Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
PPPS: Not that necessarily FlamesAddiction is arguing in favour of ignorance. But he might be, if I cared to take the trouble to find the original post. But hey, I'm lazy too! Ironic, isn't it?
|
I'm not. I just thought it was a funny/slighly elitist thing to suggest that most people should know without having to look it up, what it means. I never suggested that no one should learn it or use it.
Quote:
|
PPPPS: Oh yah, and The Hobbit was thoroughly mediocre. So far each Jackson movie treatment of Tolkien has been a lesser vessel, so by the time this "trilogy" is over, I expect Bilbo to defeat Smaug with water-filled bladders and a slapstick routine.
|
So I take it that the film didn't offer any jouissance? Besides that, how was the overall performance of the the thespians? I think part of the reason the film bothers me is the heroic couplet dialogue of hobbits. It's almost like the spondee to dactyl ratio is off a little.
I heard some critics say that the ring is in fact objective correlative to the feelings and tension in Europe at the time The Hobbit was written. Do you think it was allegorious in that sense? I also find it funny that in a film about elves and goblins, people are arguing about the low degree of verisimilitude regarding the deus ex machina.
(Just typical hockey forum film critique lingo...
not meant to come off as invective)