What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

Jackwraith wrote: But I think some of the problems with Tolkien's work, specifically (it's kind of laborious in its language and is the very definition of "stock fantasy" (elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)) may be burdening the LotR films in later years.

I just lol'ed. I'm pretty sure the book came a few years before D&D.

Snowpiercer wasn't bad at all. Very enjoyable.

mtagge wrote:

Jackwraith wrote: But I think some of the problems with Tolkien's work, specifically (it's kind of laborious in its language and is the very definition of "stock fantasy" (elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)) may be burdening the LotR films in later years.

I just lol'ed. I'm pretty sure the book came a few years before D&D.

Um... yes? The book was released in the mid-50s. What's your point? That people somehow haven't processed that typical trio of races as "stock fantasy", both because it's the most well-known modern work of fantasy and D&D drew from it extensively?

Avengement was exactly what I wanted it to be: a brutal showcase of Raid action on the cheap. It lacked that movie's virtuosity but made you feel every hit in the same way. It even tried harder than it had to with some non-linear storytelling that gave the final fight some more heft as the mooks had a little more character than they otherwise would have had.

I absolutely loved The Lego Movie, so it feels a little weird that I only just got around to watching The Second Part this week. Turns out there was no need to rush. It was still definitely worth watching, but I feel like a lot of its best stuff lost its punch as it felt like echoes from the first film. Rex and his raptor crew were pretty great, but their themes felt muddled and disconnected from the family conflict. Loved the visualization of Tiffany Haddish's queen and her opening song.

Jackwraith wrote:

mtagge wrote:

Jackwraith wrote: But I think some of the problems with Tolkien's work, specifically (it's kind of laborious in its language and is the very definition of "stock fantasy" (elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)) may be burdening the LotR films in later years.

I just lol'ed. I'm pretty sure the book came a few years before D&D.

Um... yes? The book was released in the mid-50s. What's your point? That people somehow haven't processed that typical trio of races as "stock fantasy", both because it's the most well-known modern work of fantasy and D&D drew from it extensively?

Unfair to criticize it for “stock fantasy” when it’s the reason that is stock fantasy. But, these are still probably the best fantasy put to the screen

Space Ghost wrote:

Jackwraith wrote:

mtagge wrote:

Jackwraith wrote: But I think some of the problems with Tolkien's work, specifically (it's kind of laborious in its language and is the very definition of "stock fantasy" (elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.)) may be burdening the LotR films in later years.

I just lol'ed. I'm pretty sure the book came a few years before D&D.

Um... yes? The book was released in the mid-50s. What's your point? That people somehow haven't processed that typical trio of races as "stock fantasy", both because it's the most well-known modern work of fantasy and D&D drew from it extensively?

Unfair to criticize it for “stock fantasy” when it’s the reason that is stock fantasy. But, these are still probably the best fantasy put to the screen

Yep, Tolkien is the original. But I agree with the idea upthread that nobody talks about Lord of the Rings anymore because the Hobbit movies sucked so badly that they tainted our memories of the Lord of the Rings movies. Beyond that, each of the Lord of the Rings movies were a little too long, especially The Return of the King. The Two Towers is the worst of the three movies, in part, because The Two Towers is the worst of the three books. The big battle scene in The Two Towers was good, but the half hour leading up to it is dead air, and the last wave of attacks from the warg riders felt like it was tacked on in post-production when it should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Space Ghost wrote: Unfair to criticize it for “stock fantasy” when it’s the reason that is stock fantasy. But, these are still probably the best fantasy put to the screen

Yeah, except, that doesn't change the fact that to a lot of the fantasy audience, those films are still a setting that's routine. How many times do you see MB criticize some game that's set in the "same old" setting of typical D&D? We used to go around and around about this regarding FFG's Terrinoth/Runebound stuff. He and a lot of other people criticized it because it was "generic fantasy." Just because LotR is the progenitor of that style doesn't mean that it will be wildly popular with people who may be worn out on it. That's the point I was making about Pulp Fiction. It's still a groundbreaking film, but it was aped so often through the 90s that it doesn't feel that groundbreaking to a lot of new viewers; familiarity breeds contempt and all that. A few years back, a friend of mine told me his 10-year-old daughter sat down to watch Gone with the Wind. About halfway through it, she turned around to him and said: "This movie sure does use a lot of clichés!"

This is completely aside from the fact that the first film, Fellowship, is excellent at creating the atmosphere and providing the kind of "classic fantasy" feel. The other two are... OK at that. It always felt to me like Fellowship had the time and space to lets its story breathe and then Jackson and Co. packed a bit too much into the subsequent two. That's why Return of the King feels like it has five endings and they didn't even include the "scouring of the Shire" stuff (thankfully.)

Tolkien's work is classic stuff and the films are good, too. That doesn't mean that either are without flaws, some of which are heightened by the "routine" nature of the story within the genre. (And some of that comes from him basing a lot of it on Catholicism.)

Jackwraith wrote:

Space Ghost wrote: Unfair to criticize it for “stock fantasy” when it’s the reason that is stock fantasy. But, these are still probably the best fantasy put to the screen

Yeah, except, that doesn't change the fact that to a lot of the fantasy audience, those films are still a setting that's routine. How many times do you see MB criticize some game that's set in the "same old" setting of typical D&D? We used to go around and around about this regarding FFG's Terrinoth/Runebound stuff. He and a lot of other people criticized it because it was "generic fantasy." Just because LotR is the progenitor of that style doesn't mean that it will be wildly popular with people who may be worn out on it. That's the point I was making about Pulp Fiction. It's still a groundbreaking film, but it was aped so often through the 90s that it doesn't feel that groundbreaking to a lot of new viewers; familiarity breeds contempt and all that. A few years back, a friend of mine told me his 10-year-old daughter sat down to watch Gone with the Wind. About halfway through it, she turned around to him and said: "This movie sure does use a lot of clichés!"

This is completely aside from the fact that the first film, Fellowship, is excellent at creating the atmosphere and providing the kind of "classic fantasy" feel. The other two are... OK at that. It always felt to me like Fellowship had the time and space to lets its story breathe and then Jackson and Co. packed a bit too much into the subsequent two. That's why Return of the King feels like it has five endings and they didn't even include the "scouring of the Shire" stuff (thankfully.)

Tolkien's work is classic stuff and the films are good, too. That doesn't mean that either are without flaws, some of which are heightened by the "routine" nature of the story within the genre. (And some of that comes from him basing a lot of it on Catholicism.)

I don't think it's reasonable to judge an original work by subsequent, derivative works. It would have been an atrocity to heavily re-work Lord of the Rings for the big screen just to avoid the usual fantasy tropes. I recently saw someone online ask Nick Cave on Facebook if he could go back and re-do some of his songs to avoid any lyrics that might trigger sensitive people. His response was kind, "I would rather be remembered for writing something that was...offensive, than to be forgotten for writing something bloodless." If younger viewers are unable to enjoy Lord of the Rings because the setting seems overly familiar, that is an inescapable side effect of ignorance and not a reason to make major changes.

That said, I agree that Fellowship was the best of the movies, especially your idea that it had breathing room to tell its story. My only complaint about Fellowship was it dragged out the ending with Boromir on a ridiculous killing spree. And maybe there were a couple too many scenes of Frodo weeping. I also am with you 100% on the notion that Return of the King felt like it had five endings and we were mercifully spared the scouring of the Shire.

Shellhead wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to judge an original work by subsequent, derivative works.

OK. Good. Because I'm not doing that. That's why I responded to mgtagge's original response with some confusion. I'm not arguing the case that LotR is bad because it's been copied too much. I responded to Joebot's original complaint that the movies were being overlooked/dismissed with a supposition: the movies "may be" suffering because of two things 1) They're seen as routine. 2) Like Tolkien's occasionally turgid prose, they've kinda emotionally overwrought, in parts. Your example of too many scenes of Frodo and/or Sam weeping is a perfect one.

That was part of my point in mentioning the lesser appreciation for Pulp Fiction. I still think it's one of the greatest films of the modern era. It TRANSFORMED the industry; screenwriting, production, technique. But I can understand why more recent viewers aren't as blown away by it because it's already embedded in modern film culture. Similarly, LotR is the hallmark for fantasy. This is part of why Game of Thrones was so hailed because it didn't shy away from the kind of political machinations and "real" societal effects that Tolkien only hinted at (the reluctance of Rohan to come to Gondor's aid, etc.) It felt real and modern. In comparison, LotR occasionally feels... dated. That doesn't mean either books or films aren't good. It just might explain what Joebot was complaining about.

Jackwraith wrote:

Shellhead wrote: I don't think it's reasonable to judge an original work by subsequent, derivative works.

OK. Good. Because I'm not doing that. That's why I responded to mgtagge's original response with some confusion. I'm not arguing the case that LotR is bad because it's been copied too much. I responded to Joebot's original complaint that the movies were being overlooked/dismissed with a supposition: the movies "may be" suffering because of two things 1) They're seen as routine. 2) Like Tolkien's occasionally turgid prose, they've kinda emotionally overwrought, in parts. Your example of too many scenes of Frodo and/or Sam weeping is a perfect one.

That was part of my point in mentioning the lesser appreciation for Pulp Fiction. I still think it's one of the greatest films of the modern era. It TRANSFORMED the industry; screenwriting, production, technique. But I can understand why more recent viewers aren't as blown away by it because it's already embedded in modern film culture. Similarly, LotR is the hallmark for fantasy. This is part of why Game of Thrones was so hailed because it didn't shy away from the kind of political machinations and "real" societal effects that Tolkien only hinted at (the reluctance of Rohan to come to Gondor's aid, etc.) It felt real and modern. In comparison, LotR occasionally feels... dated. That doesn't mean either books or films aren't good. It just might explain what Joebot was complaining about.

My biggest problem with Tolkien's writing is that he occasionally spends pages on an olde Elvish poem or the literary equivalent of posting a picture of your restaurant meal on social media. And yes, turgid at times.

I have seen Pulp Fiction just twice. I was blown away with the greatness of it when I saw it in the theater back in the '90s without any expectations. Then I watched it a second time just five years ago, and I try to re-watch movies with fresh eyes and not through the gauze of nostalgia. It makes sense that Pulp Fiction might not seem as impressive now because so many subsequent movies were influenced by it. But my actual problem with Pulp Fiction the second time around was that it was all surface and no depth. It was a series of scenes that performed the basic storytelling function of showing What Happens Next, but the movie wasn't about anything except a series of events and a certain striking style to the way they were shown. The characters have little depth, and there are no real themes or ideas explored beyond some stuff happened. Showing the various stories in non-chronological order was slightly novel, but doesn't really elevate the movie. To be fair, I reached this conclusion about depth first about a derivative movie called Go! and then realized later that Pulp Fiction had the same shortcoming.

Ha! Yes. The poems and songs do get a bit tiresome. The Silmarillion is even worse for that.

You're right that Pulp Fiction is basically a series of loosely-associated vignettes about crime. The overarching story CAN be seen as about Jules' transition out of this weird (but undeniably exciting) world. But in that case, you'd have seen more of Jules and less of Travolta. One was Actor; the other was Supporting Actor. So, yeah, there isn't any really coherent narrative, but it still told a story, which is what's normally first among equals in my estimation of a film.

Go! is also a really good example of a film that tried to do the same thing but with a screenwriter (John August) who really lacked Tarantino's panache or sense of mission.

Jackwraith wrote: (it's kind of laborious in its language and is the very definition of "stock fantasy"

Whoa whoa whoa -- you're all gonna let THIS part of the drive-by shooting go uninvestigated?

Like it or not Tolkien's works set the standard that everyone else is measured by. He's the benchmark. His use of the English language is unmatched in the genre.

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were sheer drudgery, largely because they couldn't draw on the heart of the work, Tolkien's prose. The Harry Potter movies similarly suffered, and I haven't finished watching either series because of it. I don't think even 15% of Rowling's sense of humor translated into the films.

“I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien wrote like a historian, not a storyteller. And his historical approach made him an outstanding worldbuilder. But there are better fantasy writers. Roger Zelazny wrote with incredible economy, often saying more in a sentence than Tolkien could say in a page. Fritz Leiber grew up watching his parents perform Shakespeare's plays, and the experience shaped his writing with a particular flair for drama. Michael Moorcock had an uncanny knack for fictional names and let his imagination run considerably wilder than most fantasy writers have dared. But I consider Jack Vance to be the ultimate fantasy writer's writer. His flowery yet wry prose took already imaginative stories to another level, easily transporting readers into wonder.

I love LotR, both book and film. I have a copy of The Silmarillion here in the house somewhere. Awesome stuff. But as a prose stylist, Tolkien couldn't carry Gene Wolfe's jock.

And I'll grant you that I don't get out to the movies much anymore, but there haven't been any Fantasy movies or series yet that have even come close to the film LotR. Game of Thrones, might have been in the same neighborhood if it had stuck the landing.

ETA: We could probably have a discussion about how the MCU has sucked all of the Fantasy air out of the room in Hollywood. And that Hollywood would spend $400M on the Thundercats, but not for N.K. Jemisin's Broken Earth series. And that would be an awesome series.

Sorry for the confusion earlier Jackwraith. The film trilogy is still a masterpiece to me. I get emotional when Gandalf confronts the Balrog everytime. I'm one of those guys who never read the books precisely because of the "laborious" language. Tried reading the Hobbit and gave up after he talked about giant bees or such for a full page.

Of course to circle back to gaming, my initial foray into our world was with the early Games Workshop stuff. I think those of us who had the original Hero Quest (MB) boardgame can remember the Balrog was the uber boss. He literally is the reason we have the stock fantasy we now have.