Pink Fat Rast Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Quote Why? Why should that comfort me? You then went on to say, "though no better", implying that normally not being the woman is better The thing you need to understand is - he used to be prettey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 8 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said: The thing you need to understand is - he used to be prettey. What in the seven hells are you babbling on about? I've already told you twice, I'm not familiar with the reference. Whatever, I think we're done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 I bet you named your sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 10 hours ago, Orphalesion said: Anyway my point was that the LoTR doesn't have a traditional beginning/climax/ending structure, instead it patterns itself after Sagas. They might not be all Elven Villages, but the early part of the story can be seen as a succession of supernatural episodes. Which are excellently written but many of which hold so little impact on the story that the adaption was able to cut them out without altering the plot structure. It does have a beginning middle and end structure - the trilogy, as well as the first book. Thing is, WHILE they're crossing those exotic areas, some of which by themselves have little to do with Sauron, central characters arcs are happening, and the main plot is always brought up and discussed. The concept that it's a "journey" that takes one through lots of fantastical locations, and that some of those, again, aren't connected to the plot, is obviously part of the appeal both of the books and the movie - it creates the impression of a rich world full of history and mysteries, all of which present challenges to the protagonists that they need to overcome, or give them directions on their quest. To say this is styled after "Sagas" rather than "traditional storytelling" (note: I've actually no clue what used to pass for traditional storytelling half a century ago when they were written, so yeah) - heroes on a journey encountering lots of various magic and monsters and settlements or whatnot is a common thing in fantasy fiction, there's nothing unusual about it and it doesn't prevent the overall thing from having a "structure". All the GoT travelogues do the same, obviously differently but the pattern is still recognizeable. Several battles and the trip to...(was it Umbar? I'm currently re-reading and only at the breaking of the Fellowship) That happen offscreen. What's an Umbar haha The orcs' assault on the Fellowship takes place (mostly?) off-screen, but that's because Frodo and Sam are the protagonists, and Aragorn has PoV too I think, and it's done for dramatic effect because it shows them talk to the witnesses/participants and trying to reconstruct what happened. No, I don't think we should have seen every battle of the War of the Ring, but I will say that I enjoyed RoTK most of all the books and wish that TTT would have been more like it. Okay... weren't there just the 3 battles from the movies though, Helm's, Pellenor and then Barad-Dur? There were some off-screen battles in Lorien or something, but those were secondary to the plot and in the Appendices I believe. Anyway, back to the "structure" thing: Gildor and his merry band, That was after the first few encounters with the Black Riders - Gildor gave them the first glimpse of what they were, and upped the tension and intrigue by basically saying "if I tell you what they are, you'll freeze in fear and run back home - is it not enough to know that they're servants of the Enemy, and that you should fear them?" This is before they encounter Aragorn who starts revealing more - and finally Gandalf who then spills most of the beans. In other words, a proper mystery arc... structure. Not a random gratuitous encounter of some "merry band". Tom Bombadil, Old Men Willow and Goldberry, The Grave Weights, Yes, the aggro tree, Bombadil and the Barrow-Wights all comprised the "opening side adventure" in the Old Forest - which had nothing to do with the main plot, and nothing significant to the character arcs etc. happened there. It's the only lengthy "disposable" episode, which is why it got cut from the movie. Glorfindel..remember them? Glorfindel was a supporting character who aided the group against the Riders - he was replaced by Arwen in the movie, which wouldn't have mattered much in the book because she almost doesn't do anything in the books. Again, you're a protagonist on a quest and then a mysterious helper or "agent of good" appears to help you out - this is all classic fantasy trope stuff and very much fits into "structure". The first part of the story has a lot of them. In some ways Lothlorien No, Lorien was a place they staid in - as I said, a breather between two dangerous episodes: Moria, the turning point, and the river stuff, the "finale" - and it had a guide character, i.e. Galadriel, give the protagonist advice and direction which is gonna pay off in said "finale". and Galadriel (who is one of the more complex and interesting characters imgho) Sure k, but she also functions as a character in the "protagonist narrative" - in the same way Gandalf is "interesting", but he's not just some interesting dude but clearly the main mentor who dies in the turning point climax. and Fangorn could be seen as long, supernatural episodes, featuring the Ents Fangorn's a bit problematic, because the beginning of TTT sets up Pyp&Merry being taken to Saruman and Aragorn.etc chasing them - but then the plot just veers off without much pay-off, with the former staying in Fangorn and the latter group going to Rohan. However, Fangorn does ultimately build to the defeat of Saruman (while the other crew beats his invasion army), so you can't say it's disconnected from the main plot Lothlorien did have impact for the rest of the story, but the movie completely ruined the whole thing and it's continued importance for the different members of the Fellowship. WATCH THE EXTENDED DVD If anything, the movie improved the structure by giving Lorien a different, darker feel and increasing the emphasis on the whole "Frodo has to continue alone" angle - and the theatrical version still works for the protag, so there's that. Also not strictly supernatural, but Faramir also showed out of nowhere (even Tolkien said so) and I will say that while also saying that Faramir is one of my favorite characters in the whole thing. At the end of the day, Faramir is just another "sanctuary" - those separate the different segments of the journey, and give the whole thing a more obvious shape and pacing. Faramir's main function here - in the book - is to warn Frodo about Gollum and the place they're heading; his douche treatment of Gollum is also a turning point in Gollum's arc. I'm not sure what role him reporting to the Gandalf team played and whether it was necessary to the "structure", but whatever. So Faramir's far from useless either ______________________ Not the boring horse people maybe, I know that it is personal preference, but nothing could make Rohan interesting to me. I thought the whole Grima intrigue and those dialogue scenes were pretty exciting - however it might've dulled down afterwards, if you insist. Also not that I am not saying the characters are bad, just that a lot of the fellowship, like, say Legaolas, don't offer that much that would make them interesting and that the more complex characters are fewer, but that the writing style makes up for a lot of the flaws. As I said, there's a flaw in the way Rohan gets introduced in the first place - however, now that it's been established that LOTR isn't merely going to be a quest journey, but also about epic kingdoms fighting off the villains' invasion efforts, it again has a place in the narrative: the war against Saruman, which is then surpassed by Gondor's war against Mordor. It also separates Merry from Pippin, making both of them prove themselves in their respective areas and then reunite as changed men. Having that said, there's something to be discussed there about how the Rohan and Gondor plots feel like duplicate clones of each other, and maybe should've been replaced by 1 human kingdom instead uniting with elves and dwarves and whatnot, as set up in Elrond's Council earlier - but, you know, it's kinda neat and there's some counterpoints and build-up there so it works just fine, in books and movies alike. Like with Star Wars, where the cinematography and world building elevates the plot above what it is. The main appeal of SW was the narrative enhanced by the style, not specifically "cinematography" and "worldbuilding" - but that's neither here nor there. 1) I was writing about my Opinion. Personally I wouldn't have liked those movies even if they had not been connected to the books. They are simply not my taste. I am free to not like a particularly set of movies, am I not? I also don't like Fight Club Fight Club's AWEEESOOOOOOME or the Godfather. Godfather on the other hand, went to sleep after 15 minutes never got the hype LOLOLOLO 2) That's why the story was heavily altered imho, it needed to be in order to fit into the Hollywood formula. Not much was changed in terms of overall structure, which is about as "Hollywood" in the books as it is in the movies - characters were altered, such as Aragorn and Gandalf having more self-doubts and whatnot, but that's something else entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 13 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said: I bet you named your sword. Ah, your setting it right up on the tee for me. Alas, I neither wish to stoop down to that level, nor receive a suspension. ...So I suppose you'll have to guess what I call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Darkstream said: Alas, I neither wish to stoop down to that level, nor receive a suspension. Why, what's the problem with what I said? Lots of people name their swords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 51 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said: Why, what's the problem with what I said? Lots of people name their swords. Nothing at all, that's not what I meant to imply. Not that the intent or implication of your comment is lost on me, but no worries, I'm a big enough boy to handle it. It would be my response that might be construed as inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Darkstream said: It would be my response that might be construed as inappropriate. YOU'RE A BIG GUY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 For you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said: For you. Oh good, er... bad. Another poster joins in. I always thought three was the perfect number. I guess even a filthy begger troll like that has got a protecting angel. It seems this conversation has run its course, and gotten pretty ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 25 minutes ago, Darkstream said: begger Did you mean "beggar" or the Scottish pronunciation of bigger? Cause that's spelled "beggaer" fyi, so still wronglol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said: Did you mean "beggar" or the Scottish pronunciation of bigger? Cause that's spelled "beggaer" fyi, so still wronglol Really, the best you can do is to stoop down to criticizing typos? Sad, I thought you were more cunning than that. Oh, and I wasn't going to say anything, but well...It's spelled pretty, not prettey. Lol. ...Or are you seriously asking, and it's you that is missing the reference this time? Anyway, I'm done feeding you. It's quite clear you are intent on dragging this nonsense on indefinitely. It was jejunely amusing for a moment, put that has far past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Sad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Darkstream said: Oh good, er... bad. Another poster joins in. I always thought three was the perfect number. I guess even a filthy begger troll like that has got a protecting angel. It seems this conversation has run its course, and gotten pretty ugly. It was supposed to be a reference to The Dark Knight Rises, where the CIA agent (who by the way is played by Aidan Gilles) asks Bane what would happen if he took his mask off. CIA: "If I pull that off, will you die?" Bane: "It would be extremely painful." CIA: "You're a big guy." Bane: "For you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstream Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 48 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said: It was supposed to be a reference to The Dark Knight Rises, where the CIA agent (who by the way is played by Aidan Gilles) asks Bane what would happen if he took his mask off. CIA: "If I pull that off, will you die?" Bane: "It would be extremely painful." CIA: "You're a big guy." Bane: "For you." I see, another reference lost on me. I hope you didn't take my post as a slight directed at you. I could never begrudge someone with a handle and avatar such as yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Fat Rast Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Angel Eyes said: It was supposed to be a reference to The Dark Knight Rises, where the CIA agent Just CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Exiled Septa Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 The sand snakes......how did they manage to completely destroy the Martells it's beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowcrow Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 the show runners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowcrow Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 On February 7, 2017 at 2:34 AM, A Ghost of Someone said: Sansa, Arya and Bran are my 3 fav book characters and Sansa on this show has become to painful to watch. Same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowcrow Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 On March 5, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Darkstream said: As always, you take the same, non applicable, blind defense of the show by taking legitimate complaints about how the show is being adapted, and attribute it to book purist being upset about any changes to the source material. When in fact, every single person I have seen with these complaints, fully acknowledge the need for certain changes. The issue that most of us have with the changes in the show has nothing to do with it not being a carbon copy of the books. The changes that d$d decide to make are illogical, assanine, and have nothing to do with medium limitations. GOT is a butchery and mockery of ASOIAF, disrespecting the brilliant source material in favor of low brow spectacle and fan service. THIS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.