Subject

Content

Subject

Content It's gonna happen one day. Cheers.

Subject

Content The rest of the Fellowship were given gifts in the EE as well as Frodo, but in the original version of the film Galadriel gives Frodo the phial on screen.

Subject

Content I think the phial of Galadriel was given to Frodo in the theatrical cut. It was the bows, knives and rope that appeared in the FOTR: EE.

Subject

Content Plant!!! He he, always wanted to say that... To adapt a book you must first throw it away? What a load of bollocks. Do you think that if the story of Jesus was now filmed that the Bible would be 'thrown away'? Maybe Jesus could be a travelling Insurance salesman, "that'd explain why he has to travel around to the masses..." What else got me riled up? Oh yes, Galadriel's phial. It WAS given to Frodo in the Theatrical version, the whole gift giving scene wasn't included but Frodo STILL got the Light of Earendil. Has it been awhile since you've seen the Theatrical version? Cheers.

Subject

Content Great to see more CG characters that push the medium to the limits. Some of us can 'see' CG just as Neo can 'see' the computer code in the matrix (and machines out of it). It's impressive then CG can fool even us 'seers'. Bring on Sheol cant wait to see your eyecandy goodness.

Subject

Content this reporter also missed a few other things: the reason PJ got such a good performance out of Sean Astin and Elijah Wood "when they are acting against something that is not there", is because there WAS something there; Andy Serkis. He did almost every Gollum scene with the two of them on location or on set, and while they'd re-do the scene without him but remembering where he'd been, Weta Digital was actually able to paint Gollum over the top of Andy for some of the scenes, so for several shots in the film, they were acting with Andy Serkis, and for the others they had just acted it out with him and were recreating it with him off camera reading Gollum's lines. This is why Andy Serkis should be eligible for acting honours, which I feel he deserves. --- Also, Pippin singing WAS Billy Boyd's voice; he appears on the soundtrack credits. I also think I heard he's putting out an album? --- The 'ringwraith' vreature in a cave will be one of the Dead from the Paths of the Dead. --- As has been mentioned, the phial of Galadriel was the only bit of the gift-giving that made the theatrical cut, presumably specifically to set up it's appearance here.

Subject

Content this reporter also missed a few other things: the reason PJ got such a good performance out of Sean Astin and Elijah Wood "when they are acting against something that is not there", is because there WAS something there; Andy Serkis. He did almost every Gollum scene with the two of them on location or on set, and while they'd re-do the scene without him but remembering where he'd been, Weta Digital was actually able to paint Gollum over the top of Andy for some of the scenes, so for several shots in the film, they were acting with Andy Serkis, and for the others they had just acted it out with him and were recreating it with him off camera reading Gollum's lines. This is why Andy Serkis should be eligible for acting honours, which I feel he deserves. --- Also, Pippin singing WAS Billy Boyd's voice; he appears on the soundtrack credits. I also think I heard he's putting out an album? --- The 'ringwraith' vreature in a cave will be one of the Dead from the Paths of the Dead. --- As has been mentioned, the phial of Galadriel was the only bit of the gift-giving that made the theatrical cut, presumably specifically to set up it's appearance here.

Subject

Content was given to Frodo in the Theatrical Edition as well the EE. So there.

Subject

Content I see that I am not the only TB'er that thinks this person should go back and re-watch the theatrical version of FOTR. Enough people have pointed out Mr. ABG's (A Bulbous Git perhaps?) lack of information or downright wrong information. Seems to me that I read nearly the exact same information about a month ago on CHUD when "Smilin" Jack Ruby saw the same twenty minutes. Oh, one other thing ABG doesn't think that it's Billy Boyd singing to Denethor but according to the info posted here earlier this week about the soundtrack the link to www.soundtracks.net states that it is him singing.

Subject

Content I see that I am not the only TB'er that thinks this person should go back and re-watch the theatrical version of FOTR. Enough people have pointed out Mr. ABG's (A Bulbous Git perhaps?) lack of information or downright wrong information. Seems to me that I read nearly the exact same information about a month ago on CHUD when "Smilin" Jack Ruby saw the same twenty minutes. Oh, one other thing ABG doesn't think that it's Billy Boyd singing to Denethor but according to the info posted here earlier this week about the soundtrack the link to www.soundtracks.net states that it is him singing.

Subject

Content I see that I am not the only TB'er that thinks this person should go back and re-watch the theatrical version of FOTR. Enough people have pointed out Mr. ABG's (A Bulbous Git perhaps?) lack of information or downright wrong information. Seems to me that I read nearly the exact same information about a month ago on CHUD when "Smilin" Jack Ruby saw the same twenty minutes. Oh, one other thing ABG doesn't think that it's Billy Boyd singing to Denethor but according to the info posted here earlier this week about the soundtrack the link to www.soundtracks.net states that it is him singing.

Subject

Content I see that I am not the only TB'er that thinks this person should go back and re-watch the theatrical version of FOTR. Enough people have pointed out Mr. ABG's (A Bulbous Git perhaps?) lack of information or downright wrong information. Seems to me that I read nearly the exact same information about a month ago on CHUD when "Smilin" Jack Ruby saw the same twenty minutes. Oh, one other thing ABG doesn't think that it's Billy Boyd singing to Denethor but according to the info posted here earlier this week about the soundtrack the link to www.soundtracks.net states that it is him singing.

Subject

Content I see that I am not the only TB'er that thinks this person should go back and re-watch the theatrical version of FOTR. Enough people have pointed out Mr. ABG's (A Bulbous Git perhaps?) lack of information or downright wrong information. Seems to me that I read nearly the exact same information about a month ago on CHUD when "Smilin" Jack Ruby saw the same twenty minutes. Oh, one other thing ABG doesn't think that it's Billy Boyd singing to Denethor but according to the info posted here earlier this week about the soundtrack the link to www.soundtracks.net states that it is him singing.

Subject

Content Andy Serkis acted with the actors as Gollum thats why the performance kicks Fat 'Harry' Ass!

Subject

Content I say GOD DAMN!

Subject

Content I always know when something interesting has been posted because I can't get the site to work all day long and I'm sitting at work on a T1 line. I can't wait for this too come out. I think this will go down as the greatest Trilogy of all time. I watched Fellowship so many times that when I went to see TTT, it was like seeing old friends. I can't wait to see the continuation of the Journey that Frodo and Friends have taken us on. The most moving part for me in Fellowship was the look on Gandalf's face at the Council of Elrond when Frodo announces he will take the ring to Mordor. In Two Towers it was when the Elves arrive at Helm's deep and renew "Old Alliances" knowing that many if not all would give up their immortality. I can't wait to see what moments strike me in ROTK. Even though I know what happens, I hope the end is as devastating as it should be.

Subject

Content Whatever that meant. But as an esteemed colleague already pointed out, FIX THIS SITE THAT IS AS SLOW AS OLD PEOPLE FUCKIN!

Subject

Content Uh... fuck. That doesn't sound promising. Denethor was nothing like that; I think of him as a Governor Tarkan from Star Wars type of guy. Cold, old, and brittle. Oh well, this movie is going to kick ass. I smell Oscar!

Subject

Content Didn't the book portray him as spiritually crushed, but in command of himself?

Subject

Content In PJ's films, everyone is demented. PJ likes to depict the grotesque, even when there is no call for it. ******* Meanwhile, it's great to see there is singing in the theatrical release, since it is a hallmark of Tolkien's characters. ******* And I would just like to say, regarding the eventual re-editing and re-release of the entire saga as a 20 hour re-cut, that the arc of the story should be (as it is in the books) First: Shire=paradise, in a folksy kind of way. Second, Paradise is disturbed by the presence of the Ring, which must be disposed of. Third, Ring is disposed of, and the Shire is restored to its former tranquility with the Scouring of the Shire being the true Closure of the story arc. Please note, the Theatrical FOTR got the first part right, with the SHire being depicted in a fittingly utopian way. However, the Extended FOTR DVD actually messed this up, by introducing the malignance of the Ring all too soon, when Bilbo is already shown suffering from its horrors in the first minute or two of the prologue. Hence, in the Super-Re-cut version, the theatrical intro to the Shire should be restored. Finally, in the end the Scouring of the Shire needs to be rightfully placed at the end of the story, for it is the point of the whole adventure from the Hobbits point of view, and Prof Tolkien's point of view as well. ******* And if PJ does not release such a version, than I shall fire up the old video editing software and do it myself. Kthnxbye.

Subject

Content No matter what these film will go down as all time classics. Jackson is a GOD!

Subject

Content Or else you shouldn't put up the pretence of making a movie out of a book. It can be done. Nuff said.

Subject

Content ... you must brutally rape it, and then leave it tied up with duct tape along the side of the road in the most humiliating manner possible, laying it bare in a wretched insidious manner. Return after it has lost almost every ounce of life, and kick the crap out of it. Then crap on it, us the pages as toilet paper, light it on fire, and piss on the ashes. And that's just for the first draft of the screen play. For the second draft you need to start with..."

Subject

Content I woke up at 3 AM to access THIS????????? It's Astin, you knucklehead! Or is The Rock in this movie as well? ***I can only assume that the title of the first movie that Harry produces will be, 'THE PAGE CANNOT BE DISPLAYED'. It's something that he seems to know everything about.

Subject

Content Hi Harry, - AGB (?) reported of him seeing the 20 minutes ROTK. He sees a problem about the Phial of Earendils Light that Galadriel had given Frodo thinking you can see this scene only in the extended DVD of FOTR in Galadriels givt giving scene. But the givt to Frodo was the only scene to be seen in the theatrical version of FOTR too. So he/she needs not to worry, the audience will recognize the weapon and understand the scene in ROTK. Best regards and namarie Susanne

Subject

Content What is this I hear about Christopher Lee being cut out of the the theatrical version of Return of the King? Christopher Lee said he heard about on the internet (he hasn't talked to PJackson and NLine), but he's so pissed off he says he's not attending any of the premieres. Is this true?

Subject

Content Oooo, I hope we see Dernhelm picking his nose, can't leave that sort of thing out. "Oh, that was close!" Didn't want to leave out the Pippin almost falling into the pile of horse doody bit. So, Denethor is a pig, huh? So much for the highly advanced civilization of Gondor and their

Subject

Content The fact that Saurman has been a key charachter in the first 2 films only for him not even to appear in the third is complete joke. What the hell has happened to Jackson.############################# Chris Lee is a brilliant actor who gives everything and is always open and respectful to fans. This is a real snub to a great man.

Subject

Content I really can't understand PJ's thinking on this one. Everything ELSE about ROTK seems so good. Sigh... I'm afraid any lingering trust in the mantra is well and truly gone. Cheers.

Subject

Content How is this possible?!!! <snip> But the 81-year-old star said he was "shocked" to find out he will now not appear in the film. He said: "Yes, it is true. The only reason I'm able to say this is because it was on the internet and has been for some days. I only heard recently. "As far as I'm concerned, I'm only telling you this because it has been revealed on the internet, someone has talked and it certainly wasn't me. "Of course I am very shocked, that's all I can say." Lee said he was mystified by the decision: "If you want to know why you would have to ask the company New Line or director Peter Jackson and his associates because I still don't really know why," he said.<snip>

Subject

Content It actually got to me how this affected Christopher Lee. A few days ago he was talking about this with such passion. Now he just seemed so sad. I think that by the third film people are who have watched the first ones are goint to watch it whatever... an extra 7 minutes isn't going to put anyone off. Hell, do it as a FOTR introductory voice over by one of the hobbits as he dozes on the back of gandalf's horse or something. Or alternatively (and it is unfortunately probably too late for this) how about releasing this whole scene as a 7 minute teaser/trailer/prologue for ROTK. Especially after the success of releasing those 10 minute trailers for TTT and ROTK with the previous films. Im pretty sure most people here would flock to see almost any film (maybe even matrix revolutions) that has a 7 minute ROTK prologue playing before it. THEN put it on the extended DVD. Don't use the extended DVD as a crutch, it has already screwed up the Phail of galadriel as a plot device...

Subject

Content this sounds like the same we've seen on CHUD weeks ago. *** It's not very charming to cut Saruman out of ROTK. But he will be on the EE. There's always hope for better days to come! Especially when your week's done and you can go home and have a nice weekend like I'm going to do.

Subject

Content It actually got to me how this affected Christopher Lee. A few days ago he was talking about this with such passion. Now he just seemed so sad. I think that by the third film people are who have watched the first ones are goint to watch it whatever... an extra 7 minutes isn't going to put anyone off. Hell, do it as a FOTR introductory voice over by one of the hobbits as he dozes on the back of gandalf's horse or something. Or alternatively (and it is unfortunately probably too late for this) how about releasing this whole scene as a 7 minute teaser/trailer/prologue for ROTK. Especially after the success of releasing those 10 minute trailers for TTT and ROTK with the previous films. Im pretty sure most people here would flock to see almost any film (maybe even matrix revolutions) that has a 7 minute ROTK prologue playing before it. THEN put it on the extended DVD. Don't use the extended DVD as a crutch, it has already screwed up the Phail of galadriel as a plot device...

Subject

Content The phial is in the theatrical cut, you moron. Did you even look at this thread?

Subject

Content The phial is in the theatrical cut, you moron. Did you even look at this thread?

Subject

Content The phial is in the theatrical cut, you moron. Did you even look at this thread?

Subject

Content I still trust PJ to deliver a wonderful film, if not without faults. He's done two in a row, each with their own sacreligious cuts/changes from the books.

Subject

Content What that crazy Canadian purveyer of gory body horror said is absolutely true. You can't properly adapt a book if you think it's beyond changing, because you can't simply film a 1000-page novel. It would be a long, dull watch, no matter how much you love the source material. Changes have to be made, scenes have to be sacrificed. Themes and story threads which work on the page do not work on screen,: prose and film are two vastly different mediums. To properly adapt a book, you need to keep the soul intact, and PJ and his writing gang have done that brilliantly. I say this as a screenwriter - believe me, they've tried every possible way of telling this story, they've been doing so for about seven years, right? The reason the Voice of Saruman stuff won't be in the movie is, it damaged the movie. That's why they've taken it out - to improve the finished film. The whole LOTR cast and crew are clearly huge fans of Tolkien, they're not just going to change things arbitrarily or to piss people off. They're making changes because they've got a nearly impossible task - to put an unfilmable novel onto film. And worse, they've got to balance a love of LOTR with the need to make it work as a movie, which is probably why PJ etc. have left it till the eleventh hour to take out a major scene. It was done to improve the film for a far greater audience than those who would happily watch the scene regardless of what it did to the pacing. PJ is a Christopher Lee fan, too, remember... D'you think he enjoyed taking his scene out?Personally I think they've all done an incredible job so far, and I'll gladly wait to see Christopher Lee do his thing on the extended DVD next year.

Subject

Content Since I've not seen this footage mentioned here, I can only comment on what I've seen in the trailers. To attempt to get things a bit more positive, what are people's favourite moments from the ROTK preview on the TTT DVD, and the theatrical trailer? Personally I'm going for the White Rider charging accross the Pelennor, staff shining like a star, driving the Ringwraiths off, to save Faramir and his men. Gorgeous to look at (even though you only get a snippet), straight out of the book, and gloriously uplifting and majestic. Anyone else? Or are you all still too glum over missing Saruman and worried for Denethor's nobility?

Subject

Content I held off posting until I saw other people complaining. Always thought Denethor was a thin, ascetic sort of fellow with some sense of propriety. (Tarkin is a good comparison). What's he doing slopping stew all over himself? I hear Eowyn serves up a terrible stew in one of those extended scenes from TTT. Did PJ have a traumatic experience with Dinty Moore that causes him to portray stew in such an unflattering light?

Subject

Content It is the Ring that draws all evil to it. Remember, Frodo goes into

Subject

Content This was revelead this morning and came from the mouth of Lee himself. Sad. Put his scenes back IN........the theatrical cut!

Subject

Content Hey guys. First off, thanks as always go to morGoth for the insights. The direct quote was nice. That was the one I had in mind. So does that mean that you too, as a new member of RTE think that the wraiths could've "seen" the ring in that sequence in Osgilliath? Also, raw_bean, with the idea of "less doom and gloom" in mind, Shelob looks great, and you're right, the shot of Gandalf riding across the Pelanor (sp?) while his staff lights up is incredible. From what I read on TORN, the grey havens sound like they are going to be handled quite well, which is good. I really think that PJ made the right decision in cutting the scouring (hate me TBers if you want, Tom had to go the way of the knife to. It's true) and instead opting to end with just the Grey Havens. I am eager to see this scene everyone is talking about with Denethor shoveling food into his mouth (playing up the mental instability of the character, interesting decision) that gets juxtaposed with shots of Faramir fighting the orcs. Sounds very cool. I also think that the changes regarding the Mouth of Sauron sound promising. I am all for beefing up his role, especially if it spares us an appearance from the Dark Lord himself. What little I have heard of Shore's score is great. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that PJ will handle the climax in a satisfactory fashion. Oh, and the paths of the dead look cool. We'll see how he handles the "duel with the king of the dead" thing if the rumors are true. If it's done well I'm sure I'll love it. Really, in spite of what it might have sounded like from my other posts, I'm really looking forward to this film. Here's hoping we'll all have cause to rejoice come 12/17. Let me try posting this again. 45th time is the charm...

Subject

Content Hey guys. First off, thanks as always go to morGoth for the insights. The direct quote was nice. That was the one I had in mind. So does that mean that you too, as a new member of RTE think that the wraiths could've "seen" the ring in that sequence in Osgilliath? Also, raw_bean, with the idea of "less doom and gloom" in mind, Shelob looks great, and you're right, the shot of Gandalf riding across the Pelanor (sp?) while his staff lights up is incredible. From what I read on TORN, the grey havens sound like they are going to be handled quite well, which is good. I really think that PJ made the right decision in cutting the scouring (hate me TBers if you want, Tom had to go the way of the knife to. It's true) and instead opting to end with just the Grey Havens. I am eager to see this scene everyone is talking about with Denethor shoveling food into his mouth (playing up the mental instability of the character, interesting decision) that gets juxtaposed with shots of Faramir fighting the orcs. Sounds very cool. I also think that the changes regarding the Mouth of Sauron sound promising. I am all for beefing up his role, especially if it spares us an appearance from the Dark Lord himself. What little I have heard of Shore's score is great. Oh, and I'm pretty sure that PJ will handle the climax in a satisfactory fashion. Oh, and the paths of the dead look cool. We'll see how he handles the "duel with the king of the dead" thing if the rumors are true. If it's done well I'm sure I'll love it. Really, in spite of what it might have sounded like from my other posts, I'm really looking forward to this film. Here's hoping we'll all have cause to rejoice come 12/17. Let me try posting this again. 45th time is the charm...

Subject

Content ...Is the look Gollum gives Sam right after he says "He's leading us into a trap!" That evil glare is just chilling, it's like a snide little two-fingered-salute or cigarette-butt-in-the-face to Sam because the bug-eyed emaciated schizoid knows he's going to get away with it. And the fact that Frodo's leading him away by the hand, it's just perfect. I love all those tiny little moments that you can only do with cinema. Like the bit in Fellowship on the mountainside, where Boromir picks up the ring, gives it back to Frodo, and then you see that Aragorn's had his hand on his sword the entire time. My favourite moment from the preview on the Two Towers DVD is hearing that line from the book... "Ride to ruin, and the world's ending!!!" As a Scot who was pretty underwhelmed with Braveheart, I think that's a far better battle-cry than Mel Gibson chanting "Freedom!" to a bunch of woad-faced arrow-baiting yahoos. "Ride to ruin, and the world's ending!!!" ...Man, I'm going to have to try not to stand up in the cinema and start attacking people when I hear that line. It's about as stirring, horrific and apocalyptic as you can get...

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Great moments, and cringe inducing moments (for the fans of the book). Just get over it, realize that for various practical reasons, the movies can't be as good as the book (they never are), and enjoy what you've got. Oh, and there's only one good Star Wars movie - The Empire Strikes Back.

Subject

Content Count Dooku to be edited out ofEpisode III. Lucas quoted as saying "Fans will just assume he was killed sometime during the Clone Wars".

Subject

Content ..there's 2 and a 1/2 great SW films.

Subject

Content "If you recall Bradley, this is the section in the movie where that fat bastard had me fall onto the spikey wheel, which he then decided to edit out." "I remember, Mr. Lee. I also remember you pleading with him during the original filming not to shoot the scene as it was not in the book. And you were so right about fans of the book hating the whole idea." "Well of course, Bradley, for am I not a lover of the book myself? I still can't believe that hairy little man had the nerve to say, 'Of course they'll love the change, Chris. That Tolkien was a rank amateur, don't you know. I am quite confident that they will just love your impalement, almost, if not more than when we surprise them with Arwen at Helm's Deep.' Well we all know how that little adventure turned out, don't we Bradley?" *To be continued* (feel free to join in). ***Updating my original 'This is not necessarily a bad thing' opinion, let me add that should the Expanded Edition DVD contain Saruman's death at Isengard, whether by spikey wheel or hand of Grima, then not only will this be a bad thing, it will be a horrible thing and I will be mightly disappointed indeed. Please P.J., use this opportunity to have Saruman meet his end in The Shire!!!!!!!!! ***raw_bean, I'll get back to you re my favorite (favourite, in your case) moment in the preview. Think I'll go watch it again first. Now which tape did I record it on?

Subject

Content When I heard of this, I was flabbergasted! I still refuse to believe it. PJ, so you far you have pulled off this trilogy damn near perfect(and that is sooooo rare in hollywood anymore!), but for pete's sake, put Chris Lee's scenes back in the film! *******PLEASE!!!*******

Subject

Content Give us Saruman!

Subject

Content You'll get no doom and gloom from me! ROTK is gonna own all the neighsayers come 12/17! it will be the greatest movie ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject

Content raw_bean, I love when Philippa quotes Tolkien regarding Sam in the preview on disc 2. As for my favorite 'movie scene' from that preview, I would have to say it's when Gandalf rides Shadowfax up the stairs as the camera rises over the battlement revealing the enemy forces on the Pelennor. Breathtaking! [But I have to add that that Christian Rivers dude kinda freaks me out - he's so intense! :~)] ***Regarding the trailer, I must confess that I had a very difficult time selecting one portion as it was all so perfectly seemless. But if I had to chose one moment, it would definitely be the look that comes over Gollum's face as he glances back at Sam when Frodo says, "Come Smeagol," ***And thanks beanie for trying to lighten things up so to speak. I cannot deny that this Saruman thing has let some air out of my "anticipation" balloon.

Subject

Content I'm very much enjoying this Ring/Nazgul discussion, it's just like the old days. Now this brings me to a question about the book. DOT says "Would Sauron send them out

Subject

Content Hi peoples - when I read Saruman was cut out of ROTK, I went to Christopher Lee's web site to see what he had to say about it (the "boycotting the premiere" is apparently not true). Anyway, they have a peptition up that you can sign to get the Saruman scene back in. It's got over 7000 signatures so far. He's the URL: http://www.petitiononline.com/smanrotk/ . Take care - Thing-Fish.

Subject

Content BG, that's the only reason I can come up with -- as Tolkien wrote, Frodo was still in the Shire. A special place for Hobbits, indeed.

Subject

Content I note with interest that there's not a hint of Saruman and/or Grima in either. Considering that the T2T DVD was released in late August, I gotta figure that the RotK preview was done by July at the latest. I wonder if P.J. knew even back then that Saruman/Grima would be getting the boot.

Subject

Content HEY GUYS! Here is what TORN had to say about the whole mess. I agree 100%!! "You may have noticed that my esteemed colleague Maegwen and others have been posting on the front page more often that before. They all do wonderful work and I

Subject

Content Erm, aren

Subject

Content Sorry for posting the whole comment but I do think TORN has a point. I really do feel bad for Christopher Lee b/c he has been out promoting ROTK for the past several months and then to suddenly be told your not in the film probably makes you feel pretty worthless. However, I do think PJ really had a reason for doing so. This will all work out in the end. And who knows- maybe they'll put the scene in the theatrical version anyway.--Though I doubt it. This still has not changed my excitement about wanting to see ROTK.

Subject

Content "A sudden fear of unreasoning discovery..." is how that should have read. Ninnyhammers!

Subject

Content Yeah, it was the first encounter on the road with all the sniffing I was talking about. Ahh... the magic of the Shire. And morGy, don't mention the ahem-BG/PJ-ahem thing! Given the current groundswell of opinion I'd better keep a low profile!

Subject

Content seriously, jesus christ get your head out of his ass for five minutes please.

Subject

Content No but seriously such editing moves, I mean the total exclusion of Saruman/Chris Lee form ROTK and the removal of the gift giving scene in FOTR- are things that will truly jeopardize the trilogy, and it proves that Peter Jackson has become no less than EVIL! After all, how can a respectable director can decide to cut the entire work of an actor like Christoher Lee in a film, when those scenes just represent something like 7 minutes of the whole footage? I mean WHAT'S A FRIGGIN' 7 MINUTES ON A 3 HOURS EPIC DAMMNIT!?!?!? It's nothing man! The stupidest, most narrow-minded filmgoer would'nt even notice the additional length. Of course, Jackson will give fanboys like me the opportunity to actually see the UNBUTCHERED version of that movie, but then again I'll have to wait 11 months for it! THis is to Peter Jackson, in case that you would be reading this talkback (even if it's one chance out of a thousand): if you're really into doing this whole crap, then you, mister, are FULL OF SHIT! You do not deserve all the money and reputation you earned with LOTR, just as you made a serious case of disrespect towards Christopher Lee, and towards the fans of the first two LOTR movies you directed. And if those news are true, then you can be sure to count me out of ROTK... I will be among those that will refuse to see this load of egotistical crap in their entire lifetimes! ***Robofag has spoken his words, then he goes back palying with his dolls***

Subject

Content You know, I've emailed info to Xoanon in the past, (s)he is a nice person with a great Dr. Who handle. But to piss on the unhappiness of thousands of fans . . . Man. Whiny pussies, OK. Sure. What if the movie reviewers AND the general public are upset/confused by this as well? Where do you cross the line from being whiny pussies to being reasonably aggrieved by poor planning? Or will a large segment of the human race be considered whiny pussies before you'll admit any mistakes on the part of St. Peter?

Subject

Content Jeez Harry, you're pulling down enough dough to actually HAVE servers that handle more than one connection, right?

Subject

Content I think most folk need a chance to get used to this and see a bit more good news before they can trust PJ again. (I know, some have lost it for good). I have not, although I am heartsick for Christopher Lee. He has been such a staunch champion of the movies and especially Peter. I still find it hard to believe no one would call him first to tell him. (They called Sean Bean when it became clear that they would have to cut his pick-up scenes from the Two Towers), but the quotes I've read from Lee seem to indicate he was in the dark. I sure hope we hear more of that story. But, as for the cut itself, I do believe that PJ did it for the good of the overall film, and generally I think he has a very good sense of what works and what doesn't. A further disappointment for me was that I got swept up in the hoax idea and I add my voice to Miami's and urge PJ to use this opportunity to put Saruman's death where it belongs.***On to the Denethor shovelling food scene: I have my doubts about how this will play, too, but we really should chill a bit - remember the early descriptions of the "soup scene" and the "Life is good" beer scene? Those sounded dreadful. But I have now seen them both and they play VERY differently (and better) than those description. The Faramir/Boromir scene is GREAT (and it's called ale, not beer) and the soup scene (actually it's stew) is overall unnecessary, but has some sweet things in it. But back to Denethor. I want to caution everyone about how he is portrayed. In the extended scene it is clear that film Denethor is different from book Denethor, in the same vein as ALL of the characters have shown up differently. Just as Aragorn's doubt about his destiny is exaggerated (or Gimli's humor) Denethor's dislike of his second son Faramir is exaggerated. I expect he will come to embody all the sins of men in ROTK but I am hoping this exaggeration is pointed toward an emotional payoff at the end.***I also want to address some of DoT's posts (on different tb's I think) about how changing one word can make a huge difference. No question about it, DoT. You are right as rain about that. And you are also, of course, correct that these writers have changed one word, many words, transposed scenes and put one character's words in another's mouth. Where I disagree with you is in your assumption that this shows the writers to be unaware of the impact this has, or that this shows they don't recognize the change in tone (or meaning) that this creates. I maintain that they know it as well as you do, but that they are attempting something different in the scene to begin with. For example, the transposition of the "songs and tales" scene from the Stairs to the woods of Ithilien. You are 100% correct that the scene plays far more lightheartedly in the movie than in the book. I do not think they were aiming for the tone of the original. I think they wanted to show how Sam and Frodo's relationship was still strong and "hobbity" after the harrowing Nazgul scene. And, rather than make up dialogue to fit there, they grabbed a bit of original dialogue from a scene they would not otherwise be showing, trimmed it and warmed it up to suit what the film needed at that moment. If I had an evening with Fran and Phillips, I would continue to argue in favor of including the scene as written by Tolkien (tone intact) because I love it so immensely and believe there is a way to film it, even for modern, cynical audiences, but that was not the issue before them.***Hello tailenders! Hang in there everybody. Remember you've got lots of goodies coming your way on the SEV!

Subject

Content It ain't cool news to learn that some of the best and most moving parts in the book are going to be cut. What was up with making Faramir into a jackass in the Two Towers, even though it ended up okay. The Two Towers, as great as it was, is not the same without Shelob and Frodo's "death" in the end. It could have been as good a cliffhanger as in The Empire Strikes Back. I know the movie is going to be great anyway, but why must the mess with the Scouring of the Shire. LONG LIVE SHARKY!LONG LIVE CHRISTOPHER LEE!

Subject

Content Boycott this turd of a movie. If you have to see it buy a ticket to something else and then sneak in to return of the king. Don't reward PJ for spitting in your face!

Subject

Content None of you have seen the entire Return of the King movie yet. How the holy hell do you get off critiquing something you've never even seen? Oh wait... that's what TBers DO, isn't it? Dumbasses.

Subject

Content And what's that about Tolkien being an "amateur writer", dixit that bitch Philippa Boyens (or something)? Is that a joke? 'Cause I'm in stitches here, I really am. Red drool? How droll! Ah yes, we have come to that time of the year again when anxieties take over. I don't trust PJ. I don't distrust him either. Because at this point, I figure I have not entrusted him with anything I particularly care about. They are his films, and the way things are going, they have nothing to do with what I set out to defend in the first place. Sadly, they will have little or no place in my heart for the years to come, and the written material will remain my primary interest; and I'll watch other movies. So he can do whatever he likes, as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not worried for those who weep right now or are angry. There will be positive aspects to the film, hopefully as much as there were for FotR, and if not, they will be contented still. Some of us are less easy-going, but fear not, my brothers and sisters, they will find happiness, too. This being AICN, I must be pretty naive, telling people here not to get carried away - one way or another. Anyway... from a free man, a bit of advice: just wait for the movie to come out. Yes, the screenplay and editing will suck, but you'll cry anyway at the end. Trust me. Wait, forget that. Trust Pallandeau. Oh yes, and Xoanon, I hope Alliance Atlantis makes you eat your undies and teaches you how to say "bon app

Subject

Content Leopardghost beat me to it! And in two lines! I should have thought about that: dumbasses, why of course.

Subject

Content Hey, Elanor. Just a slight correction to your assumption of my assumption, in that I never thought the writers aren't aware of the differences their changes make (when they cut and paste dialogue to suit them). I was referring more to talkbackers who insist "it's the same speech" because the words are recognizably Tolkien's, even if the context and characters are changed. Of course, the writers are being deliberate in altering the tone - for good or ill. It is a funny kind of homage to pay to a writer, though, to love the way he strings words together, but to divorce those words from their context. In some cases, such as "a chance for Faramir to show his quality," the complete 180 degree turn from the phrase's original meaning gives it an almost jarring quality - which could be deliberate, giving it a heightened menace. I'm sure we could both easily find examples in both films where shifting lines from one character to another or from one setting to another is either neutral in its effect or a distinct improvement (for example, moving Gandalf and Frodo's dialogue about "pity" from Bag End to Moria, where the heightened menace and tension of their setting gives Gandalf's words even more force.) ***Raw Bean, if you would take the trouble to to back through the last year and a half of posts (not that I expect you to), you would discover that I have eaten up hundreds if not thousands of column inches praising various decisions by the filmmakers. The idea that I assume some kind of arbitrarily negative position is absurd. (And in reference to the other talkback, if you would compare current freshman essays with those of a generation or two back, I don't think you could seriously say there hasn't been a decline in analytical thinking - and compare those to Tolkien's letters at the age of 20...! This isn't a matter of looking back to some non-existent golden past but of recognizing that standards in higher education have changed. not to mention methods of communication.) ***Favorite moment in the ROTK trailer: quite possibly Gollum's horrible gloat, though a nod to Eowyn's removing her helmet, quick flash that it is.

Subject

Content in a swedish newspaper with the news that he had been cut. He really looked marvelous! Mean, composed, 100% in caracter!I really felt that leaving him out is a BIG mistake. Sorry Peter Jackson! BIG mistake. And all I can do is complain about it. EE DVD my ass!

Subject

Content its got2 be the one which shows Arwen dying, and all those leaves fluttering about her__HAUNTING__

Subject

Content is what led me to the conclusions I gave on the last TB. Indeed, I would have looked up that quote myself, but my mother is reading our shared copy of LOTR at the minute, so the book was not available (I'll be getting my own copy to round out my collection soon, for the past year I've been buying everything of Tolkien's in stylish black paperback editions, starting with Unfinished Tales, just over half of The History of Middle Earth {so far!}, Tales From The Perilous Realm, Roverandom, The Sil and The Hobbit). The only point where we seem to disagree, is that you seem to think once Frodo had put on the Ring once, in Bree, the Nazgul had full awareness of it's presence, even when Frodo was no longer wearing it, which I just don't agree with. I interpret the Osgiliath scene in the films being very similar to that scene in the books, except that the wraith could probably just about make out Frodo on the wall, and would have been wondering what he was and why it felt drawn to him, until Sam broke the Ring's hold on Frodo's mind and Faramir distracted the Wraith by hurting it's Fell Beast. As for Frodo being 'still in the Shire', I interpreted that not as some kind of 'Shire magic', just Frodo's feeling of security in the Shire, and his disbelief that anything really bad could happen in it that would make him need to use the Ring.

Subject

Content "The idea that I assume some kind of arbitrarily negative position is absurd.", I've never made that assumption. If you're referring to when I said "I could say 'if you have any position other than (well to be fair, quite well qualified) scorn for PJ's every decision, you're just deluding yourself and missing the whole 'spirit of Tolkien'.', but I WONT, because that would be AN OVER SIMLPLIFICATION OF YOUR VIEW POINT", then you seem to missed the fact that I was saying I didn't really think or mean that, because that would be unfair to you. The point of the discussion, was that I though YOU were being unfair when you said: "if you have any position other than unqualified praise of PJ's every decision, you're just dragging us down" was what people seemed to be saying. I could find no posts by anyone that seemed to reflect this view, but since I seemed to be the one praising the films the most at the time (along with cutestofborg), I took that to be aimed at me, and I took offence. The silly thing is, there's no reason for us to be at odds; I have nothing against you for criticising some aspects of the films, if you reread my later posts on the last TB you'll see I pointed out that I agreed with most of them (that was the last [as in previous] time I tried to convince you I have nothing against you), nor have I ever tried to suggest you are totally negative towards the films. All that happened was, when I took it that you were accusing me of being unthinkingly positive about them, and derogatery to anyone who had "anything other than unqualified praise" for them, I asked you to explain where you thought I or others were acting like that, and saying that if you could make generalised, demeaning statements like that with no elaboration, then I COULD do the same think back to you, but that I realise that would be unfair. Now just let me sum up; D-o-T, I have nothing against you (even that statement you made that kicked this whole thing off, I would have quickly forgiven if you'd explained or apologised, or quickly forgotten if you'd not: I'm not the kind to hold grudges, though it rankled at the time). I do not think you are 'arbitrarily negative', indeed, I agree with many of your criticisms of the films. This of course, also means that I am not arbitrarily positive, and do not believe that nothing but "unqualified praise" deserves to be leveled at the films. There is no reason for us to be at each others throats, so I now forgive all ofence you've caused, and apologise - sincerely and with genuine intent - for any offence I've caused, and offer the hand of friendship. What say you, d-o-t, mellyn? :)

Subject

Content Let's settle this; Tolkien WAS an amateur writer. Amateur DOES NOT MEAN 'BAD'! It is the opposite of 'professional'. Tolkien was NOT a professional writer, his profession was lecturing at Oxford University. Tolkien didn't write with the intention of publication (at least not at first), he wrote stories for his children, and he wrote because he loved writing stories. LOTR was probably the first book that was a 'job' for him to do, as it was written with the intention, from the start, of publilshing it, and it arose out of demand for a sequel to The Hobbit. Despite this, he did not end up writing a sequel to The Hobbit in the manner he set out to do; the tale, as has oft been repeated, grew in the telling, and Tolkien's love of high poetry and myth, and his marvellous invented world took over what originally was going to be another childrens book like The Hobbit, which is what a professional writer would have written, to meet the demand, instead of an amateur who wrote out of love of story. Yes, Tolkien was an amateur writer, and a damn good one, and a bloody good job too.

Subject

Content Incidentally, you now come on these TBs to say you don't really have an opnion, as you don't care either way? Fair enough, that just seems a little redundant to me.

Subject

Content The use of amateur in relation to 'professionalism" in my view doesn't exactly fit Tolkien, as he made a VERY good living from his writing. He may have started out as an 'amateur' writer, but he certainly didn't finish that way. He earnt far more from his writings after he retired from his "professional" life than he did prior. Even the Hobbit supplemented his income considerably. Amateur in my view refers to doing something for the 'love' of it, ie: Olympic athletes. Until recently they were forbidden fromm earning income directly from their chosen profession as were Rugby Union players. This is how I understand the term amateur, apart from it's negative conotations of course... I sent off an email to Xoanan today, though he probably won't read. I complained about the lack of Saruman and finished the comment, by refusing to be negative any more. From here on in it's all positive about ROTK. Unless there's more bad news of course... Cheers.

Subject

Content My e-mail: Hi Xo! Miami Mofo here. / I just wanted to tell you that I enjoyed reading your Saruman editorial. With all the e-mails you've been getting I was amazed and appreciative that you were able to post the Empire Magazine 'Secret Shire Party scene' tidbit that I sent you last week. Thanks. / I have had no problems with any of the changes P.J. has made thus far (thankfully Arwen at Helm's Deep didn't make the cut or I'm not sure I could make that statement), but as a self-confessed 'Scouring' fan I have always hoped that some form of it would be included in the EE-DVD. / That continues to be my hope. So if P.J. decides to use this opportunity to somehow place that spikey wheel on Ted Sandyman's new mill (built per Sharkey's orders) then I would be most happy indeed. Best wishes, Miami Mofo. ***Xoanon's one word reply: Thanks! ***For those who don't know me or are unsure, of course my Chris/Brad Commentary post w/ 'Tolkien was a rank amateur, don't you know?' was a joke! Greenie, how could you even ask that? ***Finally, to those dolts who keep maintaing that 'Scouring' has been shown because LotR:FotR showed a few seconds of a destroyed Shire through the Mirror of Galadriel, I say RUBBISH!!!!!!!!! 'Scouring' is not about the destruction of the Shire, it is about cleansing away the effects of that destruction, beginning with the removal of those who caused that destruction.

Subject

Content Harry was the one who broke the news about Saruman one week ago today -- see tb #16462, thus this Saruman news did have it's own talkback. The thread just spilled over to here, same as it did on the soundtrack tb (#16467).

Subject

Content Saruman's demise, or lack thereof, DID have its own talkback a few days ago, along with an interview with Peter Jackson where he explained his reasons for cutting the scene. But you loved Braindead, so all is forgiven. And as for this argument over whether Tolkien was an amateur or professional writer... I'd say PJ and his writing partners are pretty professional, too! They know what they're doing. None of us have seen more than 20 minutes of ROTK. PJ has seen the version with Saruman, and the version without, and he prefers "without". I'd hate to be sitting in the theatre thinking "Something's wrong with this movie" after only ten minutes because he decided to forget everything he knew about film-making and please a bunch of LOTR fanboys instead... I love LOTR as well, but when it comes to the movies, I'll trust the guy with the track record.

Subject

Content Mafia Mofo, you stole my thunder and my terrible slow bro pun by mere minutes. That's the last time I juggle posting on talkbacks and making coffee.

Subject

Content That is why I refuse to believe that P.J. will completely do away with it. It is too central to the story! That is why I expect that some 'unseen hand' (in the theatrical cut) will still throw the Palantir at Gandalf's party, thus arousing Pippin's curiosity. As I have already posted, should that not happen, a major hissy fit will probably be thrown in a Miami movie theatre.

Subject

Content First time I've ever been called that! :~)

Subject

Content Miami Mofo, I humbly apologise, I must be dyslexic or something, or else subconsciously Scarface has warped my mind into equating the fair city of Miami with gangsters. Now my shame is forever immortalised on the internet. I have verbally spilled a pint over you and embarrassed myself. Sorry :-/

Subject

Content Gandalf and Company approach Orthanc. "Saruman!" yells Gandalf. The only reply: Nonverbal! Suddenly a strange spherical object is hurled from above, hitting Gimli squarely on the head, knocking him off his horse and eliciting gales of laughter from Legolas, Merry and Pippin. "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!!!!!!!" screams Gimli. "Just for that NO MORE JOKES for the rest of the movie!" ("except for the SEV," he whispers with a wink to the camera).

Subject

Content "Amateur in my view refers to doing something for the 'love' of it", I said that, as well. Reread my post, I was saying it (writing) wasn't his job, it was his passion. I think you and I disagree on this even less than you thought.

Subject

Content At least they've tried to be inventive. I only had one problem with the first two films and it spoilt both for me: I just want to scream to heaven and Peter Jackson, FIX THE DAMN PACING!!!!! 'Cos the first two movies have looked to me like a rather blatant attempt to turn one set of box-office takings into three by simply NOT DOING ANY EDITING OF THE FILMS. AT ALL. The endless camera flyovers of Saruman's tower and the river with the big statues (can't remember what they were called) could and should have been dumped in the cutting room bin. As should every single shot of that ridiculous pantomime demon, the Balrog. (I know I've posted about that before, but I STILL can't work out what the hell WETA thought they were doing.) I've heard horrible rumours that the third film cuts out "the cleansing (or something) of the Shire" and tacks on a happy-clappy Hollywood ending instead. Let it not be true!!!

Subject

Content However they get around introducing it without the Saruman scene (not sure they'll go with your solution, Mafia MoFo ;) !), there's too much of the story that hinges on the Palantir, and a large amount of this stuff we've seen in the trailer/preview/art of ROTK book.

Subject

Content IMHO PJ's DVD EEs (or SEVs) of FOTR, TTT and ROTK will soon be regarded as the definitive LOTR unlike GL's SEs of ANH, TESB and ROTJ which are, TBH, just the OT w/ added CGI. (Not to compare LOTR with SW, BTW.) Anyone else think us TBers are getting lazy with the keyboards?

Subject

Content The sweeping flyovers of Orthanc Tower, the Anduin river, and the breathtaking Argonath, and other similar shots, were some of the best bits of the first film, for me. The Lord of the Rings has always been about the rich texture of the culture and landscapes of Middle Earth as much as plot, and I personally could not be happier that the films stayed true to this. I also thought the Balrog was massively impressive (and impressively massive), in almost every shot. As for the ending of ROTK, the scouring of the Shire has been skipped, but the film is going to end on stuff that happens in the book after the scouring, at the Grey Havens, and trust me on this: it is going to be the complete antithesis of 'clappy-trappy Hollywod endings'! We can agree to disagree on the 'pacing' of the film, and whether the sweeping landscape shots are beautiful and evocative, or boring is purely a matter of taste, but trust me when I say the ending will be beautiful. I almost envy you for not having read the book, it should be that much more poignant and lyrical for you coming to it for the first time.

Subject

Content If I remember the books correctly, doesn't it turn out that Denethor also has a Palantir? Maybe Pippin looks into that one instead. Or maybe Pippin had one all along - Gandalf does say they're "not all accounted for". He's not a clumsy hobbit at all, he knocked that armour into the well in Moria deliberately, he gave Frodo's real name at the Prancing Pony on purpose. He's been working against them from minute one!!! Pippin is a lapdog of Sauron!!! And raw_bean, I agree completely. I thought the pacing of Fellowship and Two Towers were perfect, and if they added another half hour of those breathtaking New Zealand landscapes I'd happily watch that, too.

Subject

Content What are they doing there? Improving the story, folks!

Subject

Content ...in the movie. Did everybody piss off back to Lamedon after the battle of the Pellenor fields for a palate-cleansing miruvor or ten?****But, Mr irritable, didn't Aragorn really lead 6,000 on foot and 1,000 horse to the Morannon to distract Sauron? ****Yeah, kid, but the writers had to, like FIX UP ALL THE MISTAKES in the book. Y'see, if there were 7,000 good guys versus, only like 6 Gazillion CGI orcs, the odds still wouldn't look bad enough for the good guys in the movie. *****Oh, right, I see now. But, Mr irritable, wouldn't that mean that Sauron would think something suspicious was happening, seeing only a few hundred soldiers from Minas Tirith after their big victory?****GET OVER IT, punk! They've FIXED EVERYTHING UP!! RIGHT? Geez.

Subject

Content That's Three Letter Acronyms. An old pun but a funny one. Personally, I try to keep my abbreviations of words and my lapses in grammar to a minimum to make my posts clearer and easier to read (although I'm not sure how effective I am; people keep misinterpretting what I say and taking offence where none was meant). Still, sometimes they're (abbrvtns that is) convenient. :)

Subject

Content "TLA" is irony ... at least, here at Bondi Computer Club [BCC].

Subject

Content ...in your latest response to Thin Man. LOTR is not merely set in Middle-earth; the precise details of Middle-earth affect our emotional response to almost every scene, in both book and film. And even with every critical faculty a-quiver, I do not understand what could be wrong with the Balrog. It is as Tolkien describes it, and how anyone could make it MORE terrifying beats me. (Suggestions, those who don't like it?) ***As for the sentence "if you have any position other than unqualified praise of PJ's every decision, you're just dragging us down" that you've taken such exception to, it was never directed specifically at you in the first place, but should be seen in the context of a long history of talkbackers who seem to get miffed every time someone else isn't as wholeheartedly rapturous as they are about any aspect of the films. (And yes, these snippy little remarks have been appearing of late - in language such as "bitching," "whining" and, as I said, the ever-popular "I'm just a glass-half-full kind of person," with its assumption of inherent virtue compared to the people whose problems with the films DO interfere with their overall enjoyment.) Anyway, I do apologize for my overly defensive posture. ***When Jackson himself admits that they "painted themselves into a corner" with Faramir, I think we can take it that the laying down of tracks aspect of the filmmaking did at times overwhelm the filmmakers. Ditto with Saruman. So I don't see it as some kind of brilliant filmmaking choice but a last-minute compromise, preventing what was in their opinion a worse result (a weak opening to ROTK). The (apparent) lack of courtesy to Christopher Lee in not letting him be the first to know - and be given reasons for - the decision is what bothers me most. Particularly when his part had been amplified beyond the book and built to an arc where - even if you had never heard of the Voice of Saruman - needed to be settled on-screen. We KNOW the Palantir is in, so that is not an issue. I just hope that when the dust has settled, the filmmakers will be able to go back and give us the definitive 12-hour version (I hope, with the original opening to FOTR re-instated) and that this will be shown regularly on the big screen.

Subject

Content Unless my eyes deceive me, I have seen a number of stills over at TORN that show Aragorn with the Palantir, and Pippin stealing it from under Gandalf's head while he was sleeping. Fret not, folks.

Subject

Content R_b, I said

Subject

Content I sure know what you mean there raw_bean and it seems some people just can

Subject

Content LOL, as they say.

Subject

Content See folks: there's no way PJ could do without the palantir. I mean it is Aragorn's declaration of war to Sauron, when he shows himself as the returned king of Gondor. With this move the last figure on the board is set and the war begins. And we won't forget the purpose is to give Frodo and Sam a little help on their way. (But sad to say: any palantir would do. So I don't have a clue what to expect in the theatrical release. Although I don't think that Pippin's going to get the gondorian palantir assuming it is needed to delude Denethor) *** Nice TB by the way. Had lots of fun reading todays posts.

Subject

Content That SIV condition isn

Subject

Content I knew you'd come back...you will always be drawn back. Say, you've never answered my question from that TB of a few weeks ago: What do you think of Howard Shore's efforts?

Subject

Content "this film is going to SUCK ass. i smell feces." obviously he must have been distracted by a noise from his toilet and typed the wrong thing.

Subject

Content but since he's completely unfamiliar with females, he was understandably confused. plus, with december 17 looming, his hands are almost always on his flaccid penis, thus again distracting him away from real world events. oh, did i mention that the EE TTT sucked worse than the theatrical cut? well guess what? it does. this trilogy had one great film, and that was it.

Subject

Content on the ALE scene (no abbr. btw, but what

Subject

Content ... you really need some new material dude. You've run your current stock of pee pee ca ca penis, 50 year old virgin jokes completely into the groud there bubba. Er, BTW, - they weren't funny the first 20 or so times? And the repetion hasn't done them one bit of good... if, you get what I'm driving at here? Please go find somewhere else to do your petulant hateful child schtick. We've all had it up to here, and MAN is it getting BORING. You'll never provoke the type of rage you apparently crave from this group of posters. Time to take the act on the road Grimmykins, time to find YOUR special audience...

Subject

Content ... grumble grumble...

Subject

Content When you've seen the movie, that's where. ****"I still find it hard to believe no one would call him first to tell him." First, we don't know for sure that he wasn't called. And second, obviously he would be called, if someone leaked it before it was officially decided, how is that PJ's fault? ***"Boycott this turd of a movie. If you have to see it buy a ticket to something else" Make up your fucking mind. You either have the balls to stay home and NOT see it or you don't.

Subject

Content The Extended Edition is so damned good, esp the ending, that I'd love to see the ROTK:EE for the first time as the definitive version. Damn these theatrical versions. TTT:EE RULES!

Subject

Content PJ did not tell Saruman in person, because he feared to stir the wrath of the wizard who would send an army of orcs to besiege his stronghold. ******* There were basically three options available: 1= Show Saruman spike himself at the beginning of ROTK. PJ decided not to do this because he realized the whole spike idea was misguided. 2= Nix Saruman completely. PJ decided to do this because it was better than option 1, and it shortened the running time, which was also a concern, plus it would allow him the future option of tacking the Scouring onto the DVD. 3= Simply put the Scouring of the Shire at the end of the Theatrical rotk (the most obvious solution is often the one overlooked). PJ failed to grasp the importance of the Scouring; he decided to make the films "marketable fantasy" rather than taking the high road and making it genuine Tolkien. ******* PJ's hobbits are out to save the world, but Tolkien's hobbits were out to save the Shire. The book was essentially a Hobbit's tale about how the Shire was saved (with a long digression in to the affairs of the world), whereas the films are essentially a tale of Man (with a curious intro in Hobbitland). And that's what sets Tolkien apart from typical fantasy, and that's why the films are typical fantasy and not true Tolkien.

Subject

Content well duf, pj didn't make the movies just for the tolkein fans, he made them for the mainstream audience. so who really cares if the movies aren't entirely "tolkeinish". in my opinion the books suck ass anyway, hes a very overrated writer, the movies are way better, so there you have it. pj is just cutting out all the lameness that no one really wants to see, and besides, the average audience can relate more and cares for the story of a "man", rather then stupid hobbits, which is why critics liked two towers more despite its flaws, cuz it had more to do with humans.

Subject

Content morGoth.... re: your post in the last TB. Mea culpa and deepest apologies - I wasn't annoyed by the way, though I did let myself ramble on a bit. I know tone of voice doesn't come across at all in TBs but you can safely assume that any of my posts directed at yourself in future are entirely free of resentment - and I'll continue to assume the same of yours. Afterwards I did think my post looked a bit negative, so you were right all along! BTW: deepest sympathies for your disappointment at the no-Saruman development. I'm pretty disappointed myself - but I have a feeling this was a bold and difficult decision that PJ did not take lightly - so it MUST ultimately be in the best interests of the movie. ******* DoT: I'll take you up on the Balrog challenge! (though you've probably heard me warble on this one before). PJ's balrog is certainly an impressive special effect and by no means a lightweight. In fact I have grown to like it......but it did strike me as a sort of video-game character when I first saw it - and therefore somewhat underwhelming for me (though if I had been ten years' old - the age of my first reading LOTR - I would have been completely blown away!) I don't agree that PJ's balrog is "exactly as Tolkien described it" because Tolkien (in one of his many masterstrokes) very deliberately did NOT describe it (in LOTR at any rate). He kept its actual appearance extremely vague and instead let us FEEL its dark intelligence; its arrogance; its slow, deliberate sense of purpose. Part of the terror and suspense in this scene comes from trying to search between the lines to find out what the hell this thing is - and WTF is it capable of doing! Now I don't get any sense of this in PJ's version. It's a terrific movie monster - but not particularly scary. It feels like a big clumsy thug rather than a sinister, calculating menace. For myself, the effect I would aim for is "a shadow moves in the dark". I am saying that the key to making it more scary and more intriguing would be quite simply not to show it so much - if at all. As evidence I present JAWS and ALIEN - which scared the living daylights out of us by NOT showing the monster, but by suggesting it. So I reckon we should only see the briefest glimpses and suggestions of the Balrog - its shadow falling across Gandalf, its fiery foot hitting the floor, the flaming whip etc - backed up by close-ups on the Fellowships' horrified reactions. And key to this would be some wierd and disturbing sound effects - we should HEAR it doing some wierd, scary stuff without knowing quite what it's getting up to (see: Blair Witch project). We should be squirming in our seats, hardly daring to watch yet at the same time straining our eyes to make out what this thing is and WTF it's going to do next! Now that's more like the kind of thing I'd like to see. Having said that, the one they have is perfectly acceptable. And perhaps most moviegoers would be happier seeing the "money shots" of the creature in all its full-frontal glory, rather than some arty "suggestive" teasing.

Subject

Content a 'pun' in the general sense just means 'a play on words'. Although, yes, it was ironic. Anyway, I thought Americans didn't understand irony? (It's a bit like steely, and slightly coppery). ;) ---- D-o-T, all else aside, I just want to be sure there's no hard feelings then? ---- morG, actually, since the discussion began with the Nazgul/Frodo scene in Osgiliath, it was very definately a m ovie conversation, I was just drawing in stuff from the book to help explain the situation. As for the rest, I tend to think Frodo becoming 'wraith-like' was just the Morgul blade, perhaps exacerbated by the Ring, but that after the wound was (mostly) healed the Wraiths would again have a hard time seeing him until he put on the Ring. Obviously though, it must have some lasting effect, as the wound 'never fully heals', but I tend to interpret it as that Frodo succumbs to the fear emanated from the Wraiths, and the seductive power of the Ring, more easily. All this is getting very much into the realm of the purely subjective though, so it's getting fairly pointless trying to reach some kind of definitive answer. Getting back to where it started, I believe the Wraith could no more sense Frodo and the Ring in Osgiliath than one of them could above the log in the Shire, which is to say, they COULD sense him and It, just not precisely enough to be sure and capture him, unless he succumbed and put on the Ring. In a way, this gives Frodo's plight more power, as it would be farely horrible for him if the Wraiths could just get near him and then sense him, I find it much more dramatic that when they get near him, he has to strain his concentration to the full limit of his willpower to keep from putting on the Ring and revealing himself. And when he can't do it any longer, it's up to his ever faithful Sam to save him. If they ever cave in in their joint struggle to stay the course, the game will be up and the Nazgul (or Faramir, in Henneth Annun) will get the Ring. ---- Lovely post elanor, by the way, I meant to say earlier that really cheered me up after some of the panic setting in with people over ROTK was depressing me. Not that anyone's 'dragging us down' D-o-T, just that there's no point getting too upset about anything till we've seen the film and judged for ourselves. Sorry to reveal my belief that I'm superior by saying I'm a glass-half-full person, but I feel confident ROTK will have more that's great than that's terrible. --- MisterGrimloch, just when I thought I might actually be able to like you, when I thought you might not be such a bad guy afterall (the Star Wars and Matrix TBs a little while ago), you go and do something like this. No not your view of TTT:EE, I couldn't give a toss, you're entitled to your own opinion, but that rather pathetic and moronic abuse directed at morG was just not on. Plus, if I remember correctly, morG is a married man, with children. So it was not only insulting, idiotic and pointless, it was hopelessly, stupidly wrong as well. --- Dufustyll, PJ did not decide to remove the Saruman scene at the beginning because he thought the way it played out was a bad idea, otherwise he wouldn't have promised to put it on the EE DVD. As for the Scouring, so many people have called it the 'point of the whole book', but it isn't for me, and never has been. I'm much happier that the Grey Havens made it to the film than I am upset (although I am) that there was no place for the Scouring. For me, the GH (sorry for the acronym!) is the whole point of the book. It depends what about the book it is that captures you. That's why the book is so great, different people can find different thing in/about it to love. PJ and co obviously have a similar view to mine, that the GH is more what grabs them than the Scouring. To boil it down, it's whether you like Hobits or Elves. Bear with me while I try to work this all out... The book was originally started because people clamoured for a sequel to the hobbit, so they could read more about Hobbits. Tolkien set out to give that to them. HIS heart, at least in part, was really in his invented mythology, in heroic legends and beautiful saga's and poems, in the world of Elves and Numenoreans, Kings and Dark Lords, Jewels and (eventually) Rings. So all this tuff started to encroach, Middle Earth on Arda started to annex 'Wilderland' of the Hobbit, the whimsical elves of Rivendell became the noble Noldorin (orginally Gnomes), and Frodo's guide Strider (orginally a Hobbit called Trotter), metamorphosed into Aragorn, King of Numenorean descent. Now, for some people, the hobbits were what it was all about, and taking them out of their comfortable world and exposing them to the beauty and peril of Middle Earth was all so that they could return to the Shire, bringing with them the courage and nobility they had learnt in their trials. The Scouring of the Shire is the point' of the book to people like these. For others (like me), the Hobbits were just our avatars, the comfortably familiar folk we could identify with, before joinging them in a journey into a much greater world, with heroes, myth, noble Elves fading from the world and leaving it for imperfect men. The Hobbits are just a comfortable starting point, and stable anchor as we enter the perilous realm of Tolkien's beautiful mythology. To these people, LOTR is melancholy tale about the fading of the Elves and the ascent of Man, and to us, the Grey havens is the 'point' of the whole book. In essence, The Lord Of The Rings is like a fusion of the Hobbit, and the Silmarillion. Though LOTR was the sequel to the Hobbit, Tolkien was hopeful as he wrote them that he'd be able to release the Sil and LOTR at the same time, "as one long saga of the Jewels and the Rings'. These two books could not be more different, yet LOTR is the linking piece, the sequel to both that ties them both to the larger tapestry of Tolkiens creation. It's an oversiplification I know, but whether you think of the Scouring or the GH as the whole 'point' of LOTR (of course, there's not just one single 'point' to teh whole story) depends on if you're more of a Hobbit or a Silmarillion person. Personally, much though I love the Scouring, I'm very happy that the film is going to climax, then finish with the Grey Havens. Sorry for the mamoth post, got a bit carried away! Hope I didn't sound pompous or arrogant or full of myself, just telling it the way I see it. :)

Subject

Content I won't even try and list the errors, just attempt to excuse myself with the fact that it's lat (here in England) and I've had a couple of beers (ales actually, to be specific. Sabster, most Americans, and most Europeans like yourself, will associate 'beer' with lager-type beers, which would be a horrendous anachronism. Ale-type beers have been around far longer, and to be quite frank USUALLY taste better, notwithstanding the occasional lager gem like Pilsner Urquell, Budweiser Budvar (not to be confused with American Budweiser, which is made from cheap rice and therefore wouldn't even legally be 'beer' in the Budweis area of the Czhech(sp?) republic), and Belgian Trappist fruit beers. Anyway, good night all! :)

Subject

Content Is that what you prefer to be called? Or Raw Bean? And thanks also to you, C-of-B. ***Orson, I can understand you wanted more of your own imagination, less specifics regarding the Balrog; you probably feel about the Balrog the way I did about nuclear Galadriel (or Galadriel being killed by Dalaks, as someone said). However, after umpteen viewings, it ceased to bother me, and she does such a nice recovery.... ***Minderbinder, maybe I and lots of others are misinterpreting, but it certainly seemed that PJ's letter to Harry was published BEFORE Christopher Lee himself was told - apparently he was forced to hear it first via the Internet - and that's just wrong. Lee was certainly quoted as saying he had no idea why his scenes had been cut, which would not be the case if he'd been told as much as Harry. Makes no sense to me, but so far that's what we have. I hope he is currently being courted with large bouquets of flowers and assurances that it will all be back in the Extended Edition, not to mention a hearty personal invitation to the Premiere.

Subject

Content Sorry, I just love that line. Think nothing of it Orson and I return the sentiment. I am glad that we may understand one another. And Lo! Let it be known that are from this day forward that Orson is a fOm

Subject

Content Good lord, will this piece of misinformation never die? Please, please, folks, especially my esteemed friend Conan, let me assure you that the context in which the word "amateur" was used to describe our Dear Professor was both in its literal sense and said out of RESPECT for his LOVE of writing and stories, not as anything close to a slight or an insult or a dismissal of his enormous talent. It was NOT used as a comparison (as in "he's an amateur, we are professionals." )NO NO NO. Nothing at all like that. I have now heard it with my own ears and as soon as I can I will attempt to give you an exact quote. I can also assure you the comment was not at all related to how much money he made from his writing, brought him wealth far beyond his Oxford salary.***whew!***And another thing. I am disturbed by reading on-line newspaper articles that use the phrase "Lee is boycotting the premiere in Wellington". This is ridiculously inflamatory language. The language of gossip which I loathe. I remember reading on TORN much more than a week ago a list of who was expected at the Premier and I remember Lee's name not being there. At the time I believed he may have been busy, or, because he is not a young man, that perhaps the flight was too gruelling for him. I gave it no more thought than that. Remembering this makes me believe that perhaps Mr. Lee has known for some time that his scenes were cut. I hope this is true only because it may make a case that he was, in fact, informed by PJ or Fran or someone and that what mayhave been the source of his obvious annoyance asked about it in his radio interview was that the announcement of this fact had been flubbed so horribly by New Line (and that someone had talked) and caused him further embarassment on top of the bad news itself. He strikes me as a man of impeccable manners so this sort of mis-handling is most distasteful to him. Anyway, I believe he is clearly exercising his right to skip the premiere and that his feelings are indeed hurt, but that hardly amounts to a "boycott".

Subject

Content Uh-uh! Oooooo-whup! Hey! Warm that nose up a bit next time there fellah, now my bum is all goose pimply! Mmpf

Subject

Content Although face to face it's usually Raw_Bean (I've often wondered if anyone else on AICN has an alias that matches their real-life nick-name?). For that matter, how are you with D-o-T? I'm glad we're not at loggerheads anymore. When you have a moment, do you feel like reading my ridiculously bloated and indulgent post on why I think of the Grey Havens as much more important than the Scouring of the Shire (to me, anyway, and aparently PJ, Fran Walsh and Philllipa Boyens), and chime in with your take on the subject? Do I have a point or am I just full of hot air? --- And now I really must go to bed! :)

Subject

Content (heh, heh). Enjoyed your long post about Tolkien's use of the Hobbits as a Trojan Horse to enable him to infiltrate his history of the Elder Days into the public consciousness.*****As for the interaction of the Nazgul and the Ring, I think Tolkien deliberately left the details of this interaction rather vague, even contradictory (as with other interesting matters, like the Balrog's wings). Putting on the Ring doesn't always has dire consequences. In the book, Frodo puts on the Ring at the House of Tom Bombadil and Bilbo occasionally uses the Ring over the years in the Shire to evade the Sackville-Bagginses. Nothing dramatic resulted from this foolhardiness.*****MorGoth quoted the relevant explanation by Aragorn above. Perhaps awkward questions are intended to be resolved by reference to the fact that the Wraiths have senses not possessed by humans. The precise functions and operation of those senses is never described.****Of course, in the movie, it's slightly different. Frodo goes into a zombie state when Nazgul approach. The Nazgul get much closer to the Ring on several occasions - as in the tree root scene. So the *Ring rules* are changed. **** Personally, I enjoy all this uncertainty. It's a bit like Sauron's symbiosis with the Ring, It's never fully explained, there are mysterious inconsistencies. ****Tolkien occasionally restrained his tendency to exlain everything, leaving a few delicious mysteries. Sometimes he was just teasing - as with the Balrog's wings.****Finally, I'm with Orson and others those who thought the movie Balrog was a little banal. Too big, too bestial (what's with the bloody horns) too detailed and not "sinister" (thanks Orson) or Maier-ish enough for my taste. After all, in the book, it almost won a battle of "spells" with Gandalf at the door of the Chamber of Mazarbul. But John Howe's conception is not "wrong" or "right", just his personal vision, based on his long investigation of the books.

Subject

Content In little more than a single month, we devoted fans of Tolkien and ardent admirers of Arda will flock to the theaters in droves to witness, as many at this site have already alluded to, an event rather than just another movie. Come December 17, 2003, our vast numbers will descend upon each of our local movie houses, pay the toll, take our seats and wait comfortably, calmly (well

Subject

Content bean and borg, can I join you in remaining optimistic? Good. I have come to think of you two as the Merry and Pippin of the Tailenders. I hope you find that pleasing.***And thanks Butch. That was nice.***Dufy has always believed that the point of LOTR is that Frodo wants to save the Shire and in the end, the Shire is saved. I have always disagreed with him because I think that even though the Shire is saved, it is never the same. Frodo gets no honor for his sacrifice, and then "dies" before his time; Merry and Pippin are grown in height and maturity and leave at frequent intervals to visit their liege-lords; there is a memorial to dead hobbits (unthinkable before the War of the Ring) and many trees are cut down and you know how long they take to re-grow, even with Sam's magic soil. And although we don't stick around in Hobbiton to see it, Middle Earth without Elves is a far different place. And even though King Elessar, when he comes to visit, stops east of the Brandywine Bridge and does not interfere in their affairs, you know those in his later line will mess things up for the Shirelings until they finally become "hard to find" as they are "today". It is the melancholy that comes with the inevitablity of change that sets this tale apart from all others. Things are NOT restored. Close, but not the way they were. The bounty of 1420 is the hobbits' reward for their troubles but after 1420, ahhh, after 1420 is when the lack of Elves (and beauty and magic) will begin to be felt. ***DoT: thanks for that clarification. I do see the distinction you are drawing but I'm not sure I remember tailenders claiming it was the same either.***As for changes to Frodo and Sam's dialogue in Mordor, I certainly agree with you that the book dialogue offers an adapter a wealth of choices and I hope many of my favorite bits will be included. BUT, I have seen many clues that the writers are likely to show us something different here, too. I have heard/read so many references to "Frodo ceases to be Frodo" or "Frodo is becoming more like Gollum" that I am beginning to prepare myself for that, too. Hypothetically speaking, as I have no more information on this than you do, if "go home" is in, perhaps the point is to indicate Frodo's growing instability, as it would indeed be obvious to the viewer that following this "order" would be neither logical nor easy.***More for DoT: the Faramir line you quote "show his quality" does indeed mean something entirely different in the movie than in the books but I think, I hope, you will like the further twist it receives in the SEV you will soon see. For me, the mixed-up puzzle pieces of Un-Faramir slipped into place at that moment.***And where the heck is ALICE? And Pallando? Hmmmm? Oh! Welcome back Hildebrand! And one last nod to Sabster. And now to bed and now to bed.

Subject

Content Raw_Bean, while I do appreciate the Scouring, I would certainly have to see that the Grey Havens is the more indispensible. After all, without it, what do we have? Suppose the Scouring were there, but not the Grey Havens. We would have Frodo retrieving Bag End, being sadly unacknowledged compared to his flashier cousins, and living not-quite-happily ever after. And without either, we would have fireworks and cheering and no suggestion at all that some people have to give things up so that others may keep them. At least with the Grey Havens in, we should end on the proper note of bittersweet loss. I wish the movie could end (if it can't end with Sam's "I'm home") with the wash of the waves as Sam stands there (and no music)... and drawn out, as when Frodo hesitates by Anduin (that long pause was one of many moments I appreciate in ROTK - that it wasn't rushed), and then music and the grey curtain of rain parting....

Subject

Content What makes you think RotK will suck, if you truly think that? Oh yeah, and never let it be said that LotR fans are the most-abused camp on this site. Just read the Harry Potter talkback if you want a crash course in elitist trolling, much of it done by ... you guessed it .... Lord of the Rings fans.

Subject

Content How would you respond to the news that MGM is trying to fast track a spoof of the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films? Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that recent parodies (Scary Movie 3, which skewered the horror films '8 Mile' and 'The Matrix,' and now this thing: "Henry Bates (from the land of Middle-Finger) and the Sorcerer's Balls." Wow. Real sharp) only exist to skewer genre movies that dare to take themselves seriously? It's a cheap way of cashing in on the success of these films by getting audiences to seek absolution after going to see "that gay hobbit movie" and personally does nothing for the state or quality of movies in general (it's very telling that they're fast-tracking this thing: they want the public to be currently engrossed in the genre they're leeching off of). In all earnestness, I think somebody should do a parody of these spoofs. Unless, of course, such a thing is impossible to articulate.

Subject

Content That was what I wanted to know; never mind the definition of "amateur", or the definition of "is": all that matters is the context. I will of course make my own judgment when I hear it. It is too outrageous to be true, even though it would explain a lot of strange decisions. *** raw bean: What do you want? *** daughter of time: You're perceptive. *** morG: I suppose I didn't answer because I know my answer won't please you, will annnoy you, will bore you. Well, not you, perhaps. Here I go. At first I was very receptive to Shore, as you'll remember, "trying to like it" as much as possible. This was before the release of the first film (ah, those were merrier days). I liked to listen to the album, even though I never was overly enthusiastic about it (I felt something was lacking). Then I saw the film. And then the other. I think his music works very well with the movies. (Indeed it is a bit too emphatic at times for my taste, but it does deliver.) As a standalone composition, I am very skeptical. I'll try to break it into a few long-winded points. (Talking music in English is hard for me.) 1) The music often drags. Basically, anywhere no theme is heard and no battle is fought. Long stretches of music with sustained bass and a melody for the violons (in unison). Contemplative, yes, but often shallow. His melodies (and they are very prominent) often seem to go nowhere. They fail to strike an emotional chord with me. Except the solo voices and choirs, these I think are better and often poignant (even though I don't usually go for this stuff - there's merit I can see). Basically I'm referring to fill-in material, and there's lots of it even on the albums. I like film soundtracks, and this is not an issue with other composers. 2) Orchestrations. They are few. The whole score has a very uniform sound, and not one I particularly enjoy. (I do enjoy orchestral music, even though I prefer small ensembles.) Shore breaks down all the parts very neatly (like he was conducting a band), and even though there are about 100 or 150 people playing, oftentimes there are no more than four real parts. E.g. double bass doubled or accompanied by cellos (with the occasionnal bassoon - the Ents - but rarely any other form of bassline, dare I say none); trumpets (often in unison, one part) or horns, and upper strings, always in unison, as far as I can tell: no second violins or anything will interact at any given moment. You can replace trumpets by a choir, or by winds (rarely). The Shore sound IS unique, but once you've heard it, don't expect to be surprised too often: there are not many unusual textures in there, except for fleeting moments. (And with Shore, every moment is fleeting. He does not develop much of his material.) Ents and Gollum are exceptions: they offer unusual ambiances, with unusual means. I'm sure there are others and I would like more. 3) The writing is very monodic, or melodic, if you like. There's this tune, and the rest acts as filler. Lots of music is composed in this way, but orchestral music, to me, requires a bit more depth. Basically, the part that is on top, stays on top. Not much interaction or role for the accompaniment (dotted rythm for the trumpets, or hmmmmmm for the chorus, etc., is routinely applied). Somes pieces, it is true, are more elaborate and multi-layered, but there are too few. 4) New-agey/celtic feel. For that, I can only say: bleh. Not only is it a fabrication, but a particularly unattractive one (to this listener's ears). And it is used extensively. Purely subjective opinion. 5) Themes. I like the "Rings" theme: it is powerful and evocative. I like the Barad-Dur/Mordor theme, even though it is the simplest: it is dark. The Rohirrim theme (w/ fiddle) is very melodic (meaning here that it is a nice tune), but there's that celtic feel creeping in (whatever that is), and the mushiness, the over-the-top sentimentality when those (muted) strings kick in with their oh-so-transcending modulations. Hollywood cheese, or just cheese, anyway you like it: it's just too much for me, and way overused. Call me a cynic. I like it more toned down. The new-agey feel and sentimentality lend the film an air which I feel is out of place. Maybe I should try watching with the sound off. 6) The "modern" Shore. His music is often puzzling. There are a lot of false or unexpected turns, moments where the music seems to languish or not know where it's headed to; sometimes harmony is quite a mess, or harmonic progression is just plain weird. Not Stravinsky-weird, not Schoenberg-weird, Shore-weird. That means, moderately, ambiguously weird. The music is full of these tonal surprises. These things can provoke two reactions: "Man that was strikingly bizarre" or "Man this guy can't compose". I get both. Shore's music, to me, is mostly disjointed, boneless, structureless, and maybe that's a good thing, or maybe it is not. It depends on the composer, and his ability to get the most out of his own style and idiosyncrasies, to make something of it, something I can fathom, that "genius". Often I can't. Shore seems undecided. Hence, maybe, a certain tameness. I must admit Shore often puzzles me, and I fail to get his "point" (hence my comment about "going nowhere"). He definitely isn't one of my favorite film composers (try Bernard Herrmann, Basil Poledouris or Philip Glass). On a strictly emotional/sensory level, without (over)analysing, you know, just listenin' an' trippin', his music doesn't do it for me. It lacks energy, vivacity, dialogue and ideas. As far as orchestral music goes - but not film scores -, I'm used to baroque music, not romantic-period music, so I am impaired in my appreciation; people with other leanings will see things differently. But it my opinion, the merit of the score is somewhat diminished if you consider it not only as a film score, but as a piece of orchestral music. Other composers fare better in this respect. Maybe Shore should stick to jazz scores. There's an answer for you - I hope at least some of it will make sense. You may consider me a spoiled brat with no ability to appreciate anything just for what it is and without any fuss; that may be true, but I do get high on SOME things, trippy things, wonderful things. It appears though I'm out of touch with the taste of the majority of our times. If things were otherwise, I would just say: "Yeah I totally agree, it's GRAND." That way around is a lot simpler. Thank you for your words the other day. To have had a role in furthering your appreciation of Tolkien is an honor. Best of luck to you all in your respective endeavours...

Subject

Content and thanks for the beer/ale explanation. I

Subject

Content You were underwhelmed by PJs balrog, fair enough. Now, just to satisfy my curiosity, what did you make of Bakshi

Subject

Content If bean and borg are the Merry and Pippin of the Tailenders, then you are our Galadriel!

Subject

Content Quick question about the Scouring of the Shire... am I the only person who thought it was a little unnecessary, even in the books? I haven't read them for a while, but I do remember getting past the whole Field of Cormallen part and thinking "When's this going to end?" Maybe I missed something. But certainly in a movie, the natural place to roll the credits is after the big climax, when the main thrust of the story is over (hang on, let's see how many other sexual innuendos I can slip in here...). Audiences are most comfortable with that kind of story structure, so to have them sitting for another 45 minutes is really just a waste of screen time that could be spend making their jaws drop with breathtaking battle scenes. I see what a Dufusytell meant about PJ's hobbits saving the world, whereas Tolkien's wanted to save the shire, but I don't think the movies are quite playing out that way. The way I'm seeing it, the hobbits have grown from being concerned only with the shire, to caring about greater things. I mean, the movies are generally about a bunch of different races who club together to kick evil between the cheeks so that the weakest race of all - men - can survive, because "it is their time". I love that the story is told not from the point of view of men, but from the hobbits - maybe the most outwardly negligible of all creatures in the fight. It's showing how someone's size doesn't matter (there I go again), they can still play the most important part in shaping the world. Like Sam says at the end of The Two Towers, they have lots of chances to turn back, but they keep going. First because, like at Rivendell, they don't want their friend to bugger off by himself. Then, for example in Fangorn, Merry and Pippin could go back home, but they realise they can do something to help defeat Saruman. I think it's much more moving this way, how their decisions slowly become based on the bigger picture. As long as it's consistent, there's no real need to show them saving the shire afterwards. Frankly, I think they deserve a happier ending than having to trudge back home and find frickin' Christopher Lee pissing on Sam's nicely-trimmed verge. Finally, I'd like to apologize because that wasn't a quick question at all.

Subject

Content ... something that 15 year old retard will only experience if he keeps working on those uncomfortable neck stretching exercises he seems so interested in.****What a sophisticated guy! Not to mention *original*. Dear old Edmund Wilson. He might be a joke to the iiterary world, but thank heavens, in film-geek land, Wilson has at least one supporter. And did I mention what an *original* guy this twerp is?

Subject

Content .... is like Dancing about Architecture (according to some witty person) Greenleaf. Shore has paid his dues as a writer of modern unsentimental music in all those creepy scores for David Cronenberg (which I happen to really enjoy). It's true there's not much counterpoint in the LotR scores and the music is conservative - sentimental if you like. Much of it could have been written 120 years ago. Lots of Brahms and Wagner in the themes and orchestration. On the other hand, Shore has said he approached the 3 scores as if writing an opera, and I think he meant a Wagnerian opera, with leitmotifs and restatements. There's abundant evidence of that so far and the short snatches of RotK score so far available continue that approach. There's some evidence that the studio wanted a "safe" score - along the lines of Williams et al. And who could blame them? PJ has admitted he knows nothing about music but wanted some memorable tunes. So that's what they got. But think of the alternative: a daring and unsentimental modern score doesn't really seem appropriate to Tolkien. In fact, I think it would be jarringly anachronistic. Maybe Shore has occasionally steered too close to Mock Celtish Romanticism at times. It's a matter of personal taste I gues.****I was under the impression that composers and related artists vote for best score in the Academy Awards. Whether or not that's true, I strongly agree with the Oscar they gave Shore for FotR. By contrast, I thought the score for TTT was a bit pedestrian in parts - though unlike you Greenleaf, I liked the Edoras fiddle (actually, hardinger) theme. But I agree with you about the merits of Bernard Hermann and Basil Poledouris. Mighty stuff!

Subject

Content Sorry, couldn't resist that first part. :~) ***irritable, you seem to know what Senor Hertz was refering to re DSL's (I'm assuming some part of the female anatomy), so if you would be so kind to translate, this old fart would appreciate it. Thanks. ***Yo Yo Man, for me 'Scouring' represents the conclusion of the 'growth arc' of the Hobbits. The story begins with them as scared little Shirelings, but ends with them being able to kick out Sharkey, Grima and all the Ruffians without any outside help.

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Elanor, you mentioned hints that Frodo "becomes more gollum-like". Did you see those movie stills in the TORN Scrapbook with Elijah Wood made up as a "gollum-like" Ring junkie? Amazingly horrible. It seems that a version of the interrogation of Frodo at Henneth Annun was filmed in which Frodo appears to Faramir briefly as he might become (or is spiritually now becoming) due to the evil influence of the Ring. Presumably it was going to be like Bilbo's sudden transformation at Rivendell. A very fascinating idea which the filmakers seem to have abandoned.

Subject

Content dick sucking lips. I pointed out that the crassness of his post made it self-evident he would have to be self-reliant in that department.

Subject

Content *enthusiastically clapping* ;) The boy deserves a cold shower!

Subject

Content

Subject

Content ...evidently, Peter Jackson agrees with you about the Scouring of the Shire. I don't agree with either one of you {[:^) Oops! Tea break's over...back on me 'ead!

Subject

Content In my post above, I meant (of course) to say that Frodo hesitates by the Anduin in FOTR. As for the soundtrack, I've been collecting film scores since I was 10 years old (that would be "Ben-Hur" - my first love is Miklos Rozsa), but am not enough of a musicologist to analyze the components. Bernard Hermann always struck me as brilliant for his subject matter, but nothing I wanted in my living space. I love Poledouris' "Conan" scores, and own the first one. Shore's scores for FOTR and TTT seem to me to be utterly brilliant, and one of the few irreplaceable components of the films, after the casting of Elijah Wood. Surprised as I was by the choice, it now makes me shudder to think that any of the more "obvious" composers might have been chosen. As I said, I am not a musicologist; however, that Shore is widely admired is well-documented, not least by the fact that he took home the Oscar in a contest with his peers (and yes, only composers get to vote in that category). ***In a related note, Shore has never made any reference (that I know of) to being inspired by the old English hymn "This is My Father's World" when he created the hobbit theme, but if he was, it would certainly be apt - and he improved on the tune. ***As for the concluding pop tunes, however, they seem to be going in descending order, though I'll have to wait to hear Annie Lennox in context (if she would ONLY soften her vowels!). Enya's solo, it seems to me, would have done as well after the Grey Havens as FOTR - in fact, the lyrics would have been even more appropriate.

Subject

Content I'm not sure what George Lucas has to do with anything, but I must admit I was shocked and concerned to read your comments, morGoth. Cheer the hell up, morGy!! Not to put any undue pressure on you, but I've always looked up to you as the heart and soul of the Tailenders. Your enthusiasm kept me going, when the bs of others would've put me off a long time ago, and I'm proud to call myself a fOm. Say it ain't so!! Somewhere, that poor Grimloch is laughing 'til he pisses himself. You have always been one of the staunchest positive voices at the LotR TBs, and this crisis of faith has severely rattled me. It just doesn't sound like you at all. It's just so damn... predictable. This is exactly the kind of stuff one would expect, from a fan who didn't take various factors into consideration. I can understand how various alterations can annoy a hardcore fan like yourself, and I totally agree it sucks that Christopher Lee is inexplicably being edited out of the theatrical cut, but I see no reason lose trust in Jackson at this point. I mean, I truly believe no other director could have gave these films the distinct (and proper) feel that they have. Bottom line, it's practically tradition now that any missing relevant scenes will be included in the Special Extended Edition DVD. I humbly suggest maybe you need to turn it down a few thousand notches. You are falling prey to the same error that other posters have, losing sight of the fact that, while these movies are made for fans, it's somebody else's first experience with Middle-earth. Perhaps you are judging scenes designed to lighten the mood, or establish pathos too harshly. Hey, just sayin', man. I felt some scenes out of place, too, but I didn't let it ruin the overall experience for me. Jesus Christ in the foothills, this is the kind of pissy denunciation that turns me off of the TBs in the first place. It makes me question why I was looking foreward to RotK. I know you have your reasons, it just seems a bit extreme, y'know? Perhaps my sensibilities are not as refined, but you've got to keep hope alive, my brother! I refuse to accept Jackson will suddenly let us (and therefore himself)down. 12/17/03!!! We'll chalk it up to nerves, 'kay? Elanor, my dear Hobbit, it's a cold day downstairs when I have to be a LotR cheerleader!*** Raw_Bean, props to you for HOLDING IT DOWN, MAN!! Well done. As always, your posts are a thoughtful triumph of cool logic over emotion. Glass half full, eh? I'm a "Where the hell is my refill?" kinda guy.*** Thank you, Orson, I appreciate your input. I really feel it puts things in perspective, and reflects what I've been thinking. People should keep in mind, as drastic as the cuts may seem, Jackson isn't going to do such things without good reason. Oh, and you'll excuse me, but something the scale of the Balrog couldn't be kept hidden. FotR just ain't that kind of movie. I'm grateful that they showed me exactly what the hell a Balrog was after too many years of wondering!*** Ribbons, I'm surprised by the information you divulged. It sounds like a nauseating atrocity, I can't imagine why they're allowing it to be made. I mean, even if I was inclined to be a sport about it, I really don't feel LotR or Potter lend themseves to parody very well.*** A-hem. Dick Hertz, that's fucking brilliant, man!! Your potental is being SO wasted at these talkbacks, dog. You could be writing for Letterman!! Or as a literary critic for Maxim!!! Sorry I popped your fat girlfriend at the Renaissance Fair, but she was asking for it with that come hither stare and "My boyfriend's a gimp" sympathy plea. Sorry so windy, folks. Been away for a few days.

Subject

Content Going throught the posts sequentially: --------- irritable, thanks, and I must say I agree with everything you said, EXCEPT the Balrog. Whilst I can see what you and Orson are getting at, and think I could appreciate a more sketchy, less defined Balrog, I was simply blown away by the Balrog in the films. Rereading the paasage in the book, sketchy though it is, it seems to be a perfect description of what we see on screen (and I know that's looking at it back-to-front). ----------- Butch_MacTavish, I couldn't agree more, well put. And I'm quite looking forward to Master & Commander, as well. --------------- cutest, me old mucker, many apologies. No offence intended, I just got caught up in what I had to say, that had been brewing in my mind for a while, since it became common knowledge that the Scouring was cut and too many people were declaring "No Scouring!?! But that's the whole POINT of the story!!". Rest assured, though I may not always remember to acknowledge you when you're around, I certainly miss your posts when you're not (see back near the beginning of this TB, I think). :) ------------ elanor, come, join the party! It looks like we're not so alone anyway, Butch_McTavish seems pretty optimistic. As for Merry & Pippin, I'm flattered, but which of us is which, or do we get to choose/fight over it? :) I agree with you on the Scouring (I seem to be agreeing with a lot of people here!), though I expressed it mostly in terms of the passing of the elves, the 'point' for me is loss, sacrifice, fading. The book is very bittersweet and melancholy, yet strangely uplifting for all that. The Scouring shows what the Hobbits (or at least Sam, Merry & Pippin) have gained on their travels, the GH shows what Frodo has lost, and ties that up with how the elves and Middle Earth are losing each other. ----------- D-o-T, nice to find something else we agree on. :) Your thoughts/hopes for the ending of the film are similar to mine, and are beautifully put. ---------------- Ribbons, when I tend to think of any kind of 'us and them' (to drag back in that old chestnut), having seen what you describe on the HP TB, I do not think of 'us'=Rings fans, 'them'=Star Wars/Matrix/HP/whatever fans, but 'us'=mature people who come onto AICN to discuss films they love, be they Rings/Potter/SW or whatever, and 'them'=ignorant trolls, or people who treat film franchises as 'gangs' in perpetual war with each other, that you can owe allegiance to one and only one, and you are required to go and spit hate speech at members of the others. Thus, I feel much more in common with a polite, mature die-hard Harry Potter fan (I picked the film franchise I have least interest in as an example, although I quite like the books and am looking forward to seeing Gary Oldman as Sirius Black), than with a venomous idiot who goes and pisses off fans of other franchises by saying things like "LOTR makes <insert franchise here> look like shit, PJ OWNS <insert director/author here>!!!". ------------- That'll do for now, gotta keep the mammoth posting down! :)

Subject

Content Oh sorry, I misunderstood. Sorry greenleaf, I was pretty tired when I read your post and I think I missed rather a lot of it. In reality, we seem to be on such different wavelengths that I can't really find the energy to try and respond sensibly to your post, so just pretend I never responded at all, OK? I'm not trying to sound condescending or demeaning or anything, it just takes me a lot of effort to keep up with your particular way of thinking/talking.

Subject

Content Elanor, I did say "talkbackers" not "tailenders" in the post you were responding to. (I just checked.) And of course, you know that I am not happy with the Gollumization of Frodo, even if it goes no further than it has (which we know will not be the case). As the arc progresses, I've been increasingly disappointed that the filmmakers haven't trusted the audience to grasp the subtleties - in this case, to think it out for themselves that Gollum might be where Frodo is headed, never mind that he has - more than anyone else in the Shire, or possibly in all of Middle-earth - the moral resources to prolong the inner defeat as long as possible; never mind that Gollum began his Ring career in murder, and Frodo in a desire to save the Shire. Well, this is why I go in for spoilers - to be braced for the inevitable. ***And ha ha, that Edmund Wilson is being dragged up again. He's pretty much the lone, dead, futile voice at this stage; time has not only proven him wrong, but he would be utterly forgotten if his name weren't linked - in that one, spiteful review - with Tolkien's.

Subject

Content Yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaar!!!!! Phew! Been looking forward to this for ages. Okay, I would just LOVE to give you all a detailed scene-by-scene critique of the EE - in fact my fingers are just itching to type it....BUT, out of repect for other Talkbackers, I'll TRY to refrain from that until we can discuss all this on equal terms in a few days. What I will do is give my overall impression with some references to stuff you already know about. (But bear in mind that TTT is a film that I don't quite love, and this undoubtedly colours my viewing of the EE...). So, there's a lot of extra footage here and as you'd expect, it's a mixed bag. Most of the stuff is okay without being in any way crucial - it just gives us some more time with the characters, without impacting on the story in any significant way. Then there are some scenes that are a bit awkward or anachronistic - nothing terrible, you understand - but just a bit weak, like they were part of an episode of a TV fantasy show. And then there are one or two scenes which are quite frankly appalling - just bad, bad scenes which should never have got off the cutting-room floor. (And unbelievably, the squirrel crap line is IN!!!!! I really thought that was a hoax - which is why I was making jokes about it several TBs ago!) Actually, it's just one scene in particular I'm referring to - which, in my opinion completely destroys the main characters who have been so carefully created over the two movies.... BUT, there are a few new scenes which are genuinely quality material. Without spoiling anything: the new stuff with Boromir is great and deepens his character even further! The Boromir, Farmir, Denethor triangle is very good - though a tiny bit "stagey" (and has some glaringly non-Tolkien language I'm afraid). Faramir's character is definitely rescued by the extra material - for those who were upset by his portrayal before. Theodred's funeral is quite beautiful, and really makes me feel the hideous finality of death - thanks to Eowyn's bleak song and a creepily effective editing moment from PJ - you'll know it when you see it. But - unexpectedly - my favorite extra material revolves around Treebeard - there's some genuinely moving stuff concerning the entwives......Okay I've said too much. Believe me - I could say a hell of a lot more. BTW if anyone wants to ask me anything in particular, I'll be happy to answer and will include huge SPOILER warnings.

Subject

Content ... why any doubts about or criticism of any points of adaptation provoke such hostility. The films have become A RELIGION, and a rather fundamentalist one at that. ALL choices must be approved. And of course, with a religion, any open "crisis of faith" is shocking. Doubt in private, if you must, or pray and get counseling until you're fit to rejoin the flock. But for God's sake, don't VOICE any doubts that Ever Single Decision by the filmmakers is For the Best. Well, I like to think I'm part of a more liberal church, which acknowledges that you wouldn't be coming around if you didn't believe in the essence - but lets people voice their concerns at Coffee Hour.

Subject

Content Ale was the ONLY type of beer back in historical times equivalent to Gondor in LOTR, and I don't think the word 'beer' would have existed. And thank you for agreeing with me, it seems quite a few do, more than I hoped. :) Oh, and good call on elanor=Galadriel (although shouldn't she be our Elanor?), our very own Lady of Light! :) ----------- Yo Yo Man, thank you. As for The Scouring, it IS important in the book, to me, although I can see some of what you mean about it possibly dragging out the end of the book a bit, and I've often said I don't think it would work for the film. As others have pointed out (those who feel like the books are all about the Hobbits), it completes a cyclic journey, and it shows the contrast between the Hobbits as they were and as they are after all they have been through. It shows how much they've grown, and it reinforces that nowhere in Middle Earth was safe as they left on their adventure. It shows out that had they turned away from their respective paths and snook home with the hope of avoiding the peril facing the rest of Middle Earth, that they wouldn't have been able to , so it's a damn good job they what they did. As you say, it's disappointing the Hobbits can't just go home to a happily ever after, but it's meant to be; it ties in with the melancholy sense of bittersweet loss that runs throughout the book (though as I've pointed out and D-o-T put quite succinctly, I feel the Grey Havens is more important for this factor). I'm sure others who love it even more than me can justify it even better. ----------- Damn irritable, remind me not to get on your bad side. :)

Subject

Content from my grumpiness. Like morGoth, I'm in a deep funk about some of this dispiriting recent news. However, I will try to cut back on the Cranky Pills.

Subject

Content I agree with you that Tail-Enders are targeted. In general though, the subject you've come to discuss is not the least disrespected. And while you like to talk about bias, explain to me why you've waged something of a personal vendetta over me when I've done nothing but disagree with your opinions on how to treat specialized "trolls" or why you went Travis Bickle on 'The Good Girl' back in March. You're certainly not doing Tail-Enders any favors as far as helping me see the errors of my ways goes. I would like to thank raw_bean in that regard and admit that it was probably unnecessary to reveal the alliances of Atrocity (for what it's worth, there was one screaming idiot who was pro-HP that proclaimed "Peter Jackson sux; Star Wars 4-Eva"), although I guess, again, it was more about disproving morGoth's comment that LotR fans, being more literate, are more genteel in general (at least I suppose that's what he meant, although if he was referring specifically to Tail-Enders, he'd be right for the most part). Let me ask you this: why does my ambivalence towards Grimloch make me any more "biased" than cutestofborg?

Subject

Content Thanks fella, but although I like to try and always be logical in my reasoning and my arguments, don't think there's no emotion there, especially when I'm talkin' Tolkien. Hehe, you see what I id there? Never mind. ----------- D-o-T, what the hell? Don't lets get back into this quagmire again, but who on earth on here is saying things that led you to that conclusion? You're probably right, as far as some people are concerned, but there are people who get that way on ANY subject. Star Wars films, LOTR the book, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the works of Shakespeare, their favourite football team, their actual religion, Elvis Presley, and anything else that anyone could possibly enjoy. There seems to be a propensity towards obsession in most people, buut like you I also prefer to try and be a bit more moderate and sensible about the things I love. Not a bad analogy though, but not to my taste, as an atheist.

Subject

Content Waiter, I'll have what he's smoking. ****Bad luck F R Leavis, our intrepid literature buff has replaced you with creative eunuch who was temporarily fashionable five decades ago as a literary snob, an overbearing pedant, a spiteful know-all: a guy whose personal lack of integrity marked him as an insufferable hypocrite.

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Well rend my feet asunder and dip my stubby forelegs in acid

Subject

Content

Subject

Content I dunno, Poledouris' Conan score still gives me chills to this day. Pardon the vulgarity, but it plain and simple kicks ass! "Genteel?" Hey, there's one I've never been called before. Thanks, Ribbons. "Talkin' Tolkien..." Oooh, I get it!! Bean, you cheeky monkey! I try to stay healthily grounded about the things I love (books, music, movies) myself, but sooner or later, somebody's gonna push the right combination of buttons. And conversely, I have inadvertently chafed a few of my fellow fans with my comments. Sometimes, when the topic generates so much intensity, it's hard to stay Switzerland. 'Goth, sorry I hadda do that, but it was for your own good, y'undastand? Tough love. Yes, I did, in fact, read your follow-up post, but damn me, what you'd said previously was strong stuff. Ya had me worried, ya infernal knucklehead. Peace? You're right, the "Animal House" schtick does seem a bit out of place, but as long as they don't go overboard with the Farrely Brothers material, I really don't mind. Crap, we better stop talkin' about this stuff, or I'm gonna freak out and change my rating for TTT from 100% to 97%!

Subject

Content ...now, may I take my stumps out of the bucket of acid? It's, well, it just stinks like burnt pig!

Subject

Content I just want to talk. That's all. That's it. I have no agenda, and I'm not sure how many times I have to articulate that to you. The comment I made about HP fans being rained (or "drizzled") upon was more of an aside than anything else. I orginally posted to... whaddaya know?... Ask "My Other Head" (but I'm the immature one) why he thought RotK was bound to suck, since I.... gasp!.... disagree. I do not think it's a crime for LotR fans to do any trolling. I think it's obnoxious to do trolling at all, and don't condone Grimloch's cure for boredom any more than I understand he won't stop because we tell him to, plus, if you remember, his original posts were no more prickly than "Oh look at that Ring Wraith.... whoops, I mean Dementor," (which isn't illegal....right? right?) but because he was met with such a negative response by many that he realized he could elicit a lot of emotion out of you, which you ignore and then displace onto me. And that's exactly my point about bias: just because we say something that blows up in our face doesn't mean we deserve to be so branded for the rest of our days. I have come onto LotR-related talkbacks (which belong to everyone last time I checked, so I don't understand the whole "our turf" mentality) and tried to encourage some people not to engage in the same attitude people give towards Tolkien's "gay orgy" as "Philosophy 101," for example, not because I hate Lord of the Rings which I assure you I don't and, really, why would I lie to you if I did? What do you expect to happen? It's impossible for me to establish myself as someone who bears listening to, support LotR, and then silmultaneously destroy it from the inside out. Isn't it more likely that we're just not understanding each other? The only reason I speak out against examples of this smugness is because I think it's the encouraged mentality among fans who engage in LotR adoration. Not many SW or Matrix fans chortle at Jackson, and (how short our memories are), there was a similar dissatisfaction with pompous Matrix fans (this was before the onslaught of Reloaded and Revolutions and right after Episode II began production) because it's completely unneccessary and just perpetuates that AICN hierarchy. Trolls will always exist; if they diss LotR endlessly, it's because they like getting responses and hearing themselves talk by any means necessary. I am not one of those people (I stop at the hearing themselves talk part). I've sent you private e-mails in response to these quibbles in the respect of magnanimity and your (and the talkback's) right to privacy, the language of which has become misconstrued and utilized in a passive-aggressive manner by you, and which I have the suspicion you've disclosed to others behind my back. Now tell me who really seems like the have an agenda they keep hidden? I guess I understand how frustrating it must be to be constantly picked on only because you're identifiable as hardcore devotees to a certain piece of work, and I apologize for not being able to feel as strongly about it as you do. All I know is, I see it happen everywhere, and it's not confined to the source material. Just as most LotR fans don't troll, most SW fans don't either, and most (almost all) HP fans don't either because they know they're lined up behind more vulnerable defenses. I'm not sure what your point about relativity is there. You're not any more spiritually richer because of the franchise you favor, and they are not bad people exclusively because they don't like what you like, therefore, you are not good exclusively because you like what they don't, if you follow. Anyway, response or not, that's how I feel about it. I'll continue to post on any talkback I choose, because they all belong to me as they all belong to everyone, and I'll drop any discussion of inconsistencies among fanbases as long as you stop forcing me to explain myself by assigning a "side" to me, and if you grow up and stop referring to Grimloch as my other head. I defend his right to dislike LotR, just as I defend anyone's right to dislike anything (petty remarks notwithstanding, and let's not argue the defintion of petty remarks, shall we? We'll cross that brige if and when we need to again), not his right to troll, which is, lamentably, his right until Garfield pushes the red button. Just know this: when I make observations that might seem more blunt than they would be on another talkback, it's because as a constantly talkative, literate, "welcoming" community, I assume it will lead to an enriching discussion about something other than how much I suck for telling you something you're not in the mood to hear, hence the bringing forth of fantasy spoofs. I agree that 'Bored of the Rings' would be good, only because they cast a light on themes that, when exaggerated (like a caricature), become exposed for potentially silly. The land of "Middle-Finger," with its dick and balls humor and a few occassional references to hobbit homosexuality and the sexual frustration of a boy wizard is not quite as entertaining.

Subject

Content Either you and elanor are talking about different DVD's or one of you isn't watching carefully. She said the squirrel poopy thing wasn't there. Sorry, but I must report this Heresy to the Grand Church of Peter Jackson's Dogma Enforcers. Nice knowing you...

Subject

Content Smugness that leads to hierarchical beliefs and trolling are two different things in this case. "Petty remarks" can be a sign of both, both of which I hate.

Subject

Content I guess my aversion to those two things could be considered an agenda. However, it's exactly the same thing as Devil's Own's celebrated "keeping the balance" that he tries to maintain. In most cases, unless severely provoked, I try to keep in stride with these convictions (sorry for bringing you into this, D.O, but it's only because I agree with what you said).

Subject

Content I have NEVER discussed your e-mails to me with other people except that excellent bit you sent me about Tolkien (the

Subject

Content Well, I don't know what Elanor's been watching but on my version, Gimli says the squirrel crap line and believe me, it does no favours to the scene - or to Gimli's character. To be fair, he doesn't use the word "crap" - he says "droppings". I'm afraid that people who didn't like Gimli's "humorous" contributions in the theatrical cut are going to HATE some of his additional remarks in the EE. Sigh. Oh, forgot to mention that there's a considerable amount of extra Christopher Lee material in the EE - which I cherish all the more in the light of recent events. And of course, each moment is a pearl-drop of sheer class, even when the lines he's been given aren't the best. Makes you wonder WTF they are doing cutting him out of ROTK! Also, some slight consolation for you, morGoth: there's an extra shot of Saruman (and Grima) after the flooding of Isengard, which - arguably - gives more closure to his role in this story - considering that we won't be seeing him again.******* listening to the commentary from PJ+FW+PB right now. It's something of a consolation (for me) to hear them admit that sometimes they didn't know what they were doing. Interestingly, they seem to have a completely different interpretation of some scenes compared to what actually comes across to the viewer. Example: They intended Treebeard's poetry to be a comic moment. I really can't see why they think that. To me, the way they've edited it is extremely sad, moving and poetic! Also - they think that Gimli's burps, jokes, farts etc are priceless comic moments.......which baffles me completely.

Subject

Content I should have said "wtf are you talking?" because, honestly, I'm not quite sure what he's trying to do here. And yes, there have been those who attacked him before his attacks became personal. Not you specifically, I assume, but that was probably the catalyst. Almost like Michael Moore's getting louder as the boos did at the Oscars, if you will. The e-mail thing was nothing more than a suspicion, and I'm both thankful that you upheld the confidentiality inherent and sorry that I was paranoid enough to assume otherwise (you have to admit though, the term "facist bully" caught on pretty quickly in these arenas). I understand the Other Head thing is a joke and that you don't want to speak his name, but it's not really doing me any favors and I feel obliged to explain myself every time the reference is made. And, like I said, the HP trollers are not the same as G: there are two types: pompous and attention-seeking. I disagree with both, but figure there's more of a chance talking sense into the pompous ones than the attention seeking ones. As for raw_bean, I'm not "so keen" on his posts, I only thank him for being slightly more civil with me. You both have every right to get angry at Grimloch, my ambivalence only comes from a sort of weariness. I'll send you an e-mail some time later tonight, but I've just tried to send a post three times and inadvertantly deleted it by forgetting to put my name in beforehand, so I've been sitting here typing continuously for the last 40 minutes trying to remember what I said. No, by the way, you guys aren't deserving of personal abuse for being who you are, or being associated with a superior franchise, otherwise I would have given myself license to engage in some.

Subject

Content Yes, I started using the phrase "facist bully" on TB's because I thought it was a pretty funny bit of hyperbole. I believe I got it from another poster though ("The Attack of the Talk Back Pussies" episode, I believe). Elanor, in particular, caught the joke and started using it too. It was never mentioned in any e-mails and you'll please observe that it's usage has died off since a joke can only be taken so far before it gets stale. Let's just agree then to not discuss it any further and I will refrain from using the "YOH" phrase since it too has obviously become stale. Just so you'll know, other than this unpleasantness, I've always looked forward to your post and value your opinion. Peace brutha {[:^)

Subject

Content ...construct your post using Word then cut n' paste it into the TB window. It saves a lot of the very type of grief you mention.

Subject

Content I will say this on MisterGrimloch. When I first started posting here, I called him up on his rude and insulting posts to morG and the other tailenders, who I was happily chatting with. He got very defensive, gave me a bleeding heart "but they started it, on some other TB before you got here" speech, then eventually buggered off. When I saw him again from time to time, I tended to ignore him because he quite clearly was just trying to cause trouble and offence for no good reason, and couldn't justify it if confronted. Then recently on a Star Wars and a Matrix talkback I challenged him again because he kept searching out anyone who like Lord Of The Rings and shouting at them how crap TTT was, so I called him up on the fact that he had bought it on DVD, and was going to buy the Extended edition too. He said he doesn't really feel the way he posts, and he never really says anything seriously, so we should just ignore him. I said fair enough, and then he seemed to calm down and actually want to communicate seriously. Then he turns up here, and I don't care WHAT his opnion of LOTR is, his unprovoked, childish and disgusting personal attack on morG has totally put me off him for life. Like morG, I try to treat people on here the same way I would in real life, and personally, I was brought up better than MisterGrimloch seems to have been. As for what morG says about LOTR fans being picked on more than fans of other film series, I couldn't say either way, but the tailenders here are a much better class of person than the majority of TBers anywhere on AICN (which is not to say there aren't nice people on non-LOTR talkbacks, just seemingly less of them), and there are those who go out of their way to target them for personal abuse, even on other, non-LOTR talkbacks, ie MisterGrimloch. That Harry Potter TB was nothing compared to some of the venom I've seen spouted at Ringers. The reason I started posting here with the tailenders and only rarely post on Star Wars and Matrix TBs is because of how much more offensive drivel yo generally have to wade through on those TB's to find anyone willing to discuss things sensibly, but since I 'joined' the ranks of the LOTR TBs, I've had to shrug off a lot of bile from other TBers.

Subject

Content I did a quick survey of foodstuffs in LoTR (the book) and Tolkien uses 'beer' not 'ale.' P'raps to make it homier? I dunno. But anachronisms aside, it's beer in the book. But then, the great potato exists as well, and that is an even greater anachronism.... Now, do I get a prize for most useless bit of obsessive compulsive information?

Subject

Content if you

Subject

Content I love that sort of thing...Tolkien's anachronisms. I remember years ago where ol' Goodgulf (Just you be quiet there greenleaf! one of your "sauce," now.) led a discussion about the clock on Bilbo's mantlepiece and other oddities. And those Dwarves take the Hobbits as simpletons...HAH! ** Drat it all bjarki, now you've gone and made me feel like the whole Saruman getting cut from RoTK was MY fault :) Hmmm, I think I'd rather have seen Arwen at HD than have the parley with Saruman excised. It does make me wonder why he just didn't have her escorting the Rohans, erm ,Rohirrim wemmings and chillen to the Glittering Caves and stay there during the fight. THEN, she could've brought Anduril so that he would've had it at HD AND his banner AND they could've done the lovey smoochy thing too. The flashback to her and Elrond's discussion and her vision of Aragorn's death could've remained too. O yes, I guess by now yer ALL wondering why morGoth didn't direct LoTR since I'm obviously so, oh what's the word, BRILLIANT! Uh, ya'll know I am kidding...right?

Subject

Content Thanks for the info, irritable. I kinda figured it was something sophomoric like that. I also see that it could pertain to both male and female anatomies. That Angelina Jolie reference kinda threw me off. ***Time for an Uruk-hai-ku: P.J. makes cuts / LotR:RotK / Saruman's pissed

Subject

Content I really don't see the point of reading posts by trolls - much less actually engaging with them. It's an exercise in futility. They WANT you to get all riled up. That's what feeds them. The only way to kill a troll is to ignore him.******* Just finished listening to the whole TTT commentary by PJ, FW and PB. It has really restored my high expectations for ROTK, and I'll tell you why: they spend the last twenty minutes of the movie aknowledging that TTT wasn't all it could have been and explaining the reasons why. Main reasons: Surprise! - a lack of time. The crazy yearly release schedule added to the fact that they lost four weeks due to the Oscar campaign effectively crippled them. Also, they recognise that they made some regrettable decisions early on but by the time it came to release the movie there was no way to change them and they just had to go with what they had. And they admit that they didn't really have faith in the material to stand up as a movie - TTT being the "slightest" of the three books, according to them. I really needed to hear this from the film-makers themselves and I congratulate them on their honesty. It means that they have the ability to learn from their mistakes and make a great movie out of ROTK (they seem to be much more comfortable with ROTK - and confident that it will work much better. Yay!) Their honesty has made me understand the huge hurdles they had to overcome and I appreciate TTT all the more for it.

Subject

Content MorG: I don't have time to search for it right now, but what I thought I said (in my effort to not reveal too much) was that Gimli makes a joke about squirrels but twhat the word "crap" is not used. Orson and I did see the same thing. He was bothered by it while I found it passable if un-necessary.*** Sabster: Galadriel!!! My, my, thanks for the compliment, but I think I shall diminish, and go into my hobbit hole and remain "elanor". 8~)***DoT: thanks again for that correction. You did say talk- backers and that does make a difference!***DoT, about your "religion" post. I

Subject

Content OK here we go.... Sabster and djinnj, I've finally worked out how to express my argument in favour of 'ale' coherently. The thing is, when an brit says 'beer', he usually refers specifically to 'ale', and would say 'lager' to differentiate. In the US and on the continent (Europe, I mean), 'beer' is almost always exclusively meant to mean 'lager', because for the most part they (you) drink very little ale (having said that, obviously there are fans of ale in other countries, and unfortunately real ale has been declining in the UK for many years now). Tolkien wrote 'beer' (I'd really have to research it to check whether that would be anachronistic or not), meaning 'ale', and expecting it to interpretted as such. But in a modern film for the global audience today, 'beer' would usually equate to lager that accounts for the majority of beer drunk around the world. So using 'ale' helps make it SOUND like less of ana anchronism. --------I think I'll respond to people in seperate posts, just to keep from getting too long-winded!

Subject

Content by some bizarre coincidence, I was leaning towards Merry! cutest, it must be fated to be. :) --------- Orson, "Another four hours of watching TTT: I think I'm blind", you'll get no sympathy from me fella, I got FOTR: EE early last year, and was hoping for a repeat performance this year with TTT, but no luck. :(

Subject

Content maybe I'm just great at reconcilliation (Moaters and I had a spat? Don't even remember it!), but when she and I were having a bit of a fight on this very subject that carried over from the last TB, we settled everything amicably and with no hard feelings. While her 'religion' analogy was not particularly applicable to anyone in here, there are folks to whom it is applicable. Perhaps her choosing to post it here and now, when no-one was behaving the way she describes, could come across as a little insulting, but I really don't think she could have been targetting it at any of us. This is how she and I got to disagreeing before, when she said something similar and I took offence, but it turns out she never had me in mind. Let's just accept that what she said is true of some people, if none of us, and you D-o-T, perhaps as elanor says, you could try and be aware of peoples feelings who might take offence, like as morG said, making it clear who you are (or are not) referring to when you make potentially inflamatory statements? No-one's saying you shouldn't state your mind, but maybe you should put a little thought into how it'll be received, and possibly misconstrued? --------- Incidentally elanor, what were Skyway Moaters and myself disagreeing/arguing over, and can you remeber where it was? I'm not one for holding grudges, as I've said before, but I'm surprised I don't even remember this! Not that I disbelieve you; it would likely be about the time I started posting here and I didn't know anyone yet, and so I didn't remember Moaters' name (no offence, Moaters, if you're around).

Subject

Content Now, since I have the TB all to myself, I'm going to engage in a little self-indulgence. In the soundtrack TB, after Ye-Baar and daughteroftime brought up a phrase I hate in connection with LOTR; canon. Unfortunately no-one saw it, because you all buggered off here....hang on, seeing a connection, excuse me while I check the homepage for a new ROTK article.....nothing, ah well. Since I got such a good response from so many of you to my discussion of why I disagreed with the many people who declared that the Scouring of the Shire was the centrepoint to LOTR and indispensable, I though I'd repeat here my reasons for thinking 'canon' a rather daft and pointless notion in respect to LOTR, only with any thing regarding the context (Nazgul information from Unfinished Tales that I mentioned when discussing the Nazgul in Osgiliath scene from TTT) removed.

Subject

Content What about the Hobbit? Revised extensively after LOTR because in it's existing, published, 'canonical' form it was totally inconsistent with how LOTR had evolved. How about Gollum having every intention of GIVING the Ring to Bilbo if he won the riddle competition? This renders the notion of 'canon' rather absurd, because there would have been noting to stop Tolkien revising LOTR later to make it consistent with new developments in his Silmarillion text if he came to a point where he felt ready to publish it. As for the Hobbit, Tolkien explained it away with the conceit that Bilbo (who wrote the Hobbit, of course) changed his story, the earlier version of the Hobbit was a fabrication on his part to justify his having the Ring ( ie, because Gollum owed it to him anyway, since Bilbo won the competition). Following this line, all Tolkien's works on Middle Earth were not written by him, but translated from accounts passed down through the years from scholars who noted these events, and Tolkien used this to explain away inconsistencies in tone and detail between his works. The fact that these inconsistencies existed make the idea of 'canon' rather daft, and then Tolkien's own literary device does the same thing. All The Hobbit does, is 'canonically' say that Bilbo remembers the events of his journey happening in a certain fashion, and that Frodo and then Sam remember things happening in such a way, and as for the stuff that doesn't involve them! That is Frodo and Sam recording a second-hand version of events! If you take the published LOTR and Hobbit as canon, then that includes the bits in them that say they were written by the Hobbits themselves, from memory, or from reports they heard from others, of things that happened where they were not present. This is all quite apart from the fact that expecting a man to invent consistent, canonical 'rules' for an entire imagined universe in some pieces of fiction is unfair and rather in vain, even where the author is a man of such genius as Prof. Tolkien. -------- Having said all that, the notion of 'canon' is a great one for freeing people from using their imagination, thinking for themselves, and having to make up their own minds. We don't need some set of 'rules' inferred from the published (and ONLY the published) texts, everyone should be free to have their own interpretation of the printed word. As irritable commented earlier on the Nazgul, and Orson on the Balrog, Tolkien deliberately left some things vague - or even seemingly contradictory - in his writing, because he realised the power of peoples' imaginations. ---------- What does anyone think, am I talking bollocks, or do I have a point? :)

Subject

Content I just thought I'd shove out some stuff I've been thinking about recently, go to bed (I can hear it calling me now!), and have a look tomorrow to see what anyone thought. 'Night Pip. :)

Subject

Content That's okay Ribbons, if I've made even a small difference, that's accomplishment enough for me. While I am honored to dwell among the Tailenders, when I come to this site I'm Devil's Own, just a guy who happens to love LotR, but is also into a variety of other things: Batman, Bruce Campbell, The Matrix, Monty Python, The Sopranos, Spider-Man, Star Wars, X-Men (okay, just about anything comic book-related!), hell, even some Star Trek (shoutout to Cutest of Borg!). Without sounding too hypersensitive, I would hate to think I would ever be pidgeonholed as one particular type of fan, that would be extremely limiting, I think. So, while I do my best to conduct myself diplomatically, esp. at an LotR TB, results may vary. We all have different facets to our personalities. Fellas, you know what I'm talkin' about- you (hopefully) show respect to your ladies, but when you're with your boys, you say some raunchy shit! When I'm at a non-LotR talkback, depending on the topic, if it's a subject I feel passionate about and the primeval, visceral machismo bullshit is flying, I may get a little red. Grim's remorseless crusade to deride Rings fans is still annoying, but I try to ignore it. At other TBs, he actually sounds like an okay person. Don't think any less of me, because I'm really not that different from you.

Subject

Content Perhaps I was putting too much meaning on the placement and timing of DoT's post. Perhaps she will set me straight. As for your "spat" with Moaters, what I meant was that "school marmish" finger-wagging post a while back (with the smiley face at the end)that Moaters responded gruffly to and then I made worse by stepping into the middle of it. I know it's all behind us now and everybody is fine, at least I hope Moaters isn't mad at me for my stand-in-the-corner remarks.***Devil's Own: I agree that the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them. Poor morG has unfortunately taken several hits from G that he hardly deserved. If I had been the target of such an ugly attack I would be a little sad to see any of my friends giving him tacit approval.***I watched all the documentaries today and there are a few great stories that I have not heard, one concerning women with beards.***Orson, I am dying to discuss this stuff, too, but I'm still gonna wait till the rest of the folk are up to speed, so please forgive me if I don't chime in and respond any further to your post-viewing posts.***off topic: I just saw Matrix Revolutions. Some wonderful special effects, unique and amazing, but I am overall disappointed. I loved the original and was intrigues by Reloaded. But, in my opinion the story in this one turned a bit too conventional. I think I'll head over to those tb's (which I've avoided until now) to see what those fans thought of it.

Subject

Content I saw your post on the other tb (I'll bet most here did too) and I agree with you.

Subject

Content Elanor, my post certainly wasn't aimed at you, nor at MorGy - in fact, it was suggested by Devil's Own words to Morgy, to wit: "this crisis of faith has severely rattled me" not to mention, "Jesus Christ in the foothills, this is the kind of pissy denunciation that turns me off of the TBs in the first place." Mainly, I found it annoying that MorGy - of all people! - couldn't be allowed a doubt or two without being called to account. Maybe I'm having a hard time wading through the endless streams of words, feuds that I have lost track of, and what not, but that you can write such a very long post chastizing me for a rather short post that had nothing to do with you suggests that you are not as utterly lacking in defensiveness yourself as you would like to be. I didn't address my post specifically to Devil's Own because I was attempting to point out that a great deal of religious vocabulary HAS crept into the overall discussion of the films, some of it tongue in cheek, but also sometimes a little too seriously. Talking of "keeping the faith," trusting PJ as some kind of ultimately infallible figure, worries that those who don't adhere to the "faith" will be destructive to the group morale.... I still think it's a valid analogy.

Subject

Content For the purpose of academic criticism, there has to be some consensus about what makes up the literary work under consideration. I think "canon" is convenient short-hand for the general concept "author's final approved version". For Tolkien, Hobbit and LotR canon seems to be fixed in about 1966. For the purpose of understanding ambiguous passages, or deeper mysteries it's conventional to look at the author's other non-canonical writings - early drafts, letters to friends and publishers, other published books etc. to understand the canonical text better.*******As you imply, bean, when you read HoME and the Letters it's obvious that Tolkien treated the Hobbit and LotR as somewhat "provisional" - subject to the neverending development of his larger conception. Not many writers devote so much of their lifetime output to one specific imaginary universe. Few writers explain their work as thoroughly as Tolkien did in his Letters. So there's room for debate about the boundaries of Tolkien canon. But when identifying Tolkien's canon, I don't think that it's particularly relevant that he employed the literary conceit that his writings were only Translations of the Red Books of Westmarch from Westron into English. He implied by 1966 that his translation was complete. However, there were (in this conceit) potentially other writings available for translation. *******For non-academic readers, like me, it seems reasonable to assume that the books as reprinted in 1966 represent Tolkien's last word on the events in the Hobbit and LotR. He didn't attempt to revise either book after that, so far as I am aware. However, there's so much ingenious elaboration of that fascinating subject matter in the writings unpublished at his death, collected and published by his son, that it adds great pleasure to a re-reading of LotR to do so in the light of that additional information. For example, as you suggest, the material in Unfinished Tales about the Nazgul's hunt for the Ring (which was apparently in the author's mind when he was writing LotR) assists in understanding matters which were left unexplained in 1966. The late writings on Galadriel add power to the "choice of Galadriel" in LotR and show how this decision was the culmination of events and personal animosities which began nearly 7,000 years earlier.******

Subject

Content I'm actually rather surprised that these rather LARGE spoilers haven't come into discussion already, or is the Photo Guide just out? I just saw it at Borders this afternoon, so here goes (not in any order): According to the Photo Guide, 1) Arwen is dying in ROTK, and can only be revived by the death of Sauron, 2) The photo of Frodo and Sam on Mt. Doom (which I take to be after the Ring's destruction) shows Frodo with all fingers, 3) Frodo IS persuaded by Gollum to leave Sam behind at Shelob's Lair, 4) From the wording, it seems obvious that the White Tree that is dead will simply come alive again when the King appears (there will be no sapling), and 5) (Oddly enough, perhaps, the one that most bothers me) Sam is the one who tells FRODO that they don't need to worry about water, as there won't be a return trip. For starters, does anyone have a take on #1? It does have a nice fairy tale princess aspect to it, though it renders Arwen remarkably passive (just lying decoratively on her litter, waiting to live or die, according to events?). How did this state of affairs come to be? When she gave her "grace" to Frodo, was she literally sharing her life force with him, so that as he fades, she fades - and if so, why was this not mentioned earlier? (She didn't seem aware of it on the bridge with Aragorn in FOTR, and no one said anything about an Arwen/Sauron link in TTT.) Any speculation? #2 makes me wonder.... Is Gollum merely going to snatch the Ring and chain out of Frodo's hand (or maybe rip it off his head) as he starts to claim it? #3 - Unhappiness already noted; at least I'm braced for it. Nothing short of Frodo being completely insane at this point would explain it, since Sam would be "alone in the dark," with little food and no way home - every way they have covered being now closed to them. #4 - Seems like a good cinematic shortcut (fairy tale-ish aspect in keeping with #1). But #5... Is there going to be nothing left of Frodo's heroism, other than his sheer will to keep going? We no longer even have the speech where he tells the ever-optimistic Sam that he need take no thought for the return journey, and we realize that Frodo has always known that (realistically) there was never any thought of coming back? This is a serious role reversal.... And this doesn't count really as a spoiler, but has anyone else mentioned that Pippin ends up in Faramir's boyhood armor? Doesn't Merry get young Theodred's? And... did Wormtongue really need to poison Theodred? Didn't he already have a serious abdominal wound - the medieval equivalent of being "gut shot," which we know was always a death-sentence in pre-antibiotic days? I certainly read that into Eowyn showing his wound to Eomer. There would have been no need to risk hurrying him along....

Subject

Content By the way, I saw "Master and Commander" tonight, and think it may just give ROTK a serious run for the money - not that the films are in any way similar, but the former has an absolutely top-notch script (in the Adaptation category), sterling performances, photography that has you ploughing through the waves (or sailing over them) right with the participants, an unusual classic score (using, among other pieces - the only one I immediately recognized - Vaughan Williams' "Fantasia on a Theme of Tallis," which is on my desert island list), and wonderful sound recording, from the thunder and crash of cannonballs to the smallest creaking of the ship. It was the "Nelson's navy" equivalent of "Das Boot" - you are there, except for the smells. But most of all, I just loved its intelligence and quiet character exchanges.

Subject

Content was scanning the slop and came across your unflattering comparison of fellowship with ALIEN and JAWS in the way the fear factor was ramped up in those films through suggestion as aposed to actual depiction as of the balrog in fellowship. My points: they are horror films, fellowship is not. Those films had 2 hours to engage in foreplay for their respective monsters - the balrog was only a presence in the fellowship for 10 minutes. I think PJ did a pretty commendable job in building up tension re the balrog in the short time he had available - its appearance in dwarrowdelf is one of my fav moments from fellowhip.

Subject

Content Which is also competing in the adaptation category, and might give both "The Return of the King" and "Master and Commander" a run for their money. To me, "Whale Rider" seems more like the kind of film the Academy would honour than either "The Return of the King" or "Master and Commander", good as both films undoubtedly are.

Subject

Content But I'm not sure it's the kind of film the Academy does consider, with no name stars and a small story. If only it weren't in English, it would be a great contender for Best Foreign Language Film, which does go in for sensitive character studies.

Subject

Content But I still think it might be nominated for Best Film in English. After all, it did get great reviews, and it is the sort of emotional, sensitive-person-overcoming-great-odds fare that the Academy likes. **** On another topic, I agree with you that Frodo's being overly Gollumised in "The Return of the King" is worrisome. One more instance of Jackson robbing central characters of their essential dignity, I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I love what Jackson has done so far, but he HAS largely robbed the trilogy of its noble, dignified character, to the point where the only characters who seem to have any dignity left are Galadriel and Arwen. I hope he does at least get the melancholy tone of the Grey Havens right.

Subject

Content It's good to hear film-makers admitting they could have done better - although I thought Two Towers was a pretty perfect movie, regardless of source material. I watched it the other day and I wasn't bored for a single frame. But the commentary reminded me that Tolkien wrote the books in pretty much the same way. He was constantly rewriting, scribbling notes to himself, going back to make changes - basically the novelist equivalent of the way the movies were put together.

Subject

Content I do not understand why you continue to assume that that picture is post Ring destruction. The first time I saw it I felt it was where Sam gives the exhausted Frodo the last of the water (as in the book) during the climb UP Mount Doom pre Ring destruction. Why? Because of the thing you keep pointing out: Frodo has all of his fingers! Do you really think that P.J. would change such an important aspect of Frodo and the Ring's fate? I certainly don't, despite the other changes.

Subject

Content Interesting viewpoint on Matrix Revolutions, personally, I though Revolutions was far better than the occasionally tedious Reloaded. ---------- D-o-T, I still think you exagerate this issue. I myself have said i still have 'faith' in PJ, but since I have no religious leanings, when I use that word I normally do not in any way mean it in any religious way, merely as an alternative to 'trust' or 'confidence'. And it does not originate from any fanatic belief that PJ is infallible, just that his track record of LOTR films flls me with confidence, especially since they were all made at the same time.

Subject

Content Tolkien did in fact also work on a MAJOR rewriting of the Hobbit, to bring it even closer to LOTR in theme and tone, but never finished it. Also, even any 'final' version from 1966 was not yet free from internal inconsistencies, errors, and revisions sent by Tolkien to the publishers that never made it into the printed work.

Subject

Content #1 On Arwen, I read somewhere (can't remember where) a different explanation for the scene with Arwen lying dieing in Rivendell: I read that it was some sort of vision seen by Aragorn to test his resolve. He sees the death his love will condemn Arwen to, rather than the immortal life she would have without him in the West. #2, Who can say? The photo could just as easily be before the Sammath Naur, or be before some post production work to digitally remove Frodo's finger. #3, no coherent thoughts on the matter at this time, I think I'll have to see it myself before I form an opnion. #4 Could work, if they manage to keep from coming across too cheesily. #5 Again, I'll wait to see the film, it could be the book is wrong, it could be different parts of the film restore Frodo's willingness to sacrifice himself. As for me and cutest getting hand-me-down armour, it sounds fine to me, we'd need childrens armour, and surely only very special children would have armour made for them from a young age? As for the poison, Wormtongue is a coward, and cowards like to be very sure of things, I could believe he poisoned Theodred 'just to be sure'. ------- Oh, and you're really making me look forward to Master & commander! :)

Subject

Content Well, the Photo Guide did specifically say that she is dying and only the death of Sauron can prevent it - not the same thing as a vision to disturb Aragorn, I would say. And (I didn't buy it, so this is from memory) there was also something about the "dying" Arwen begging her father to send Aragorn the sword. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. ***And it was the context that made me think Mt. Doom was post-climx. That - and the sun is shining! (Shouldn't they be in a pretty deep gloom if it's at the point where Sam gives Frodo the last of the water?) ***Elaine, as I posted on a previous talkback, if there is one single thing that summarizes my disappointment with the way the last installment took this series, it's that loss of dignity you mention - or as I said, loss of inherent nobility. Fortunately, this doesn't seem to have happened with the Rohan characters.... But I don't understand why each choice seems to slant the heroism farther and farther toward Sam and away from Frodo. ***Yes, "Master and Commander" is one terrific movie, and I'm not even a fan of Russell Crowe - at least, I don't like anything I've heard about him personally and I can talk or leave his screen personna, but I do respect his acting ability, though I think he won his Oscar for one of his lesser performances. At any rate, he does a terrific job with Jack Aubrey, my favorite moment being a scene when he calls in a weedy midshipman who's causing discipline problems and tries to set him straight. The whole scene is played beautifully, but especially the look on Aubrey's face when he knows he hasn't made a dent.... Paul Bettany is also perfect, and their exchanges are truly interesting and make you want to just hang out and join in the debate. As for the ship, I've always had a fascination for that era (and built those Revel models of the Bounty and Victory), and I've never before in a film really felt the weight of the ship, the stifling claustrophobia of the lower decks, or the real rhythm of days at sea. Just watching them furl the sails in a storm is appalling - or imagining the climb to the top of the main mast (or any mast!). ***Finally, I think there's all the difference in the world between an author's revisions, over 13 years, and the rapid revisions of a committee under a deadline. NO author ever thinks his work is perfect (and I speak from experience). In my serious writing - and this is not - I agonize over the meaning and placement of every word, barely have the nerve to face the next passage, and only truly enjoy reading what I have enough distance from for it to feel as if someone else has written it (and then, honestly, I love it). But I do know that if anyone ELSE started to cut and paste what I've spent all those years putting precise shades of meaning into, I'd have some serious issues. I'm glad the main team admitted they found themselves in difficulties with TTT; it merely acknowledges what seemed evident on the screen, which was that the choices seemed less the product of a confident vision, and I'd rather that time and pressure were to blame than simply thinking they could do better than Tolkien.

Subject

Content had that picture been post Ring destruction, I would have expected to see SOMETHING regarding the eruption of Mount Doom in it. That plus no missing fingers is why I think Sam is either giving strength (water/lembas) and encouragement to Mr. Frodo or is actually saying, or about to say, 'Come, Mr. Frodo!' he cried. 'I can't carry it for you but I can carry you and it as well.' just before the final climb rather than it being a picture of Frodo and Sam 'at the end of all things.'

Subject

Content I used to love building them, but never got into painting the parts beforehand. I just wanted to open the box and start building. Maybe it was the glue? :~)

Subject

Content Slop indeed Jaquen H'Ghar and I should

Subject

Content Elanor: once again, thanks for your kind words. Ooooooooh yes, I am just DYING to discuss the new EE material and can barely restrain myself - though I have been a bit naughty in making a few references. Having said that, I'd like to revise something I said earlier - that some new scenes are "appallingly bad". Now that's a bit too strong, and I am really only thinking of ONE new scene. Having looked at the new additions again, there is some really great stuff there. I must congratulate PJ & co for making such a brilliant job of Treebeard He's now the best character in the film IMO. Rhys Davies' portrayal of him is absolutely superb (though I must now come out of the closet and declare that I HATE his portrayal of Gimli). And I love every extra moment of Christopher Lee - he plays the villain with such evil delight. It makes me want to shout, "BRING BACK CHRISTOPHER LEE!" And one last thing: Jesus, but if Theodred's funeral isn't a disturbingly convincing evocation of the real thing. I've never been so creeped out by an onscreen funeral (though admittedly you don't get them too often in movies).****** I saw Matrix Revolutions and oh my God, it was awful. Truly a dreadful movie; even worse than Reloaded IMO. I actually left before the end when the screen was filled with meaningless CGI. I love the first Matrix and will do my best to forget its misguided and unneccessary sequels. **** Yo yo Man: Yup, my estimation of PJ & co has gone way up due to their recognition of the problems they had with TTT. I especially like the fact that PB admits that she and FW avoided writing the screenplay for TTT until the very last minute because they were much more comfortable concentrating on FOTR and ROTK. This made me say, "Aha!" because for the last year I have been baffled as to why the script seemed to be several notches lower in quality that FOTR. At least I wasn't imagining things. But now, I am completely convinced thay will deliver some magical stuff in ROTK ***** Raw_Bean: regret to hear you were out of luck this year with the EE. Believe me - it will be worth the wait. ***** Sorry you're feeling beleaguered, DoT. I for one know that you have a lot to offer. I freely admit that my enthusiasm for all things LOTR borders on religious fervour sometimes, but I do try to keep some perspective! Greenleaf now - his posts are an exhaustive list of things I don't agree with - but I find him entertaining and welcome all the same. I'm afraid I can't discuss your other posts as they seem to refer to spoilerish information which I'd like to avoid for now...***** re: morGoth under attack. I certainly don't want to imply that I tacitly agree with morGoth being abused; I simply don't waste my time reading posts that look like they are abusive - of anyone. So I have no idea what morGoth is being accused of. I am confident that morGoth is an experienced enough talkbacker to be able to (a) ignore the offender or (b) flame him to pieces with sarcastic wit.****** Jaqhe H'Ghar: I've no problem with PJ's balrog; it's just the one in my head is better!

Subject

Content HOW COULD YOU MISSPELL REVELL?!!! Heh, never let it be said that I'm not an equal opportunity blasphemer! Just joking...yeah Miami, I was the same way when I built the Constitution. I did paint the spiffy white stripe down the side but at least the hull came with the copper bottom already painted. Cool models and my only gripe is when you do the topmast rigging, the diameter of the scaled mast is so tiny that the rigging bends it. So, I carved those pieces out of basswood. Sadly, me dear mum (accidently?) bumped it while vacuuming and the whole thing then became fodder for the trusty Daisy B.B. (no, not a Red Rider!) gun and Black Cat firecrackers. Snif...

Subject

Content <nt>

Subject

Content I know that name! its from The Song of Ice and Fire series from george rr martin. I'm reading a storm of swords right now, it is a truly awesome series.

Subject

Content I don't really know what you guys are talking about, and I'm feeling just a tad left out here. I'm afraid I have absolutely nothing intelligent to add to this topic, however, something D.O.T. mentioned kinda has me a little bit nervous. The fact that Master and Commander seems to be just the type of movie The Academy will vote for to be Best Picture. Even though a movie like that will soon be forgotten long before Rotk is. For example, A Beautiful Mind was your typical hollywood drama fodder, it beat Fotr at the academy, but look how forgotten it is now. No one gives a damn about it now, it is forgotten, yet lotr lives on. Also, Chicago, hmm, does anyone still watch it? Forgotten also. And still, lotr lives on. So, I surmise M&C will probably beat ROTK for Best Pic, even though it too, will be forgotten. Lotr will live forever in cinematic history, yet it will be denied the glory it deserved by three ultimately forgettable movies that no one will ever even speak of. Oh well, I think I'll go check out Master and Commander now.

Subject

Content ****SPOILER***** No, morGoth, I'm not referring to the ring of Barahir scene which occurs well before the Ent attack on Isengard. The moment I'm talking about happens during the new "flotsam and jetsam" scene. Er, how much do you want this spoiled? If this is enough for you, then please don't read on...........here comes the SPOILER***** Okay, Isengard is swamped, as per book, and Merry and Pippin are wading around up to their wastes. They look up at the balcony of Orthanc where Saruman and Grima are quite comically skittering to and fro in total disbelief at the foiling of their evil plans. M+P have the following mock-concerned dialogue: "He doesn't look too happy, does he, Pip?" - "Not too happy at all, Merry." - "Still, I supppose the view would be quite nice from up there." - "Oh, yes, it's a quality establishment." M+P's delivery is quite funny here - they are obviously enjoying Saruman's discomfort. Okay, it's perhaps not much in terms of closure - but it does leave you with the feeling that for Saruman, the war is over - that his ambitions are in ruins and he is going to remain indefinitely trapped in his tower. The fact that M+P feel secure enough to make fun of him and raid his larder really gives you the feeling that Saruman is no longer a threat. Not much, as I say - but better than nothing. Wouldn't it be brilliant if PJ gives us a little two or three-minute scene in ROTK where we meet Saruman and Grima as tramps on the road. Would that be too much to ask?

Subject

Content The subjective experience that is watching a movie creates an interesting dynamic. This list is evidence of such a dynamic, because we have those who chafe at various changes from the book to the movie, we have those who find the entire creation of the movies to be worth derision, and those who will simply roll with the changes and hope that the overall movie is of great quality. I tend to fall into the last category. I have thoroughly enjoyed both movies thus far, with each movie capturing a wonderful sense of the story, and in each case showcasing a particular perspective of a character that I may not have thought of. In the case of FOTR I sensed the nobility behind Boromir, and the frustration of Elrond. In both cases the nuance comes from the actors, and not so much even what they say. Hugo Weaving brings a different type of concern to the role then I would have guessed, and I celebrate the change. Why, because it provides another perspective to the story for me. In literature and cinema, we are confronted with a text or movie that does not have an objective meaning. Reading is inherently subjective, with each reader (or viewer of a movie) bringing with them particular ideas and baggage. In the case of TTT I loved Bernard Hill's majesty as Theoden, a character that I never really attended to in the books. I also, contrary to many on the TB, appreciated the change in Faramir, because of the way in which PJ wanted to create a sense of continuity in the characters in their response to the temptation of the ring. I find that that is a good exploration of the theme of temptation. Do all agree with that? Clearly not, and that is okay. We have differing ideas and opinions, and in this context, that is ok, because in the end we are still only dealing with a piece of fiction. Is PJ exploring the themes the way we would, maybe, maybe not, but that is certainly within his purview as creator of the movie. Thus, will there be changes in ROTK that I may not expect, but I look forward to them, because they will highlight what someone else thinks about these texts. Because in the end, the movies are very good, and ones that I will actually see more then once in the theatre (something that does not happen very often with me, I simply do not have the luxury of time to take in multiple viewings). I guess my main point is that I simply cannot get that worked up about things that may or may not be there. Thus far, the changes that PJ has made are those that have been interesting to see why? They have not damaged the movie, because I do not treat the text as sacred. To those who have, to those who are pulling out their hair due to changes, I can only hope that at least some of the movie is enjoyable to you. I will go and enjoy, and unless Aragorn rides the entire length of Mordor and helps Frodo finish the quest, the movie will be more than satifying. I think, as in many cases, people are making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Subject

Content Hi folks, Here is a rough translation from the daily Aftonbladet: "Peter Jackson answers about "The Ring" news about the disapearance of the evil Wizard Saruman from "Return of the King" and that it irritated "the Ring-fans" all around the world. The scenes with Saruman where meant for "The Two Towers", but where cut to start the last part of the trilogy. Now the director Peter Jackson answers the critique. -We felt that it made "The Return of the King" start in an uncertain way, as Saruman doesn

Subject

Content No brother Greenleaf, I wanted you to answer the way you always do

Subject

Content DoT, I would like, if I may, to clarify something. First of all, many apologies if I annoyed you. Ofcourse I respect morGoth's opinion. Along with yourself, Elanor, MayaV, CutestofBorg, Raw Bean, and Ribbons, he's one of the few people here whose thoughts actually MATTER to me. Don't misunderstand me, I do not begrudge him his right to feel the way he does. As I said, it was a bit jarring to actually see him express such sentiments, but I do NOT condemn him for doing so. PERHAPS in all the verbiage, periodic snarkiness, and meandering musings, one may loose one's way... or you would've seen the overall tone of my posts was light, and morGy took it that way and responded in kind. It's been pointed out many times, these are just movies. If you know anything about me, you know I would never suggest blind allegiance to anything, and usually avoid speaking in absolutes. You were a little off base there, and in the future, I'd appreciate it if you have issue with someting I say, please address it to me. I don't like being made to feel like an insensitive jackass, especially when my intent was levity towards a friend. You're the last person I would expect to make that error. Yeah, I'm a little hurt, but please, don't worry about it. It's "okay"! I never claimed to be anything other than an admirer of the films, unlike some who come here and give lengthy dissertations on literature. I'm sorry I said anything and that I didn't get your analogy. Typical thickheaded imp. Lesson learned.

Subject

Content I agree that Tolkien's personal revisions are vastly different from PJ and his writing team... Like you, I'm a writer - probably most folks on this site are - but my point (which I forgot to make clear) was that an almost improvised movie isn't necessarily a bad movie. Great movies can come from constant rewrites, last minute changes, etc. Die Hard is a good example, Apocalypse Now is another... Just as Tolkien's masterpiece was made up bit-by-bit, so were the LOTR movies. The novel worked out just fine, and I think the movies are doing the same. Personally I thought TTT was better than FOTR, it's just a different style of storytelling - thematic rather than plot-driven. Look at the opening, the way every scene flows so perfectly into the next. It's more cinematic, whereas FOTR (no arguments, a truly great movie) did have the feel of being an adapted book. Am I alone on this or just crazy?

Subject

Content I guess I would have to say that I liked TTT more than FOTR, as well. Not, I loved FOTR, easily one of the better movies that I have seen, but TTT was less a travelogue and more of a straight-forward picture. Of course, this being said, I do look forward to sitting down and watching the three movies as one, because I find that they will work even better in that context. What I especially appreciated was that TTT was better then I had anticipated. It is not my favorite of the three books. I knew that I would like FOTR, because I have always enjoyed the first book. But TTT was always the one I felt I had to slog through a bit. To my surprise the movie version was very well done, with improvements made especially in the case of Theoden. The changes I could live with because, to me (please note that qualification, good people) they were not vital to the story. Or they did not change the story so radically that it affected the way I enjoyed the film. Again, watching a movie or reading a book is a rather subjective expereince, and therefore I cannot get that bent about what is there or not, unless the change is so dramatic (Aragorn riding to help Frodo finish the quest) that it fundamentally changes the entire structure of the movie. Stories are meant to be interpreted, and as we are all individual types with different sets of baggage, and have different lenses through which we see things,we will all wind up with an experience that is not the same for all. Ah, well, just musing.

Subject

Content Late to the party, as usual. First AICN post. LOTR background: Annoying Purist (lost track after 20 or so readings) *****FOTR reaction-in-a nutshell: Just Right: Sean Bean (the best job anyone did), Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Sean Astin, Christoper Lee, Hugo Weaving (I may be in the minority on this one), The Shire in general, Moria ***** Pet Peeves: 1) one more rueful-helpless-simpering doe-eyed look from Elijah Wood and I may go postal. 2) the Score: sublime occasionally, but too often cliche-ridden, bombastic and INTRUSIVE. Trust your script, actors, and photography to evoke a mood once in a while, PJ! (e.g., Gandalf and the wandering lepidoptera, escaping the mines after Gandalf

Subject

Content Yes, I certainly did paint them, and in detail, though I stopped with the rigging - much too complicated, and I didn't understand it anyway. Just strung up the basic ratlines and a few braces and left it at that.... Actually I built the Bounty twice, and improved on the paint job - it made it interesting when I was able to tour the real thing (that is, the one they built for the movie) and move around all these enormous pieces that I remembered as very tiny! As for a paint job, you should have seen my Viking ship. And I did think about whether Revell had one "l" or two, but got it wrong - obviously. It's been a while. **Devil's Own, a sincere apology, with the further caveat that my post was not directed at your words so much as triggered by them, on top of many others' insistance on "faith." As to "I don't like being made to feel like an insensitive jackass," I thoroughly understand, as that is how I feel any time someone accuses me of lowering their mood. ***And I still think there is a huge difference between "interpretation" and "alteration." The former - to use the example of a symphony - would have to do with tempos (yes, I know it's tempi, but I'm trying not to be a snob) and emphasis, or perhaps choosing between one existing manuscript and another with revisions; the latter would mean rewriting passages or calling in another composer. I'm up for interpretation (at least, in classical scores, you get a choice of whose recording to buy) but less so for out-and-out revision. Obviously, there is a division on whether TTT was equal to or greater than FOTR. I would dispute that TTT had the better flow, as that was one thing - the pacing and editing - that jarred on first viewing and never really improved on subsequent viewings. I have read in several places that this IS improved upon by the Extended Edition. Ultimately, as I have said - it's true for the movie as well as the score - it's all about how it makes you FEEL, and my feelings took a nosedive in TTT, despite deep admiration for many of its component parts.

Subject

Content Better late than never... and don't you think the "Fantasia" actually captures all the beauty and sadness of Tolkien's lost England/Middle-earth?

Subject

Content I think that the fine line is simply this - If you like or dislike the film, that is your opinion, and that is a good thing. If you can say why, so much the better. The only issue I have is with those folks to try to dissuade me from my opinion. I just do not understand those who disliked the film trying to tell me that I was wrong to enjoy it.

Subject

Content Ditto -- from the very first day that I saw the spikey wheel pic I posted on AICN that I wished there was someway that that wheel could be part of Ted Sandyman's new mill. I have not wavered from that position one iota. ***DoT, I am impressed. E tu, morGy. Oh well, at least I managed to put them decals on. :~)

Subject

Content My genius old uncle lives in New Zealand, just on the outskirts of Wellington, and three years ago (I think - whenever the pics came out) he sent me a newspaper cutting with photographs from the LOTR sets. Edoras, a bunch of horses... And the infamous spikey wheel. It actually took me a while before it clicked: hang on, at no point in the books do I remember some bearded dude in white gladrags being dropped onto a spikey wheel by anybody. Perhaps I was too busy reading the adverts on the reverse side of the paper, and gleefully discovering that they have Harry Ramsdens at the arse end of the world, too. But anyway, when Fellowship came out, I couldn't help my eye being drawn to the wheel on the side of that mill, and I finally realised a) the white bearded dude was Saruman and b) with a slight overhall, the spike thing would fit nicely onto that wheel. My only problem, and the thing that's still niggling and - in my opinion - the best evidence that it's NOT Ted Sandyman's wheel is this: why would you put a big spike on a mill's wheel? The whole point of the wheel is to catch the flow of water, so you're looking for as much resistence to the current as possible, like a paddle or something. If you put spikes on, you're just asking to get it stuck on the river bed. Doesn't make much sense to me. Then again, hobbits are very small.

Subject

Content What's the word on 'In America?' Anyone know? The trailer looked inviting and Roeper said it was a legitimate opponent for RotK, but well, he's Roeper, so forgive me if I seek a second opinion.

Subject

Content Haven't seen it, don't intend to, but I don't think it's a serious contender. The critical word that I've heard is fairly mixed, but I don't think that's got anything to do with it... I always think the Oscars are about "buzz". Everyone thought Chicago would win, and it did. It just had that vibe. Same with A Beautiful Mind the year before. Much as I wanted Fellowship to win, much as I thought it outclassed any other movie that year, I knew Russell Crowe being schizophrenic, Ed Harris in the supporting cast and Ron Better Than Scorsese According To The Academy Howard would take home the little gold dudes with the swords. Happily, this year, the buzz is on Return of the King. I don't really put any artistic value on the Oscars, but it's still a nice prize to win, not one I'd say "no" to... But more importantly, the world NEEDS to see Peter Jackson, that crazed electric-haired hobbit Kiwi genius, get up on that stage and speak to a billion people. I don't care what he says, I just need to see him with an "I've just won a fucking Oscar" look in his eyes. I probably won't hear a word he says anyway. Short of him saying "Actually, Frodo and Sam are gay, Tolkien couldn't write for shit, and George Lucas directed the whole thing" I will not be disappointed. People who vote for the Academy don't see every movie anyway, they don't have time. They go on buzz, and who they want to see up there. In interviews, they're all like "Well, I vote for my friends" - I mean, we all would. I think everyone wants to see ROTK collect. The Coppola crowd might vote for Lost in Translation, if that gets nominated, but there are so many people connected with LOTR now, and the vibe is so strong, I think it's a sure bet. I might add at this point - bearing in mind, I haven't seen the nominations yet - that I've correctly predicted every Best Picture winner for the last seven years except when I was positive that Traffic would see off Gladiator. But who'd have guessed that??? Friggin' Russell Crowe!!!

Subject

Content Hell, Orson, I know Peter Jackson made some gonzo movies in the past, but I recoiled slightly at this particular description :-) ****Bean, thanks for that information. I wasn't aware Tolkien planned a revision of the Hobbit.**** DoT, if I recall correctly, the final climb to the Sammath Naur was in daylight, several days after the Wind from the West blew the fleet up the Anduin and dispersed the Great Darkness. As for Arwen's life depending on the *death* of Sauron, WTF!?! Hopefully, this is just slovenly proofreading by the publishers of the book rather than new devilry by the scriptwriters. *Death* isn't really the word which describes the fate of Sauron. On the Official Site various inaccurate photo captions suggest quality control is patchy and this may be more of the same.****Hildebrand, as you have already seen, some people here, including me, feel disappointed that some poorly judged new script material (eg the Osgiliath scenes, the Warg Attack , Arwen telepathy) was inserted into TTT at the expense of existing material which had important plot functions. One of the unexpected results is the loss of a great scene from the text, the confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman after the battle Helm's Deep. The new scenes looked pretty good but distorted the plot. Nobody seriously disputes that TTT was a difficult proposition as a stand-alone movie. Listening to the script writers, it's obvious that they're intelligent, creative people, steeped in the text and sincerely committed to solving difficult adaptation problems in the true spirit of the original book. Intense time pressure may explain some bad ideas in TTT. Having said that, I agree with you completely that there are many wonderful surprises in the movies. As you point out, there's some great acting up on screen. The characters of Boromir, Aragorn and Theoden are classic examples. Good writing plus terrifically committed, imaginative performances by gifted actors have brought to life characters who were rather generic and two-dimensional in the text. Also, the visual effects (to pick some random examples - the Argonath statues, Moria, Gollum) have far exceeded expectations and add so much enjoyment to the movies. So I'm not griping too much. I just hope that the script writers have been more cautious in RotK when creating new plot developments so we don't lose more of the (very carefully conceived) original story.****MorGoth, as a retired bass-player myself (long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away) I'm thrilled to see a fellow member of the Bottom-End fraternity discussing these elevating topics. Although Greenleaf enjoys his role as Holy Fool and agent provocateur, I am grateful you chose not to chase every one of his widely scattered rabbits down every hole****As for the Oscars, if RotK doesn't get Best Picture, or Best Director, then I hope Peter Weir (the greatest Aussie director of them all) finally gets the nod from the Academy. ****It's particularly pleasant to see that various posters have settled their differences amicably and that a thoughtful new poster has arrived: welcome Glimmung.

Subject

Content The key to winning Best Pic or Director would be a long ending including the Scouring of the Shire. A long drawn out tiring ending will be perceived as very artsy. It the film has a well paced entertaining ending, the Academy will consider it a popcorn film. It needs to drag on and be tedious to get a statue. That's why FOTR got so many nominations: it was a drawn out and somewhat tedious movie. ROTK needs to return to that style, especially at the end, to leave an art house impression in the Academy's mind.

Subject

Content But thanks for that, Yo-Yo Man, most of which I hadn't considered. Smart money's on RotK, and although I don't think enough of the world will see Peter Jackson onstage to officially qualify it as a moment of any significance, it would be pretty humorous. Another question, or at least, an vocal pondering: why do best directors only get nominated for prestige films? Is it because, for the most part, Oscar only shines on those films? Is it because good directors gravitate towards films that will lead them toward an Oscar? Is it a little bit of both?

Subject

Content Welcome new tailenders as well as you recent returnees! Can't wait to start discussing the various new scenes in the SEV. ***MorG: Yes, the heir of Isildur stuff (Ring of Barahir) is in, although the scene is maddeningly short.***Orson, I KNEW you were exaggerating when you said your appalling line. See how I'm getting used to you? I didn't jump all over you, did I? I would like to know, however, which scene still disturbs you. Is it Gimli related? Can you give me a clue? I actually found myself squirming in about four places first time through, but now, after several more viewings, I have narrowed it down to just one section of one scene and one ill-advised line-reading in another scene.***DoT: re your spoiler pics post, it might help to remember that there have been shots in both previous Visual Companion books that turned out to be mis-labeled and/or mis-leading. Shoot, there are shots in trailers we still haven't seen in the films! Remember that lovely early T2T shot of Frodo caught by the Rangers, looking all sweaty and desperate and white-shirty? I thought for SURE that would be in the SEV but it isn't! There is something close, but not that shot.***Glimmung (shoot I hope I didn't spell that wrong) I am going to have to disagree with your Elijah comment. And I must issue a friendly warning: you are in the company of some very serious hobbit-fanciers; there are those among us who believe Elijah's every move is perfection as Frodo. So, if you'd like, I will happily absorb any of the wide-eyed helpless looks that you don't enjoy. Send them my way, I can't get enough. 8~) I do agree with you in one respect, that he has little else to do in FOTR than look worried or scared. But for me, his delivery of "what must I do?" makes it all worth it. Like you, I would have liked to see "defiant Frodo" at the Ford, but given the other changes made by the filmmakers in that section, I think "defiant Frodo" would not have meshed. I will always love that part of the book even more now. Have you seen the SEV of Two Towers yet?

Subject

Content ... couldn't agree more about Ralph Vaughn Williams. His music has always been my mental soundtrack reading Tolkien. Greensleeves and The Lark Ascending for the Shire, Tallis Fantasia for Moria and Fifth Symphony for the rest - and parts of the Silmarilion.****Ralph VW and Tolkien had a lot in common: both Edwardian late starters, concerned with a particular vision of a vanishing England and, like Elgar before them, somehow able to convey nobility, restrained melancholy and beauty at the same time.

Subject

Content Yes, Vaughan Williams is the best, Irritable and Glimmung. ***As to the relative murkiness of Frodo and Sam's final ascent, whether or not the upper airs have been cleared, I picture the ground level as fairly choking (let us not forget Boromir's words!) and the air distinctly murkier than illustrated. ***And yes, Elanor, I recall the shots that have not yet appeared or will never appear (chief among them Frodo's tragic white-shirtedness upon capture, and that look one sees on war refugees in prize-winning National Geographic photos); I am speculating because we have nothing else to speculate WITH, but there are still grounds for apprehension when advance word keeps circling around the same takes on the scenes. If one WERE to believe such things, then the idea that ROTK will be more true to the book than TTT is misleading. I would say Frodo ridding himself of Sam at the entry to Shelob's Cave would be more a serious Revision than an Interpretation of that chapter. ***In case the above didn't make it plain, Glimmung, count me among the ardent defenders of Elijah Wood's every nuance as Frodo - revised material or no. The very first review I ever read of FOTR was by what I think of as the (charmingly) crazed Norwegian, who had never read the book or had much advance knowledge of the film, and emerged from a preview in Oslo almost sobbing "Thank God to Mr. and Mrs. Wood for giving birth to Elijah" so that he could play Frodo. Well, I laughed, but when I saw the film, I was in complete agreement, to the point of tears myself. (Not just at the movie; at the idea that this role could ever have fallen to anyone else.) By the way, latecomers will have to accustom themselves to our short-hand terms such as "white-shirtedness" which is intended both literally and figuratively, and the more disheveled the white shirt, the better. Its compliment (not opposite) is black-shirted pantherishness, sometimes accompanied by cloak-swirling. And by the way, our friend Alice has sent me a photo of a completely UN-shirted Frodo post-capture - has any one else seen it? No sign of a whip, though.

Subject

Content Irritable: top marks for spotting the typo - figured it was close enough for people to work it out. ******* Elamor: hee hee, nice work for being able to translate Orson-speak into your own language. My first viewing of PJ's material usually causes a reflex-action from my purist side. Afterwards, I begin to relax and get some perspective. On the other hand, I am capable of lavishing praise on the bits I like......In answer to your question: there are a few bits that make me squirm in the EE, but the ONE scene I'm referring to does indeed include Gimli - it is just after Gandalf has reappeared and our heroes are making their way out of Fangorn. To me, this is a very ill-conceived little exchange in which all three actors deliver such bad line readings (even Viggo and Sir Ian!) that they step completely out of character. It's a moment of misjudged acting and direction - which occurs during all film shoots - but usually they are left on the cutting-room floor, not inserted into the main body of the film. I haven't been able to face watching this scene a second time. Another scene which makes me gnash my teeth is Legolas' and Gimli's "tally" after HD. Bad acting, a stupid "groin" gag in the worst possible taste, and some unbelievably non-Tolkien language being used. Other gripes: there are some technical problems with some of the new Gollum material - but we'll discuss that at a later date...

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Grey_Elf reloaded: do you realize that in about 2 years of posting under this nick, you

Subject

Content that Tolkien used 'beer' and 'ale' interchangeably reinforces my last point; to a British person 'beer' is often taken to mean 'ale' (even more so in Tolkien's day), but for modern day, international audiences, specifically using 'ale' will be better, to differentiate it from the more modern 'beer', lager.

Subject

Content Tolkien's literary conceit that his works on Middle Earth are the personal accounts of the protagonists (or translations passed down through the years) DOES have an important bearing on the subject of what constitutes canon, if anything does. He used this conceit once to reconcile the massive inconsistency of the original publication of the Hobbit with the Lord of the Rings (before he revised the story in the Hobbit to match the new, 'real' version of events told by Bilbo at the Council of Elrond), and he could easily have used it again, writing off any other piece of 'canon' as merely the perceptions and beliefs of the writer of the work (ie, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and his descendants, and any of the many Elvish and Mannish scholars attributed with the transaltions of the works in the Silmarillin that Tolkien went through).

Subject

Content Obviously I can't speak for daughter of time, but what I meant by the loss of dignity was the way hardly any of the characters seem strong, noble, good, persevering heroes anymore. Gimli, Merry and Pippin are obvious examples (I HATE what Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have done to Gimli), but there are many others. Since you brought up Frodo and Faramir, I'll start with them. Yes, Frodo does turn into a ring-obsessed creature in the book, but I don't think his transformation is quite as quick as Jackson makes it, or quite as exaggerated. Frodo's transformation in the book is subtler, I think, and hence more dignified. Also, in the book you get the idea that Frodo has vast resources of mental strength, whereas in the films he continually goes (as others have termed it) into zombie mode, and it is Sam who keeps him going. Now of course Sam does his share of "coaching" in the book, but not in such a way that you think Sam is the hero of the story and Frodo is just a wimp, which is what I get from the films. In that sense, I think Jackson has robbed Frodo of some dignity, even though I'd have to agree with Elanor and daughter of time that Elijah Wood makes a very good wimp. As for Faramir, as much as I love David Wenham (who turns in a spectacular performance, I think), I agree with many others that Jackson has essentially raped his character. I'm not just talking about Faramir's seeming to give in to the ring's lure for such a long time here (although that greatly bothers me), but also about the fact that Jackson's Faramir seems, well, cruel. Far from the great, noble man he is in the book, he appears to us as a stubborn, vain, careless and cruel person, who doesn't show his inherent nobility until late into the film. Apparently, the extended edition of "Towers" will somewhat correct that image of Faramir, but I still think Jackson seriously dropped the ball there. And unfortunately it doesn't stop with these characters. There's the wizard fight, which I feel humiliates Gandalf somewhat, and the terrible way Aragorn is turned into a wuss, especially in the extended edition of "Fellowship". Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the fact that they have given Aragorn slightly more background, and I do not at all object to him having been turned into a sensitive guy who worries that he may be tainted by the family heritage (especially since Viggo Mortensen does such a great job being a sensitive guy!), but there are scenes in which he comes across as an absolute wimp. The scene in which he sings his song in the Extended Edition is a case in point. I know it's a vital scene in the book, since it is one of the few moments where you get a feeling of Aragorn's love for Arwen, but there was no need for it in the film (where his love for Arwen is quickly revealed in a more cinematic way), and quite frankly I can see why Jackson axed it from the theatrical release. It's an embarrassing scene that makes Aragorn look like a wuss. It made me cringe the first time I saw it, and I still prefer not to watch it when I see the film now. It is just too... wussy. Fortunately, Aragorn is given plenty of time to prove his valour elsewhere, but I think a case could be made for Jackson robbing Aragorn of some dignity, as he has robbed many characters of their dignity. Hell, even Elrond appears clownesque at times. *** I think my main problem with the films so far is that they have such a modern feeling to them. What I like about the trilogy as Tolkien wrote it is that it really feels like another world - one which, sadly, is lost forever. By contrast, Jackson's Middle-Earth feels like a slightly weirder version of our own world, and the fact that the characters indulge in modern parlance and, worse, boorish behaviour and bad attempts at modern humour, only serves to make it more like our own, sadly inelegant world. I really miss the sense of elegance, the sense of melancholy that pervades the books. But then, it's probably unreasonable to expect subtle elegance and melancholy from a director who specialises in horror films. *** In spite of the above, I really love the films, and I do think Jackson and his cronies have made SOME valuable changes to the source material. Boromir, for instance, is actually given MORE dignity, more nobility in the film than he is in the book; I really like Boromir in the film, and I agree that Sean Benn does a fantastic job portraying him. Furthermore, I actually liked the Arwen-walking-in-the-dead-wood scene in "Towers"; it's one of the very few moments in the films where you get a powerful sense of what is about to be lost, and how bad it is that it should be lost. And don't get me started on the "little moments" - the facial expressions and gestures that are just unbelievably right. As an above poster (Yo Yo Man, I think?) mentioned, the scene in "Fellowship" where Aragorn is revealed to have had his hand on his sword the whole time Boromir was considering keeping the ring for himself is magnificent. Ditto for the look on Gandalf's face when Frodo announces in Rivendell that he will take the ring, or the phenomenal terror that spreads over Legolas' face when Gandalf mentions the word "Balrog". These are quiet, underplayed little touches that take my breath away every time I see them, and it is in them that Jackson's talent really shines, I think. Unfortunately, he reduces the effect of such brilliantly understated moments by inserting cheap, gaudy "humour" at the expense of his characters' dignity. Don't get me wrong, I chuckle at some of the jokes, but they are guilty chuckles. Deep down I wish the films could have been a little subtler. *** And finally, on a very different note, I'm glad to hear the Martin series is good. I just bought the first two books of the series, and look forward to reading them, after having got sorely disappointed with "The Wheel of Time". I still can't believe how bad the last four instalments of that series were. Jordan seems to have lost it completely.

Subject

Content I have to say I wasn't that impressed with the Song of Ice and Fire series, although having started it, I feel the need to finish it (I'm like that). I find it a bit of a chore to read, because it gets so grim and depressing. Can nothing EVER go right for these characters? Robin Hobb's work in the Farseer Trilogy suffered slightly from this, but they were more compelling (to me) the SoIaF, and her follow ups (The Live Ship Traders Trilogy and the currently unfolding Tawny Man series) just get better and better, and all tie together well to form a huge unfolding story that has me riveted. Another problem SoIaF suffers from is one it shares with many US books, as I find: far too many main characters and plot threads. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is another great one for that (although I prefer WOT, I find many - though by no means all - of the characters compelling, and he has me hooked waiting to see how it will all end). The problem with books with so many main characters and so many plot threads to go through, is that by the time you get back to any one plot thread, you've forgotten what was happening with it, and all too often the plot strand/character you were most interested in gets left hanging for far too long while you are forced to wade through plot lines you like less. LOTR has a much more manageable number of characters and plot threads, and concentrates on making those keep your interest, and deals with other characters/locations/events as merely asides from the main story and characters. It's just my opnion, but I much prefer books done that way.

Subject

Content I don't object to many characters and many different storylines, as long as they are relevant. I do, however, object to books in which hardly anything happens, and in which much of the detail seems mundane and redundant. That's my main problem with "The Wheel of Time" right now. Over the last four books, the story has hardly progressed. The last book, especially, was all set-up and no actual development. Add to that the tremendous stress on insignificant details (the women's clothes, the ins and outs of Andor politics), the annoying female characters (I'm beginning to lose patience with Elayne and Nynaeve), and the fact that Jordan cheats his readers by bringing back the Forsaken (the killing of whom used to be the climax of the books), and I think I can be forgiven for saying that the series is not as well written as it appeared at first. That said, I AM hooked to it, so I will read the final few instalments when they are published. I just hope there won't be too many of them. Jordan seems to have become awfully long-winded over the course of the last four books. Of course, that is all completely off topic...

Subject

Content whilst I agree with some of what you said, you totally lost me with your dislike of Aragorn singing his short excerpt of the Lay of Leithian, story of Luthien and Beren. I thought that was one of the best moments in the film; subtle, quitely meaningful, revealing depth to 'Strider' (not 'Aragorn'). Don't forget, that purely in terms of the film we have no idea who this character 'Strider' is at this point (the same as in the book), and have not yet any idea of Arwen's existence, and I love the mysterious hidden depths this scene gives to Strider; it's almost a shame we get to the bottom of it (his reveal at Rivendell) so quickly! Also I don't see wussy here, much less anyway than at Gilraen's memorial later. Plus, I love ANY link to Tolkien's earlier Ages, in book or film, which is why I've long been looking forward to seeing the Ring of Barahir mentioned (since Beren wore the Ring, it's also somewhat of a link with this scene you dislike so much, although I doubt they'll mention that).

Subject

Content and I by no means say it's the best thing since sliced bread or anything, but I still think it's much more enjoyable to read than SoIaF. Incidentally, your objection to 'hardly anything happening', which I agree with, I attribute largely to the book having far too many main characters and plot threads to follow, so it has little time to take any of them anywhere. Although I by no means think Raymond E. Feist is much to shout about, at least not with anything he's written recently, he has a better way of covering all the events of an entire world that are happening simultaneously; do them in seperate books/series. He keeps on revisiting his one major invention: the Rift War on Midkemia, and telling different parts of the story. Whilst it may show a massive intellect to be able to keep in mind and develop the whole story, in an entire world, all simultaneously (a la WOT and SoFaI), it leads to problems like you and I had with WOT, and I had with SoFaI (Feist's work on the other hand, has it's own, different problems, and is going downhill in my opinion). Take Feist's best work to date; his original Riftwar series, which was suitably grand and epic and told a huge story, but followed just two main protagonists. Then he followed this up with the even better Empire series (with Janny Wurts, I think she contributed largely to making this my favourite Feist-Midkemia universe stuff), which told events from a different perspective, and following a different story arc, but concurrent with the Riftwar, expanding the story and the universe massively, but it could be enjoyed totally seperately. --------- I think I've realised why I prefer WOT to SoIaF, event though they both share a massively bloated cast of characters and confusing over-abundance of different plot threads: with wheel of time, I at least like SOME of the main characters, and enjoy following SOME of the plot threads, but I find it very hard to like or enjoy ANY of them in SoFaI. It's probably purely subjective, and just my own personal taste.

Subject

Content Believe me, I WANTED to love the scene in which Strider (you're right - it is Strider at this point, not Aragorn) sings the Luthien-and-Beren song. I was pissed off when I heard it wouldn't be in the theatrical release, and relieved when I found out that it would be in the extended edition. But when I actually saw the scene, I cringed. There is something on Strider's face that is just... embarrassing. Something which, as someone else on this thread pointed out, contradicts the heroism he displays elsewhere in the film. The same is true for the scene that takes place at Gilraen's memorial, although for some odd reason I like that. Be that as it may, however, I do love the film Aragorn - both the way Jackson et. al. wrote him and the way Viggo Mortensen plays him. In fact, the images of Aragorn straight after Boromir's death are probably my favourite moments of the film trilogy so far. The look on his face as he puts on Boromir's gloves... whoa. It's just that the Luthien song didn't play in the film as I hoped it would. But hey, that's just my opinion. Everyone's got one, right?

Subject

Content and we find out what happened in other parts of Middle Earth (Galadriel, Celeborn and Thranduil taking souther Mirkwood and destroying Dol Guldur, the dwarves and men in Dale, etc.) just as an aside to the main story. It would have been really interesting to have seperate works by Tolkien filling in these other stories, but I would not have enjoyed a 12 volume LOTR following every major series of events in Middle Earth all at once, with 20 or so main characters (like SoFaI and WOT) that a modern American fantasy author would write, thinking it the way to make a story 'epic', anywhere near as much as the one Tolkien wrote.

Subject

Content I find it facinating that we have oppsite opnions of these two Aragorn scenes. I LOVE the Lay of Leithian scene, and cringe at Argorns "I do not want that power, I have never wanted it." at Gilraen's memorial. Of course everyone's entitled to their own opnion, I just find it interesting that we can have oppsite opnions for the same reasons, if that makes any sense. :)

Subject

Content "Lord of the Rings" kicks the shite out of any American fantasy saga. There might be a lot of characters in the trilogy, but you do care about all of them; and the details never overwhelm you, as they do in certain other fantasy epics. I suppose some of the storylines that are worked out in the Appendices could have been inserted in the trilogy itself, but on the whole I think Tolkien got it right. You can only cram so many stories into one large body of work. I wish some other fantasy writers would learn that. *** So what's your view on Philip Pullman, then?

Subject

Content It's no big, water under the bridge. I figured my words were a catalyst for what you said. I was just full of myself, I guess. Every now and then, I come down with a case of pride. When I went back and read your post, that's the only thing that was hurt. It felt odd to be used as a negative example. If Beanbuddy and Borgdude are Merry and Pippin, I guess I'm kinda like Sam. Tenaciously loyal, but not terribly bright.

Subject

Content May I suggest that you try "my" version of LotR:FotR? It's simple, watch the theatrical DVD until Pippin says, "Great. Where are we going?" at the end of The Council of Elrond (the is where Disc one of the SEV ends), then switch to disc two of the SEV. This accomplished several things for me: 1) I get to see the original Shire opening, which was virtually perfect. 2) I avoid hearing the Black Speech at The Council of Elrond. 3) I get to see Frodo deliver his 'Gandalf, right or left?' line as the Fellowship sets out from Rivendell. 4) I get to see ALL the gifts given, as well as the best line in the whole movie, "She gave me three." ***Try it. You might like it.

Subject

Content Namely, Treebeard. Although I do on the whole like the film Treebeard, he is not the venerable, old character he is in the book. I get the impression Jackson has very little respect for him, what with him having Merry and Pippin trick him into attacking Isengard. Now I suppose that scene was inserted to restore Merry and Pippin to some of the dignity they had lost earlier (...), as well as to speed up affairs, but I don't find it very respectful to good old Treebeard. I hope the extended edition will address this problem somewhat. (Does it, Elanor? Orson?). I can't see how they would change the scene in which Treebeard is tricked into attacking Isengard, though. That would mean radically altering the film.

Subject

Content That actually sounds very good me. I'll give it a try!

Subject

Content Your key phrase is *he could easily have used it again*. True. And if he had, it would have become part of the canon. But he didn't. So we're stuck with what was published - which for want of a better word, is canon. But I'm happy to agree that it was a delightfully audacious loophole he created in case he had second thoughts about anything (and/or was able to stop procrastinating and finish the Silmarillion). *****Maybe, against all the odds, Mr Sophistication was correct earlier in his dorky jibes at our innermost gender preferences, but I'm with you on the Strider campfire (oops) song. I thought it was pretty cool and quite butch (in an AlternaHunk-U-Like sort of way). Not wussy at all. (Not that there's anything wrong with that). And as you know Bean, despite some earnest drones on my part about canon, I do have a harsh, unsentimental side :)

Subject

Content Everywhere I said 'Song of Fire and Ice', or 'SoFaI', I MEANT 'Storm of Swords', or 'SoS', by George RR Martin. I've not even READ the song of Fire and Ice series, couldn't even name the author off the top of my head!

Subject

Content The "Song of Ice and Fire" series WAS written by Martin, so in a way, you were right, even though you haven't read it. :-)

Subject

Content Do you recommend it? I certainly recommend Robin Hobb (although I've not read much that she's written under her real name, Megan Lindholm). As for the other storylines, they're just right in the Appendices, as extra stuff you can look at if you hunger for more, but not inserted into the text bloating it out of all proportion. It would just be nice to be able to read a little more about them, either in longer appendices, or having them as separate texts entirely. But I guess that's just because I can't ever get enough! ---------- Incidentally, Storm of Swords suffers because I found it hard to like most of the characters, and because of the depressing number of bad things that happen to any of the characters that were even remotely likeable. A book that REALLY suffers from too many characters and storylines is Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle(sp?). And a potentially good series with an interesting sci-fi/fantasy idea that was almost ruined for me by a ridiculous number of main characters was Tad William's Otherland series.

Subject

Content Have you read the history of Middle Earth? Book 7, The Treason of Isengard. Apparently, when Tolkien came to write the chapter introducing Fangorn (both the forrest and the Ent), he wrote one quick outline, then expanded on this to write the chapter almost in it's finished, published form virtually in one go. As Tolkien was working out Treebeard, he made this note: "Notes on Treebeard. In some ways he's rather stupid.". That probably isn't quite word-for-word 'cause I don't have the text in front of me, but I only read it the day before yesterday, so it's pretty damn close. Personally I don't mind Treebeard of the films at all, I think they got him down quite well (I'm looking forward the the EE, which apparently makes him even better). He never seemed tremendously brainy to me, just very, very old, with hundreds of lifetimes worth of knowledge and wisdom. I see him as how Sam would be, if Sam lived for thousands of years (and lived off nothing but Ent-draught, obviously).

Subject

Content It still isn't fair for me to comment on a series of books I've not read though! It was definately the Storm of Swords series I was talking about.

Subject

Content I want to congratulate him on his hilarious use of a (filmic) Treebeard quote. Nearly wet me britches!

Subject

Content There was a brief chat on a TailEnd TB a few months ago about His Dark Materials. If I remember correctly, DoT was considering reading the three books. As a closet militant atheist, I thought Pullman's militant atheism was extremely intrusive and rather heavy handed, notwithstanding some interesting ideas. As you probably know, it's pitched at young adolescents (except in the US for some reason). I was a little surprised to read some rather catty remarks made by Pullman about various defects in Tolkien's writing which, lo and behold, are defects which appear, in modern guises, in his own work. The cattiness seemed to derive from Pullman's rather smug and dismissive views concerning Tolkien's earnest Catholicism.*****As for your other comments about Peter Jackson's coarsening of some of the characters in LotR, it may really be just the collision of commerce and art. The funding for the films was necessarily enormous. The unsentimental folks who put up that sort of money were unlikely (especially in the make-or-break situation of the first movie) to countenance any risk of alienating the huge part of the potential audience who wouldn't know an "heroic romance" from a catfood commercial. No doubt the script writers kept this in mind. Hence, some lowest common denominator fodder crept into the script: - some of which you and others have mentioned above.****PJ's track record included a few low budget, left-field, horror/comedies. Sort of Spike Milligan v The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Which makes his epic achievements in this series even more remarkable. However, I think he's not always fully in control of his silly sense of humour, which is a bit of a shame, but the jokes haven't hurt the box-office and I don't think New Line and the distributor/financiers are complaining. **** It's quite difficult to imagine a situation in which a more austere or purist filmed version of the book could attract the finance necessary for the unavoidable major special effects - giant armies, Gollum, the Ents, Mt Doom and so on.

Subject

Content As far as I'm concerned, the man deserves all the accolades he's getting. "His Dark Materials" is quite simply some of the most inventive fantasy I've read. It is lush where it needs to be lush (in the writing), sparse where it needs to be sparse (in the number of characters, the number of sub-plots and the amount of detail, which is wonderfully well controlled) and does not shy away from controversy, which is rare in fantasy. It also features some of the most likeable characters I have come across anywhere in literature, so if that's a big thing for you (as it seems to be), then you should definitely give "His Dark Materials" a shot. As long as you don't expect another "Lord of the Rings" or "Wheel of Time", you should enjoy it a lot. Pullman doesn't go in for high fantasy, you see; he writes MODERN fantasy. So while he does take you to other worlds (fascinating other worlds), they are all human and very modern - more so than those weaned on elves, hobbits and chivalrous men might like. Furthermore, Pullman has a disconcerting habit of killing off interesting, likeable characters, although I'd have to add that he does so in a way that makes their deaths palatable. So, yeah, I wholeheartedly recommend "His Dark Materials". It might be very different from "Lord of the Rings", but in its own way, it is just as transporting. It has you fantasising about other worlds, and asking all sorts of "What if...?" questions which long continue to linger in your mind. It also leaves you with a sense of wonder, not to mention a feeling of slight disenchantment with the world you live in. In my opinion, the latter is the hallmark of a good fantasy book, depressing though it might sound. It's what "Lord of the Rings" does to me, and as most of us on this thread agree, whatever sentiments "Lord of the Rings" evokes in us are good. :-)

Subject

Content As you can probably tell from my response to raw bean, I didn't mind Pullman's in-your-face atheism. Yes, it's obvious (glaring, even), but it did not harm the trilogy for me, since there is so much else in it that is so wonderful. It's definitely not for religious readers, though.

Subject

Content ...n'est-ce pas? You've been hitting the sci-fi hard, son! Are you sure you're getting down to the pub enough? Lucifer's Hammer by Niven & Pournelle! I think I read that about a gazillion years ago. Was that the one about the comet wiping out half of civilization? And the people miraculously driving a car along deeply submerged railway tracks for days? I could never rid my mind of the loony improbability of that particular concept.

Subject

Content Yes, bean, I can see how Tolkien might have originally outlined Treebeard as a stupidish character. His slow and long-winded way of speaking (more so in the book than in the film) is hardly what you'd expect from a very intelligent character, is it? That said, the book did give me the impression that, being so amazingly old, Treebeard is a venerable character, and I don't think Jackson quite captured that aspect of him. I found the tricking-Treebeard scene rather cheap. I liked your comparison of Treebeard and Sam, though, and I shall stop being such a dreadful high-fantasy purist. :-)

Subject

Content ... the Pullman books are worth reading - the Daemons alone are a brilliant justification. On the basis of the books Bean's identified so far, I think he'd find a lot to enjoy in His Dark Materials. Although I had no problem with Pullman's fierce onslaught on conventional theology, I felt I was being force-fed at times. I guess we could squander quintillions of electrons debating Dust, Elaine, but I'll wait and see if Bean makes it through the Amber Spyglass before risking any spoilers.*****thecutestofborg, I've only read one Ringworld novel - possibly the third in some series. That was alarmingly many years ago and I don't recall it well, but I do recall thinking at the time it was all very cinematic. That might be a great project for Ridley Scott.

Subject

Content I went into a bookshop in my lunch break, and I could have sworn I saw multiple books with the same main tiotle: "A Storm of Swords" by George RR Martin. But now I think about it, A Song of Ice and Fire DOES bring back memories. The series contains Storm of Swords, Clash of Kings, etc, yes? The Stark family, who all seem to have utterly horrible lives (or die) the Lannister(?) family, who are all evil to one degree or another, even the one's we follow and (kind of) connect with. The funny white-haired ex-princess with the Dragon egg and the family history of incest (incidentally, that seems a rather prominent theme in the books, quite bizarre really), it's all coming back. If only it would ditch all that stuff and focus on Jon Snow and the ragtag soldiers defending the entire known world fro the icy undead in the North, that series would be so much better, in my opnion.

Subject

Content I agree, irritable - the Daemons alone make reading "His Dark Materials" worthwhile. Inventing them was a stroke of utter and complete genius on Pullman's part. No matter how long it's been since I read the books, I still find myself wondering what my Daemon might look like if I had one, and those of my friends, and... well, you catch my drift. And yes, we should have a discussion on Dust some day, when others on this thread have had a chance to read the books, too. For they should, they really should. *** As for Pullman force-feeding his ideas on religion, no argument there. He does. However, he is such a fabulous writer that I think he gets away with it. I'm not just talking about his imagination and his inventiveness here, but about the way he constructs and writes his books. There are sentences in the books that have me (a fellow writer, like many people on this thread, it seems) green with envy - short and to the point, but oh so poetic. Furthermore, I really admire the way he kills some of his more likeable characters (a seemingly cruel act which works out brilliantly, I think) and the ever-so-melancholy way he resolves the Lyra-and-Will relationship. These things not only take guts, but also an enormous technical proficiency. Pullman, I think, has it. In spades. And armoured bears and Daemons, too. Some things just aren't fair.

Subject

Content I have one of the Ringworld books, but it's not the first so I've always put it off until I try finding the first in the series (it's just never quite happened). One question: Does it have a dozen or more main characters per book? If not, I'll eagerly give it a try on your recommendation (even if it does, you might persuade me). ---------- irritable, Elaine, I think I'll have to give Pullman a go, too. ----------- Anyone read any Robin Hobb? Great writer, wonderful stories on a respectable scale (just one hero and a few other main characters per book yay!), but put together they're building up into a massive tapestry that hangs together to form a grand, epic story. Also, in a completely different vein, David Gemmell. If Pullman can beat Gemmell for likeable characters, I'll probably have a heart attack. Any single Drenai novel, and almost everything else he's done, (whilst all treading very similar paths) are wonderful, unputdownable reads, with fantastic characters. Somehow, don't ask me how, Gemmell gives you flawed, very real human characters, whilst still managing to make them feel like like larger than life mythic heroes. He gives you tragic, sympathetic, yet somehow also dastardly and deeply evil villains. He also gives you characters who have shades of both, or occasionally more clear-cut, one dimensional figures, showing he's not just a one-trick pony where characters are concerned. He has wonderful ruminations (given in lines from his characters) on the philosophy of morals, and right and wrong, always making you think, yet totally against this he always leaves you with moral certainty about his characters, good and evil, right and wrong. His books are all cut from the same cloth, but they are always wonderful to read. ------------ irritable, my brain may be a bit addled from the non-stop reading I do, but never fear on my pub-going habbits, I see more of the landlord of my local than I do of most family members. Put together! :) ----------------By the by, where are you in the world, Elaine, that you manged to join me on my usually lonesome graveside watch (to the Americans, anyway) on this TB? I've been escaping here from a stressful day at work and a grim day's weather in Yorkshire, in the North of England.

Subject

Content I think my typing fingers are trying to embarrass me in front of the profusion of writers that seem to post on these TBs!

Subject

Content Easily done, I know. :) --------- Since sci-fi's been brought up, I think I'll reiterate what I said on a TB a while ago and point out that the Dune series in many ways constitutes the sci-fi LOTR, to me at least. Or for hard 'science' fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy certainly ranks up close to LOTR (and associated works) in terms of scope. Man, I could probably reread those books every year for my entire life and STILL find something new, much like LOTR, and Sil.

Subject

Content Thus: I deduce that my rebellious typing fingers bluffed me with that apostrophe, filling me with doubt and tempting me into REALLY making a stupid error. ------- I'll shut up and do some work now. Sorry folks.

Subject

Content For some reason, the descriptions of their work never appealed to me. I have to admit, though, that your description of Gemmell's protagonists as flawed characters who somehow manage to be larger-than-life mythic heroes sounds good. Larger-than-life mythic heroes are good. So are tragic heroes. So yeah, I think I'll give them a shot by the time I'm done with Martin and Poul Anderson. *** To answer your other question, I'm escaping from some equally grim weather in Holland, which is not so hilly as your beautiful Yorkshire (which I visited just a few months ago, partly to walk in the Dales and partly to stock up on fantasy novels that are either hard to come by or very expensive in Holland), but just as green. And just as Tolkien-mad, I might add.

Subject

Content But don't worry - we won't hold it against you. *** On that note, I'm going to get some work done, too...

Subject

Content I heard about 'em, but I couldn't picture 'em - until I read the books, and was amazed. I'm not a writer Elaine and have no qualifications to analyze the technical aspects of what seems a rather mysterious and gruelling process. I read a little about Pullman before reading his books and he certainly made it clear he had set the bar as high as he could. He spoke in particular of George Eliot as a great exponent of deep and subtle characterization, something he thought was severely lacking in Tolkien. (Tolkien adroitly dodged this issue by contending he was not writing a novel but rather an heroic romance - as if that excused a number of cardboard cut-outs strewn about LotR.) As you say, Pullman boldly kills off some central characters, which I admired, but I thought those who perished with Metatron were perhaps not given the send-off they deserved. I'll say no more to avoid spoilers. I must say, the first time I read LotR, (in the early Pleistocene) I was utterly shocked at Gandalf's death and didn't mind at all when Neo-Gandalf returned, even though I knew in my heart of hearts it was a cop-out.*****bean: or DEFINITELY (as the case may be).**** I'll leave you and Elaine (and any friendly lurkers) to your lonely vigil as it's 3 am here and even insomniacs need SOME sleep

Subject

Content Some (actually, quite a few) of the characters in "Lord of the Rings" ARE cardboard cut-outs, and the way the two who perish with Metatron are sent off DOES seem somewhat hasty. But still I think both works are magnificent achievements, both in terms of invention and of execution. And on that note, good night, and sweet dreams!

Subject

Content ... you know I would never gloat about something as trivial and ephemeral as sport, but I couldn't help but notice that our Rugby League team (comprising of a few ancient doddering reserves and some 14 year old kids from the bush - because none of the real League players could be bothered to fly to England) JUST CREAMED THOSE POMMIE BASTARDS AND WON THE SERIES. 'night.

Subject

Content I could barely skim it all this morning.... For starters, though (and just to get this out of the way), I'd like to set the record straight and say that I wasn't thinking of reading Pullman, I DID read Pullman - make that, "ploughed through Pullman with gritted teeth" - because a friend had recommended it to me, to my everlasting puzzlement. I only finished because I thought surely this thing would turn around and turn out to be worthy of all the praise. And it wasn't just the in-your-face atheism, though that alone makes me wonder greatly how the same reader could love both Tolkien and Pullman, as they are complete opposites in their beliefs, even if Pullman weren't out there heaping abuse on Tolkien. I also thought the characters were mostly flat (I did like Will a bit), the dialogue unmemorable, and the antagonists (whose names now escape me) remarkably cliched. The Daemons were indeed, cool - that is, if you were lucky enough to have your daemon turn out to be a cheetah, not an albatross or a dung beetle. And the telescope and Subtle Knife were great devices. Certainly Pullman's view of death and the afterlife is more depressing than anything I've ever encountered, and the God-on-a-litter sequence just struck me as... childishly spiteful. I'm glad I don't live in Pullman's head. It strikes me as a horrible place. Anyway, I hope this doesn't turn into the Pullman talkback, so that's all I have to say on the subject. I will now turn to a separate post, because I don't want to even discuss Tolkien in the same space.

Subject

Content I'm just waiting to see England clean up in the rugby UNION world cup! ------- Actually, I couldn't give a rats arse about rugby. Don't go in much for watching sport, I'd rather partake in it myself. ------------ I'm *definitely* very embarrassed, I've worked with computers for so long that my English writing skills are getting very rusty, although I can write a mean Java package! ------------- Sounds good, pippinoftook, I'll try and find it to read. :) -------- D-o-T, you really make it hard sometimes. How can you be so narrow-minded (or suggest that we should be narrow-minded) to the point that people shouldn't be able to like books by authors with two different theological stances? If that was really the case, I wouldn't be able to appreciate LOTR (or the Silmarillion, for that matter), because my own atheistic viewpoint is fundamentally and totally oposed to that of Prof. Tolkien. As for Pullman disliking Tolkien, I feel no reason to give his viewpoint any credence, so it doesn't bother me. Doubtless Tolkien would criticise much that I enjoy, if he was still around today. As for you finishing, "I will now turn to a separate post, because I don't want to even discuss Tolkien in the same space.", that comes across sounding very snobbish, I'm afraid.

Subject

Content Elaine, much as we apparently disagree on That Other Author, I was glad to read your long post on the de-nobilization of Tolkien's characters, though I would say in Aragorn's case it's more of an over-reluctance. I've posted at such length in earlier talkbacks that I almost hesitate to get into it here, but then again, we have many new posters, so I'll try to make it fresh. (And I would say that substituting the theatrical DVD up to the point of the end of the Council is a good solution, but that would mean leaving out the Wood Elves, which I love, and Pippin and Merry dancing on the table, which is charming. I certainly do favor the original opening and loss of the Black Speech.) ***But to get back on point, and to repeat myself somewhat, overall the thing that has most upset me with the films is this de-nobilization mentioned, and the feeling I get from the filmmakers that they think complexity is gained by heightening a character's flaws. It is not - or it doesn't have to be. If there is a universally beloved character in the films, it is Boromir, the one whose character has been made MORE noble, more charming, and more understandable in his complex motives. To hark again to the essay that came out at the time of the first film, people - women especially - have been starved for films in which men behave nobly, and it was posited that this is one of the many reasons so many women have been drawn to a film that was once thought to appeal mainly to men. (Which shows they weren't paying attention to who was reading the book.) But as for Frodo.... It isn't just a case here of the devil being in the details. His entire journey (post Anduin) has been so altered that I don't know how it can be argued that he is behaving in the same way as in the book. By the end of TTT (the film) he has already done things that go far beyond anything he ever did in the book. He has held Sting to Sam's throat. Yes, in the Tower he lashes out at him - verbally - and is immediately horrified, and even that verbal abuse is enough to bring Sam to his knees with tears in his eyes, it is so unexpected. Near the slopes of Mt. Doom, he puts a hand on the hilt in a reflex action when Sam offers to take the Ring, but again, is sad and sorrowful, explaining that he would go mad if the Ring were taken from him. He is sane, except for these lapses, throughout. He becomes more and more inwardly focused - or focused on the Eye - but even as speech wanes, we never lose the sense of his love and gratitude for Sam, even when he's too weary and hopeless to express it, or too focused on retaining the last shreds of his will to notice that Sam has given him his own water. He is still capable of sharing eloquently with Sam his loss of all memory of other things. When you compare this with his actions in TTT, and what we have heard of his actions in ROTK, I don't see how anyone can say that Frodo's moral journey has been "the same" in both media. And add to this the over-emphasis on Sam's fortitud at the expense of Frodo's, almost all of whose "heroic" moments have been stripped away, leaving him with his "What must I do?" and the closing of his hand around the Ring and going for the boat, on the shores of Anduin.... These, of course, are staggering acts of courage. In the latter, certainly, he knows he is going to his death. Apparently we will still see the strength of his will in the crawl up Mt. Doom. It's too bad that in the Gollum parallels, it hasn't been also emphasized that Gollum was a creature of malice who began his Ring possession with murder, and that Frodo was not only the "best hobbit in the Shire" (a Shire that included Sam) but is willing to lay down his life for his friends.

Subject

Content are meant to be that way. Heroic romance needs not human characters, but symbols, larger than life mythic heroes (only without David Gemmell's human failings/qualities), and blacker than black evil villains. Any 'characterisation' in the modern novel sense comes from LOTR as a Hobbit sequel, not LOTR as heroic, poetic myth. Reading the Silmarillion, MOST of the characters are one-dimensional, or at least very 'larger than life', and it's beautiful because of this, not in spite of it. ------------ Elaine, I've only been to your country once (travelling through to visit relatives in Germany), but it struck me as quite lovely, and gorgeous though my home county is (did you enjoy visiting the Dales, by the way?), as a cyclist I could REALLY appreciate the FLATness of the Netherlands! :) Start with David Gemmell's first book Legend, if you've a mind to. If you like it, you'll like all his work (he develops his style, but never radically departs from how he began with that book), and see if you don't just want to lap up all the stories of Druss the Legend he can come up with (still going!).

Subject

Content Foist: Hi everybody! Looks like I've been the only one not playing. Why IS that! Dammit! Here's the pattern the past month: I can't get into AICN for 4-5 days, I post bitching about that fact, I do some quick skimming to catch up with the conversation, I try to post, and that very same day am again denied the site, which again seems to last for 4 or 5 days. I'm sick of it! Ya hear me!? What is this persecution that lets all you others debate, wrassle and chit chat will-nilly but forbids me to even WATCH?!? SO -- in a defiant act of childish proportions (or at least attitude) -- I refuse to even attempt to catch the gist of this current discussion and instead *attempt* to finally post last week's reply to Sabster, concerning the 5 or 6 or 7 Stages Of LOTR Adaptation Grief. Luckily it's one of the rare times I first typed it elsewhere (thinking I'd simply get back into the site later that afternoon, ho ho). *** In the meantime, could somebody PLEASE post up a Reader's Guide To The Past Two Weeks' Talkback(s) so I know what's goin' on, who's who, who ain't, debates settled and/or ongoing, and any thing else Really Cool that I missed? I'm at least TORN-up-to-date (well, thru Saturday, and until I post these). And I just ain't got the time to wrestle this site to the floor, make it cry Uncle (or just make it cry, Harry, CRY) AND read the whole Tailend Novel. .....Wow, I just got it -- this has to be how Ingold feels! Wall-builder, I now EMPATHIZE, brutha! *** Before I forget: (1) Blaine is a Pain and that is the truth. But he's done with now and THAT is the truth (but Charlie the Choo-choo's headlamp DID flicker on, or did Jake and I just imagine it..!?) (2) I don't remember ever having seen it before, so, if it's finally a new one by Cartoona: Best. Harry gif. EVER.

Subject

Content Okay, Sabster, you asked for it. Those pleased as punch with LOTR The Movie as they've seen it and are gnawing their nails down to the second knuckle in anticipation for ROTK need not bother reading -- scroll along, nothing to see here. By Crumb I may even be breaking my own Long-Ass Post record. Cause this is one long-ass post. First, however, I think it's only ethical to provide some context and medical history. *** This little bit of off-the-cuff cocktail-party Analytical Therapy first came about in the Summer/Fall of 2001, pre-Fellowship. And if people think nerves are frayed these days, hoo-weee, back then the tension wasn't just thick enough to cut with a knife, it was riddled with banana slices, cubed, and served quivering in little dessert cups, daily. Around then, and heh heh to this day, I found myself in the role of Lead Cheerleader (and who ever likes THAT bitch?) and did my best to assuage the adaptation fears of others. But my calls to Trust PJ were getting redundant, and I was grasping for a true palliative for folx; not everyone was interested in the exploring the subtextual nuances and subtle genius behind "Bad Taste," Meet The Feebles," and "Braindead." (Although "Forgotten Silver" usually went MILES in making people feel better about this mad Kiwi, often moreso than "Heavenly Creatures.") What I didn't yet realize was, I needed not an Answer for the fretters, but a Process. *** Finally, inspiration struck like it always does, while watching an old taped episode of Tenacious D (6 eps of 12 15-min. tales briefly aired on HBO long, long ago). The episode: "The Death of the Dream." The Dream? The Ultimate Cream-Dream Hard-Rockin Rock-n-Roll Lifestyle, or something. (It's been a while.) As Captain Jack explained, "It doesn't exist! It's a myth, like the Sasquatch! Let the Dream DIE." The D then went through their grieving process: Anger, Denial, Door-to-Door Rocking, Day Jobs, Acceptance. It was a Very Special Episode. (More on it later...) *** I realized immediately how applicable their situation was. Knowing the grieving process may just help the grieving adaptation-hater to move through the process that much quicker, and so find peace. I returned to the original 5 stages, classically recognized as what one passes through when dealing with loss or bereavement, and cribbed a lot of language directly from other, more serious sites. I mean, flagrant plagiarism. *** The signs were all there. People were dealing with Grief. What was lost? The dream of The Lord Of The Rings being adapted verbatim, of being brought to film not by creative individuals with their own creative impulses but by slavish stenographers with cameras. That's not a kock or a slight--EVERYONE has been there at one point, including myself. Grieving is a very personal experience for everyone. No one human can or should tell you how to grieve. That is not the intent here. I hope this will help you identify what you are feeling. Also it is to let you know you are not alone with how you are feeling. I found it very helpful to have caring people around me to help me. At some time in life we all feel loss and must find a way to cope with it. A lot of the preceding passage was plagiarism. (Was it THAT obvious?) *** STAGE ONE: DENIAL. A common misperception is that this manifests as "Trust PJ, the changes are all right by me, and these are flawless movies." WRONG. "Denial" does NOT mean abandoning all critical faculties. Only the most fevered idiots find zero fault, and nobody likes them anyway. (They're usually of a different grieving process--this kind of denial is usually born of dealing with the perceived loss of some other film "franchise" and has not much to do with LOTR the novel.) In this earliest stage, what we are still denying is that there will BE any changes. "I know the difference between a book and a movie, thank you, and realize that adaptation is necessary. But the book reads like a movie! He won't need--or dare to WANT--to change a thing." Obviously moving past this stage was a harder process in 2001, but even in 2003 we can see its presence as ROTK looms on the horizon. *** STAGE TWO: ANGER. This is very easy to spot, even evident at awards ceremonies, to wit: "Peter Jackson!? Who the fuck d'you think 'yare, ya fucking HACK! Shame on you! SHAME on you!" We get angry. The anger can manifest itself in many ways. We blame the filmmakers for our loss. We can become easily agitated, having emotional outbursts. We can even become angry with other Tailenders. Care must be taken in this stage not to turn this anger into name-calling, or worse: trolling. Release of this anger, appropriately directed, is a healthy way of coping, in my experience, and those who have moved past their Anger should recognize it in others, and be patient. Some, sadly, are never able to move on. *** STAGE THREE: BARGAINING. A little different with Adaptation Grief, this stage usually manifests as concessions coupled with ultimatums. "Okay, whatever. As long as they don't fuck with Scene B or Character D, I can handle A, C and E being tweaked. But by God, F had better be intact, even if G has to change." We start cutting imaginary "deals" with the filmmakers, laying down our demands and grudgingly "going with" the filmmakers' creative decisions. In the worst cases, "petitions" are assembled. Although many claim some major decisions (such as Arwen not appearing at Helm's Deep, despite having been shot) occur because of Internet input and fan outcry--and not the filmmakers rethinking a dodgy creative decision that caused more story problems than it solved--this can often be seen as another type of Denial, although one with the consolatory illusion of having a hand in the adaptation process. It offers the fan some sense of "control" and so can be difficult to move away from. *** Backsliding through the stages can easily occur, especially between films' (and DVDs') releases, and it is usually to Stages Two and Three that we all fall back to. All of us. *** STAGE FOUR: DEPRESSION. "What's the point? Fuck it. A rental at best now. I might catch it in January, as a matinee. Just another movie, and certainly not *my* LOTR, which now will never be seen on screen. What a wasted opportunity. Sigh." [Pasted Plagiarism-->] Depression is a very likely outcome for all people that grieve for a loss. This is what I would consider the most difficult stage of the five to deal with. There can be a feeling of listlessness and tiredness. You may be bursting helplessly into tears. Feeling like there is no purpose to life any more. You may find you feel like you are being punished. Pleasure and joy can be difficult to achieve, even from things and activities from which you have always gained delight. There can even be thoughts of suicide. There are many different ways in which this stage of grief can manifest itself. If you at any time in this stage feel like doing yourself any harm please do seek professional counseling. Self-preservation is a must. Some side effects may include headaches, stomach cramping, spontaneous nasal- and ear-hair growth, repeated and rapid painful alternating impotence and priapism, and anal leakage. Okay, that last sentence was mine. But, Jee-hee-zus, if you ARE actually Clinically Depressed (which is not something to be taken lightly) over a movie and/or book, no joke, GET HELP! Hopefully, and usually, this stage is just a case of the blues. You're pretty much bummed out, and have lost all interest in PJ's films. *** STAGE FIVE: ACCEPTANCE. The final stage of grief. It is when you realize that life has to go on. You can here accept your loss, accept that the book is unfilmable, and that the film is being made by creative individuals who could, and should, no more supress their own creative drive--the very drive that got these films made through an unprecedented effort and despite mammoth odds--than Tolkien could have ignored his philological passions when crafting an epic tale. You should now be able to regain your energy, and at the very least just enjoy the movie(s). "Trust PJ" has moved beyond "Trust him to not err in adaptation" to "Trust him to make some good effin' movies from the book I love." It may take some time to get here but, hopefully, we all will. *** After I posted the first version of this thesis, it was Miami Mofo who observed that several of us whacked out freak fans had obviously moved on PAST the complacent, contented Stage Five. Whereupon we discovered (and El Mofo gets co-authorship of this Erratum)... *** STAGE SIX: FRANTIC ANTICIPATION. "Holy jumpin' scnhitt, when's this movie gonna freakin' GET here! I can't, stand, the WAIT!" With Miami's help I remembered the lesson I should never have forgotten--as one should never forget lessons learned from Tenacious D. They had accepted the Death of the Dream and were preparing to ritualistically destroy their guitars, when! ...they met the fabled Sasquatch. Sasquatch is no myth! In fact, he joined them, and the D were briefly a power trio! (It turned out Sasquatch was a shitty drummer, however, and was soon let go with no hard feelings.) There is Everlasting Joy to be found beyond Acceptance, and at some point our Freak Fan's mind turns to rabid devouring of all things LOTR On Film, and cannot possibly deal with the intolerable wait without the occasional conniption and demand for time travel devices. GIMME MY MOVIES!!!! I want the DVDs!! I want the SEV DVDs!!! I NEED TO SEE ROTK.... RIGHT.... NOW!!!!!!!!! (9 !'s) *** STAGE SEVEN: ACTUAL PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION OF FRANTIC ANTICIPATION IN CARTOON-LIKE FASHION. Sometimes one sees a spoiler photo, or reads a bit of leaked dialogue, or just sees a teaser trailer on the big screen without expecting to. Or maybe you are bored at work and staring off into space, and suddenly remember that the T2T SEV COMES OUT TOMORROW. Jaw goes slack, saliva pours onto lap, eyes glaze over and steam shoots out of one's ears. Sometimes one's scalp will lift off one's head like a bad toupee on a string and spin wildly while a steam-whistle blasts out of one's nostrils. More often, Stage Seven will occur in the actual line to get into the theater on Opening Day. All along the line this December 17th (or 16th...) one will find people dropping into premature swoons, repeatedly stomping one foot and howling like a wolf, jumping in place with eyeballs popping out and back in and making Ah-Ooo-Gah sounds, and/or banging their temple against the nearest building chanting "I can't! Believe! I'm about! To see! This movie!" Sometimes, as reportedly in the cases of Miami Mofo, yours truly, and several others, there have been actual incidents of spontaneous combustion and Scanners-like cranial explosion. PLEASE: If you feel the onset of Stage Seven coming on, warn those around you. *** So, Sabster, and anyone else who actually got this far, there ya go. I only hope to have helped, and if this at all helps even one book fan it was worth it [official article title as submitted to the American Journal of Public Health "Dr. Strangeblue, Or: How I Learned To Relax And Love The Film" ("Fanboys vill be bred und *ssslaughtered*..!")]. I just hope this POSTS this time (the first post I just put up took 2 tries....), grrrrr. And, for all my bitching about not being able to get in here, welp, I probably won't be back to even TRY until Thursday. But believe me I'll be plenty ready to go on and on about the SEV by then! Hold on... the SEV, it... it comes out tomorrow...! uh oh, STAND BACK EVERYBODY humina humina humina humina humina >POP< *thud*

Subject

Content I have absolutely nothing to add to your essay on Frodo

Subject

Content And while we're at it, yes, I did enjoy my Dales rambles a lot. I loved the big yew trees, the endless dry-stone walls, the wide vistas and the way those hills just keep on rolling, which will never cease to be a source of amazement to someone from a country as flat as Holland. True, Holland is a great country for cyclists, and I do manage to spot a certain photogenic beauty in its flat pastures, tall church spires and black-and-white cows whenever I return from some exotic, chockfull-of-rice-paddies-kind-of place, but given a choice, I'd pick Yorkshire. The combination of hills, mountains, moors and places such as Borders and Waterstone's is a brilliant one.

Subject

Content Raw Bean, I didn't say it was impossible to like authors of completely opposite philosophies; I said I don't understand it, as I find it difficult to divorce an author's beliefs - particularly when they permeate every page of his work - from his "story." Unless, of course, you admire both philosophies, or theologies, equally, which I should think is impossible in the case of atheism vs. profound faith. I would describe my own reading as broad rather than narrow (I like Dostoevsky, Dickens, Charlotte Bronte, Twain, Chandler, Josephine Tey, Vonnegut, etc., not to mention a variety of non-fiction) - and please bear in mind, that I gave Pullman the benefit of the doubt in that I read three very long books rather than give up after the first, to make sure I wasn't missing something. I thought it was a fair test. I don't look up people's belief systems before I read their fiction, and most of the time their personal beliefs don't matter, if I am merely reading an entertainingly-told story. They do in this case because those beliefs are inextricable from their work: both authors focus strongly on their particular theology or anti-theology. I truly loathed Pullman; you are free to love him, and Tolkien, whether or not I understand the contradiction. An agnostic who is very dear to me loves Tolkien, but then, he is also not anti-clerical, and has admitted to profound spiritual feelings at one time or another; he is not hostile, in the sense that Pullman is, to faith. A book I recently enjoyed very much was "Life of Pi," which has won the Booker Prize. The young hero becomes an ardent practitioner of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, because each gives him something he loves. He sees no contradiction, and neither do I. I understand what Tolkien loves, and it seems obvious what Pullman hates, but what does he love? As for the charge of snobbery, I can think of worse things.... However, as you call me narrow-minded and a snob, I would like to point out there is a difference between disagreeing with me and labeling me, and I do take exception to the latter.

Subject

Content The level of idiocy displayed in your last post is truly mind-boggling. Same old tired clich

Subject

Content DoT, I realise I've neglected talking to you for a while as I was concentrating on other things and - in the last few days - have been oogling the TTT EE - but I'd like to say a couple of things now: your posts are increasingly expressing a lot of pain. I can sympathise with this of course, as you and I share many views re: our disappointment with TTT. Believe me: there was a time when I was gnashing my teeth and spitting venom. But although I have now more or less made my peace with TTT, I feel that you have not been able to reclaim your life from the "wreckage" of your experience of the movie (see: stages of grief as rather curiously laid out by Pallando Blue above). You are now exhibiting some traits of a traumatised person. And now to my question: are you intending to see ROTK? If so, are you sure that is wise? From the looks of things it is simply going to prolong your agony by at least another year. Why do this to yourself? I would sincerely urge you, for example, NOT to see the TTT EE - it doesn't solve any of the problems that bother you: in fact it actually adds a few more things that will undoubtedly torture you. For the sake of your own peace of mind, I recommend you stay well away from it. Perhaps it is time to cut your losses with this trilogy and avoid ROTK as well? Hope this doesn't sound too patronising, but your posts do give cause for concern - unless I'm completely misinterpreting your tone.

Subject

Content I suppose I would make another distinction between the depressing and the tragic, which I love. I was educated partly in Britain (the University of St. Andrews) and lived two years in Scotland, off and on. I've always been most comfortable on your side of the Atlantic, though I haven't traveled as widely as I would have liked, long stints in the U.K. and three shorter trips to Italy being the extent of it, but even on my last, recent trip (the end of October) one of the many joys was reading the International Herald Tribune and the London Times, and generally getting a greater sense of world-connectedness than the press gives us in America, not to mention a much greater depth in the essays. At any rate, I do understand what you are saying in that the national character here seems to be so thoroughly pro-optimist that it can label dissent (the suggestion, for example, that we are out of our depth in Iraq) as traitorous. America does like happy endings. Tolkien's is not really a "happy" ending, nor is it depressing, as the sense of loss is perfectly balanced with the sense of hope. Tolkien's description of "fighting the long defeat" is what we are up against in our world as in his; we can only hope to do it gracefully. I wish I could elaborate (though I think mine and other posts are beginning to be much too book-length - much as I enjoyed the Stages of Grief!) but will sign off for now, as I actually must go elsewhere and be productive.

Subject

Content ...which contains many things other than Tolkien. On a reading level alone, I'm finally getting to Fagles' translation of the Iliad; I just came back from a wonderful trip to the Amalfi Coast; and count myself lucky beyond words to have found my soulmate (and vice versa) a few months back. So, yes, I think you're misinterpreting, and my order has already been placed for the EE, but if you'd prefer, I can bow out of the discussion.

Subject

Content ... the Hobbits (especially) refer to beer repeatedly throughout LOTR. You may be right historically that ale was the only game in town in "Gondor like" societies/periods (Personally I don't know), but they certainly did have beer in JRRT's ME, anachronistic or no. To quote a certain fat innkeeper: "Does he now?" said Butterbur looking puzzled. "Though I'm sure I don't know why he should, sitting in his big chair up in his great castle, hundreds of miles away. And drinking wine out of a golden cup, I shouldn't wonder. What's 'The Pony' to him, or mugs o' beer? Not but what my beer's good, Gandalf. It's been uncommon good, since you came in the autumn of last year and put a good word on it. And it's been a comfort in trouble, I will say." "Ah!" said Sam. "But he says your beer is always good." ...

Subject

Content I apologise for the accusation of narrow-mindedness, I misinterpretted you; you can't UNDERSTAND how people can appreciate both, not that you don't think people should. As for snobbery, I wasn't labelling you a snob, I pointed out that the final line in your post came across sounding snobbish because it seemed beneath you. I apologise again if I caused offence, but come on, refusing to mention Tolkien in the same post as Pullman, as though it would be somehow demaning? --------- As for how people can appreciate both, you can appreciate LOTR, like the best books, in different ways coming from different backgrounds. Whilst I can see the influence of Tolkien's faith on the book when others have pointed it out to me, I took toally different things from it when I read it, and I love it for other reasons. To me, I love it's mythic grandeur, the melancholy passing of teh Elves, the evocative poetry and hearkening back to days of legend, the Beowulfian aspects of Rohan, the Atlantean mythological construct of Numenor. Also, the sense of history, of the founding of Gondor and Arnor, of mentions of Feanor, and the ancient cities of Nargothrond and Gondolin, of Moria and Eregion. Tolkien has inspired in me a desire to study mythology and legends of Europe; just recently I bought a book on Norse mythology (which I haven't gotten round to reading yet). In short, referring back to my earlier post on people who prefer the Grey Havens and those who prefer the Scouring (realising of course that there is no simple, clear cut divide), I am definitely and 'elf' person. I love the ending of the book for the passing of the elves, and the sense that a world of legends is ending. In the Silmarillion, I love the creation myth in the Ainulindale, and in this I can definitely see some Christianity, but again, what strikes chords with me are the connections with polytheistic Norse and Greek religions and mythologies. In short, most of what I take from the books comes from Tolkien's love of pagan mythologies, not his Christian faith, though I don't deny there are elements that call out to Christian readers with echoes of their own faith as well, some of which I do like, atheist though I am. I love the ending of LOTR, though it is firmly about providence. Just because I am not Christian, does not mean I cannot admire Christianity, or faith in general.

Subject

Content I couldn't agree more about Yorkshire. In fact you're making me feel like I've been taking it for granted! I must remember to make a trip to Castle Hill (there's a suitably sensible, no-nonsense Yorkshire name!) to breathe the air and get a good long look at the "endless dry-stone walls, the wide vistas and the way those hills just keep on rolling". Thank you for the lovely description of my home. ------ It's a shame you can't get hold of good books at a decent price, isn't there anywhere on the internet you could try? I guess it never occured to me that good fantsy/sf books were cheaper or more readily available here than anywhere else.

Subject

Content as I've already pointed out, 'beer' in England is usually used to mean 'ale', whilst on the continent and in the US 'beer' is almost exclusively used to mean 'lager', while technically, 'beer' covers both ale AND lager. The 'beer' in LOTR IS ale, but to Tolkien as an Englishman, there was no need to make the distinction, all I'm saying is, in a modern, international film, it's worth making to keep the imae out of anyone's head of teh Green Dragon serving Budweiser! ---------- cutestpippinofborg, you're absolutely right, I do seem a bit garrulous today, so you'll be pleased to know I'm off to teh pub now! :P I'll fill Pallando in when I get back, assuming my verbal diaorrhea(sp? always fouind that word tricky!) hasn't yet run it's course!

Subject

Content Because in my experience, most Americans aren

Subject

Content On the subject of books: books are very expensive in Holland, whether they're in Dutch or in a foreign language. Literature translated into Dutch is expensive because translation is a costly process and because small editions (Holland has only 16 million inhabitants, few of whom are particularly literary-minded) are inherently expensive, while imported books (which I usually prefer; I tend to dislike translations) are expensive because of postage, tax and everything. You can pretty much find any English-language fantasy novel you want if you know where to look for them, but at prices which I, who buy LOTS of books, find rather forbidding. So while I do regularly order books from Amazon, I prefer to do my book-shopping whenever I go to Britain or Canada. I actually bring as little stuff as possible on these trips so as to leave plenty of room for books in my backpack. And trust me, I need that extra room. The last time I went to Canada I bought 25 books, and on my recent trip to England I bought 28 books, which I think was a personal best. So far, though, I have yet to come across a bad book among the Yorkshire lot, so as far as that's concerned, I think it was worth the backache.

Subject

Content American films that don't end in cheers? I'll nominate "The Hours", which I love but which seems to have come in for a lot of criticism Stateside. The number of Americans I've heard proclaim that it was "depressing" (as if that was the worst thing they could possibly say about a film) is staggering. Whereas most Europeans I know quite admire the film, either despite or because of its tragic tone.

Subject

Content Being the charter member of the Rattled Tail Enders club, I feel it is my duty to provide support to all other members, even if they haven

Subject

Content Your assertion that Frodo's journey has been altered is a correct one, but you assert that it is partly as a result of "over-emphasis" on Sam's heroism. This is not true. If anything I would asert that Sam has been de-emphasized in these films. Even though Film Frodo leans more towards the Gollum within than the book Frodo he still does regain his ability to "share eloquently" things with Sam. In the end, Frodo's journey from hobbit to sacrificial hero will be preserved albeit with added moments of conflict and struggle. Frodo realizes what hes done when he attacks Sam in TTT, he will realize what he's done if he leaves Sam before entering Shelob's layer, he will still regain his love for Sam - PJ hasnt removed that, he has just intensified the evil of the ring to bring about mistrust. Yet Sam who really goes from being simple hobbit to elven warrior during the course of the story has been given the short end of things. He represents hope and determination and he grows in his heroism throughout the book. The movie de-emphasizes him, giving him less character growth and making him more of a qualifier of Frodo's character. Giving Sam the line concerning the idea that there will be no return journey is a perfect example. Yes, Frodo is the "best hobbit in the Shire" when he leaves it but that is not to say that Sam AND Frodo, and indeed Merry and Pippin don't return from their journeys as the best 4 hobbits in the Shire, after all as Tolkien put it Sam is the "chief hero" of The Lord of the Rings, he's just not in Peter Jacksons version, but that is OK (as long as the final scene of the book remains intact...you know..."Well, I'm back.")

Subject

Content If you like thoughtful films with a downbeat ending, then by all means seek out "The Hours". However, I'd recommend that you read a Woolf biography and "Mrs Dalloway" before you watch the film, as you'll miss out on some of the more ingenious bits of scripting if you don't. Sure, you will still understand the film if you don't have any prior knowledge of either Woolf or the novel that is partly adapted/referred to in the film, and if you have any soul-searching tendencies or experience with depression you'll probably appreciate its psychological heaviness even if you don't get the literary references, but knowing something about Woolf definitely adds a layer of understanding and appreciation to the film. **** Now, how did we get from a twenty-minute preview of "Return of the King" to a discussion of "The Hours"...?

Subject

Content It's a shame about the books, Elaine. I must say though, 28 at once?! That's impressive by anyone's standards. Thank's for the approval of Yorkshire book choices, I never thought of Yorkshire as a literary haven! ---------------- Hullo Mortsleam! You're not the only one that shares some of D-o-T's concerns, I'm just trying to keep them in check until I actually see the film myself. ---------------- Brian2000, I disagree about the filmic Sam, I get the same sense of loyalty and determinined optimism from the filmic Sam that I do from the book Sam. --------------- cutest, Donnie Darko is a film that has quite a melancholy, downbeat ending, although it is a fairly weird film (but brilliant). ------------- Elaine, that's what I love about Tail end Tolkien talkbacks, we end up going along wonderful tangents from the main subject, instead of descending into bitter infighting like the Star Wars and Matrix TBs unfortunately tend to.

Subject

Content Let me posit a theory regarding the filmic version of Frodo. As Peter Jackson has shown thus far, the Ring seems even more of a temptation in the movies then in the books. Evidence is the way in which every major character is sorely tempted by the ring. The strength of character is revealed by those who are able to resist the temptation. In each case mere proximity to the ring is enough to send even Gandalf and Galadriel into fits. Now, with all of that in mind, and with the first hand example of Gollum as proof of the disastrous effects of the ring, we come to Frodo. Not only does Frodo not succumb to the ring automatically, he struggles mightily to retain some semblance of his true self. Even after the moments in the movie thus far wherein Frodo looks like he is through, he pulls himself back, and carries on. Thus his heroism is all the more trumpeted because he is doing what no one else in the movie could do, bear the ring, and continue the quest. I think we need to try to examine these issues from within the structure and themes as presented in the movie. In that light, Frodo has hardly lost a whit of his heroism, nobility, and all the rest. He shows through his dogged determination to carry on that he is actually stronger then all of the other major 'good' characters. Just a theory.

Subject

Content it's getting a bit off-topic, but has anyone seen John Carpenter's The Thing? Excellent horror film with a wonderful downbet ending that leaves you hanging. Anyway, as usual it's been a pleasure talking to you all, now I'm off to get some kip. Sleep, that is. Pippin, try not to knock any pebbles/dwarf skeletons down any wells while I'm gone will you?

Subject

Content Since they seem to have exagerated the Ring's corrupting power, they make Frodo massively strong willed just to resist it, let alone still display any of his noble Hobbity-ness as well. And now, goodnight all!

Subject

Content was proven the moment he decided to take the ring and go into exile, thus hopefully sparing his beloved Shire from the effects of Sauron. "Hobbits really are amazing creatures." as (movie) Gandalf would say. Remember, at that time he wasn't on a quest to destroy the Ring, but only to get it away from the Shire. ***Pallando, my final stage of anticipation resulted in exploding body parts, as the June 19, 2001 edition of The Miami Herald reported. [Exactly six months before the big day.]

Subject

Content If you go to the front page and see a little TTT-ee item from Harry on the left column (along w/ some other stuff), don't bother opening that page if you expect to read something of interest. ***And so tomorrow it's off to Best Buy where I shall purchase the Bruce in Barcelona DVD as well as one other whose name escapes me at the moment.

Subject

Content .... some beautiful work there!

Subject

Content :::::::The young hero becomes an ardent practitioner of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, because each gives him something he loves. He sees no contradiction, and neither do I.::::::::: (sorry, this is a little late) If you cannot find the contradictions between the central belief systems of these three religions, you are not looking very hard. Sure, they may have some things in common, but this hardly negates the fact that they contradict each other immensely.

Subject

Content Not to completely devolve off topic, but the hero is drawn to different things in each of the three religions: the colorful storytelling of Hinduism, the physicality of prayer to Allah (he loves his prayer rug), and the Person of Jesus. Of course there are enormous differences in the religions, and his parents and various spiritual counselors are horrified that he cannot make his choice, but the book nonetheless makes it easy to understand his love for each. Each is, in a sense, a facet of his love of God. That is where I see no contradiction. ***Raw Bean, I did not mean to imply that I couldn't write Pullman and Tolkien in the same paragraph, but did want to make a clean break between topics, and yes, shake the dust off before switching gears.... My apologies again. ***Brian 2000, can you discuss a little where you think Sam has been de-emphasized in the film? My only complaint so far is that he's been turned into the voice of exhortation, with one too many "uplifting" speeches. I would be interested to know how you think his character has been altered. ***Elaine, I did notice how expensive books are in Europe, translated or not, though they were actually cheaper in Scotland when I lived there, and I used to bring home many from my travels. Yorkshire is gorgeous. By the way, how are the Northern Lights in your latitudes? Thanks to the solar flares, they've been having spectacular displays in Orkney (my most beloved of all my favorite places in Scotland) - if anyone wants, I can post a link to some photos; it makes me quite sad I can't be there. ***Hildebrand, your theory makes a great deal of sense. ***And Mortsleam, thanks. I was almost afraid to check the site tonight. However, this being a talkback filled constantly with speculation, I'm not sure why it's so wrong to speculate (with alarm or not) over information in something as "official" as the Photo Guide - hardly "gossip" as I would define it. I do think most of my posts in that line were couched in terms of "IF (such a thing is true) then (this is what I think about it)," not in absolutes. In any case, I'd rather be alarmed now and relieved later, if my fears prove unfounded. Remember when I said I had the feeling Gollum was being beaten up off-camera, that they got him to talk so quickly, and was told I was evil-minded? Ha!

Subject

Content This is some sort of a joke, right? Have you actually read the Prose Edda, or is this just another thing you've read *about* that you think could be ammunition for your infantile trolling. ****Snorri Sturluson (not *Sturlson* BTW) wrote a handbook for novice poets in Icelandic in the early 13th century. He collected and summarised old sagas almost forgotten by that time. He invented *none* of those sagas.****What parts of LOTR and The Hobbit are taken almost word-for-word from the Icelandic Sagas? You'll be able to point those out quickly I'm sure.**** Whatever you think of Tolkien's writing (assuming you read any) he made up his own story.****If you had a clue you'd realise that many of the Nordic/Scandinavian names he used were intended as "translations" from names in another language.****As for the *pseudo-Christian mumbo jumbo* WTF? Is there some "Christ" figure, "crucifixion" or son of a deity in LotR?****If you had a clue you'd already know why there is no hint of Christianity in the book.****Really, if you're going to make these smug, condescending remarks, do a little basic homework first. Seriously.

Subject

Content ....and pleased that you appreciate all the other things you have in life besides LOTR....I am in no way suggesting that you "bow out" of anything! I wouldn't worry about "dragging things down". If people can't take your posts, then they don't have to read them. ****** Re: Pullman. I thought the first book was very good - but then the whole thing seemed to suffer from the "sequelitis" that afflicts such franchises as The Matrix - where the story spins out of control and becomes increasingly tedious....

Subject

Content And in response to the accusation implied in Dick Hertz's post, I feel I can be let off only just starting to delve back into Tolkien's inspirations and the things he drew on since I'm 20 years old and it's not been that many years since I first read LOTR! I find each time I go back to Tolkien, I delve a little deeper; first, I read the Hobbit as a child, then LOTR as a teen, then a few years back I first read the Silmarillion, which I've since read many times and always found somehting new, then with the coming of the films and the profusion of Tolkien books on sale in bookshops, I got Unfinished Tales, and started reading The History of Middle Earth. Now I'm in full swing, ploughing through HoME, having bought Tales from the Perilous Realm and Roverandom, looking for Letters of JRR Tolkien and Pictures by JRR Tolkien, thinking seriously about delving into Norse, Icelandic and definitely Anglo-Saxon myths, legends and poems. All this, and I've the films as well!

Subject

Content I'm sorry if I was too quick to anger yesterday, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm 'on your case', or that I have anything against you. Here's hoping we can go the day without misunderstanding one another. :) ---- Since I don't see any of the Northern Lights here in the Yorkshire (how the worldwide popluarity of my home county astounds me! How do you know Yorkshire D-o-T?), I doubt Elaine does down in Holland. I would apreciate that link D-o-T, I've never had the luck to see an Aurora, outside of television programmes. ------------------- As for Denethor, none of us here have yet seen the 'Denethor as gluttonous(sp?) pig' scene, and while it may well be that this will portray him in an unfortunately undignified way, we HAVE seen his "Word has reached my ears of this..Aragorn, son of Arathorn, and I tell you now I will not bow to this Ranger from the North!", delivered, in my opnion, with dignity and authority, bordering on arrogance, just as Denethor should do. I think in this scene at least, John Noble lives up to his name!

Subject

Content Especially since I'm nowhere near them here in Holland, as raw bean correctly pointed out. Incidentally, daughter, "Life of Pi" is among the books I bought in Yorkshire; I've heard great things about it from others than yourself, and I look forward to reading it a lot. Not until I've seen every second of the extended edition of "The Towers", though. **** raw bean: thumbs up on the mention of "Donnie Darko". Excellent film, that. Love it. **** Orson: I agree "His Dark Materials" somewhat deteriorates towards the end (I could have done without the Gallivespians and some of Mary's adventures), but I resent the comparison with the "Matrix" sequels. The "Matrix" sequels are badly written, badly acted and badly directed pulp; parts II and III of "His Dark Materials" are not nearly that bad. In actual fact, they are quite entertaining, though not, perhaps, as good as part I.

Subject

Content What are your thoughts of Denethor's line from the ROTK preview on the theatrical TTT DVD? -------- As for Donnie Darko, I don't often go in for the abstract and the excessively weird, but rather than finishing watching it and struggling to work it all out, I just sat there and grinned, I loved every minute of it.

Subject

Content Good morning everybody! Thought I'd drop by and... wow, you forget how fraught a tailend is when you miss a few. Jeez. The highlights were Morgy's crisis of confidence and Pallando's dissection of the whole process. But love goes out to Elaine and DoT's analysis of the difference between book and movie Frodo. Now, don't get me wrong guys. I love these movies. I'm already over Saruman not being in ROTK - it's a downer, but hey, if PJ says it has to be that way, then I'll go along for the ride. I haven't seen how it will go down yet so I reserve judgement. I'm learning to divorce the books and the movies as entertainments, anyway - before, it was just an amorphous mass of LOTR in my head and it was almost physically painful when they contradicted one another. That said, if I had one font of dissatisfaction about which I could whine endlessly, it would be the wussifying of Frodo. I objected to the undercutting of his physical courage in FOTR and I object to his further Gollumizing in TTT. There's a diamond hard core at the centre of Frodo which to me made him the most compelling character in LOTR. Doesn't mean I don't love Sam or the other Hobbits, or Treebeard, or Aragorn (though Aragorn is a tad flatter in the books) but I'm ALL about Frodo. When I read the books, it's him I want to hear about, Dad. Yes, he snaps at Sam a couple of times - but he also keeps putting one foot in front of the other till he literally can't do it anymore. He doesn't stand about flinching and starting. He knows full well when they go they're not coming back (Sam knows this too, in his way, but he can avoid thinking about it - he's brave but Frodo's a different order of brave). And as the Quest draws to its conclusion, Frodo is full of this kind of steadfast dignity, though we witness it from the outside, through the eyes of Sam. Indeed, after the Quest, Frodo comes out the other side of courage - he won't take up weapons or bear arms, realising the futility of war due to his increased wisdom. So, I respectfully submit, that the notion that Frodo becomes Gollumized and has a strong psychological bond with Gollum is misplaced, and whenever the films harp on about this I become faintly restless and annoyed. It probably looks good to the film-makers because becoming like Gollum probably seems a pretty unattractive fate and hence ramps up Frodo's peril. Personally, I think being tormented in the Dark Tower is a more unattractive fate, but then that's me. All through the books, we are given hints that Frodo is growing in spiritual stature, and he was already the best hobbit in the Shire to begin with, unlike Gollum who immediately murdered his best friend to obtain the Ring. The two cases are not similar, anymore than Galadriel or Gandalf would become like Gollum if they took the Ring. Frodo, if anything, is becoming more Sauron-like. This is not to imply he could compete with Sauron, but he would be, unlike Gollum, pretty fucking dangerous, being able to control the wills of others having displayed such a mastery over his own. Gollum isn't going to be making the "Dark Tower tremble from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown" anytime soon. So yeah. Frodo. Favourite character. Sold somewhat short. However, I do love these movies, warts and all, with a deep and abiding geek passion. I do acknowledge that my gripes are nothing to do with the film-makers, but because they didn't make the film that I would have. I also acknowledge that they have excelled some of the source material in other areas. But still. Good to get it off my chest. In other news, DoT, I am pretty sure that that finger is coming off. I remember reading a Q and A and PJ said they would be CGIing it out, and I think the action figure might lack a digit. As for abandoning Sam, crazy stuff but I'm pretty sure it's true due to something I was shown. We'll see how that works out. Anyway. Yeah. Hello everybody.

Subject

Content And my apologies for not being able to answer your questions as they come, like I did yesterday. Believe it or not, but I'm actually *working* today. **** On "Donnie Darko": I agree that watching it without trying to make sense of it is the best way to enjoy it. Judging from his commentary on the DVD, not even the director really knows what the film is about. That says it all, really. :-) **** On Denethor: actually, I'm not too worried about the portrayal of Denethor. Yes, the reports of him gobbling and slobbering his food are alarming, but I do remember both reviewers of the famous twenty minutes saying they actually *liked* the scene. And while they may not have been Tolkien geeks like you and I (you more so than I, I fear), I think I'll have faith in their judgement until I've had a chance to see "The Return of the King" for myself. What little of seen of John Noble so far is promising. **** By the way, daughter of time, I quite share your passion for Scotland. I may not have spent as much time there as you seem to have (I'm Cambridge-educated myself), but I had a great time on Skye, around Glencoe and near Loch Affric. I also really love some of the Borders abbeys - Melrose, Dryburgh, Jedburgh, etc. Did you get to visit any of those? **** On another note, welcome back, Alice. We haven't met before, but as a long-time lurker on the Tolkien threads, I was beginning to miss your contributions. Needless to say, I fully agree with your analysis of the wussification of Frodo.

Subject

Content Raw bean, that typo thing you're suffering from is infectious!

Subject

Content TORN posted pictures of "gollumized" Frodo - which seem to have come from an abandoned version of Faramir's interrogation of Frodo at Henneth Annun. Very unpleasant. Glad they thought better of it. http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/movies/characters/frodo/view/9628 http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/movies/characters/frodo/view/9627

Subject

Content Because of the sad passing of Art Carney, TVLand showed a whole lot of Honeymooners this weekend. It was good to see those shows just as it is good to see you back here, Ms. Wonderlnd. [Btw, you wouldn't happen to know where Xyzan is, would you?]

Subject

Content Elaine: my comparison to the Matrix rests on the fact that the first one was unique and intriguing whilst the sequels lost sight of what made the story so compelling, lost sight of the characters, and drowned the whole thing in large-scale spectacle and special effects. That's exactly what I feel happened to book 2 and 3 in the Dark Materials series. I was amazed that Pullman would create such a fabulous, dynamic character as Lyra - and then relegate her to the role of passive sidekick in book 2. He essentially killed her off to replace her with the dull and bland Will. Baffles me completely! ******** Re: Denethor in ROTK. I don't think we have to worry too much about his performance. I have watched his scene in the EE several times and he has definitely grown on me. At first I found him a bit "stagey" - sort of like Hugo Weaving's Elrond - but once you get used to his style, it's very effective. He also looks convincingly like Boromir and Faramir's father.

Subject

Content Xyzan... (quickly kicks shut the meat freezer) no, why'd'you ask? Elaine - hello! You're a Cambridge bod? Which college? I got to see mine get beaten on University Challenge last night which pissed me off a fair bit. Always nice to meet fellow Frodoans, isn't it, DoT? Alas I've never seen the Honeymooners, but I shall take it as a compliment, sir, as you are never less than cordial. But now - that EE - what about that? At the moment if I had to pick a favourite moment, it would be Eowyn's dirge over Theodred. But there is still an awful lot of nice stuff, and I'm digging it immensely, or would if I could get my TV to be a bit less temperamental with me. Also some stuff I can see why they cut.

Subject

Content That's some nassssty stuff. I just hope they don't decide to reprise it when Frodo claims the ring in ROTK. Just make him defeated and grimey, okay, not a victim of radiation poisoning. *** Hey Alice, Welcome back! I was afraid you'd departed to the West or something. Now put down that hacksaw and sew Xyxan's foot back on, dammit! *** Depressing American movies: In the Bedroom. Mulholland Drive. Requiem for a Dream. I love 'em all. Gotta give another shout-out to Donnie Darko, cause it deserves all it can get. And even though it isn't American, since I just watched in on BBC America Sunday night, I have to mention the fantastically downbeat ending to the second series of the Office. Because I am Tim. And if they go ahead with an American Version, I will do everything I can to be the American Tim. Hell, I'll even cut my hair, shave my beard and take acting lessons. I dunno, that last one may be going a bit too far. Well, I'm off to spend my lunch hour in line at Best Buy...

Subject

Content Man, this one sure isn't showing any signs of slowing down soon, is it? Lawd, lawd, lawd. If I start naming all the new names and faces and old friends returned, I'll start sounding like a Romper Room host. "I see Elaine, and I see irritable, and I see... is that ALICE!?!?" Don't worry about Alice, folx. She'll be right as rain with everything about Frodo just as long as he gets whipped naked in Cirith Ungol. One flogged starker hobbit, and she'll be cooing for years. *** Elaine, it's a delight to see the internationality around here grow! Now, as for the Up-With-Peopleness of American cinema, well, that's just American marketers, who are devils and we don't like them either. Unfortunately, some marketers are also rich producers (but they're carny shucksters just the same, selling product with a planned obsolescence). You want downers, look to some of the Greats we've put out the last century. Early Coppola's fantastic with em. The Godfather I and II (III... not-so-much) is considered by all accounts a film classic, and is quintessentially American. The first line: "I believe in America..." But one could hardly call their endings upbeat (and III layers it REAL thick). Scorsese's no slouch with the bum-outs, either. Friedkin? aka, "The Prince of Darkness." [Now, I would never include this film in a list of the Greats, but I DID see Dufy hanging about and... Well, let's not forget that everyone's favorite "Titanic" ends with the suicide of a senior citizen. Dress it up with oxygen-deprivation-induced hallucinations of DiCaprio all you want, but it's still an old woman's suicide. lovely.] Let's see, elsewhere among the Mega-Popular, there's always the enigmatic multiple cliffhangers of indie cult-fave The Empire Strikes Back, and although technically E.T. ends with the mission accomplished, it hardly leaves the audience on an up note. Finally, like Jazz is the solely American music, than the Western is the solely American film. Or something (Clint said it better, but damn if I can remember the quote). And you don't need to look far to find the bummers in that most American of genres. Recently, "Unforgiven" is a classic. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" is largely a comedy, but what an ending. Both of those were considered "revisionist Westerns" (despite, what, 30 years between em? when does "revisionist" become "shining example of the form"?) but even their "classical" predecessors had their moments. "High Noon" and "The Searchers" are downers throughout, without exactly rah-rah endings. Oh, and here's a great example: "Shane"... My god, Shane. He shoots the bad guy, sure, and rides off into the sunset. Right. But... the kid yelling "Shane! Come back, Shane!" his heart breaking... No reason for Shane to leave him and his Ma... except (and here's some nice enigmaticallness for ya) I've never heard definitively but there's some question left unanswered as to whether Shane WAS hit, or at least how badly. So instead of dying in front of the boy, he saddles up and leaves immediately. And the reason he doesn't move or say a word as he trots off into the distance, is that when the boy is calling out to him, he's already dead in the saddle. Gulp. ....MAN DO I LOVES ME A GOOD WESTERN. In fact, along with the SEV tonight I'll be picking up a copy of the new "Once Upon A Time In The West" DVD, and I do believe I'll actually be watching THAT tonight. And save T2T SEV for tomorrow's 2/3 marathon Chez Blue. *** Speakin' of the ol' oat opera: Hile, cutestofborgthatIhavetokeepremindingmyselfisnotJeriRyanbutsomeguy-sai! As for my progress, Susan Delgado has just had an interesting evening, having had her honesty proven at the witch's on the Coos, and having met young Will Dearborn on her walk home... *** Okay, I did notice some talk of beers and ales and lagers and the histories of each. Well, I'm just going to shut myself up right now. Because if there's any SURE way to get me blathering on and on anon it's with Beer Talk. I'm a homebrewer of no small experience and skill, and by gum my friend and I will empty a room with our nattering on the topic. I think someone upp there got it right: There is Beer, the two types of which are Ale and Lager. From there the beer tree grows from those two definitions exponentially (there being hundreds of styles and thousands of versions of each style), but basically the difference is the yeast. Ales use a top-fermenting yeast, simple and kept healthy at most room temperatures. Lagers use a bottom-fermenting yeast, and thrive at lower temperatures and take longer to finish their business (of eating sugar, peeing alcohol and farting CO2--mmmm, fermentation!). Anecdote: By "lagering" paler and lighter beers were possible, but way back in the long long ago controlled low temperatures were difficult and expensive. So, when the Pilsener ("Pilsener Urquell", still delicious today) was born in Pils, Czechoslovakia, it was the drink of the aristocracy; cheap dark beers for the peasants! Quite renowned became the brew of the small Czech town of Budveis, a favorite of the Royal House. They soon added to their label, "Budweiser, The Beer of Kings." (See where this is going?) The beer was popular all over Europe, so some quick-thinking American robber-baron mass-producer took the name, slapped together a lager so untasty it could be only served at ice-cold temperatures to mask the unpleasant flavor, and put on the label "Budweiser, The King Of Beers." Clever, no? Especially how the others of the Big 3 (now Anheuser-Busch and Miller) followed suit and began making their OWN nasty lager, and ALL 3 turning the requirement of flavor-killing ice-cold temps into a SELLING POINT rather than a cover-up. Hey! Fellow Americans! Europeans don't drink "warm beer," they just like to TASTE their beer! Remove thy blinders! Free your mouth and your mind will follow! Then, if Funkadelic was correct, your ass. Sigh. Oh, god, look at what I did. Total derailment of the talkback. I swear, I SWEAR that starting Thursday I'll keep the posts to a screen-length. GAH. *** Just in case I failed to mention LOTR anywhere up there: I think LOTR is really really good! I do! See y'all Thursday, post-SEV...

Subject

Content Elaine, don't worry about it, been quite busy myself today. Is the Donnie Darko DVD a worthwhile purchase then? I might have to add it to my film wishlist. Glad you agree about John Noble's Denethor (you too Orson); it's all too easy to worry over a description of a scene we haven't seen, but I place more credence in the scenes we HAVE seen. As for Scotland, there's some beautiful landscapes, and it's even more hilly than Yorkshire in places! I'm afraid all I can remember of Skye (I went there as a child) is that it rained the whole time. Oh, and sorry about the contagious bad writing! ----------------- As for the abandoned Gollum-like-Frodo scene, I could see it working. I always liked the Gollum-like Bilbo shot in FOTR, it seemed a great realisation of something from the book, that I think the abandoned Frodo/Gollum look could have been meant to portay as well. What I'm talking about (might try to look up a quote later), is passages where the Ring, and the corrupting power it exudes, clouds your perceptions, so when Bilbo reaches for the Ring, Frodo perceives him as a snatching, grasping, monstrous character, hence the quick shot in FOTR. I'm sure it happens again when Sam holds out his hand to offer to carry the Ring for Frodo; each sees the other as a Gollum-like, snarling, sneaky looking thief. They could have been intending to again portray this visually, taking advantage of the fact that film is a visual instead of textual medium, only transferring the effect to Frodo and Faramir's confrontation instead of Frodo and Sam's. Just my take on it anyway. ------------------- mortsleam, gotta love a guy who appreciates The Office in all it's glory. Funnily enough, I connect with Tim too, except I'm like a younger Tim who hasn't yet resigned himself to a life of office-working drudgery and failed dreams - yet. Quite worryingly, most people I know him say a cousin of mine is somewhat like Gareth, only luckily he's not as stupid or racist, and he manages to keep his pervy-ness better hidden, most of the time. The Office - both series - is definitely on my DVD wishlist.

Subject

Content It was I who laid out just enough information on 'lager' and 'ale' to make a point about Tolkien's/the films' usage of 'beer'/'ale'. There's not much I can add to your succinct description, except to reiterate that since I heard American Budweiser is made with rice (cheaper than malted barly), it wouldn't pass the 'Reinheitsgebot' they have in Germany, and in Germany and other European countries can't be legally sold as beer. Did you hear that recently Budweiser Budvar (a lager almost as sublime as Pilsner Urquell) was under an attack on it's right to use the name 'Budweiser'? Ludicrous, especially since it's still brewed in Budweis, and is actually still made in Budweis, and thankfully it all unravelled, so I can still ask for a bottle 'Budweiser' (in the right kind of establishment) and get something that actually resembles beer! Did you know (you probably did) where the term 'lager' comes from? It's german for 'store', and refers to the origins of lager, when it had to be stored in cool caves to get it down to the right temperatures for bottom-fermenting yeast. -- Oh, but don't think all Europeans are free thinkers who know how to enjoy a good beer, even here in the UK many a drinker wouldn't even know the difference between ale and lager, and if you had to taste the popular lager 'Carling' that sells so much here, you'd despair. As a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, I do my bit to champion the sadly declining ale industry. ------------ Anyway, that's quite enough beer talk for the moment, have you had a chance to catch up yet Pallando, or do you still need a summary?

Subject

Content Loved the pacing in this version AND I really think they dropped the ball by not including

Subject

Content Hello raw bean, Devil