Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Quetzalcoatl

  1. Quetzalcoatl


    Holy Shit! I've been waiting on this show for years. I had no idea it was already out until I saw this.
  2. Not sure if this is referring to my older posts, but I certainly wasn't suggesting that we take Yoda as gospel. Like I said, the whole point of ROTJ is that Yoda was wrong. That was the whole payoff.
  3. For me, it's classic Loony Tunes. I'm in my 40's, and I'm just as entertained watching Loony Tunes now as I was when I was a kid in primary school. I recently started collecting these on DVD. I haven't watched these in I don't know how long, but I recently came across a 6-volume DVD set in the video section of Barnes & Noble, and it revived my interest. I have three more volumes to go. Each volume is over 6 hrs long. I'm super excited about it, but I probably won't watch these right away. I plan on saving them for a rainy day.
  4. That whole Laurie-Michael showdown at the end just felt like an add-on and out of place in this film.
  5. This one was...different. Not what I was expecting at all. I didn't hate it, but I still prefer H20 as a resolution to Laurie and Michael's story.
  6. Choc, I can see how you might have that impression, but it's a little more complicated than just not liking something. The source matters. I want to illustrate with an example. One of my favourite fantasy authors is Dennis McKiernan. McKiernan actually wrote a sequel to LOTR years ago. It started out as fan fiction, but when he finished it, he was so pleased with it that he tried to get it published. Of course, he was blocked by Tolkien's estate. I've often wondered how I would have felt about it had he been successful in having it published. Dispite my opinion that McKiernan is a great writer, I don't think I would have been too happy about it. I doubt I could have ever viewed it as anything other than glorified fan-fiction, and probably would have never read it. That being said, I still don't think I would have felt the same kind of unease that I feel about this Amazon show. McKiernan, like Jackson, seems to have a deep love and respect for Tolkien's works, and I don't think either were making a product just to get a paycheck. Can anyone honestly say they have the same opinion of Amazon? And Amazon isn't exactly known for it's intellegence, either. So to see it try to take on something that's been revered and regarding as work of genius for decades is of course going to create some concern and misgivings for a lot of fans.
  7. This was the point I was getting at. That name recognition seems to be the only thing that attracted Amazon, to the point where they're willing to compromise everything else, that's all. Okay. I said my peace. I honestly wasn't trying to derail the thread or instigate a heated exchange. I thought mutation was a pretty tame and fair description of the show. Never said mutilation. I'm walking away from this now. Going off to read my books.
  8. Here's something to think about. If Amazon wanted to do a high fantasy show, why not do something original or adapt another book series that was more easily assessible to them? Fantasy is hugh genre, and there are some great stories out there that have been around for decades that would make for great tv series adaptations. Surely Amazon could have more easily gotten the rights to some these and created a more accurate representation of an author's work. So why instead would they go for Tolkien and all of the limitations that force them to produce only some weird mutation of an author's work?
  9. I get that. Amazon has it’s hands tied in a lot of ways. But shouldn’t that have been an indication to them that they shouldn’t have touched it at all? If they knew going into it that they couldn’t do it justice, maybe the decent thing to was to leave it alone.
  10. I wanted a bonafide Tolkien adaptation. If other people can enjoy the show, good for them. Not saying they can't or shouldn't, but I can't stop thinking about what this show could have been: a show that was true to what tolkien wrote, an accurate and faithful adaptation. Peter Jackson was able to pull it off, so why not Amazon? I guess that required more effort and thinking than what Amazon is accustomed to? Admittadly, Jackson made some changes too, but nothing so drastic that it altered Tolkien's legendarium or changed the DNA of Tolkien's world. You get the sense from Jackson's films that those are films that are set in Tolkien's Middle Earth. But, like someone said above, this show sounds more like fan-fiction written by someone who is drunk or high and only has second-hand knowledge of Tolkien's works. I'll pass.
  11. When we were all stuck in our homes during Summer 2020 with no place to go, I read the Silmarillion, LOTR, the hobbit, and some of those stories that were later fleshed out and made into books by Christopher Tolkien putting his father's notes together. Maybe if I hadn't become so knowledgable of all things Tolkien that summer, I might have been able to enjoy this series, but now, no. For some people, Tolkien's legendarium borders on sacred, and having absorbed it all, I get why now. It's not something that can just be retconned without upsetting a lot of people. It's blasphemy I tell you. Blasphemy!!
  12. Wow. Reading these comments, I'm glad I haven't watched the show. I'm a Tolkien purist, and the things I've been reading here are just blasphemy.
  13. I know I'm probably alone in the this, but I always wanted to see a live action adaptation of the Pulp gun-totting Batman. A period piece set in the 1930's.
  14. Keaton's Batman killed a lot of people, not just the Joker. One of my favorite scenes from Batman Returns But the Burton films were more satirical and I don't think were meant to be taken as seriously as the others, and maybe that's why they seem to get a free pass. The killing scenes, like the one above, were mainly there for slapstick comedy. It was always funny when Batman killed someone in the those films.
  15. Clooney couldn’t even be bothered to change his voice when in the suit. Not even a little.
  16. Here’s my personal ranking… 1) Michael Keaton – No one is ever going to top Keaton’s Batman for me. I know that he was a far cry from the character we know from the comics, and Burton took a lot of heat for not respecting the character, but I’ve always liked his take on Batman. Keaton was by far the most intimidating of all the on-screen batmen. I love the whole silent but deadly thing he conveyed. He never said much when in the suit, and that just made him all the more imposing. Bale and Pattenson did a lot of yelling and screaming at people when in the bat suit, and as intimidating as Batman yelling at me would be, it doesn’t come close to that cold, silent stare that Keaton gave his enemies. Keaton’s Batman never lost his composer like we saw Bale and Pattenson do, but he still came across as the most dangerous. While most iterations of Batman has lines that he won't cross, you really get the impression that Keaton’s Batman is capable of anything, and that he’s suppressing something really dark. Also, no one showcased the Batman/Bruce Wayne duality as well as Keaton did. He went back and forth from playing a lunatic in a bat suit to an awkward guy who’s trying to have a normal life and normal relationships, but just doesn’t know how. You can really see the tug-of-war going on in his head. 2) Robert Pattenson – Oswald comes in at number 2 because his version felt closest to the definitive comic book Batman for me. “The Batman” got the character right more than any other film, in my opinion. Unlike the other movie versions, where something always stood out as radically “off” from the character that fans know (like Batman murdering people, for example), I’m having a hard time finding any glaring thing in Pattenson’s Batman that isn’t true to the character. His Batman is also the most grounded. Watching the film, I never once felt like I was watching a superhero movie. Whether that’s a good or bad thing I guess depends on who is doing the viewing, but for me, Batman is one of those characters that works best in a more grounded setting. 3) Ben Affleck – I feel like its hard to properly judge Affleck’s Batman without him having gotten a solo film. He always had to share the screen with other superheroes. We never got to see this Batman in his element. Like Pattenson’s Batman, I want to see him in a more grounded setting, just fighting crime in the back alleys of Gotham, not saving the world from aliens with the Justice League. While I really disliked BvS, I do appreciate that it showed us an aspect of Batman’s character that had so far been absent in previous portrayals. Namely, the paranoid, untrusting Batman who doesn’t like anything or anyone he can’t control. Anyone who’s read comics long enough has seen this side of Batman, and BvS gets points for finally bringing it to a mass audience. 4) Christian Bale – I love the Nolan films, but Christian Bale has become my least favorite cinematic Batman (besides Clooney and Kilmer). It’s funny because, when I walked out of the theater after seeing Batman Begins, I remember thinking “They finally got him right.” But in hindsight, Bale’s Batman is the most un-Batman-like. For me, he came across as the most unmotivated of the Batmen. We all know that, if there is one word to describe Batman, it is obsessive. And depending on who’s writing him, “disturbed” might be an applicable term as well. But Bale’s Batman didn’t come across as obsessive or disturbed, just depressed, and in need of constant encouragement from others. You get the sense that his Batman is just as much of a mask as his Bruce Wayne, as opposed to Batman being the real persona, something that, again, the Burton films really nailed. And for Batman, he also relied too heavily on others. If it weren’t for Alfred’s lessons on how the criminal mind works, or Lucious Fox supplying him with all of his technological gadgets, you would have to wonder how effective he would have been in his vigilantism. Also, I get that he’s a billionaire and has access to all sorts of technology, but he isn’t Iron Man. His suit could do way too much. I’m not going to comment on Val Kilmer or George Clooney because those films were pure cheese and I can’t even take them seriously. Your turn!
  17. Tank, I've found a lot of what you said in this thread about writing to be kind of abstract, mainly I guess because it isn't my thing and doesn't come naturally to me, but I saw the movie Vengence over the weekend, and I was able to identify all of the components in it you talked about here. Some were subtle, some weren't, but they were all there. There was the initial hook, all the first act set-up, the lead character's major malfunction, the call to action, the twist where the big plan falls apart, all of it was there! Having broken it all down, a lot of what you've said here is making more sense to me now. For example, I had a hard time with this... I get this now! I've been thinking of an ending as a character learning some big lesson, but it doesn't have to be. It could just be the hero doing something unexpected that drives home the theme. For example, at the beginning of the movie, someone told BJ Novak's character that he thinks with his brain, but doesn't know how to think with his heart. That's his major malfunction. And then the rest of the film is him wrestling with his gut instincts. That was the theme driving the whole story, gut vs brain. Someone doesn't have to learn some big philosophical lesson in an ending. It could just be a character discovering something new about themselves that reflects the theme, like how to trust your gut, or how to lock on to a target when you turned off your targeting computer. I think I'm getting this!
  18. I think you're still missing my point. I'm not arguing that Yoda wasn't wrong, or that you can't come back from the dark side. I don't disagree with any of the logic behind what you're saying. I'm only saying that every time it happens it mitigates Vader's redemption and makes it appear less miracalous. Vader coming back from the dark side should have remained an anomaly. Let me make an analogy. Remember in Abrams' first Star Trek film when Spock flipped out on Kirk after his planet was destroyed? What made that scene powerful is that we were seeing behavior that we normally don't see from Spock. It wasn't typical of that character. But then he flips out again in the next film, came close to killing Khan, and it took Uhura to pull him back from the edge, and I thought Abrams went too far with Spock losing control of his emotions. Two movies in a row, Spock flipped out and went psycho on someone, and while I get the story logic behind why he did it, I don't think it was a good place to take that character. You could argue that Spock now comes across as the most emotionally charged crew member in Abrams' Trek films, something I don't think Abrams intended to convey. You can only repeat an exception to a rule so many times before it becomes self-defeating and undermines the original intent. Like I said, I haven't seen the Kenobi show, so maybe this isn't so much of a problem for Reva as it is for Kylo. But every time we see another dark sider go back to the light, it mitigates the significance of all that Yoda told Luke about the dark side, and makes Anakin's return look like not so hard of a feat.
  19. You just made my point for me. The OT showed us you can come back from the dark side despite it telling us you can’t, and that’s what made Vader’s redemption so powerful. If someone as wise as Yoda believed it was impossible, there must have been a good reason for it. We were made to believe that Anakin coming back from the dark side was something unprecedented. Now its happening all the time.
  20. Yep. Yoda repeats this to Luke later in ROTJ. The OT really hammered home the idea that, once the dark side has you, it never lets you go.
  21. I haven't watched the show, because I knew somehow squeezing it into an already established timeline would mitigate the larger story somehow, and I would end up bitter. I guess I was right. Yoda told Luke several times in the OT that there is no coming back from the dark side. Anakin's return in ROTJ was sold to us as nothing short of a miracle. That's what made it so impactful. Then Kylo goes and does the same thing. I guess Yoda was wrong. I guess it's not that hard to shake off the dark side after all. Now another dark sider turns back? What was once supposed to be an exception to the rule has become a Star Wars trope. It kinda makes Yoda look like an idiot now doesn't it?
  22. Holy shit! You're right. Maybe that's what I'm remembering and I misplaced that line in my mind. It's weird because I always associated it with that scene in ANH. I could have sworn Luke used to say it immediately after Ben exits.
  23. Growing up, I watched ANH countless times. When I was in Kindergarden, it was shown on one of the cable movie stations every night, and watching it was part of my nightly routine. The scene when they're all on the Death Star, and Obi-Wan leaves the rest of the gang to go deactivate the tractor beam so the Falcon can escape, I could swear Luke used to say something like "Why do I feel like we're never going to see him again" after Obi-Wan leaves the room, but he doesn't say it now. Am I crazy, or did he used to say that? In the film now, the first line uttered after Obi-Wan leaves is Han saying "Where did you dig up that old fossil?" Am I remembering it from something else? I remember my cousin used to have audio records of the movies. They didn't contain the complete dialogue, but I remember that they came with picture books and we were supposed to follow along while listening. Maybe I heard the line there? Does anyone else remember that line?
  24. Thanks. That was helpful. This is my big sticking point. I can't even answer that question. The story currently lacks a villian, and without that, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the status quo should look like at the end. Originally, I just wanted to write your generic fantasy story. And like most classic fantasy stories, it was about good vs evil. But it turned into something else. Now, there are no good guys or villians. There's only two groups of people with different idiologies that clash, and the hero is caught in the middle. He has loyalties to both sides. But without good vs evil, his choices just seem kind of arbitrary to me. His flipping sides could be seen as a culmination of the hero's journey, or it could be a fall. I'm having a hard time knowing which it is, or why any of it is going to matter at the end of the day.
  25. So here's what I'm thinking now regarding endings. One of the ingredients should be a certain amount of irony? There was a certain bit of irony in having Vader turn at the last minute and save his son. There was also some irony in the one ring's corruption of its possessors leading to its own destruction. I'm not saying that every story should end like an M. Night Shyamalan movie, but doesn't there have to be some kind of twist or surprise somewhere? And if not, what exactly is the thing in an ending that provides the "payoff" for the story?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.