You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
fireproof78 wrote:At the risk of sounding argumentative (on the Internet, no less) but, even despite editing attempts, I don't really feel it is a love triangle, at least in the common movie sense. I think Legolas is interested in Tauriel but won't because of Thtranduil. I think Tauriel likes Legolas, but is snubbed by Thranduil and his attitude. Kili is more infatuated because she is novel and exotic, not any real romantic attachment.
Not sure if anyone knows this, but part of Tauriel's back story is that she is an orphan and Kili's story of his promise to his mother would provide a sense of compassion in helping him keep that promise.
However, I will grant that the editing of the movie seems to be trying to create a love triangle. I just don't think it really is in the sense of the world.
Ok, that was longer than I meant it to be...
Yeah, I'll totally agree it's not a proper love triangle - I just used that term for the sake of simplicity.
The backstory is interesting, where is that from? I was under the impression that Tauriel was created for the movie, am I right?
She was by Boyens to add more feminine presence to the fill. She is supposed to be a little more of the darker side of the Elves, being more hasty and less patient, as well as being a foil against Thranduil's isolationist ways. Legolas really isn't a proper foil because he is too close to his dad and reflects his attitude.
The editing is trying to create a love triangle and Lily is pissed about it. It isn't apocryphal but I can't remember where the video is describing her reaction. However, it isn't a proper triangle, as you said, because the characters don't quite fit it all together. Kili seems to reflect far more of "puppy love" or a crush than a full on romance and Tauriel doesn't seem interested in reciprocating. Legolas and Tauriel are on ice because of Thranduil.
From a story point of view, she isn't necessary, but then neither is Thranduil's isolationism or Legolas' battle. I like their subplot by virtue of the fact that it adds color to the world, as well as the fact that when the Battle of Five Armies comes (the actual event, regardless of movie title) I want to have some investment in the different sides that will all be coming together. It may sound odd, but I liken Thranduil and company to Theoden and Rohan. They are not main characters, but still end up as major players in the story. I would like to know more about them.
The scary part to me (and the worst part) is that he might be able to recover, somehow...well, it wouldn't surprise me if he did.
I finally got round to seeing this and I can't decide whether I enjoyed it more than the last one. Maybe it is a case of lowered expectations or something, I dunno - need to think about it a bit.
Overall I found it rather 'meh', which is disappointing because I really wanted to love these movies. I thought the whole love-triangle situation was out of place and bordering on insulting and the film in general was a bit all over the place. It's like PJ was like, 'Rightyo, I've conquered multiple endings. Let's try it with subplots!'.
I do agree with pretty much everyone else though, Smaug and Bilbo was a great scene.
At the risk of sounding argumentative (on the Internet, no less) but, even despite editing attempts, I don't really feel it is a love triangle, at least in the common movie sense. I think Legolas is interested in Tauriel but won't because of Thtranduil. I think Tauriel likes Legolas, but is snubbed by Thranduil and his attitude. Kili is more infatuated because she is novel and exotic, not any real romantic attachment.
Not sure if anyone knows this, but part of Tauriel's back story is that she is an orphan and Kili's story of his promise to his mother would provide a sense of compassion in helping him keep that promise.
However, I will grant that the editing of the movie seems to be trying to create a love triangle. I just don't think it really is in the sense of the world.
Ok, that was longer than I meant it to be...
It's cool to hear your experiences. Like Dorkman said, correlation does not equal causation. I just saw a pattern and thought I'd ask what everyone thought. I am curious though, did anyone here grow up in an atheist home and is still an atheist today? In other words, any non-converted atheists?
Check out Jimmy's post.
Yeah, not much point over-analyzing a dumb joke, Fireproof. Seriously
No, you're the crazy one!
And Roman soldiers spoke Latin Z instead of a Spanish Z....
oh forget it
I don't think a Z in Latin is the same as a Z in English
I liked Caviezel's performance, though.
Plus, you know, Aramaic
I went to Catholic school where I wore a uniform, had to pray and sing hymns - but religious schools are pretty much the only option round these parts and in my experience it wasn't particularly 'strict'. Did that have an effect on me becoming an atheist? Totally, but only because its how I learnt all about the church and its teachings. But I wouldn't necessarily say I had any bad experiences related to my time at school, if anything it was mostly positive - I just saw the whole religious part of it to be a bit of a waste of time.
Eddie, you say Buddhism isn't a religion whereas I have always just assumed it was. My knowledge of Buddhism pretty much is 'That one that seems chilled out and doesn't cause any trouble', so I wouldn't mind learning a bit more about it.
Agreed. Been many years since my World Religions class and my paper "Comparing Tao and The Force from Star Wars."
I still have my notes though, and will be happy to share with the class
I may not agree with your sentiment, but I admire your honesty, both Eddie's and Dorkman.
I have been going back and forth in this thread and certainly have been challenged in my thinking. So, in that vein, it has been very enlightening. While I didn't expect it, it is interesting, especially after having to read psychology papers and articles for so long. Having go back and do some research in theology has been a change.
I recall a quote from Penn (or Teller, sorry it's been a while) that discussed a similar notion to what Eddie is talking about. The idea that believing in the God of the Bible is essentially and absolution of personal responsibility. That, I am not responsible for my choices or actions, that is the evil inside of me and that I need outside help to get past it.
Speaking from a purely psychological point of view, this can be offensive. It flies in the face of the current humanistic thought, that humanity is able to, if freed from common restraints, will excel. For those of you unfamiliar with humanistic psych, a quick example is Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, with the end being self-actualization.
It is very human to have to work for anything and to get something for something makes us uncomfortable. Believe me, working in retail and sampling this can be a fight. People want free stuff, but look at you cross-eyed when you actually give it to them.
It comes down to your view of humanity. The view that man is fallen, or evil, is not a new one, nor is it new to Christianity. The idea that man will be bent towards evil is even in psychological thought, especially Freud, but it is not popular now. People would like to think of themselves as good people who do good things. But, it is hard to escape the evil of man at times.
In my view, and others, the idea that believing in Christ absolves a person of their personal responsibility in this life, in the current moment, or in our decisions is not a biblical line of thought. God is freeing us to have the capacity to do good, and become better. That doesn't change my ability to choose or be free moral agents. It is a relationship and partnership, as true as any human friendship and more empowering for me to do good and to love in a deeper capacity.
I have discuss the more historical and textual issues relating to the Bible, because I really wanted to avoid the personal road. But, Eddie inspired me, a little, to be honest and to relate how personal the Bible and Jesus Christ are to me.
I understand why people disagree, but there is so much more to it than the common conceptions of organized Christianity. There is so much depth there that I would not understand but want to understand. Beyond that, it gets even more personal. But, it is much deeper than going to church, tithing, and praying.
Thanks for listening
avatar wrote:Only a matter of time before Apostles versus Zombies gets greenlit.
Well duh. THAT one I'd watch.
I'll just leave this here, you know, because:
Also voted.
And this is how they suck you in, since you have to go back every day to vote for your film...
Well, "Blink" is one of the best episodes, in my opinion, so I can't fault that. Also, gives the viewer a wonderful fear of statutes for days afterwards.
I think I see your point Vapes, and Smith might also be the exception (there are still hints of the Bad Wolf arc throughout Eccelston's run) but I am saying for the overall run of Who continuity has not been the priority. The only consistent themes are Regeneration, Daleks, and now The Time War.
I might have to try viewing it Teague's way now, though
fireproof78 wrote:How is Stormdancer? It sounds really interesting and I might have to pick it up, as part of my resolution to read more.
Interesting, reads well. I'm not very far in yet, but it definitely kept my attention from the chapters I've read. It seems to be setting itself up as a hero's journey amid an empire in uncertain times.
Sounds good to me.
I'm in. Got a mic, audacity and I will make the time.
Do graphic novels count? Cuz I'm currently reading "The Long Halloween", which as it turns out is much of the basis for The Dark Knight. Lots of very familiar scenes and imagery.
Along with that, I'm doing an unusual thing for me and sort of jumping back and forth between four novels as the mood strikes/when I have time, which is rare. I'm the furthest along in Gaiman's "American Gods" (which is just begging to have that HBO series made), "Catching Fire" (because I can read and think about JLaw at the same time) and my random book find of the month is "Stormdancer", by one Jay Kristoff. I noticed it for the front cover, bought it because of the back.
Several months ago I also randomly picked up "Leviathan Wakes", which is quite interesting as space operas go (it's kinda Alien/2010/Total Recall) and came with a recommendation from George R.R. Martin.I hope to finish them all soon, they're all really good so far, but omg life.
How is Stormdancer? It sounds really interesting and I might have to pick it up, as part of my resolution to read more.
fireproof78 wrote:Quick edit: I looked up the books on Amazon and did the whole "Look inside" bit. One piece of concept art is of a Y Wing pilot thinking, "Die, you gravy sucking kong." Man, why were lines like that cut?
It's a concept picture showing a pilot playing a handheld game (Donkey Kong)
Oh, I get that. I just thought the line worked
I haven't had the chance to read the making of for Empire or Jedi but I need too. The Star Wars one is one of my favorite books about film making and the process, so I can imagine that the others are great too. Just no retailer seems to have them nearby
Quick edit: I looked up the books on Amazon and did the whole "Look inside" bit. One piece of concept art is of a Y Wing pilot thinking, "Die, you gravy sucking kong." Man, why were lines like that cut?
I didn't really think about it but in 95 this would have been pretty mindblowing I guess.
Recently I've seen Dennis Miller in both Murder at 1600 and The Net, and he's been the most sane, calm person in both movies. I'm not sure if he was on too much drugs, or not enough.
(I don't know if Dennis Miller has ever taken drugs, he always just struck me as that nervous, twitchy character...)
If you listen to his radio show he is actually very chill about things, but this now and I'm not sure about his earlier life.
Wow. Nice work!
Thanks!
Ask a dozen regular Christian churchgoers their understanding of Satan, demons, Hell, and judgment, and you'll likely get a dozen different answers, most of which come from pop culture. There's no explanation for Satan or demons in the Bible, but they're all over the place in the New Testament.
There is some, but it is primarily in the Apocrypha, the book of Job, Ezekiel and Isaiah. In addition, there are also the Talmud and the Mishna and rabbinic tradition which give further insight in to Jewish understanding and that progression.
Modern understanding is, sadly, limited to pop culture.
Also, I really need to visit that synagogue someday
Edit: Of course, by pop culture, I naturally mean Milton's "Paradise Lost"
Xtroid wrote:Umm...
Jack Paglen is gonna feel the 'Prometheus Trap' now that his agent has signed him up to write the sequel and he has to somehow salvage something coherent from that mess. I'd rather watch the movie about how he attempts to write the sequel than the sequel itself.
The Journey to Prometheus or how I learned to stop thinking and start to love Ridley Scott: A writer's tale, the complete and unedited edition.
Battle of Five Armies would be a good title, though.
I believe it was the original when leaked but that, apparently, was changed. At least, that is what it was called on theonering.net forums.
Part of the reason is because of the titular battle is really the climax of the movie, and Thorin's arc. So, it really does fit better than the other one.
Just fyi, the third movie in the series is subtitled There and Back Again, not Battle of Five Armies.
Sorry, a hold over from discussing on another forum. Corrected
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by fireproof78
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.