What would be next (movie)- opening conversation

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » What would be next (movie)- opening conversation

What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210455]

Sa, 28 Januar 2006 18:57

JiKoo

After Long years I saw trilogy of films under the title "Lord of the
Rings". Despite of surprisingly vast critics I liked these films.

Next I'm going to watch the opening story of Narnia "Witch & Lion".

Harry Potter; I do not care a lot, maybe I was too hasty reading the book ?

Question is: what movie you are expecting to see either based on boo you
liked or for other reasons ?

Here's my waiting list nro 1: Stories based on Ursula K. LeGuin's
"EarthSea"

Jyk

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210456 ]

Sa, 28 Januar 2006 21:13

donnellaf

JiKoo wrote:

[snip]
> Harry Potter; I do not care a lot, maybe I was too hasty reading the book ?

This is a series which, in my opinion, has gotten significantly better
with each new book. If you have only read the first one, I would
suggest sticking it out through a couple more before giving up. There
are problems I have with the series as a whole, but the brilliant parts
outweigh those and make the series worthwhile.

> Question is: what movie you are expecting to see either based on boo you
> liked or for other reasons ?
>
> Here's my waiting list nro 1: Stories based on Ursula K. LeGuin's
> "EarthSea"

There is already a SciFi miniseries based on Earthsea, although I
thought it was astonishingly bad and betrayed the feeling and majesty of
the books. So I would not recommend it, but I thought I should point it
out in case you were unaware.

What am I looking forward to:

--The Last Unicorn, based on Peter S. Beagle's book. This is one of the
most beautiful books I've read, and the Rankin-Bass movie of 1982 was
almost as beautiful. Now there is word of a live-action movie that is
in production. I don't know what the anticipated release date is.

--Ender's Game, based on Orson Scott Card's book. There is word that a
movie is being developed, directed by Wolfgang Peterson, with the author
giving input into the screenplay. This sounds like it is still in the
earliest stages of development, and will not appear for at least a
couple years.

Andy

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210459 ]

Sa, 28 Januar 2006 21:43

fishneck

http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/earthsea/

"Andrew F. Donnell" <donnellaf [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k8GdnT_C9_HnTUbenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> JiKoo wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Harry Potter; I do not care a lot, maybe I was too hasty reading the book
>> ?
>
> This is a series which, in my opinion, has gotten significantly better
> with each new book. If you have only read the first one, I would suggest
> sticking it out through a couple more before giving up. There are
> problems I have with the series as a whole, but the brilliant parts
> outweigh those and make the series worthwhile.
>
>> Question is: what movie you are expecting to see either based on boo you
>> liked or for other reasons ?
>>
>> Here's my waiting list nro 1: Stories based on Ursula K. LeGuin's
>> "EarthSea"
>
> There is already a SciFi miniseries based on Earthsea, although I thought
> it was astonishingly bad and betrayed the feeling and majesty of the
> books. So I would not recommend it, but I thought I should point it out
> in case you were unaware.
>
> What am I looking forward to:
>
> --The Last Unicorn, based on Peter S. Beagle's book. This is one of the
> most beautiful books I've read, and the Rankin-Bass movie of 1982 was
> almost as beautiful. Now there is word of a live-action movie that is in
> production. I don't know what the anticipated release date is.
>
> --Ender's Game, based on Orson Scott Card's book. There is word that a
> movie is being developed, directed by Wolfgang Peterson, with the author
> giving input into the screenplay. This sounds like it is still in the
> earliest stages of development, and will not appear for at least a couple
> years.
>
>
> Andy

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210462 ]

Sa, 28 Januar 2006 23:13

Yuk Tang

"Andrew F. Donnell" <donnellaf [at] gmail.com> wrote in
news:k8GdnT_C9_HnTUbenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d [at] comcast.com:
>
> What am I looking forward to:
>
> --The Last Unicorn, based on Peter S. Beagle's book. This is one
> of the most beautiful books I've read, and the Rankin-Bass movie
> of 1982 was almost as beautiful. Now there is word of a
> live-action movie that is in production. I don't know what the
> anticipated release date is.

Dunno if you already know the details, but

http://utd500.utdallas.edu/~hairston/lastunicorn.html

NEWS FALL 2001--A NEW LAST UNICORN FILM
I just found out that there is a new live action production of The
Last Unicorn in the works! They have an official website up at
http:www.the-last-unicorn.net/index.htm and according to it, the film
will be a live action movie using a computer-generated unicorn. Peter
S. Beagle has written the script (and it's on-line there) and they've
signed Christopher Lee and Angela Lansbury to reprise their roles as
King Haggard and Mommy Fortuna. Also Rene Auberjonois has been signed
to reprise his role as the voice of the skeleton and will also play
the role of Captain Cully. The rest of the cast has not been
announced yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, this looks
promising....

--
Cheers, ymt.

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210465 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 00:05

Morgil

Andrew F. Donnell wrote:
> JiKoo wrote:

>> Question is: what movie you are expecting to see either based on boo
>> you liked or for other reasons ?
>>
>> Here's my waiting list nro 1: Stories based on Ursula K. LeGuin's
>> "EarthSea"
>
>
> There is already a SciFi miniseries based on Earthsea, although I
> thought it was astonishingly bad and betrayed the feeling and majesty of
> the books. So I would not recommend it, but I thought I should point it
> out in case you were unaware.

A sobering look on what LotR films would have been like
without the huge visual effects to carry them through...

I think a movie of Burroughs' Mars-stories is on the making.
That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210466 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 07:03

Flame of the West

Morgil wrote:

> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)

Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
That kind of says it all.

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210467 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 08:10

Morgil

Flame of the West wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>
>
> Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
> your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
> That kind of says it all.

So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
LotR could be a great work of literature art,
just because it is so popular and entertaining.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210468 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 08:22

Yuk Tang

Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:drhpol$6sq$1
[at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Flame of the West wrote:
>> Morgil wrote:
>>
>>> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>> your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>> That kind of says it all.
>
> So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
> You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
> LotR could be a great work of literature art,
> just because it is so popular and entertaining.

And the straw man is down for the count!!!

--
Cheers, ymt.

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210472 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 11:04

Morgil

Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:drhpol$6sq$1
> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>Flame of the West wrote:
>>
>>>Morgil wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>>>absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>>>
>>>Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>>>your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>>>That kind of says it all.
>>
>>So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
>>You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
>>LotR could be a great work of literature art,
>>just because it is so popular and entertaining.
>
>
> And the straw man is down for the count!!!

I think Flame's comment is more of a red herring type.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210473 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 11:10

Jim Harker

JiKoo wrote:
> After Long years I saw trilogy of films under the title "Lord of the
> Rings". Despite of surprisingly vast critics I liked these films.
>
> Next I'm going to watch the opening story of Narnia "Witch & Lion".
>
> Harry Potter; I do not care a lot, maybe I was too hasty reading the book ?
>
> Question is: what movie you are expecting to see either based on boo you
> liked or for other reasons ?
>
> Here's my waiting list nro 1: Stories based on Ursula K. LeGuin's
> "EarthSea"
>
> Jyk

Fred Saberhagen, Empire of the East

Jim

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210475 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 11:38

Taemon

Jim Harker wrote:

> JiKoo wrote:
>> Here's my waiting list nro 1: Stories based on Ursula K. LeGuin's
>> "EarthSea"
> Fred Saberhagen, Empire of the East

Philip Pullman, "His Dark Materials". Oh, yes.

T.

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210479 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 19:25

donnellaf

Yuk Tang wrote:

> "Andrew F. Donnell" <donnellaf [at] gmail.com> wrote in
> news:k8GdnT_C9_HnTUbenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d [at] comcast.com:
>
>>What am I looking forward to:
>>
>>--The Last Unicorn, based on Peter S. Beagle's book. This is one
>>of the most beautiful books I've read, and the Rankin-Bass movie
>>of 1982 was almost as beautiful. Now there is word of a
>>live-action movie that is in production. I don't know what the
>>anticipated release date is.
>
>
> Dunno if you already know the details, but
>
> http://utd500.utdallas.edu/~hairston/lastunicorn.html
>
> NEWS FALL 2001--A NEW LAST UNICORN FILM
> I just found out that there is a new live action production of The
> Last Unicorn in the works! They have an official website up at
> http:www.the-last-unicorn.net/index.htm and according to it, the film
> will be a live action movie using a computer-generated unicorn. Peter
> S. Beagle has written the script (and it's on-line there) and they've
> signed Christopher Lee and Angela Lansbury to reprise their roles as
> King Haggard and Mommy Fortuna. Also Rene Auberjonois has been signed
> to reprise his role as the voice of the skeleton and will also play
> the role of Captain Cully. The rest of the cast has not been
> announced yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, this looks
> promising....

Indeed! Christopher Lee and Angela Lansbury did such a good job in the
animated one, I am glad they will be in this one too. Apparently Mia
Farrow, who was the Unicorn in the first movie, will be Molly Grue in
this one.

Side note: Peter Beagle also wrote the screenplay for the Bakshi Lord of
the Rings (as many people certainly already know).

Andy

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #210480 ]

So, 29 Januar 2006 19:26

donnellaf

fishneck wrote:

> http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/earthsea/

Miyazakis keep popping up in this newsgroup.... This looks interesting,
I shall be sure to keep my eyes open for it!

Thanks,
Andy

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215305 ]

Mo, 30 Januar 2006 16:10

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:
>
> I think a movie of Burroughs' Mars-stories is on the making.
> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)

How could you possibly go wrong? You can indulge in all the cheesy effects
you want, you've got carte blanche to go way over the top, and you don't
need any scientific accuracy. Burroughs is made for Hollywood.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215306 ]

Mo, 30 Januar 2006 16:13

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> Flame of the West wrote:
>> Morgil wrote:
>>
>>> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>> your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>> That kind of says it all.
>
> So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!

Not at all. LOTR (the films) were extremely popular - and better cinematic
art than Star Wars.

> You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
> LotR could be a great work of literature art,
> just because it is so popular and entertaining.

You're the one who hates the fact that LOTR was popular and entertaining.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215318 ]

Mo, 30 Januar 2006 17:40

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Flame of the West wrote:

>>>Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>>>your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>>>That kind of says it all.
>>
>>So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
>
>
> Not at all. LOTR (the films) were extremely popular - and better cinematic
> art than Star Wars.

So your idea of cinematic art is LotR? *That* really does say it all.

>>You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
>>LotR could be a great work of literature art,
>>just because it is so popular and entertaining.
>
>
> You're the one who hates the fact that LOTR was popular and entertaining.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. I think I've made it clear
that I have high appreciation both to Star Wars and LotR the book,
despite the fact that they are extremely popular and entertaining.
So why would that bother me with LotR the movie?? Try again.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215319 ]

Mo, 30 Januar 2006 17:50

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>>I think a movie of Burroughs' Mars-stories is on the making.
>>That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>
>
> How could you possibly go wrong? You can indulge in all the cheesy effects
> you want, you've got carte blanche to go way over the top, and you don't
> need any scientific accuracy. Burroughs is made for Hollywood.

Problem is the contents. Mars books are basically about
an American who ends up in strange far away lands, where
he takes up a task of demonstrating the local population
how wrong their ancient customs and religious beliefs are,
and does this either by friendly persuation, or if need be,
by overwhealming military force. <g>

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215323 ]

Di, 31 Januar 2006 14:17

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Morgil wrote:
>>
>>>I think a movie of Burroughs' Mars-stories is on the making.
>>>That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>>absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>>
>>
>> How could you possibly go wrong? You can indulge in all the cheesy
>> effects you want, you've got carte blanche to go way over the top, and
>> you don't
>> need any scientific accuracy. Burroughs is made for Hollywood.
>
> Problem is the contents. Mars books are basically about
> an American who ends up in strange far away lands, where
> he takes up a task of demonstrating the local population
> how wrong their ancient customs and religious beliefs are,
> and does this either by friendly persuation, or if need be,
> by overwhealming military force. <g>

It still sounds like it'll work for Hollywood :-)
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215324 ]

Di, 31 Januar 2006 14:16

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Morgil wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Flame of the West wrote:
>
>>>>Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>>>>your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>>>>That kind of says it all.
>>>
>>>So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
>>
>> Not at all. LOTR (the films) were extremely popular - and better
>> cinematic art than Star Wars.
>
> So your idea of cinematic art is LotR? *That* really does say it all.

Heavens, no. I merely said it was better than any of the Star Wars movies.
It's your straw man. Nobody but you said "nothing popular can be art".

>>>You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
>>>LotR could be a great work of literature art,
>>>just because it is so popular and entertaining.
>>
>>
>> You're the one who hates the fact that LOTR was popular and entertaining.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense at all. I think I've made it clear
> that I have high appreciation both to Star Wars and LotR the book,
> despite the fact that they are extremely popular and entertaining.
> So why would that bother me with LotR the movie?? Try again.

Still your straw man. You've made it quite clear that you hate LOTR
_because_ of what you consider PJ going for "popular and entertaining"
rather than accuracy. Neither I nor Flame argued against popular &
entertaining art.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215325 ]

Di, 31 Januar 2006 16:04

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>Morgil wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Flame of the West wrote:
>>
>>>>>Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>>>>>your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>>>>>That kind of says it all.
>>>>
>>>>So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
>>>
>>>Not at all. LOTR (the films) were extremely popular - and better
>>>cinematic art than Star Wars.
>>
>>So your idea of cinematic art is LotR? *That* really does say it all.
>
>
> Heavens, no. I merely said it was better than any of the Star Wars movies.

No, you said "better cinematic art". Star Wars is well
established cinematic art, unless you take the Elitist
standpoint that nothing popular and entertaining can be art.

> It's your straw man. Nobody but you said "nothing popular can be art".

No, it was Flame who asserted that the idea of Star Wars
being considered true cinematic art is absurd. This is
a typical Elitist viewpoint and it is always based on
the idea that True Art can't be popular with the Masses.

>>>>You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
>>>>LotR could be a great work of literature art,
>>>>just because it is so popular and entertaining.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're the one who hates the fact that LOTR was popular and entertaining.
>>
>>That makes absolutely no sense at all. I think I've made it clear
>>that I have high appreciation both to Star Wars and LotR the book,
>>despite the fact that they are extremely popular and entertaining.
>>So why would that bother me with LotR the movie?? Try again.
>
>
> Still your straw man. You've made it quite clear that you hate LOTR
> _because_ of what you consider PJ going for "popular and entertaining"
> rather than accuracy.

Strawman alert. You have very weird ideas of why I don't
like LotR, and clearly not based on anything I said.

Neither I nor Flame argued against popular &
> entertaining art.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215328 ]

Di, 31 Januar 2006 16:48

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>
>>>So your idea of cinematic art is LotR? *That* really does say it all.
>>
>>
>> Heavens, no. I merely said it was better than any of the Star Wars
>> movies.
>
> No, you said "better cinematic art". Star Wars is well
> established cinematic art, unless you take the Elitist
> standpoint that nothing popular and entertaining can be art.

BS. I take the standpoint that LOTR is better. You're making up my
position. I loved the old Star Wars movies, but they weren't any better
"cinematic art" than LOTR, and I reject anybody else's right to define
"art" for me.

>> It's your straw man. Nobody but you said "nothing popular can be art".
>
> No, it was Flame who asserted that the idea of Star Wars
> being considered true cinematic art is absurd.

He asserted that "_your_ idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars" is absurd.
It's still art, but hardly the pinnacle. Disagreeing with your, or even
art critics', opinions about what makes great art doesn't mean "nothing
popular can be art" - those are your words.

> This is
> a typical Elitist viewpoint and it is always based on
> the idea that True Art can't be popular with the Masses.

You're still begging the question. Your conclusion is entirely dependent on
your assumption, which is not to be found in his or my posts.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215337 ]

Mi, 01 Februar 2006 08:55

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
> BS. I take the standpoint that LOTR is better. You're making up my
> position.<snip>

You call my argument "BS", and yet you can see on below how
you are *defending* the exact same argument made by FotW, only
because you both like the LotR better. So much for objectivity.
So much for honesty...

>>No, it was Flame who asserted that the idea of Star Wars
>>being considered true cinematic art is absurd.
>
>
> He asserted that "_your_ idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars" is absurd.

If these things bother you, may I suggest that in the future you
don't get involved in Flame of the West's red herring trollings.

Have a nice day.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215340 ]

Mi, 01 Februar 2006 10:25

Flame of the West

Morgil wrote:

>>> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
>> your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
>> That kind of says it all.
>
> So nothing popular can be art?

Popularity has nothing to do with it - both
Star Wars and the LotR movies were commercial
successes. The point is that Star Wars is
childish and vacuous compared to LotR. It is
illogical to condemn the shortcomings of the
LotR movies while ignoring the more serious
ones in SW.

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215341 ]

Mi, 01 Februar 2006 10:36

Morgil

Flame of the West wrote:

> Popularity has nothing to do with it - both
> Star Wars and the LotR movies were commercial
> successes. The point is that Star Wars is
> childish and vacuous compared to LotR. It is
> illogical to condemn the shortcomings of the
> LotR movies while ignoring the more serious
> ones in SW.

If LotR is so great, why can't you defend it without
resorting to pointless red-herring arguments?

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215371 ]

Do, 02 Februar 2006 02:10

donnellaf

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>>I think a movie of Burroughs' Mars-stories is on the making.
>>That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>>absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
>
>
> How could you possibly go wrong? You can indulge in all the cheesy effects
> you want, you've got carte blanche to go way over the top, and you don't
> need any scientific accuracy. Burroughs is made for Hollywood.

Look at how well Tarzan has done in Hollywood. I haven't read any of
the Mars books, but I understand that they are very similar, just switch
Mars for jungle, and you can crank out another Hollywood franchise.

Andy

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215377 ]

Mi, 01 Februar 2006 21:47

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Morgil wrote:
>>
>>
>> BS. I take the standpoint that LOTR is better. You're making up my
>> position.<snip>
>
> You call my argument "BS", and yet you can see on below how
> you are *defending* the exact same argument made by FotW, only
> because you both like the LotR better. So much for objectivity.
> So much for honesty...

What's objectivity got to do with it? You're never going to convince me
that your opinions on either Star Wars or LOTR are objective. Art
appreciation _can't_ be objective. I'm absolutely defending Flame's
argument. I simply reject any claim by you that that is because either of
us believe that popular, or populist, work can't be art. So you're partly
right - so much for objectivity. My opinion is, however, honest.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215393 ]

Fr, 03 Februar 2006 00:14

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>Morgil wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>BS. I take the standpoint that LOTR is better. You're making up my
>>>position.<snip>
>>
>>You call my argument "BS", and yet you can see on below how
>>you are *defending* the exact same argument made by FotW, only
>>because you both like the LotR better. So much for objectivity.
>>So much for honesty...
>
>
> What's objectivity got to do with it? You're never going to convince me
> that your opinions on either Star Wars or LOTR are objective. Art
> appreciation _can't_ be objective. I'm absolutely defending Flame's
> argument. I simply reject any claim by you that that is because either of
> us believe that popular, or populist, work can't be art. So you're partly
> right - so much for objectivity. My opinion is, however, honest.

I was not talking about your opinions about the movies.
I was talking about how you condemn my argument but at
the same time give free pass to Flame for doing the
exact same thing, just because one of us likes LotR
and the other one doesn't.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215403 ]

Fr, 03 Februar 2006 14:34

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> I was not talking about your opinions about the movies.
> I was talking about how you condemn my argument but at
> the same time give free pass to Flame for doing the
> exact same thing, just because one of us likes LotR
> and the other one doesn't.

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I condemn your argument because it consisted of a
statement that we couldn't accept popular art as art. Which is clearly
wrong, at least in my case, because I _do_ consider the LOTR movie to be
art. I give Flame a "free pass" because I agreed with him, naturally.
There's nothing dishonest about that.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215405 ]

Fr, 03 Februar 2006 15:56

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>I was not talking about your opinions about the movies.
>>I was talking about how you condemn my argument but at
>>the same time give free pass to Flame for doing the
>>exact same thing, just because one of us likes LotR
>>and the other one doesn't.
>
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I condemn your argument because it consisted of a
> statement that we couldn't accept popular art as art.

You were protesting against my assertion that LotR was
your idea of cinematic art (which you now agree with).
"You're making up my position" were your own exact words.
Now explain why do you think that does not apply to Flame's
assertion "your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars"?

Which is clearly
> wrong, at least in my case, because I _do_ consider the LOTR movie to be
> art.

Then why did you reply "Heavens, no", when I asked if LotR
was your idea of cinematic art?? Are you confused about
your opinions or something? If you had replied "You got me,
it is" right away, we would have had no argument at all.

I give Flame a "free pass" because I agreed with him, naturally.
> There's nothing dishonest about that.

I know you did, and it is very dishonest to hold people on
different standards depending wheter or not you agree with
their opnions. That's a serious problem with the world today.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215407 ]

Fr, 03 Februar 2006 16:21

Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

> Then why did you reply "Heavens, no", when I asked if LotR
> was your idea of cinematic art?? Are you confused about
> your opinions or something? If you had replied "You got me,
> it is" right away, we would have had no argument at all.

It's not "my idea of cinematic art". At least, it appears by that you &
Flame mean "ideal". There is certainly _better_ art about. Star Wars
isn't.
>
> I give Flame a "free pass" because I agreed with him, naturally.
>> There's nothing dishonest about that.
>
> I know you did, and it is very dishonest to hold people on
> different standards depending wheter or not you agree with
> their opnions.

I'm not holding you to any different standard. I'm requiring you to accept
that people can dislike Star Wars as _art_ (or Andy Warhol for that
matter), without being accused of considering anything popular to be not
art.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215410 ]

Fr, 03 Februar 2006 18:39

Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>
>>Then why did you reply "Heavens, no", when I asked if LotR
>>was your idea of cinematic art?? Are you confused about
>>your opinions or something? If you had replied "You got me,
>>it is" right away, we would have had no argument at all.
>
>
> It's not "my idea of cinematic art". At least, it appears by that you &
> Flame mean "ideal". There is certainly _better_ art about.

That still does not explain why you would say that such
argument from Flame was okay, but from me it was "BS"?

Star Wars
> isn't.

Why are you so obsessed in bringing down Star Wars?

>> I give Flame a "free pass" because I agreed with him, naturally.
>>
>>>There's nothing dishonest about that.
>>
>>I know you did, and it is very dishonest to hold people on
>>different standards depending wheter or not you agree with
>>their opnions.
>
>
> I'm not holding you to any different standard. I'm requiring you to accept
> that people can dislike Star Wars as _art_ (or Andy Warhol for that
> matter), without being accused of considering anything popular to be not
> art.

This discussion is not about any of that.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215414 ]

Sa, 04 Februar 2006 00:54

Flame of the West

Morgil wrote:

>> I'm requiring you to accept
>> that people can dislike Star Wars as _art_ (or Andy Warhol for that
>> matter), without being accused of considering anything popular to be not
>> art.
>
> This discussion is not about any of that.

You made it about that when you accused me of saying
that "nothing popular can be art". As if the LotR
movies weren't popular!!

-- FotW

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #215416 ]

Sa, 04 Februar 2006 01:43

Morgil

Flame of the West wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>>> I'm requiring you to accept
>>> that people can dislike Star Wars as _art_ (or Andy Warhol for that
>>> matter), without being accused of considering anything popular to be not
>>> art.
>>
>>
>> This discussion is not about any of that.
>
>
> You made it about that when you accused me of saying
> that "nothing popular can be art". As if the LotR
> movies weren't popular!!

Don't be such a decieving hypocrite. I only said that
as a response to your red herring argument that those
who think Star Wars movies are good, have no taste.

Morgil

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #218357 ]

Mo, 06 Februar 2006 18:47

atsarisborn

Tristram Shandy and Brokeback Mountain (loved the story)

-- Tsar Parmathule

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #218363 ]

Mo, 06 Februar 2006 19:48

Derek Broughton

atsarisborn [at] hotmail.com wrote:

> Tristram Shandy and Brokeback Mountain (loved the story)

hmmm. I have this vague recollection that somebody already _made_ Brokeback
Mountain :-)

I read the first few chapters of "Tristram Shandy", on the recommendation of
somebody here, a few months ago. Life's too short to waste on something so
incomprehensible. I take comfort in knowing that it was apparently no less
difficult to read when it was originally written :-)
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #218365 ]

Mo, 06 Februar 2006 21:22

Jette Goldie

"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:88ikb3-dcg.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
> atsarisborn [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Tristram Shandy and Brokeback Mountain (loved the story)
>
> hmmm. I have this vague recollection that somebody already _made_
> Brokeback
> Mountain :-)
>
> I read the first few chapters of "Tristram Shandy", on the recommendation
> of
> somebody here, a few months ago. Life's too short to waste on something
> so
> incomprehensible. I take comfort in knowing that it was apparently no
> less
> difficult to read when it was originally written :-)

They've made a movie of that too.

--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
("reply to" is spamblocked)

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #218382 ]

Di, 07 Februar 2006 02:22

Derek Broughton

Jette Goldie wrote:

>
> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:88ikb3-dcg.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
>> atsarisborn [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Tristram Shandy and Brokeback Mountain (loved the story)
>>
>> hmmm. I have this vague recollection that somebody already _made_
>> Brokeback
>> Mountain :-)
>>
>> I read the first few chapters of "Tristram Shandy", on the recommendation
>> of
>> somebody here, a few months ago. Life's too short to waste on something
>> so
>> incomprehensible. I take comfort in knowing that it was apparently no
>> less
>> difficult to read when it was originally written :-)
>
>
> They've made a movie of that too.

No surprise - it's been around long enough to have been made a few dozen
times.
--
derek

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #218392 ]

Di, 07 Februar 2006 18:13

Jette Goldie

"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:nb9lb3-2pl.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
> Jette Goldie wrote:
>
>>
>> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>> news:88ikb3-dcg.ln1 [at] news.pointerstop.ca...
>>> atsarisborn [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tristram Shandy and Brokeback Mountain (loved the story)
>>>
>>> hmmm. I have this vague recollection that somebody already _made_
>>> Brokeback
>>> Mountain :-)
>>>
>>> I read the first few chapters of "Tristram Shandy", on the
>>> recommendation
>>> of
>>> somebody here, a few months ago. Life's too short to waste on something
>>> so
>>> incomprehensible. I take comfort in knowing that it was apparently no
>>> less
>>> difficult to read when it was originally written :-)
>>
>>
>> They've made a movie of that too.
>
> No surprise - it's been around long enough to have been made a few dozen
> times.

Apparently it was thought to be "unfilmable".

The movie is called "A Cock and Bull Story" and is in the form of a film
within a film.

--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
("reply to" is spamblocked)

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #224532 ]

Mi, 22 Februar 2006 00:16

Brego

> Morgil wrote:
>> That should be interesting, although it has potential to be
>> absolutely disastrous. (yes, even worse then LotR)
> Yeah, yeah, we know, you hate the LotR movies,
> your idea of true cinematic art is Star Wars.
> That kind of says it all.
<So nothing popular can be art? What an elitist!
<You remind me of all the losers who can't accept
<LotR could be a great work of literature art,
<just because it is so popular and entertaining.
<Morgil

I used to be a massive Star Wars Fan, until the release of eps 1 2 & 3.
I found these instalments to be shallow, badly directed, and had
possibly the worst scripts ever written. I feel for the (some)
excellent actors who had to droll through these awful lines. Alec
Guiness would be turning! I wanted these to be as meaningful as eps 4
5 & 6, but alas I think all the glory has gone to someones head. Too
many great opportunities squandered.
Any how it amazes me still regarding the animosity with PJ's films. I
see that the changes and alts hurt Tolkien purists, but unfortunately
they were neccesary to bring these great films to the screen.
There has never been a or ever will be a quality book to script which
follows the original novel to the T. Those who have tried generally
have failed. Check Dune.

Re: What would be next (movie)- opening conversation [message #224538 ]

Mi, 22 Februar 2006 00:35

Derek Broughton

shooper [at] auspinners.com.au wrote:

> I used to be a massive Star Wars Fan, until the release of eps 1 2 & 3.
> I found these instalments to be shallow, badly directed, and had
> possibly the worst scripts ever written. I feel for the (some)
> excellent actors who had to droll through these awful lines. Alec
> Guiness would be turning!

He was never proud of the original...

> Any how it amazes me still regarding the animosity with PJ's films. I
> see that the changes and alts hurt Tolkien purists, but unfortunately
> they were neccesary to bring these great films to the screen.
> There has never been a or ever will be a quality book to script which
> follows the original novel to the T. Those who have tried generally
> have failed. Check Dune.

I beg to differ - check the amazing Sci-Fi channel version of Dune. I'm
waiting for the library to get me the sequel (called Children of Dune, but
based on that & Dune Messiah) now. I'm sure Dune doesn't follow the novel
"to a T", but it's pretty darn good.
--
derek

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	Welcome! FAQs and important information.
Nächstes Thema:	Apology for OTishness

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 00:41:36 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,47787 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.