Damn! Slept through it. I am thrilled to the gills.
Thank you Micra, for the link
What did you make of the new romantic storyline involving Tauriel and Kili?
To be honest I don’t have much of an opinion about it. They created characters that they wanted to explore. It was a female element that didn’t exist [in the books] which personally I don’t think was necessary. But I appreciated the fact that they knew that this film would be watched by a lot of young people and that they wanted young girls and women to have ca character that they could possibly relate to. I didn’t worry too much about it and I enjoyed the storyline myself and I was happy to see it played out.
One synopsis for Richard Armitage’s next film Pilgrimage, says that the monks are on a “reluctant pilgrimage” to deliver their monastery’s holiest relic to Rome. The relic in question: a stone used in the martyrdom of St Matthias, the 13th Apostle.here
Matthias, it turns out, was selected by Peter to backfill the 12th position as Apostle vacated by Judas. Uniquely, he was the only apostle not selected by Jesus, himself. Writings on Matthias’s history vary, including where he preached and how he died, but scholars seem to agree that he spent at least some time in Judea. He’s also reported to have preached in Georgia, along the Caspian Sea and Ethiopia, in a town that practiced cannibalism where he might have been eaten, or, might have been saved. One source says he died of old age.
For our purposes, he had to be martyred by stoning, else how would the Pilgrimage relic be a stone used in his martyrdom?. Some sources say he was stoned to death by the Jews under the order of Annas, and others say he was stoned to death in modern-day Georgia. I’m hoping for Georgia, but I think not, because one source recounts that in Jerusalem, Matthias asked that two stones used to kill him be buried with him. I’m guessing one of these buried stones is the Irish relic.
It’s amusing to me that in one film, Richard Armitage’s character engages in a long arduous journey focused on obtaining a powerful stone, while in another, his character is engaged in a long, arduous journey, focused on getting rid of one.
My mind is spinning on how to respectfully insert the phrase, Richard Armitage again getting his rocks off, – but for now, I’m chickening out and settling for this.
It’s pointless and frustrating to bemoan the exclusion of The Hobbit: the Battle of the Five Armies from almost any recognition from The Academy Awards. There are reasons – there are reasons – we know. But last night, I got a little angry, because there was no reason that it, or more accurately, Lord of the Rings, should have been excluded from the opening musical number, which seemed to be a hodgepodge of clips and live dancing and singing by “characters” from past popular and important movies – I mean they had Star Wars, The Hulk, – they couldn’t include Middle Earth? They should have included Middle Earth and Peter Jackson’s achievements. Talk about popular movies.
And then, to make matters worse, The Hobbit became the set-up for a joke, the punchline delivered by David Oyelowo.
As to the nominees, although I didn’t see all the movies nominated for very category, after looking at the clips, it seemed to me that The Hobbit should have been included in make-up and hair, production design and a few other categories.
So basically, I was more pissed watching the actual Oscars than I was when the nominations were announced and BOTFA was only nominated for one technical award.
Read this NY Time article about how the academy sees audiences. and some critique of the Academy’s performance this year.
I think it’s wonderful that there were so many original, fantastic, smaller movies this year to get recognition, and we need even more of those. Those are actually the kind of movies I like to see. But, when determining awards, the Academy ought to be as cognizant of what audiences want and are paying money to see. Then perhaps, more people would care about the Oscars. ( Viewership was way down this year).
KatharineD sent this link to me, and I think it’s a great read. Some purists may disagree with much of the authors reasoning, but this Article, Ten Reasons You’re Wrong About the Hobbit Trilogy, addresses purists and well as regular movie-goers.
Great praise for Freeman’s Bilbo and Armitage’s Thorin, kudos for action sequences, especially the finale between Azog and Thorin, and recognition that Peter Jackson gave us more of middle earth than he ever did or could in LOTR.
here, Art by Michael Washer