Tag Archives: the lord of the rings

Setter’s ‘Spectives: What Is It About ‘The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies’ That Bothers Me?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613For some reason, I’m not as excited at the prospect of watching The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies as I was before, say, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King debuted.

Is it because I already know where the One Ring will end up? Perhaps the suspense is not as great as it was more than 10 years ago, when the LOTR trilogy was entering its final stages.

There’s also the issue of the Hobbit movies not being as great as the LOTR films. There’s not as much riding on the protagonists, it seems, as there was in the later books and movies. I mean, once you have Sauron and Ringwraiths pursuing you, being tense becomes an everyday thing.

I think another problem is the fact that the Hobbit pictures have been stretched out to three cinematic chapters, whereas the three LOTR books just made three movies. There seems to be a lot of filler in the former films: lots of battle scenes that are fun to watch but aren’t as insistent as the ones in LOTR.

I suspect The Battle of Five Armies will be enjoyable. Just not the instant classic that The Return of the King is.

From Skip and Setter’s Creator: I Liebster You, I Liebster You … Now Liebster Me Alone

~

Blog Sketch of Me 092213Wildly good news, everyone — this humble blog has been nominated for a Liebster Award by the estimable Bill Meeker, aka Frisco Kid at the Movies (love the blog, Bill!). Many thanks!

This is my first such nomination, and I can’t help but be both pleased and slightly intimidated by the idea. The rules of the game are as follows:

  • Bloggers who have been nominated must link back to the person who nominated them.
  • Nominees must answer the 11 questions given to them by the one who nominated them.
  • Nominees must also nominate 11 of their favorite bloggers (who have less than 200 followers) and assign them 11 questions to answer.
  • You CANNOT nominate someone who has nominated you!
  • You are not, in any way, obligated to participate.

OK, let’s see. No. 1 — done. No. 2 … here are the questions that were provided, as well as my answers:

1. Why did you decide to start your blog?

I thought it would be a nice way to showcase my writing in a context that fit my style. What a boring answer, huh?

2. How do you get inspiration for your blog posts?

Mostly by thinking about movies and issues surrounding them. I also force myself to be inspired by writing even when I don’t feel like doing so. I have to write to stay alive!

3. If you were stranded on a deserted island, what would be the most important object that you would wish you had brought with you, but didn’t? No borrowing of Tom Hanks’ solution allowed.

A DVD of The Seven Samurai. And a DVD player that’s immune to breaking down from having too much sand in it.

4. Do you ever get the feeling that there’s something going on that we don’t know about?

What? Where? Am I being followed? Who Am I This Time?

5. What is the Matrix?

It’s the Circle of Life. No, it isn’t. It’s My Party, and I’ll Cry If I Want to. No, wait —

6. What… is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Do you mean an African or European swallow? AAAAAHHHHHH!

7. You’ve gotta ask yourself a question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?

Well, to tell you the truth, I sometimes lose track myself in all this excitement.

8. Is it safe?

It’s perfectly safe. Oh, and the dentist told me I only have two cavities.

9. What’s your damage?

I’m wracking my brain trying to get this reference. I feel so … unworthy.

10. Who ya gonna call?

I miss Harold Ramis. 😦

11. You talkin’ to me?

I’m the only one here. Literally. I mean, I’m a blogger. Maybe I’m not here. Maybe I’m a figment of my own imagination. What a concept.

OK, No. 2 — done. That was easy. Now here are my Liebster nominations of 11 of my favorite bloggers (with less than 200 followers), followed by the questions I would like to posit to them should they be interested in answering:

digital didascalia

silence cunning exile … maple syrup

Shelly’s Retirement Adventure

Movie Fail

Reel and Rock

jjames reviews

Selective Viewing

The Counterfeit Writer

My Classic Movies

Ellen And Jim Have A Blog, Two

Lulu Loves Films

THE QUESTIONS:

1) What was the experience that led you to start blogging about movies and/or culture?

2) What’s your earliest movie memory, and how did it shape your tastes?

3) Bernard Herrmann or Georges Delerue?

4) How much worse was Troy than The Seven Samurai … and could the former have been improved by being magically transformed into hot, steaming soup?

5) What’s your favorite French film that has been remade into a terrible Hollywood movie?

6) Groucho, Chico, Harpo or Zeppo (Gummo has been disqualified for these purposes)?

7) Which movie(s) would you take with you to the moon … if we had the capacity to live there and DVD players didn’t fly away because of low gravity?

8) Are you Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo or Sauron?

9) Who’s less funny: Jerry Lewis or … Jerry Lewis?

10) Could Mozart beat up Beethoven with one hand tied behind his back?

11) If you could direct a sequel to any movie, which would it be?

OK, Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are done, done and done. Thanks in advance to all who participate, and here’s to the Liebster Award!

Skip’s Quips: There’s a Gaffe in My Soup

~

Blog Sketch 082813I look back in bemusement whenever I recall the original 1977 Star Wars.

It’s a terrific flick, don’t get me wrong. But each time I start thinking about it, I summon up remembrance of continuity issues past—specifically, that scene where Mark Hamill’s Luke Skywalker, out cold after being beaten up by mean-spirited Sand People, somehow shifts his head’s position on the ground without allowing the audience to witness the change. In the first shot, it’s facing the side. In a later shot, it’s facing up.

The Force is strong with that one, right? He moves so quickly, the camera doesn’t even capture it.

Of course, everyone makes mistakes, and it’s too small an issue to ruin the film. Yet it strikes me as bizarre that in such a slick, polished production, a little continuity error like this could slither past. Wouldn’t someone have caught this before it reached the theaters?

Perhaps director George Lucas was concentrating more on the big picture when reviewing the film. He definitely had a lot to oversee, all things considered. Still, the paradox of great movies featuring tiny gaffes remains a constant. One can turn to Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, which allegedly saw the director order the set rebuilt after viewing a component that wouldn’t have appeared in the story’s era, yet contains a visible cut jumping from Toshiro Mifune’s still-alive Washizu to one pierced through the neck with an arrow. Or check out Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, in which Kim Novak’s faux Madeleine disappears into a house with no other exit, thereby befuddling both Scottie (Jimmy Stewart), who has followed her, and the audience. Or look into Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, where the army attacking Mordor finds itself mounted on horses in one shot and dismounted, with the steeds nowhere to be seen, in another.

There’s nothing we can so about this but suspend disbelief. These flicks are good enough to wave off continuity quibbles. As an audience, however, do we have a right to perfection for our money? Or just greatness? Am I asking too much that a film be error-free?

Perhaps. I’ll keep enjoying all the movies above, of course—nothing’s different there. I may, though, break a smile each time I watch these continuity-challenged scenes, in recognition of the idea that even masterpieces aren’t infallible.

It’s a good way to feel good about a good movie, isn’t it? I’ve already convinced myself that that’s true.

Skip’s Quips: Of Titles and Trollope

~

Blog Sketch 082813Back in the day–and I mean back, at a time when I thought Ralph Bakshi’s Lord of the Rings was the definitive version–I perused my parents’ bookshelves frequently in search of tomes with curious titles. A particular favorite: Is He Popenjoy?, an Anthony Trollope novel that, as a child, I couldn’t fathom reading but nevertheless intrigued me as I wondered if the character was indeed, well, Popenjoy.

Years later, I realized what had struck me about the title. It’s pressing, insistent. combining an unusual name with a terse question–making you want to find the answer.

I think a lot of filmmakers today could learn from old Trollope.

All right–bad titles aren’t necessarily a modern malady. They’ve existed even before They Knew What They Wanted debuted in 1940. But I think there’s a relatively recent tendency to drop the intrigue in movie monikers and take the easy way out. Just look at the past decade’s slate of Meet the [Silly/Generic Surname Here] flicks. Danger, Will Robinson. Dreary trend ahead.

I guess it’s a positive that filmmakers have eased up on putting exclamation points in their movie titles or experimenting with the excruciatingly wacky names that were so prevalent in the 1960s and ’70s. Yet we still get stuff like Fled and We’re the Millers, where the labels are either awkward (the former) or obvious (guess) while lacking any hook. True, that may not matter when it comes to popularity–Millers is evidence of that–but when it comes to quality cinema, don’t we want a title that can grab us? Shouldn’t it give us an idea of why we’d want to see the movie it’s tied to…without telling us too much?

I don’t think a film will necessarily be lousy if it doesn’t have an interesting title. But it’s hard for me not to judge a DVD by its case. Today, as I recall my times examining volumes on my parents’ bookshelf, I wonder if Trollope would agree with me on the importance of naming movies–adaptations of his works included.

Somehow, I don’t think Meet Popenjoy would fly.