in the nicest and most non-confrontational way possible. i feel like some of you think that anything that isn't directly openly spelled out for you within a story is "missed potential" or "unexplored." like. sometimes there are implied narratives. sometimes the point is that you as the reader are supposed to think and draw your own conclusions and participate in the story. the writers not directly spelling every little detail out for you doesn't mean that the story is poorly written or missed its own plot details somehow. PLEASE.
658 notes
·
View notes
I don't get it I don't get this actually for real how did they fuck it up this bad
this is so incredibly unbelievable that they're actually there, they're so desaturated compared to The MineCraft and the lighting is so different I'm suprised they even bothered to set them in the right angle, they might as well have not bothered nothing you can do can make it less believeable than this
me when I hold my squorb with a blurred overlay and nothing else, I did more than this on my shitty half assed nuke assignment how the fuck was this run, how rushed is this shit
they got the squorb lit in this shot although it seems to be small and floating this time, epic (it could be a plot point that it becomes small and floating though, it's not like anyones going to watch the full movie and find out though)
LMAO the lights coming from the complete wrong direction in this shot and it looks just as believable I was right
this shot looks a lot more believeable, they actually bothered to do the same harsh lighting as the background. but that just proves they CAN do it but just?? didn't??? why???????? also I'm pretty sure the wood block background is an actual real prop.
and of course the greatest shot of all time, congratulations there is nothing I have ever believed less. the fucking stained glass knight looks more believeable than this, and it certainly was A Choice to have that little shrub there that looks like an actual tree, so the people look fucking massive at first glance
199 notes
·
View notes
Hey, so do you ever stop to think about how the premise of Lord of the Rings being an in-universe book written by some of the characters who lived through that story means that they decided what parts and perspectives to use to tell that story...?
And when our authors weren't there to experience the events themselves, they have to rely on what they're told about them by the characters who were there, right...?
Okay so stop and think about the Glittering Caves.
We never actually go to the caves in the narrative. Tolkien LOVES describing nature and natural beauty, but we don't actually see the caves described "by him" the way we do other places. Obviously Gimli's words are Tolkien's, yes; but we only see the caves filtered through his words about them, after the fact.
When Gimli and Éomer and the other Rohirrim take refuge there, the narrative doesn't follow them. Obviously from a narrative standpoint this is to keep the focus narrow, and not to interrupt the battle-sequence with a long ode to the beauty of the caves, and to create tension in the reader who doesn't know if these characters are okay or not. Which all makes sense!
But think about it in terms of the book that was written in Middle-earth by the folk living there. Why DON'T we get to have a direct experience of those caves? Gimli obviously related several other parts of the story that none of the Hobbits were there to witness to them, and which were written into the books as Direct Events Happening In The Narrative (think of the Paths of the Dead scene, for one of the more visceral moments!). So why not the Glittering Caves?
Was it because they wanted to keep that narrative focus and tension, and so they didn't include his perspective on that part of the battle? Perhaps, that's certainly a possibility to consider.
But also consider: when we do hear about the Glittering Caves, what we hear is Gimli telling Legolas about the Glittering Caves. THAT is the part of that event that is considered of importance to include in the book: not Gimli's actual experience when he was in them, but rather the part where he relates that experience TO Legolas.
And I kind of just THOUGHT about that today.
And went HUH.
378 notes
·
View notes
Complex characters are cool and all, but if all you’re gonna do is cry about how the antagonist you’ve imprinted on is “secretly a hero” simply because they were written with as much care and complexity as the story’s actual heroes, then do you even deserve complex characters? Can you handle them?
319 notes
·
View notes