the connection to LotR, please. Topic? Your point?
Quote:
Also what's wrong with androids? I think The Terminator was a good character, for example. In fact a good villain by itself, even better than those with "remorses" or "doubts" in MANY aspects.
The terminator is A MACHINE, therefore it's not evil and as a character on par with a car running amok. It DOES "evil" because it's programmed to, so the evil is the programmer and the terminator is not more than a tool, technically. However, the movie or story reality lets you personalize the machine (and making it humanoid looking is only the first step), but it is no person. It's the archetype of a MONSTER or something ALIEN, but it's as evil as Jaws, the Alien or the Truck in Spielberg's Duel, and the art of all those is to make it LOOK evil, to make it LOOK like it was posessed by an evil intelligence and would act voluntarily, deliberately and evilly - and now tell me the connection to LotR, please? Topic? Your point?
Quote:
And of course that most hollywood stuff out there, if that's what you were talking about, likes to makes robots "more human" or "doubt" their actions, or after spending some time with humans, some aliens make them 'important' or something, etc...
Buddy, you don't understand what it's all about - see above. Moreover, without the mirror in which to look it's not interesting, plain and simple. As some characters in more than one story say, humans look for other intelligent life (we are not taling Terminator here) TO FIND A MIRROR, to understand THEMSELVES, and don't be alone - and now tell me the connection to LotR, please? Topic? Your point?
Quote:
Also, some villains, espcially those who should represent evil (like Sauron) do it because Evil Feels Good. You think that's not a reason? Newsflash: many people in the real world think Good Feels Good (and some even think Evil feels good, but they usually fall under the psycho classification), so it is relatively easy, philosophically speaking, to make an opposite species -- naturally inclined to feel good doing evil. Go to the extreme version and you arrive at Sauron.
This is such a mixture of half-baked hot air, it makes no sense to answer seriously. You may find a partial answer further below, though.
Quote:
Also JollyJoker, if you don't want to define good and evil, you can either just... let the writer do it, or (as is the case) simply take their ATTRIBUTES (like: selfish, likes to eat babies, wants to destroy the world, etc...) and classify them however you want! I don't care if you call them "good" instead of evil or however else you want, as long as you say they are not poorly done because they "lack dynamics in their behavior" (which is like saying "they lack human weaknesses or traits"). 
The Statement in Italics is flatout nonsense. "Dynamical behaviour" is a trait of intelligence; it's called flexibility and learning and is necessary for finding the right responses to changing situations. Even ANIMALS are dynamical in their behaviour.
Quote:
You base your arguments on subjectivity. "rating" should be done objectively,
And the world should be a better place. IF rating was done "objectively", it wasn't a RATING, it was a final judgement. Rating is always based on OPINION. Example: In it's time All of the first 5 Black Sabbath albums received abysmal reviews or "ratings" (while the public loved them). Later those "ratings" were changed, and what then was rated flat, empty and so on, was rated completely different in light of developments.
Quote:
and in this case sorry, but it is absolutely not overrated. I love it a lot more than...
"Objective" reason? YOU love it more than? WHY is it "objectively" not overrated? Because some critics you like to give the attribute "objective" happen to reflect your own likings and you like to let them certify the objective quality of your standards?
Quote:
than other "complex dramas" with "predictable twists" (in my opinion) and Black&Gray Morality and all sorts of "dilemmas" or other psychological subjects. Well, I have plenty of shows to watch for that. Real-life of course, since humans are that way, I would turn it off immediately if it were a different species. But that is just IMO of course. I don't rate it on THIS.
And here your point is again escaping me. You mean, you like LotR since it is so fairy-tale like and not like the sad and black/gray real life? Is that your point? And that you won't rate a story only about how captivating it is, no matter how real-life or fairy-tale?
IF that is your point, surprise, surprise, we just found something to agree upon. But you have to think further than that. If you tell a story, fairy tale or not, the art of it is to put in JUST ENOUGH real life to make the illusion as perfect and BELIEVABLE as possible, and while we know that real life can be much more of a fairy-tale than even the fairiest fairy-tale, CHARACTERS are different. Characters just HAVE TO BE believable.
Example (Scream made an issue out of it): LOTS of thrillers and horror movies try to sell a scene when the heroine does something NO real life person would do: go into a dark cellar after something strange happened, wide-eyed and fearful, expecting something really bad, tentative to drag the moment, that kind of scene. And of course that doesn't actually work, it needs too much goodwill of the audience - it's not believable. "Serves you right, whatever may happen to you, you stupid cow", is what most people think.
That is, IF THERE ISN'T A GOOD REASON for "the stupid cow" to go down there - which makes all the difference between believable and trash.
And about villain characters: If a villain (like Sauron) is evil because for him it feels good to be evil, than THIS ISN'T ENOUGH to make the character believable. Whether charecters are acting believable or not depends on the REASONS that are given for their behaviour in case they are acting stange which is what things are all about. And if you have a PSYCHO there (and PSYCHO might spell "it feels good to do evil", but often just amounts to "No proper reasons have to be given, after all the guy is a psycho"), then it all depends EITHER on the reason why the guy is or became a psycho, or on how captivating the psycho is as a psycho.
You see the difference if you compare the Nicholson-Joker with the Ledger-Joker: with the Nicholson-Joker we get a reason, a flashback how he became the Joker and why he hates Batman, and while it IS sort of an explanation, it's not a brillant one. It serves the purpose of giving something of a reason, but you could debate about believable.
With the Ledger-Joker you don't get a reason - at first you are goaded to think so, but after the Joker tells "his story" a 2nd time and it's a completely different story, it's clear that he and the reason why he is what he is will remain a mystery, which works for 2 reasons: 1) The "fake" story-telling of the Joker: 2 very "interesting" (and typical) explanations are given, that could just have served the purpose, but the authors tell us, we COULD explain, but we voluntarily and willingly don't: the Joker is to remain a mystery, a primeval FORCE of it's own. 2) Ledger's acting - which is simply captivating as such.
Now, note that 2) is obviously not working for a BOOK! That's why the equivalent of doing something like that in a book is drawing the character itself as captivating and complex as possible... So what about Sauron?
I'm with FriendOfGunnar who told my story, so I actually don't know how Sauron (and in fact all the characters) are portrayed, but after what I've read (and seen) myself I have no reason to doubt FOG's description of characters.
Would you see that different?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 10:36 AM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 10:37, 19 Mar 2009.
|
So much arguing because people want to fit in a character to their own complex, believable or not, whatever plot perceptions  The author had a certain idea of what he wanted to portray and he did just that, why pick on how he could have made it better? He wanted to evoke certain feelings, maybe he didn't care about the things you do. And judging Sauron just from lord of the rings gives an incomplete picture, you also have to take into account the silmarillion stories. Who he was, what his past was, why he is in middle earth and what his motives are. I'm sure you can make out some things from there.
But why must he be compared to others to show inadequacies or how believable he is to you? In lotr the story is through the eyes of a lesser race that knows nothing about him and Tolkien was the kind of author that had so much lore behind it, released or not. After all he died before his work was finished and his son had to take over what was left. It's all up to the reader's imagination and individual perception, works for some, does not for others.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 10:38 AM |
|
|
@ Jolly: Wait... you didn't even read the book? 
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 11:09 AM |
|
|
Not, in full, nope. As I said, FOG tells my story: started to read, and the longer I read the longer my face got, until I couldn't bring myself to waste more time with it.
Same with the movie. Went into the 1st part of the movie and found it boring - I just looked it to the end because I wasn't alone in the theater. I didn't even watch part 2 and 3 when they were on in TV.
@ Elvin
This thread deals with the question whether LotR is OVERRATED. I gave REASONS why I think it is. If you don't like those reasons I can't help it - but don't tell me that my reasons are not valid or that with LotR I have to change my standards or have to view it with a certain perspective. Also, don't tell me that I need to read the FULL work of the author to understand the prime evil force of a book of - how many? 1000 pages? That's just far out.
If you like it, fine. Would be sad if everyone would like and dislike the same thing. If it works for you, fine as well. But for me it doesn't.
Now, just because it doesn't FOR ME, it's not "bad", mind you. Lots of things that are not bad are not working for me, and lots of things that are not really good do. Again, this is about OVERRATED, not bad, which is something entirely different. I just don't think, and no matter the standards - that LotR isn't the holy grail of fantasy.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted March 19, 2009 11:11 AM |
|
|
hmmm...
*steps back and watches J's credibility plummet*
dude... rule #3 of books... never judge a book without reading it, it only makes you look stupid
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 11:14 AM |
|
|
That was kinda the point, those sound more like personal reasons whereas overrated implies general acceptance. But what seems funny to me is that most people have in mind a certain archetype of what works and what doesn't for a villain and felt I should comment on that. Naturally as with most discussions I don't really care if someone agrees with me or not as long as we have an interesting conversation.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 11:21 AM |
|
|
@ Jolly: I think you should see Two Towers and Return of the King, or at least give it a try. They both are excellent movies.
I don't really get the whole basking thing. It's so incredably easy to criticize, but you try to invent a parellell universe SUPERIOR to Middle-Earth.
Middle-Earth is the fruit of labour, or true and undoubtable passion. It does not deserve to be bashed that way.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Middle-Earth is the fruit of labour, or true and undoubtable passion.
Jackpot. That's the word. You can just feel all the love that guy had for his world and everything in it, which makes it such a great experience.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
*steps back and watches J's credibility plummet*
dude... rule #3 of books... never judge a book without reading it, it only makes you look stupid
NOT reading a book is something different than reading PART of it and then put it away. Overstating the case, do you think you have to read something until you actuually puke to be able to say, that thing was so bad I puked, or is it enough to read up to the point you know you will puke given a couple more pages of it?
More to the actual point: Do you have to bore yourself to actual death by reading 1200 pages of a back or are 100 of them enough to call it a day and a waste of time, and give an opinion about why said something is overrated?
Even more to the actual point: you really think, that you have to endure something you don't like FULLY to have the right to say something about it? That would be kinda funny. "The meal tastes awful!" "How would you know? Your plate is still more than half full! Eat up, then you can complain!"
Somehow that includes an answer to Elvin, since that was his point?
@ Lexxan
I don't think that parts 2 and 3 are significantly different from part 1, so why should I watch it? It won't capture me.
And if the amount of love and passion was a standard to go by every longish and passionately written stuff would have to find acceptance just because of it being a labor of love, but (and that's a real rule):
good will alone is simply not enough.
And it's stange, that as soon as someone dares to put things an inch or so from the pedestal some people tend to put things on it's called "bashing". It's not bashing, it's called criticism and it's neither forbidden nor morally loathesome.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:16 PM |
|
|
I'm telling you that you must see it. I am suggesting that you should give it a try.
And I agree with Lith: If you haven't read it(Completely), or seen the 3 movies, your opinion will be and remain biased and incorrect. In that case, you should be quite and inform yourself before continuing to discuss. (Basic rules of discussing, you know)
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:25 PM |
|
|
*just shakes head*
no, you don't have to eat the whole meal in order to form an opinion about it, nor do you have to read a book from cover to cover
but if you are to pass judgement on it, then your opinion is completely without merit, until you have done exactly that.. see how the story unfolds, how the characters develop
until you have read the book, your posts have about as much force behind them as saying
"Tolkien sucks! say so or I will hold my breath and die!"
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:27 PM |
|
|
Well I read all three - two times - and you know what?
I liked the first part more than the rest. It had some naive charm, when those weakling hobbits have had those Nazguls on their heels. Once Gandalf joined, it became boring. And if JJ feels he can't go on, don't tell him he can't give his opinion. I am a firm believer that you don't have to swim in cesspool to know it stinks. If you don't like something after reading through 1/3 of it, why to bother reading further? The book's style won't really change.
When the party reached the elves, I couldn't just FORCE myself to read it, it was so incredibly boring. I have never EVER read anything THAT bad. Fortunately, it only lasted for a couple pages.
On the other hand, the Moria part, well, it was totally awesome. But one gem in a pile of crap doesn't change anything.
Oh, and I agree with what FriendOfGunnar said.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:32 PM |
|
|
Lexxan, I'm sorry, but that is completely ridiculous. Let's say there is an album a lot of people are listening to full of rapture. You go to Youtube and listen to the first song. After 2 minutes you find it boring beyond belief and you switch to song 2. Same result. 30 seconds into song #3 you decide to call it an album and leave. It's just not your kind of music and you don't want to waste your time with it. And you have enough reasons to go with: texts were about things that don't interest you; music was arranged in a way you don't like, featuring instruments or rhythms you don't like, having no discernible structure, are not or too epic or WHATEVER the reason.
Now someone says that this album is overrated - and you agree: what you heard doesn't justify all the hype. But then people tell you, well you din't listen to ALL the songs of that album, you have no right to judge it. Moreover, to really understand things you have to watch the videos and listen to the other 10 albums of the artist.
Give me a break.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:33 PM |
|
|
This is a mixed case. Some parts were pretty boring most notably the beginning that can prevent you from reading the book altogether. I know it has with some and I was a rather uninterested myself. And yes I liked the first book most.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:43 PM |
|
|
Also, what's wrong with the Gandalf fellow? He is so human-ish it's boring. I can't understand Death's point about here. For me, it's exactly the opposite. No, he isn't hard to understand or inhuman. He's an old, wise gramps.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 12:54 PM |
|
|
I liked him for it though
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:06 PM |
|
Edited by Anakrom at 13:07, 19 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
More to the actual point: Do you have to bore yourself to actual death by reading 1200 pages of a back or are 100 of them enough to call it a day and a waste of time, and give an opinion about why said something is overrated?
Yes. What I really canīt stand are people, who donīt know everything about subject they are talking about, but anyway are throwing their "opinions" all around the place. If you want to rate something, you should at least be able to take your time and finish the book/film/research etc.
Now, I have read the all Tolkienīs books and I found them interesting (I was like 15 and it was really nice introduction to fantasy). I donīt think he was genius, but he took his time to do decent and complex job. Story is fantasy - so you would you expect - battle of good and evil, exotic races and landscape, epic scenes and happy-end. I was here like million times, but still, itīs the fantasy - based on certain amount of cliché. There are many better authors, not that many better fantasy-genre authors, but still, its that old good classic that every young boy/girl interested in fantasy read. Not the best, but decent fantasy piece.
According to your logic, I can judge you just from your posts, why to bother to get you know personally.
____________
Result matters
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
According to your logic, I can judge you just from your posts, why to bother to get you know personally.
You can judge whether I'd meet your standards and whether it would be worth the time to actually know me personally, because you have not unlimited time.
That's actually what everyone is doing all the time. Or are you dating someone who isn't actually to your liking from what you know so far, have sex, marry, and get children to have a real foundation for your judgement that you actually doesn't want to do all that in the first place?
I already said that I don't find LotR bad on a number of levels, but it's not the Holy Grail of fantasy either - and you say the same, so I don't see your problem. The difference is that I read Howard's Conan when I was 12 or so, and compared to the gripping in-your-face style of Howard, Tolkien just lacks PACE. Moreover I've read fairy-tales up and down as a child, so Tolkien wasn't my first experience with Fantasy either.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 02:04 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker
You are right about that standard thing - but to use same example: Would you "rate" a girl in front of anybody, who knows her well, if you just had a short chat with her while your discussion partner lives with her for letīs say year? Your opinion probably wonīt be sufficient from his view. I donīt have a problem with your point about Tolkienīs work, I myself read fairy tales from my 5-6 year (mostly German, Czech and Russian), Conan and Witcher around the same age as you (I read purely fantasy for like 10 years). Still I find Tolkien as my first epic fantasy novel - it somewhat differed from other pieces I have read (although Sapkowski is in my opinion better writer - maybe it was Tolkienīs complex world that changed "fairy-tales" I have read until then into fantasy). If your post would be like "Tolkien doesnīt meet my standards", Iīm absolutely cool with it. It just makes my wonder why to rate book you havenīt finished.
____________
Result matters
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
Well, that's actually and exactly what I said in my first or second post in this thread - it doesn't meet my standards in SOME departments (not all). I never said it's "bad", on the contrary.
I might add that I work professionally with books for 2 dozen years - and I have even written one (that has been published as well) which is, as it happens, fantasy.
Now, one of the most difficult things in writing is timing and tempo. As Doomforge said, EVERYONE can invent a world, that's a work of labor. Writing an epic story about it that is capturing, is something else. You have to immerse the reader into all this depth you spent a lot of time developing and working on which means that you have a lot of details to tell the reader - which is one of the difficulties of EPIC: epic means, there will be lots of terms that need explanation, and you have to deliver exactly the right mix between introducing new things and delivering explanations, and you have to deliver the explanations the right way, so that it's not boring.
Just as an example, if you went to great length to forge a history for your epic fantasy world it would be unwise to start your novel with a history lesson...
It means also, that you have to be quite disciplined about the amount of details you tell at which opportunity.
But I digress; this ain't a literature lesson.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
