King Kong

[Volourn]

"Look at how much more popular Batman has become."

 

You joking right? Just wait when the new Superman movie comes out. We'll see which one is more popular.

 

 

also note: Read page 1.

 

 

"Tokein almost single-handedly recreated high fantasy."

 

No, he didn't. What he did do was make high fantasy more acceptable to the main stream; but he didn't recreate it.

 

 

"Any "movie buff" who puts Mean Girls abot LotR in terms of quality knowns nothing about film."

 

Wrong. Mean Girls is just as good LotR. In fact, it's more intelligently crafted, and there are much less obvious weak points. At least it doesn't have frivilous and charcters like the retarded dwraf or how Gandalf was poorly protrayed in LOTR:FOTR.

 

Mean Girls may be 'just' about high school girls being mean; but its crafted sophistictaed, and the material is handled intelligently and acted believably. The same, while I like the LOTR, can't be said the same.

 

Any 'movie buff' who thinks LOTR is better quality than Mean Girls knows nothing about film.

[metadigital]

... 

[H]igh fantasy is much like spaghetti westerns in how black and white characters are.  They are meant to be one-dimensional to allow the reader/viewer to easily slip into supporting one side or the other.

 

I prefer flawed characters with depth personally, but one sided characters often have better mass appeal.

 

Look at how many people love Superman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like Joe

[Azarkon]

Moreso that it was a masterpiece of world building. Linguistic proficiency? Certainly. But plenty of poets and writers possessed greater skills than Tolkien in his time and in ours, and critics have lambasted Tolkien for exactly that reason - that his narrative and language use at times were less than stellar. But that's not the reason Tolkien was loved.

 

When I think LoTR, none of the characters stand out, because all of them do, not as characters, but as types. It is less accurate to say that LoTR was about Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas than that it was about a King, a Dwarf, and an Elf. LoTR mirrored the type of characterization we find in legends, myths, and fairy tales, and by this I do not mean later, post-Freudian adaptations or even Shakespearian interpretations, but the tales at their source, filled with people who are not psychologically complex, who stand more as symbols and emblems than real individuals.

 

It is no secret that Tolkien set out to write a legend, a story of origins. It's no secret that he modeled his work after classics such as Beowulf. Beowulf did not have great characterization by today's standards, but few do not know of Beowulf, just as few do not know of Gandalf. They are types, and while some lambast the use of types, many of the greatest classics you study in English literature deal with types.

 

Deep, complex characterization is not a prerequisite to great literature, fictional or not. Great literature comes in many forms. Some are loved for their characterizations. Others are loved for their styles. *Many* are loved simply because of their literary innovations, or else you'd never see works like Pale Fire on the classics list. The truth of the matter is, LoTR is a work of great literature by virtue of its influence - and yes, that is a necessary gauge in this line of work, despite the opinions of certain academics. Because when it comes down to it, an art form is defined by its masters, and to say that Tolkien is not a master is to ignore the existence of a entire genre of writing - namely, anything to do with high fantasy - and while some would prefer that the genre never existed, it is nevertheless the duty of responsible scholars to study what is, rather than only what they'd like to see.

[metadigital]

Moreso that it was a masterpiece of world building.  Linguistic proficiency? Certainly.  But plenty of poets and writers possessed greater skills than Tolkien in his time and in ours, and critics have lambasted Tolkien for exactly that reason - that his narrative and language use at times were less than stellar.  But that's not the reason Tolkien was loved.

 

When I think LoTR, none of the characters stand out, because all of them do, not as characters, but as types.  It is less accurate to say that LoTR was about Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas than that it was about a King, a Dwarf, and an Elf.  LoTR mirrored the type of characterization we find in legends, myths, and fairy tales, and by this I do not mean later, post-Freudian adaptations or even Shakespearian interpretations, but the tales at their source, filled with people who are not psychologically complex, who stand more as symbols and emblems than real individuals.

 

It is no secret that Tolkien set out to write a legend, a story of origins.  It's no secret that he modeled his work after classics such as Beowulf.  Beowulf did not have great characterization by today's standards, but few do not know of Beowulf, just as few do not know of Gandalf.  They are types, and while some lambast the use of types, many of the greatest classics you study in English literature deal with types.

 

Deep, complex characterization is not a prerequisite to great literature, fictional or not.  Great literature comes in many forms.  Some are loved for their characterizations.  Others are loved for their styles.  *Many* are loved simply because of their literary innovations, or else you'd never see works like Pale Fire on the classics list.  The truth of the matter is, LoTR is a work of great literature by virtue of its influence - and yes, that is a necessary gauge in this line of work, despite the opinions of certain academics.  Because when it comes down to it, an art form is defined by its masters, and to say that Tolkien is not a master is to ignore the existence of a entire genre of writing - namely, anything to do with high fantasy - and while some would prefer that the genre never existed, it is nevertheless the duty of responsible scholars to study what is, rather than only what they'd like to see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting, and some good points there.

 

I don't agree that an archetype needs to be one-dimenisional to be true, however. Certainly, for more complex characterisations, different aspects of a character can be expressed in different scenarios, with different characters and situations to add contrast to the description.

 

Actually, thinking a little more about it, Gandalf had some depth to his character; he was regarded differently by different groups within the world (even though he was still basically a force for good); he was quite a chaotic character, too: the end justifies the means.

[Blarghagh]

Thats cos his films are mostly centered around bantering, no visual direction needed for that.

 

So are Quentin Tarantino's(well, except for Kill Bill, but those sucked) and look at the innovative direction in his movies.

 

And the point being? Well, that

[Calax]

gah too many evil fan people must hide under rock

[Darth Flatus]

Thats cos his films are mostly centered around bantering, no visual direction needed for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So are Quentin Tarantino's(well, except for Kill Bill, but those sucked) and look at the innovative direction in his movies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes but QT's movies are also known for brutally violent and action packed set pieces. To make those kinds of scenes believable he has to have at least some cinematographical skill. The type of banter is also differtent to that of a smith film.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Is anyone else surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet?

[Musopticon?]

Probably not. Just look at all the ot-wankery and flaming going off all around the forums. This one's a minor.

[EnderAndrew]

Last time I checked, this was the Way Off Topic area, where it is allowed to be off topic, unless you are off topic.

[Blarghagh]

Look at how many people love Superman.

Look at how much more popular Batman has become.

 

Batman himself is not quite popular. The movie Batman: Begins is quite possibly the first thing that actually really cared about Batman and where he came from. The Batman comics are mostly popular for the villains. Also, Batman is pretty black and white as well. He is only an anti-hero in appearance.

[Darth Flatus]

This is true. The "flawed" character has become a little hackneyed IMO. It is not always necessary for a protagonist to have a shady side. Superman is an ideal to which one aspires - like some modern day jesus type character. This archetype has its place in cinema if for nothing else than as a brief respite from all the "gritty" themes. While the actuall comics themselves are currently lame (blame the writers) Superman is an iconic hero and i would be willing to wager he is the first thing that pops into people's heads when they hear the words super hero.

[EnderAndrew]

This is the first thing that pops into my mind.

 

[Darth Flatus]

Liar!

 

The caption that goes with that is:

 

Justice League: The Wilderness Years

[Musopticon?]

Mullett Man, Batviking and Ugly Wenches to the rescue?

[alanschu]

This is the first thing that pops into my mind.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I worry for you Ender!

[EnderAndrew]

It's the Canadian Justice League!

 

I love how Bat(wo)man(?) is suddenly a Viking.

[alanschu]

I certainly feel safer :D

[Nartwak]

Batman himself is not quite popular. The movie Batman: Begins is quite possibly the first thing that actually really cared about Batman and where he came from.

[EnderAndrew]

::Ender casts Topic Ressurect I::

[Musopticon?]

::thread shambles back up::

 

Yeeessss masstteeerrr?

[EnderAndrew]

Is this the best year for big-action CGI flicks or what?

 

Seriously.

[Kor Qel Droma]

Is this the best year for big-action CGI flicks or what?

 

Seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just don't count the Fantastic Four in that group. I just got home and that entire movie screams "RENTER!!!". I thought the Hulk started off slow but this flick takes the cake...

[EnderAndrew]

I have no intention to see the Fantastic Four. I'll pop in my Incredibles DVD instead.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's the Canadian Justice League!

 

I love how Bat(wo)man(?) is suddenly a Viking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's like one of those Elseworlds (DC's version of Marvel's "What If?", which shows alternate situations and characters, like a medieval Batman or a commie Superman), and Batman just gone up and became a Viking.