Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
That looks more like a giant crustacean than it does a dragon.
One could suggest he is a Crustaceous Dragon
Smaug is the hero of the working class. Rise up proletariat!
There's a difference between developing the natural resources and hoarding it all, and the King began hoarding. He was like Scrooge McDuck and the treasure was his money pool.
No, I mean imagine the head and tail as it's arms - embracing the gold. Maybe it's just me.
I see it too. You're just as sane as I am.
I'm in the theatre waiting for showtime. I'm about to see the movie in Imax 3D 24fps. Really excited for Star Trek, too
Surely the Sacking of Erebor is a warning about greed, it was Thror's desire to accumilate more and more treasure that brought Smaug to the mountain fortress and led to the destruction of everything that had been built there over the years.
I'm not that versed on Middle-Earth History stuff, but why is it that the 9 rulers of Men were corrupted by Sauron's One Ring and became Nazgul but the same thing didn't happen to the 7 Dwarf Lords & 3 Elves (one of whom it is implied is Galadriel)?
Well, iirc the Dwarves were basically just stubborn and therefore didn't fall to the powers of Sauron as easily. It might also have something to do with that Dwarves weren't originally "all part of the plan" in The Silmarillion-they were actually created by one of the lesser Gods and so they sort of fall outside of things as far as creation in middle-earth is concerned.
As for the Elven-rings, the Three were never touched by Sauron; the Elves used the lore he taught them to create them, but he didn't actually make them. He did with the Nine, and from what I recall gave them to people who were already fairly scummy to begin with-The Witch-King Of Angmar certainly wasn't just some guy before Sauron got his hooks into him.
That would be easier to swallow without scenes like Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath - it wasn't in the book, fundamentally alters the characters and even the nature of the Ring's influence, adds some stupid stuff like nazgul almost getting Frodo. Most importantly, it eats the precious screen time that's supposedly prevented PJ to include stuff that actually happened in the books.
I don't want "exact dialogue", but having the spirit of the books preserved would be nice. I just don't believe the writers understand or even respect Tolkien after the rampant character assassination in the LOTR movies.
The original owners of the Three were Galadriel, Círdan and Gil-galad. Círdan later gave his to Gandalf, while Elrond took the other after Gil-galad died in Mordor.
I'll be seeing the movie on Wednesday!
As was said, the Dwarves are just resilient to it (they're made differently than Men & Elves), the only effects were that it made them super-greedy, and even able to multiply their gold somewhow. Thus attracting dragons.
Galadriel has one of the 3 Elven Rings, and she uses it to preserve the beauty and timelessness of Lothlorien, and protect all the people within her realm.
Gil-Galad had the 2 other Eleven rings. Before he died while facing Sauron, alongside Elendil (Isildur's father), he gave one ring to Elrond (and it's implied that this elven ring is why Elrond is such a good healer) and he gave one ring to Cirdan (an ancient Elf, builds the ships that take the other Elves into the West). When the 5 Wizards came to Middle Earth from the west, even though Saruman was their leader, Cirdan recognized something in Gandalf, and gave him the ring. Gandalf's Elven ring has the power to inspire courage and hope in others.
So, by the time of the movies, the ones with the 3 Elven Rings are:
*Galadriel with Nenya, the Ring of Water (gives her the power to preserve the timelessness of her realm, and protect the people within it)
*Elrond with Varya, the Ring of Air (previously owned by Gil-Galad... implied it gives him the power to heal others, such as when he healed Frodo)
*Gandalf with Narya, the Ring of Fire (previously owned by Gil-Galad and Cirdan... gives him the power to inspire/encourage others to resist evil)
Too bad the One Ring being destroyed also destroyed the powers of the Three Elven Rings, huh?
So, almost all the living Ring-bearers (Frodo, Bilbo, Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel... just not Cirdan or Sam) all leave Middle Earth on the same ship, at the end of ROTK.
Do the films show them wearing those rings?
Well, the films' prologue shows Galadriel, Cirdan, and Gil-Galad with their Three Elven Rings (I guess they just skipped over Gil-Glad having 2, and then giving one to Elrond and one to Cirdan).
Galadriel explains in the books, I believe, that the Elven Rings don't make their users invisible but make themselves (the rings) invisible instead. Although I think Galadriel allows Frodo to see her ring for a brief glimpse in the books. So that would explain why we never see Galadriel, Gandalf, or Elrond visibly wearing their rings... because their rings conceal themselves. But when the One Ring is destroyed, they became plainly visible again, having lost all their power.
That does happen in the EE of FOTR, and she calls it by its name.
I could have sworn that you could see Gandalf's ring in FotR...
Anyway, I liked the film even more this time. I wasn't worried about how I would like it this time and so I could just enjoy it. Very fun, definitely makes me excited to see more.
And 3D is still totally pointless in films. I will probably see the 48fps version now just because I feel I have to. But even if it makes 3D look really clear, I see this as a totally pointless goal and simply a way to make studios more money, not aid them creatively.
Scorcese, during the making of Hugo, observed that 3D better or more completely captures the nuances of an actor's facial performance.
The creative point of 3D is to more closely approximate reality. Reality looks three-dimensional, so....
To me, 3D doesn't actually look 3D. It looks like a layered picture, with some things more in the foreground as opposed to in the background, not an actual object or thing that I can see the top, sides,and bottom of.
I don't really care what Jackson or Cameron or Scorcese say about it. Those are all subjective and somebody saying it's useful does nothing to make it so. And I have never actually experienced any of those so called benefits as a viewer.
And you create the illusion of depth through good cinematography. Which is something lacking in a lot of 3D films because they are more focused on things like 3D exposure and focal length than lighting.
Edit: Oh, and 3D is still 2D. It's just an illusion.
I find this conversation funny just because solojones' icon is that doctor who guy with 3d glasses on
Clearly, I need to rewatch the films some time soon.
Hugo is the only film shot in 3D where the visual storytelling has legitimately been enhanced.
I'm doing this thing strictly in 2D and 24fps.
This is main issue I have with 3D -- it's like it's forcing you to look at the foreground. Sometimes I don't want to look at the foreground.
I quite like 3D in animation, but the rest of the time unless it is IMAX 3D I feel no desire to see it since it seems to add nothing or even really be noticeable enough to justify paying more for it (and that's not mentioning the darkness and other issues common with most 3D movies).
I think 48fps has some favourable qualities, and it is a new format which can be improved upon.