Geek Confessions & Blasphemies

It's one of those things that needs a "translation codex" in your head. You read something, and you immediately and unconsciously translate it into modern idioms and concepts in your head.

"But Daeron the minstrel also loved Lúthien, and he espied her meetings with Beren, and betrayed them to Thingol. Then the King was filled with anger, for Lúthien he loved
above all things, setting her above all the princes of the Elves; whereas mortal Men he
did not even take into his service. Therefore he spoke in grief and amazement to
Lúthien; but she would reveal nothing, until he swore an oath to her that he would
neither slay Beren nor imprison him. But he sent his servants to lay hands on him and
lead him to Menegroth as a malefactor; and Lúthien forestalling them led Beren herself
before the throne of Thingol, as if he were an honoured guest."

Translates into:

But The Artist Formerly Known as Daeron totally dug Luthien, too, and he was so not cool with her hanging out with Beren. So he ratted them out to Luthien's dad Thingol, and Thingol of course went ballistic.

He's always had a complex with sexy Luthien and never thought that any Elf, prince or no, was worthy of her; let alone Men, who he wouldn't even stoop to hire. So he went down and confronted her about it with a whole lotta drama, and she denied everything (big surprise there), until he swore he wouldn't kill or jail Beren. Of course, he did get his posse to go and kidnap Beren; only Luthien already expected that of her father, so she beat them to it and brought Beren home herself.

I hated The Usual Suspects.

I got bored trying to follow the twists and turns of the plot, and I remember thinking that it was probably so labyrinthine because it was trying to conceal an upcoming plot twist, so I thought about it, realized that Keyzer Soze was obviously

Spoiler:

Kevin Spacey

specifically because that was the LEAST likely possibility and all the more likely ones were clearly red herrings, and then spent the rest of the movie even more bored because I already knew the ending.

I can see that. I happen to enjoy The Usual Suspects for a couple of reasons, though these days it's more due to my Film Arts class. It was one of the last films we watched after a series of films, and Bryan Singer (that how you spell his name?) used a LOT of styles and homages that would have fit in a Hitchcock or Orson Welles film. I feel like there should be a version of the movie digitally made to look black and white, inferior camera and inferior audio to further let it sink in just what sort of classic influences Singer was rolling with.

Sadly, this level of influence didn't seem to sink into X-Men. Couldn't really tell you if it did with Superman Returns, though. Saw that once and was done.

I could never really dig Bronte as an author.

Would that do it?

A lot of older scifi (especially scifi by Campbell) had impressed me as being remarkably racist, as well as violently misogynistic. It took a bit of work to just ignore it.

The thing with the protagonist almost always being an English-speaking guy has always been kind of crap. At first, I thought it was just because the work was the work of a single guy who never really had a healthy relationship with women, or with people outside the Western cultural hemisphere.

Coolbeans wrote:
Grenn wrote:
karmajay wrote:

I don't like the parts in the Lord of the Rings movies where it is just Sam and Frodo. Boring.

The books, either.

You are now dead to me sir.

Im a filthy skimmer, I agree so much with this. When I first read it (I was 12) I got so bored with the hobbit hobbit bromance. I *may* have skipped a lot of it actually that first time through.... subsequent reads at an older age I DID however read those parts. BUT, by this time I was also reading 'a song of ice and fire' (maybe 14-16 at the time) and I definitely started skipping whole characters and would only read those parts on a reread.

I think it is unfortunate that many people think of films as a puzzle to crack instead of stories to enjoy. I just see this as being bad at watching films.

I actually thought that the parts of LoTR with Sam and Frodo were quite daring for Tolkien to have published. There's obviously something going on there, at least IMO. Sam probably swings both ways.

Sam who gave Rosie Cotton 13 kids?

LarryC wrote:

I actually thought that the parts of LoTR with Sam and Frodo were quite daring for Tolkien to have published. There's obviously something going on there, at least IMO. Sam probably swings both ways.

At one point, Sam lovingly strokes Frodo's hands out of affection for him. My friend wouldn't believe it until I showed him the passage in the book. I imagine many straight folks just read it and pass right on by.

Jayhawker wrote:

I think it is unfortunate that many people think of films as a puzzle to crack instead of stories to enjoy. I just see this as being bad at watching films.

It's the film's job to invest the viewer in the story. If it does not, that's a failure of the film, not a failure of the viewer. If the story had been interesting, I would have been too busy enjoying it to bother trying to crack the puzzle.

To choose a totally different example, if you think too hard about the internal logic of Wreck-It Ralph, the whole thing makes no damn sense. But at least for the two hours I spent watching the movie, it didn't matter, because it was utterly endearing and I was too busy being charmed to pick nits.

LarryC wrote:

At one point, Sam lovingly strokes Frodo's hands out of affection for him. My friend wouldn't believe it until I showed him the passage in the book. I imagine many straight folks just read it and pass right on by.

So? I don't see how that is evidence of anything other than affection. There's an interesting study that someone did of photos of men together going back through the years and it shows how casual physical affection was much more acceptable years ago. Sam and Frodo's relationship strikes me as a loving friendship, and interpreting it as more than that has more to do with the person searching for what they want to find than anything else.

Keithustus wrote:
gore wrote:

Probably my favorite such (superhero) movie in recent memory was Watchmen due to the superheros-are-maybe-all-psychopaths undercurrent.

I thought the movie had a more coherant climax than the comic.

Spoiler:

Psychic squid! Oh noes! Felt much tighter to frame Dr. Manhattan. I don't remember from the movie though if it had the aboslute best part of the comic, at the end where Dr. Manhattan says something like 'nothing lasts forever' and one panel of Adrian doubting his perfect plan.

I've never played Dungeons and Dragons or any other live role playing game.

Pirate Bob wrote:

I've never played Dungeons and Dragons or any other live role playing game.

Me neither. It doesn't even sound appealing. I'm cool with boardgaming, but when you get into that "My dude does this" and then you roll dice to see if it works, eh, just not for me. I just don't have that kind of imagination.

lostlobster wrote:
LarryC wrote:

At one point, Sam lovingly strokes Frodo's hands out of affection for him. My friend wouldn't believe it until I showed him the passage in the book. I imagine many straight folks just read it and pass right on by.

So? I don't see how that is evidence of anything other than affection. There's an interesting study that someone did of photos of men together going back through the years and it shows how casual physical affection was much more acceptable years ago. Sam and Frodo's relationship strikes me as a loving friendship, and interpreting it as more than that has more to do with the person searching for what they want to find than anything else.

So the torrid kissing and tonguing were only in my copy of LoTR, I suppose?

Spoiler:

; )

Jayhawker wrote:

I think it is unfortunate that many people think of films as a puzzle to crack instead of stories to enjoy. I just see this as being bad at watching films.

Define "as puzzles to crack". I like to analyze films to see what the director was trying to communicate visually. There's a lot of examples of this in films such as, say, Citizen Kane, where he is announcing his declaration of principles yet is completely covered in shadow.

ccesarano wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I think it is unfortunate that many people think of films as a puzzle to crack instead of stories to enjoy. I just see this as being bad at watching films.

Define "as puzzles to crack". I like to analyze films to see what the director was trying to communicate visually. There's a lot of examples of this in films such as, say, Citizen Kane, where he is announcing his declaration of principles yet is completely covered in shadow.

Oh, then I guess M. Night Shyamalan is SOL... no, wait... you just might be right.

I liked the Matrix sequels

GioClark wrote:

I liked the Matrix sequels

I thought the second movie was like an odd mirror image of the first. The first was a very old story stylishly told. The second was a more original story, but clumsily told.

The third I fell asleep during.

I enjoy 'Elementary' far more than I enjoy the BBC 'Sherlock'. I find the latter far too smart-alick and sneering, and it very quickly wore out its welcome for me - I switched off about halfway through the 'Hound of the Baskervilles' one. It seems so far up its own arse it probably tastes actual food.

Elementary surprised me quite a lot. I was well prepared to dislike it based on the premise, but the plotting of the episodes is intelligent and there are some interesting undercurrents - I recorded the first episode for a laugh and found myself sticking with it.

And I don't care who knows it

GioClark wrote:

I liked the Matrix sequels

+1. He may be Elrond to many, but he'll always be Smith in my heart.

davet010 wrote:

I enjoy 'Elementary' far more than I enjoy the BBC 'Sherlock'. I find the latter far too smart-alick and sneering, and it very quickly wore out its welcome for me - I switched off about halfway through the 'Hound of the Baskervilles' one. It seems so far up its own arse it probably tastes actual food.

Elementary surprised me quite a lot. I was well prepared to dislike it based on the premise, but the plotting of the episodes is intelligent and there are some interesting undercurrents - I recorded the first episode for a laugh and found myself sticking with it.

And I don't care who knows it ;)

I'll confess to finding "Elementary" surprisingly OK, but I can't agree on "Sherlock". The Cumberbatch is where it's at.

Elementary's Holmes plays a lot more like "House" both in the character traits and in the fact that the show is a by the numbers procedural drama. I'm OK with that, but I really feel like "Sherlock" is a notch above.

Tanglebones wrote:
trueheart78 wrote:
GioClark wrote:

I liked the Matrix sequels

+1. He may be Elrond to many, but he'll always be Smith in my heart.

IMAGE(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Elrond_030ef5_122428.jpg)

The picture doesn't work for me, but I'll +2 him always being Smith.

trueheart78 wrote:
GioClark wrote:

I liked the Matrix sequels

+1. He may be Elrond to many, but he'll always be Smith in my heart.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/PleFO.png)

gore wrote:
davet010 wrote:

I enjoy 'Elementary' far more than I enjoy the BBC 'Sherlock'. I find the latter far too smart-alick and sneering, and it very quickly wore out its welcome for me - I switched off about halfway through the 'Hound of the Baskervilles' one. It seems so far up its own arse it probably tastes actual food.

Elementary surprised me quite a lot. I was well prepared to dislike it based on the premise, but the plotting of the episodes is intelligent and there are some interesting undercurrents - I recorded the first episode for a laugh and found myself sticking with it.

And I don't care who knows it ;)

I'll confess to finding "Elementary" surprisingly OK, but I can't agree on "Sherlock". The Cumberbatch is where it's at.

Elementary's Holmes plays a lot more like "House" both in the character traits and in the fact that the show is a by the numbers procedural drama. I'm OK with that, but I really feel like "Sherlock" is a notch above.

Completely agree. The last episode was especially fantastic. (FWIW, the Baskerville ep was the low point for the series, so far.)

lostlobster wrote:

(FWIW, the Baskerville ep was the low point for the series, so far.)

Yeah, it really was. A rather groan-worthy twist on the old tale.

I was disappointed by the ending of Kill Bill Vol 2. By that stage I just wanted them to hurry up and kill Bill but, over Christmas, I happened upon that last series of scenes of the movie on their own and they are pretty damn good.

That reminds me, I loved Kill Bill but I can't decide whether I like Django: Unchained.

Spoiler:

The over-the-top gore is fun, the story and characters are fine, I like the references to Brunnhilde and Wotan, the music is great, but

I just can't get into it like Kill Bill. Either it's just too similar or maybe it's because I pretty much can't stand westerns. (The recent True Grit remake was good, though.)

Higgledy wrote:

I was disappointed by the ending of Kill Bill Vol 2. By that stage I just wanted them to hurry up and kill Bill but, over Christmas, I happened upon that last series of scenes of the movie on their own and they are pretty damn good.

I think the problem I heard most often from people who didn't like it was that they were expecting something along the lines of O-ren with all of these minions of his popping out and it being a long contracted battle, when it seemed apparent to me from the scene where Bill and Kiddo talk before the wedding that it was very much going to be a personal and intimate battle (though I expected it to be more of a sword battle than a battle of wills and beliefs about what the right thing to do in a situation several years prior was).

I feel like people just go into a Tarantino moving expecting the wrong things.

I just expect something interesting and not quite like other stuff while simultaneously being heavily inspired by older genre entertainment.

Not a fan of Tarantino.