Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
and Martin Freeman–c’mon, how can you ignore such A+ casting? ^_^
grill very big cockroaches.
Eh, why hunt down the cockroaches when you can have your fill of cicadas? 🙂
Hmmm… so they’ve got another throwaway token female character. Zippitydoodah.
You notice, also, that they have Legolas in it.
Movie fan pandering.
Come on. You can’t make those judgments until you’ve seen the two movies. You have no idea what their roles will be.
Another thing: yes, you can look at it from the perspective of yeah they just put her in because otherwise people would grumble that there aren’t any female characters–and maybe you’re right that that was the primary reason for the inclusion of her role. And yes, you can look at Legolas’ inclusion as “movie fan pandering.” In my opinion, you are missing out by looking at things through this perspective. If you want to make a critical analysis of a book-to-film adaptation, you have to look at things from a storytelling perspective–and I think that from a storytelling perspective, the devices you are criticizing make more sense than you credit them with.
First off: they are trying to adapt a good book into a good movie. To adapt a story successfully from one medium to another, you really have to reinvent a lot of the storytelling mechanics. Obviously, you have to be careful to capture the essence of the original narrative–but if you try a straight text-to-screen adaptation, you surely will not capture it. The directors and writers of The Hobbit movies decided to do this by expanding the narrative and adding some more non-action sequences (in the first movie, the scene with Galadriel and Saruman). In my opinion, this balances the yay swashbuckling adventures with their more serious context (which may have been Tolkien’s intent–see my next point).
Also, another thing to keep in mind is that he’s not trying to just adapt The Hobbit, which is really just about Bilbo’s adventures, he’s trying to incorporate the larger context that is hinted at in the piece “The Quest of Erebor”–the implications the quest held for the rest of Middle Earth. As far as the first movie goes, any the non-book content was exclusively dedicated to developing this. Dunno how the next one will turn out, but I am quite willing to accept the extra characters and seemingly un-Bilbo related action in light of the good job they did with the first one.
Also, stam, as far as book adaptations go, this is the closest I’ve ever seen to a close-to-the-book adaptation that was still a good (fantastic, really) film.
So basically, what I’m saying is while your complaints may have validity,
(a) They are irrelevant if the extra elements make it a better movie, and
(b) This may be more in line with Tolkien’s ideas regarding The Hobbit than a sticking-to-the-book adaptation would be.
I agree with the overall sentiment expressed in the article, but I have to protest what she says here: “This is not about feminism. We are not looking to replace men.” It irks me when people express ideas that are identical to what self-professed feminists espouse, but insist on misrepresenting them. Doesn’t make any sort of sense.
To on the ball: “spelt” is a grain, not the past tense of “spell”. But I did not cringe.
It’s actually both.
I try to be objective in my comparison of books and movies made from books, so as not to end up prejudiced against a movie merely because its source book was so good. That being said, I liked the original trilogy of movies enough, but still felt that they didn’t really translate very well from the books–which was inevitable with a series like The Lord of the Rings, but still. I think The Hobbit movie series is doing much better in this regard, if only because the source material is more manageable.
I was also a little skeptical when I heard about the decision to make three Hobbit movies, but once I saw how well they did the first, I was okay with it. You should definitely see it, by the way. It is great. ^_^
Oh and as for the trailer, I mention it agav your first comment about The Hobbit on this thread. Go watch it to find out. ^_^
writersoul: Have you seen the new Hobbit trailer? How about that, eh? ^_^
Part of it was because they shoved in superfluous characters to make feminists happy.
No, that wasn’t it. They were trying to incorporate as many “The Wrath of Khan” elements as they could, and the extra characters came with that. But it just came off as a bunch of hodgepodge elements thrown together, with none of them very fleshed out. Or even making any sense (the magical tribble?). Not to mention, The Wrath of Khan’s already been done.
I don’t think anyone’s going to seriously rate movies based on this, but even the concept is weird.[…]…you find all kinds of people expecting that if your favorite movie doesn’t pass the test, just dump your Blu-rays in the bin!
The concept being female characters universally not being developed beyond their association with other characters? Definitely weird. And like I said, the point is not to rate the media in question, or label it as “no good” and throw it out. I’ve seen it pointed out that almost all of Pixar’s movies don’t pass the Bechdel test, and I don’t think anyone would say they are no good because of that. I certainly don’t. Because that isn’t the point.
I wouldn’t use the Bechdel test to rate movies. It’s really more of a gimmick used to raise awareness.
And the Bechdel test is almost irrelevant when it comes to STID–the problem really come from their outstandingly bad character development (I have heard the word “caricatures” used) across the board.
to the extent that they had to shove Galadriel into the movie in order to prevent people from complaining about discrimination or something.
and sometimes you just wish they didn’t…(looking at you, Star Trek Into Darkness)
You can always go with Neil Gaiman’s children’s books–Coraline, The Graveyard Book. Those are fantastic at any age. ^_^
InterWorld is also good. Also, M is for Magic, but I haven’t read it yet. Apparently, it’s a child-friendly selection of short stories culled from his existing short story anthologies.
The Schwartz family sold Reuven’s organs on the black market and made lots of money with which to support Rivky and her chosson.
The End.
Sooooo what’s the problem with giving him gifts in the yichud room? Am I missing something here?
writersoul: Thanks for the vote of confidence. 🙂 But until he decides to address the points I made in my second post on this thread, which is what he is seemingly reacting to, there isn’t much more for me to say.
nahhhh, you’re good. ^_^
🙂 I saw it and I just had to share it.
“Picking five favorite books is like picking the five body parts you’d most like not to lose.”
–Neil Gaiman
shmeeq: Can you explain why you think women buying gifts for their husbands is contributing to marital troubles?
WIY:
(1) (a) How are you verifying that it is “factual”? How are you verifying what the Internet says about Gerrer marriages is “factual”?
(1) (b) I am not looking for information. That is not why I am asking you these questions.
(1) (c) You are going off the topic with the college culture issues. I was trying to address your comment HERE.
(2) Go read the comment you are trying to address (found HERE) and then try to address it.
WIY:
(1) The Internet is not a credible source for how relationships work in the real world, Jewish or non-Jewish. Do you believe what the Internet says about Gerrer marriages?
(2) Go read the comment you are trying to address (found HERE) and then try to address it.
WIY:
(1) Okay, I’ll rephrase. Where are you getting your information on how non-Jewish relationships work?
(2) Sheichus teenage boys? All human beings are run on hormones. Males age 97. Females aged 3 months.
(3) What statement of mine are you trying to refute? I do not see how anything you are saying relates to what I have said.
Syag: The funny thing is I think all the arguments from the other side are coming from reflexive bias. And I have zero personal investment in this issue (except perhaps some investment in dispelling stupidity), so what would you attribute my opinion to?
WIY:
(1) Hate to break it to you, but your conception of non-Jewish relationships is not grounded in reality.
(2) Sheichus teenage boys? All human beings are run on hormones. Males age 97. Females aged 3 months.
(3) What statement of mine are you trying to refute? I do not see how anything you are saying relates to what I have said.
Syag: Because both of them are promoting justifications that are not grounded in reality. Boys display sociopathic behavior up until marriage and then become kind, sensitive snowflakes? If you don’t have a boyfriend before marriage your reward (seriously?!) will be this awesome guy who will love you and be devoted to you for all eternity–just by virtue of you being such a good girl? In my (humble and inexperienced) opinion, this is not the type of thinking that fosters healthy marriages.
All that is beside the fact that the actual problems with having a relationship outside of marriage are hirhur, negiah, and etc. Would two well-adjusted thirty year-olds be allowed to have a romantic relationship? What is the point in building spurious and potentially harmful ideas? If a girl has trouble accepting the basic halacha as it is, try to find her other emotional (or dare I say, intellectual) outlets.
Agree with pba. I went on that FrumTeens website the other day, and they had this big list of reasons why girls shouldn’t talk to guys–here were some of the reasons:
7) The guy is 100% talking bad about you to his frineds in one way or another
8)All a guy wants at this age is play-and hell use you for that
9)Every boy is a liar, a pervert, a jerk, and you will eventually find this out
34)YOU CAN NEVER NEVER NEVER TRUST A BOY
40)Think about how mean the guys are-if they call when we’re doing something we stop and talk to themm, but when we call, we’re like the last on their list
I’m not even exactly sure what this sort of stuff is trying to accomplish…
WIY, answer honestly: if your wife insisted that you either let her wear sweatshirts at her discretion, or a full face of make-up every day, which would you pick?
Good, good. 🙂
?
Nope, ha ha. 😛 With you in spirit, though (boy am I ever… :/).
At the college (and even sometimes at the post-college) level, the bulk of the entry-level jobs you are going find are going to be unpaid. If you don’t have a lot of experience/post-secondary schooling, they presume that you will take the job without payment, seeing as you need what to put on your resume. Apart from minimum-wage jobs with little opportunity for advancement and/or no resume value, it’s tough to find good, entry level, paying jobs.
(The most annoying is when they expect applicants for an unpaid internship to have experience in the field–can’t even TELL you how many times I have encountered this. I don’t get it at all. :/)
Mazel tov to notasheep on the birth of a baby girl! ^_^ ^_^
I don’t see how saying “I disagree” has any negative connotation. Obviously, if you intent is to offend or antagonize, then that will come through, regardless of how you state it. But just saying you don’t agree in a respectful manner seems perfectly reasonable.