This is, frankly, a good posture to take on very, very many things.I don't lose any sleep over it
Nor do I. Nor over company yearly balance sheets, statistics not calculated by insurance companies (though one rarely sees these, mostly their yearly balance sheets - a different animal altogether, see above ...)π is irrational, e is irrational, √2 is irrational... knock yourself out trying to express exact values for those numbers.
Me, I don't lose any sleep over it 😉
Doesn't that inevitably land us in the topic of general human stupidity?May we focus on things having an eternal impact, or at least a universal or worldwide one, ...
Not necessarily. In fact, not really at all. It encourages us, I rather think, to leave off 'general human stupidity' and start to deal with things of at least some minuscule level of importance. Generally, humanity never gets close to anything of importance, muddling in the mud as they prefer to do with things of no real consequence whatsoever. Great efforts are made to insure they remain in such a state. It takes very little thinking to understand why.Doesn't that inevitably land us in the topic of general human stupidity?
My brother has the first 1001 digits of pi memorized. 😄Does anyone know the exact value of π?
So he's only got ∞ digits to go...My brother has the first 1001 digits of pi memorized. 😄
Doesn't that inevitably land us in the topic of general human stupidity?
Well, let's see....Not necessarily. In fact, not really at all. It encourages us, I rather think, to leave off 'general human stupidity' and start to deal with things of at least some minuscule level of importance. Generally, humanity never gets close to anything of importance, muddling in the mud as they prefer to do with things of no real consequence whatsoever. Great efforts are made to insure they remain in such a state. It takes very little thinking to understand why.
It's not natural. None of it. It's obvious. He's under some dark spell!My brother has the first 1001 digits of pi memorized. 😄
The spell of math graduate students?It's not natural. None of it. It's obvious. He's under some dark spell!
The spell of math graduate students?
8 Things The Rings Of Power Does Better Than Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings Movies
Rings of Power has done a few key things right.screenrant.com
Interesting article from ScreenRant.
So, what do you think of it?
I agree that these things could have been done better in the Lord of the Rings movies. Their characterisation was off in some places. For example, I think book Legolas would be a bit easier to turn into comic relief than Gimli (Legolas is a bit cheeky at times). Then there's Denethor, Faramir, Isildur...Yeah, the article makes good points.
- Rings Of Power Covers More Middle-Earth Stories At Once
Lord Of The Rings Was Limited By Its Movie Format- Middle-Earth Is More Diverse In Rings Of Power
Lord Of The Rings' Casting Greatly Lacked Diversity- Rings Of Power Gives Elf Characters More Variety
Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Made Elves Too Perfect- Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Ruined Isildur
Rings Of Power's Version Of Isildur Is More Faithful To Tolkien Canon- Orcs Look Fantastic In Rings Of Power
Practical Effects Have Come A Long Way Since Lord Of The Rings- Dwarves Aren't Just Comic Relief In Rings Of Power
Gimli (& Other Dwarves) Were Far More Serious In Tolkien's Works- Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Changed Elrond
Elrond Is Far Kinder & Less Critical In Rings Of Power- Rings Of Power Makes Sauron A More Interesting Character
Sauron Was An Unseen Villain In Jackson's Lord Of The Rings
Yes, humans have invented a lot of things ... a tiny fraction of humans, that is. And it takes time for even useful things to be adopted on a wider scale, say a generation or so. (I have the impression that since the invention of marketing, advertising etc. useless things have spread more rapidly ...).Well, let's see....
Humans invented the wheel, and speech, and music and tools like hammers and saws, and writing and timekeeping, and mapped out the seasons (based on celestial events), and medicine, and moveable type, and geometry and algebra, and early medicine, and later spectacles (glasses) and pasteurization, and genetics and selective breeding of plants and animals, and antibiotics and insulin and cataract surgery.... to name just a few of our accomplishhments
And yes, for every good thing named you can list a bad thing made by humans (the H-bomb for example or RoP).
But what I'm saying is, that humans are still pretty smart... natural selection proves it.
We wouldn't be here if we were stupid; nature is very unforgiving of stupidity, hence the Darwin Awards.
Now there's a correspondence I hadn't seen before! 😳the H-bomb for example or RoP
Without taking the time to address each one, some of them have no 'meaning in the comparison' however.Yeah, the article makes good points.
I think there exists a very big difference between 'brain accomplishments', and wisdom.Humans invented the wheel, and speech, and music and tools like hammers and saws, and writing and timekeeping, and mapped out the seasons (based on celestial events), and medicine, and moveable type, and geometry and algebra, and early medicine, and later spectacles (glasses) and pasteurization, and genetics and selective breeding of plants and animals, and antibiotics and insulin and cataract surgery.... to name just a few of our accomplishments
Well obviously (or maybe not so obviously) the first thing was mentioned seriously and the second one was tongue in cheek.Now there's a correspondence I hadn't seen before! 😳
If we hadn't left the oceans those guys wouldn't be around to make those observations.Yes, humans have invented a lot of things ... a tiny fraction of humans, that is. And it takes time for even useful things to be adopted on a wider scale, say a generation or so. (I have the impression that since the invention of marketing, advertising etc. useless things have spread more rapidly ...).
As you mention the wheel, it was only used for toys in the Americas by the time starting about 500 years ago when the western Eurasians rolled over them with "Guns, Germs and Steel", to quote a 1997 book title by Jared Diamond. Mainly to do with a lack of draft animals to pull them.
As a more general rule, I would think Douglas Adams was only slightly exaggerating in one of his "Hitchhiker's Guide" books (I have to paraphrase, his books do not have an index, at least not my paperbacks) when he wrote:
"Some said it had been a mistake to climb down out of the trees. Others argued that even the trees had been a mistake, and again others that it had been a mistake to leave the oceans."
Sorry, but that statement is absolutely umprovable by you unless you are privy to every single decision made in human history.Human 'knowledge' has far outstripped human 'wisdom', which quite frankly, has not taken a single stride forward in all human history.
Would that we had a forum to discuss this issue... and to clarify our terms.We wouldn't be here if we were stupid; nature is very unforgiving of stupidity,
It was not limited 'by its movie format' but 'by the period it by nature covers. This compares apples and oranges. LoTR us by nature 'historical' and limited to the short period of years which becomes the end of the third age, with but references to 'things of yore.' LoTR has "no intent' much less 'no opportunity" to 'do better or differently' in this arena whatsoever. The comparison of 'doing better' is inapplicable.. so inapproopriate.
- Rings Of Power Covers More Middle-Earth Stories At Once. Lord Of The Rings Was Limited By Its Movie Format
This may have some merit. The question is, is the 'diversity' shown upheld by the text of the works, and the difference in the Producers' intent to display Tolkien rather than society? Or is the 'diversity' depicted done for reasons other than a faithful depiction of Tolkien's writings. We can let the reader decide this one. Much of it 'feels' to me like little but 'concessions due to social pressure' rather than 'accuracy in displaying Tolkien's work.' I do not call it 'better'. Just a choice one way or the other.2. Middle-Earth Is More Diverse In Rings Of Power Lord Of The Rings' Casting Greatly Lacked Diversity. Rings Of Power Gives Elf Characters More Variety.
Here again, we must look to what Tolkien wrote in his works. We're dealing with just the remaining elves at the end of the 3rd age in LoTR. Is this apples and oranges to the great variety seen in the earlier period? That is, are we seeing a Jackson decision to 'make elves perfect' (which they aren't depicted as being by the way) or Tolkien's work in LoTR with the elves he had at hand during that short period? Again, we have apples and oranges.
I will not speak to this one... no time to look it through. But as I recall, Isildur has very little 'showing' in LoTR by nature... so I think I would find any comparison difficult, LoTR speaking to but people's memories of Isildur and what the tales over the years have made it to be.
So... though the comparison itself above seems to suggest 'time and abilities/capabilities' are a factor in this, I don't doubt PJ could have done differently. (Though I don't think his Orcs are by any means not 'good looking' for Orcs.) But one thing is clear: the Orcs (and general situations) of RoP DO seem to feel a little more 'realistic' than in LoTR. I can't quite lay a twig on why that is, but well... it 'feels' different. Is it better? I'm not sure.5. Orcs Look Fantastic In Rings Of Power. Practical Effects Have Come A Long Way Since Lord Of The Rings
This I can agree with. Tolkien did not write his work as a slapstick comedy at points, or with characters making jokes of serious things at times, or superheros sledding down steps, doing acrobatics mounting Oliphaunts and skiing off their trunks, or having 'number of kills' contests etc. He wrote serious events, seriously. PJ made a mistake here (in my view) - one we've seen an absence of (so far) in RoP. But is it better? If I were among the parents of the 'young audiences' I may well prefer the slight light humor of LoTR to keep the kids involved, thus earning more at the box office. Though LoTR has some significantly 'scary' scenes with the Orcs etc., RoP is no doubt a bit 'darker' throughout so far, and possibly more 'unsuitable' for kids. (Though these days, what is 'suitable' and 'unsuitable' for kids is vastly different than it was just those couple decades or so ago, and parents are far less discriminating.)
Again this could well be 'oranges and apples'. (OK, vice versa for the puritan reader.) Elrond is in a very different age now, having already lived through the first war of the Ring, seen the 'failure of man' at its time for destruction, and been through many, many more wars. People... yes, even those Elves, already said to have beend drawn 'less perfectly' in RoP... change.
I've spoken to this briefly in a post above, and won't repeat it. The writer misses the reality of the existence of Sauron in the two different times completely.
Thanks for the succinct list, Halasian.
Let's take a look at each, from Ent's (current) thoughts about them...
It was not limited 'by its movie format' but 'by the period it by nature covers. This compares apples and oranges. LoTR us by nature 'historical' and limited to the short period of years which becomes the end of the third age, with but references to 'things of yore.' LoTR has "no intent' much less 'no opportunity" to 'do better or differently' in this arena whatsoever. The comparison of 'doing better' is inapplicable.. so inapproopriate.
This may have some merit. The question is, is the 'diversity' shown upheld by the text of the works, and the difference in the Producers' intent to display Tolkien rather than society? Or is the 'diversity' depicted done for reasons other than a faithful depiction of Tolkien's writings. We can let the reader decide this one. Much of it 'feels' to me like little but 'concessions due to social pressure' rather than 'accuracy in displaying Tolkien's work.' I do not call it 'better'. Just a choice one way or the other.
The final comment 'the more people that feel at home' in Middle-earth the better." This opinion does have it's place. But whether it's really ''better' is of course dependint on our definition and measuring stick for 'better'. It will almost certainly be true for those who are unfamiliar with Tolkien's writing...and those others who always judge the past by the present's perspective rather than what was at the time.
Here again, we must look to what Tolkien wrote in his works. We're dealing with just the remaining elves at the end of the 3rd age in LoTR. Is this apples and oranges to the great variety seen in the earlier period? That is, are we seeing a Jackson decision to 'make elves perfect' (which they aren't depicted as being by the way) or Tolkien's work in LoTR with the elves he had at hand during that short period? Again, we have apples and oranges.
I will not speak to this one... no time to look it through. But as I recall, Isildur has very little 'showing' in LoTR by nature... so I think I would find any comparison difficult, LoTR speaking to but people's memories of Isildur and what the tales over the years have made it to be.
So... though the comparison itself above seems to suggest 'time and abilities/capabilities' are a factor in this, I don't doubt PJ could have done differently. (Though I don't think his Orcs are by any means not 'good looking' for Orcs.) But one thing is clear: the Orcs (and general situations) of RoP DO seem to feel a little more 'realistic' than in LoTR. I can't quite lay a twig on why that is, but well... it 'feels' different. Is it better? I'm not sure.
This I can agree with. Tolkien did not write his work as a slapstick comedy at points, or with characters making jokes of serious things at times, or superheros sledding down steps, doing acrobatics mounting Oliphaunts and skiing off their trunks, or having 'number of kills' contests etc. He wrote serious events, seriously. PJ made a mistake here (in my view) - one we've seen an absence of (so far) in RoP. But is it better? If I were among the parents of the 'young audiences' I may well prefer the slight light humor of LoTR to keep the kids involved, thus earning more at the box office. Though LoTR has some significantly 'scary' scenes with the Orcs etc., RoP is no doubt a bit 'darker' throughout so far, and possibly more 'unsuitable' for kids. (Though these days, what is 'suitable' and 'unsuitable' for kids is vastly different than it was just those couple decades or so ago, and parents are far less discriminating.)
Again this could well be 'oranges and apples'. (OK, vice versa for the puritan reader.) Elrond is in a very different age now, having already lived through the first war of the Ring, seen the 'failure of man' at its time for destruction, and been through many, many more wars. People... yes, even those Elves, already said to have beend drawn 'less perfectly' in RoP... change.
Elrond's change is a part of that 'imperfection' the writer of the article says earlier he does not see. Seems a little inconsistent to me.
Does this make the depiction of Elrond 'better' in RoP than in LoTR? Not in the least. It shows the passage of time and its potential impact. (I note the writer doesn't mention at all, the difference in depiction of Galadriel, as being 'better' in RoP than in LoTR... and this is a GOOD thing, as again there would be a 'speaking out of both sides of the mouth' on an issue.)
I've spoken to this briefly in a post above, and won't repeat it. The writer misses the reality of the existence of Sauron in the two different times completely.
Ent's final judgment on (opinion of) of the article in the original post:
A complete miss, totally mistaking what's going on at almost every point in the fare offered.
The very effort of looking for 'better' rather than just 'different' on such grounds as these, is amiss entirely.
But again, we can anticipate more of this as time moves us inexorably toward the advent of RoP2. It's all about the hype, and keeping it in the foreground as the upcoming opportunity nears.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Are you happy to accept cookies and these technologies?