Yeah Beren and Luthien is an area you could probably do a small focus film off of. But I cannot imagine it'd return the money necessary to cover production costs and the cost of licensing it from the estate.
And seconded on the Hobbit movies. They were an abomination that not even Morgoth could love.
That's plausible, and when you factor in how much money it takes to pry access to those rights from the estate I'd be confident saying that most of the economically feasible content has already been mined out of the body of work.
Not at all, if you're disadvantaged and someone's offering a hand up that's great whether they're faithful or not and for whatever reason they're doing it.
But if you have no truck with religion or much truck with religion it's highly relevant to your interests if the religious are petitioning the civil government to restrict your activities. Religions speak out against sins, but when it comes to advocating that the state impose their particular views of sins on everyone, religious and nonreligious alike, only a small subset of sins get that special treatment from the religious busybodies. Not all sins are treated equal when it comes to when the religious, and in this country that's generally Christians, go out and try and force everyone to conform to their ideals regarding them.
Pinky's point is religion/religious protections (both for and from mind) are explicitly and directly spelled out in the constitution whereas gay rights are not. In our modern times we've read protections for gay citizens into the constitution (and I'd say rightly so!) but it's not literally spelled out in the original text which, to originalist constitutionalists, is a notable difference.
Those are all laudable (except crisis pregnancy services which are in a greyer zone) good works but not anything that the non-faithful have to worry about in their day to day lives. And, of course, none of those are about fighting "sin".
Sure, and I have a general working understanding of Christian theology. But in as much as it matters to non-faithful, the outward political action of these groups is the only element of their life that "matters" even if it's a minor part of the religious "world" of the laity.
In terms of the religious advocating, lobbying, voting and agitating for state laws and interventions, homosexuality, trans matters and abortion are the overwhelming focus of their attention. All the other sins sit far, far, far at the back of the bus.
Is there any religious push for civil penalties for adultery? Or a religious campaign against greed? If so I'm not aware of one.
I grant the priest at the pulpit says all the sins are equal while the parishioners doze and surreptitiously check their phones. But in terms of what the religious advocates and organizations actually take action against, the only sins that matter are the ones that don't effect them much.
*chuckles* Writers rooms are absolute nests of self dealing and nepotism. None of those head-up-their-posterior twits would ever countenance taking ideas from professionals, let alone trying to nap good material from the internet.
The Rings of Power were aimed straight at a significant gap in Tolkeins legendarium wherein I think serious hay could productively be made. Talking about themes of entire elven societies recovering from PTSD from the rape of Beleriand; the realization of the fading of elven pride in Middle earth; the desperate grasping for powers to preserve the same and Sauron taking advantage of that to make a play for ultimate dominion and corruption? That's good stuff. There was potential there, especially with the slow decline and corruption of Numenor as a backdrop and contrasting example of human corruption. Lost and wasted now.
I think the Noldor saga in Beleriand could hold potential for a couple of epic movies. Luthiens' mythos herself could be a whole film. But I agree that the larger mythos- the Valar, Arda's genesis etc, would not make good TV or film.
I haven't played them but I have read their synopsis and I found them quite clever. The idea that the player character wields the one ring against Sauron and is responsible for basically holding him at bay for centuries until he succumbs to the corruption is a clever one IIRC.
The acting was... eeeh... I mean everyone involved in the Galadriel main arc was working with absolute garbage scripts so they did what they could with the material at hand. The hobbit and dwarven side arcs did tolerably well acting wise because the material was respectively semi ok and almost solid for those two respective side arcs.
There was some very good elements. The world building wasn't bad. Bear Mccreary's music was fantastic. The portrayal of Khazad Dum as a living, breathing, dwarven city was hairs-on-the-arms-raising good and the portrayal of the barriers around Valinor (and the elven call and response that opened them) was flat out magical.
But for what Amazon paid for the show, the whole show needed to have that same magic from stem to stern and even then it might not have broken even but would have, at least, been an admirable and even laudable white elephant project. As it stands, RoP is a sick joke.
Silmarillion profoundly affected my own outlook on fantasy. I read it young and it kindled a white hot burning love of world building in my heart. So I was especially appalled as I watched Rings of Power. Like, Nazi's staring into the Arc of the Covenant levels of appalled.
The race of the various characters wouldn't have mattered a whit had the writing been any good, the plot been at all logical or it had actually focused on the forging of the titular Rings of Power. Instead they managed to find five minutes during the season finale to slap the rings out on the side.
I admit to being entirely shocked by Across the Spider-Verse; I had genuinely assumed that with expectations appropriately set high that AtSV would suffer compared to the original because the original was so, out-of-the-blue-sky amazing. I was still wrong. It was, again, astonishingly good and I even say that as a person who normally groans with a distinct sense of ennui at multiverse settings. Russell is spot on his placing it as the best film.
I don't disagree. Personally if a business wished to use their religious beliefs to refuse services to people I would want it only to be usable in court if they disclosed those restrictions on their signage and marketing material. Let the markets decide then.
Well Roberts' Court took their shot for religious liberty. With an imaginary business woman and an imaginary scary gay person trying to get an imaginary wedding website service. Best they could do is say that religious people are allowed to discriminate against people they don't like so long as they only do so in expressive service provision. Weak tea if you ask me, that's not much of a window for the fundies to try and wriggle through though, perhaps, the intention is to try and wiggle it wider over time?
On “From Bloomberg: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending”
Yeah Beren and Luthien is an area you could probably do a small focus film off of. But I cannot imagine it'd return the money necessary to cover production costs and the cost of licensing it from the estate.
And seconded on the Hobbit movies. They were an abomination that not even Morgoth could love.
"
Concurred, if anyone could have done it, some of the hard core fans could have.
"
That's plausible, and when you factor in how much money it takes to pry access to those rights from the estate I'd be confident saying that most of the economically feasible content has already been mined out of the body of work.
On “A Paucity Of Limits, By Stipulation: 303 Creative v Elenis”
Give him time. Heh.
"
Not at all, if you're disadvantaged and someone's offering a hand up that's great whether they're faithful or not and for whatever reason they're doing it.
But if you have no truck with religion or much truck with religion it's highly relevant to your interests if the religious are petitioning the civil government to restrict your activities. Religions speak out against sins, but when it comes to advocating that the state impose their particular views of sins on everyone, religious and nonreligious alike, only a small subset of sins get that special treatment from the religious busybodies. Not all sins are treated equal when it comes to when the religious, and in this country that's generally Christians, go out and try and force everyone to conform to their ideals regarding them.
"
Pinky's point is religion/religious protections (both for and from mind) are explicitly and directly spelled out in the constitution whereas gay rights are not. In our modern times we've read protections for gay citizens into the constitution (and I'd say rightly so!) but it's not literally spelled out in the original text which, to originalist constitutionalists, is a notable difference.
"
Those are all laudable (except crisis pregnancy services which are in a greyer zone) good works but not anything that the non-faithful have to worry about in their day to day lives. And, of course, none of those are about fighting "sin".
"
Sure, and I have a general working understanding of Christian theology. But in as much as it matters to non-faithful, the outward political action of these groups is the only element of their life that "matters" even if it's a minor part of the religious "world" of the laity.
"
I'd say it accurately enough describes most of the Catholics and the Mormons political activity as well.
"
In terms of the religious advocating, lobbying, voting and agitating for state laws and interventions, homosexuality, trans matters and abortion are the overwhelming focus of their attention. All the other sins sit far, far, far at the back of the bus.
Is there any religious push for civil penalties for adultery? Or a religious campaign against greed? If so I'm not aware of one.
I grant the priest at the pulpit says all the sins are equal while the parishioners doze and surreptitiously check their phones. But in terms of what the religious advocates and organizations actually take action against, the only sins that matter are the ones that don't effect them much.
"
Talk is cheap- actions speak louder than words.
On “From Bloomberg: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending”
*chuckles* Writers rooms are absolute nests of self dealing and nepotism. None of those head-up-their-posterior twits would ever countenance taking ideas from professionals, let alone trying to nap good material from the internet.
"
I saw that analysis on Dark Lord Tom and laughed so hard because it made so much sense!!!
"
The Rings of Power were aimed straight at a significant gap in Tolkeins legendarium wherein I think serious hay could productively be made. Talking about themes of entire elven societies recovering from PTSD from the rape of Beleriand; the realization of the fading of elven pride in Middle earth; the desperate grasping for powers to preserve the same and Sauron taking advantage of that to make a play for ultimate dominion and corruption? That's good stuff. There was potential there, especially with the slow decline and corruption of Numenor as a backdrop and contrasting example of human corruption. Lost and wasted now.
"
I think the Noldor saga in Beleriand could hold potential for a couple of epic movies. Luthiens' mythos herself could be a whole film. But I agree that the larger mythos- the Valar, Arda's genesis etc, would not make good TV or film.
"
Aping what Martin did is pretty tough if you don't have what Martin did to ape off of though.
"
I haven't played them but I have read their synopsis and I found them quite clever. The idea that the player character wields the one ring against Sauron and is responsible for basically holding him at bay for centuries until he succumbs to the corruption is a clever one IIRC.
"
The acting was... eeeh... I mean everyone involved in the Galadriel main arc was working with absolute garbage scripts so they did what they could with the material at hand. The hobbit and dwarven side arcs did tolerably well acting wise because the material was respectively semi ok and almost solid for those two respective side arcs.
There was some very good elements. The world building wasn't bad. Bear Mccreary's music was fantastic. The portrayal of Khazad Dum as a living, breathing, dwarven city was hairs-on-the-arms-raising good and the portrayal of the barriers around Valinor (and the elven call and response that opened them) was flat out magical.
But for what Amazon paid for the show, the whole show needed to have that same magic from stem to stern and even then it might not have broken even but would have, at least, been an admirable and even laudable white elephant project. As it stands, RoP is a sick joke.
On “A Paucity Of Limits, By Stipulation: 303 Creative v Elenis”
They don't approve of it, but they sure as heck don't go after it the way they go after various things gay. Some sins simply are worse than others*.
*Specifically the sins a minority commits that we and our flock can focus and obsess on and feel good about ourselves.
On “From Bloomberg: Amazon CEO Asks His Hollywood Studio to Explain Its Big Spending”
Silmarillion profoundly affected my own outlook on fantasy. I read it young and it kindled a white hot burning love of world building in my heart. So I was especially appalled as I watched Rings of Power. Like, Nazi's staring into the Arc of the Covenant levels of appalled.
"
The race of the various characters wouldn't have mattered a whit had the writing been any good, the plot been at all logical or it had actually focused on the forging of the titular Rings of Power. Instead they managed to find five minutes during the season finale to slap the rings out on the side.
On “The Month in Theaters June 2023”
I admit to being entirely shocked by Across the Spider-Verse; I had genuinely assumed that with expectations appropriately set high that AtSV would suffer compared to the original because the original was so, out-of-the-blue-sky amazing. I was still wrong. It was, again, astonishingly good and I even say that as a person who normally groans with a distinct sense of ennui at multiverse settings. Russell is spot on his placing it as the best film.
On “Open Mic for the week of 6/26/2023”
Yeah, fancy that eh?
"
I don't disagree. Personally if a business wished to use their religious beliefs to refuse services to people I would want it only to be usable in court if they disclosed those restrictions on their signage and marketing material. Let the markets decide then.
"
Well Roberts' Court took their shot for religious liberty. With an imaginary business woman and an imaginary scary gay person trying to get an imaginary wedding website service. Best they could do is say that religious people are allowed to discriminate against people they don't like so long as they only do so in expressive service provision. Weak tea if you ask me, that's not much of a window for the fundies to try and wriggle through though, perhaps, the intention is to try and wiggle it wider over time?