ArmchairGeneral

That's completely understandable. I can't say I'm too fond of them myself, althought the friendship between Legolas and Gimli is a great sub-story. And the elves of the older ages seen in the Silmarillion are pretty cool. More earthly, yet more heroic.

Me, I'm a fan of the Ents. And there's another place Peter Jackson screwed up royally. He ruined the Ents.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

ArmchairGeneral

I'm confused: you want epics, but make 'em short? I mean, I'm sure one could make a short epic, but it kinda misses the point, doesn't it? And the classic surprise ending of Second Foundation makes it worthwhile, even if nothing else does.

ArmchairGeneral

Agree, for the most part, although I do think Boromir was done remarkably well. That was made up for by ruining Faramir, of course. And the whole absolutely ridiculous thing with Theoden changing from a sick white haired weenie to a middle aged warrior king- just way overdone, IMO.

Interesting. I'm not sure about this- Jackson has a point here. I really need to read the books again to see how Tolkien really portrays this. Jackson really missed the boat on the Ents, though. If anyone is wise enough to resist Sauron and the Ring, it's the Ents. And they certainly would never be tricked by the two silliest hobbits in the Shire.

The funny thing is that I agree with you, but at the same time he made the Elves too ethereal in some ways, such as screwing up Lothlorien and Galadriel, and making Legolas certifiably gay. The Elves don't do too much, but they are real people, and somehow I think Jackson failed to show that.

Visuals, yes. Unfortunately, he does visuals too well- and visuals can't carry a movie, especially if it's so crammed with grand vistas and CGI battles that you barely get to know the characters. Tolkien's genius was in creating a world that you can get lost in, and a large part of that is due to the characters, and, understandably I think, Jackson didn't quite get them right. I think if he had been in charge of the cinematography and special effects alone, and a director with better empathy for the characters and the story were brought in, it could have been quite good. As it was, I dunno, they just pissed me off a little. When I'm a billionaire, maybe I'll finance a remake, done RIGHT.

xerxes

Dude, dont get mad at me I agree with you that Babylon 5 was a perhapes the pinaccle of TV Sci-fi greatness. Execution-wise of the show, that is another thing.

It is just the way you formed your phrase, that I did not understood,

"You're not a hard core sci-fi fan if you're not IMHO."

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon

xerxes

@ Dalem and armchair

I believe PJ choice to diminish Faramir's nobility might have something to do with the movie being around one central human noble character. I know that in TTT EE documantry PJ and co. bring up the issue that Ring was so powerfull that it would unbelievble that Faramir wont go for it, but I think inheart the major reason was to keep the nobility of the human characters only around Aragon. Because, Aragon did the exact samething in Jackson's FOTR movie (not the book) where the gives up the Ring at the end and let Frodo goes (which it wasnt in the book). So I believe deep down, PJ didnot want a repeat of that scene, infact it is quite plausible that he gave that scene (Faramir letting Frodo go) to Aragon for FOTR'e ending.

dalem

That's ridiculous. Some people don't like the (at times) bad CGI of the first couple of seasons, or some of the dialogue. Some just plain don't like it. That doesn't mean they're not aware of sci fi.

I myself hate two of the staples - the book Dune and the movie Blade Runner. Gonna run me out on a rail for that?

-dale

dalem

Please. The shows are centered on whiney Mommy Daddy issues and how awful people can be to each other.

Besides, haven't you figured out by now that there are no "humans" - they're ALL Cylons, just different kinds.

-dale

dalem

I am a geek of truly immeasurable proportions.

-dale

dalem

That's a good point, and certainly plausible, but in my opinion the only purpose of Faramir's character is to show that there IS still a strain of greatness in Man other than Aragorn (I miss the clear bond of friendship between Eomer and Aragorn for mostly the same reason). I'd almost rather have seen him cut from the story than diminished as he was.

-dale

xerxes

Dont forget that some of Eomer's greatest quotes were given to Theodon, King of Mark, in the movie.

xerxes

@Wraith

Babylon 5 was great. It had the great continous arc. However, the show several flaws:

1) extremely bad CGI. If they ever redo it, i will surely buy the DVDs.
2) very very bad acting. Except for Garibaldi, Mollari and G'kar character, other character were not well acted.
3) The Ivanov chracter totally and I mean totally sucked. It was always boring dry-humor with her.
4) The entire show had a very good arc, but then after so much building up (three seasons), the Shadow War ends in just six episodes. I guess it is always easier to tease and buildup, then do an actual release. It is like the TNG episode Best of the Both Worlds: an all time classic. Part 1 was great, awesome, classic, the feel of impending doom, but part 2 failed to deliver on that. It is always like that. Now I also know that in case of Babylon 5, the show was earmaked to be cancelled by the end of season 4, therefore seaons 5 material was actually bonus stuff that we got, and had the show originally went the way it went (full 5 seasons), then the Shadow War would have been better ended.

comments?

Wraith601

I never read Dune and I fell asleep during Blade Runner (which is more a drama/thriller with sci-fi trappings anyway).

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Wraith601

1. Only when compared to today's. The original Star Wars had terrible effects by modern standards, does that mean they sucked? Besides the CGI imporved markedly as the show progressed and I can forgive them for actually showing rotating sections and Newtonian physics.

2. Boxleitner was excellent as Sheridan. It's true Delenn was acting well all the time, but the character was well written enough to still make her compelling.

3. I didn't think she was too bad.

4. The show was orignally slated for five seasons, adn the narrative was preplanned. When the show was cancelled, they had to wrap up the Shadow War quicker than expected. When TNT picked up Season Five they had to pull together stuff on short notice, hence the noticeably poorer quality (though there were some great episodes like The Long Night of Londo Mollari, The Fall of Centauri Prime, and Sleeping in the Light).

Wraith601

It's called a subplot.

Most episodes have a major plot (typically fitting into one of the overall arcs) and a couple subplots, which may or not be related to the arcs. With the exception of a few stand alone episodes, used for character development and to provide breaks between major arc episodes, most follow this formula.

dalem

But that doesn't change the fact that they're all whiney little cretins. You like 'em, you watch 'em.

-dale