Cool News
Frosty Skywalker beholds THE RETURN OF THE KING!
Hey folks, Harry here... normally you see Frosty here in those Jedi Council things that Moriarty does... this time he's leaving that geekverse and traveling in another. Film really seemed to knock him for a loop. MUST SEE MOVIE NOW! Beware of spoilers (for those that haven't read the books) here ya go...
Hey Harry,
So yesterday got to see the new LOTR flick at the DGA, usually I see a lot of screenings with Mr. Beaks, and not to inflate his ego, but one of the main reasons I stopped writing is I think he does at least an average job....okay he can review flicks pretty well. But with Beaks currently traveling the country on a secret mission....otherwise known as Thansgiving, I decided to take a crack at what I just saw. Except rather than a full fledged review, I guess it turned into something else.
Frosty Skywalker
The journey has ended. As happy as I was to voyage back to the land of middle earth this morning, all I have left is sadness. Gone is my wonder and excitement of how this story will end. How is Frodo going to do this task? What will happen to Gandalf? Or the bigger issue in my mind, who will die? In case you cannot tell, I have not read the books. After watching The Fellowship of the Ring I knew I would read them, but after watching the films. Hearing my friends complain about what has been changed or left out, I decided to give Peter Jackson a chance to let him tell the story as a movie, and not let the books get in the way of my enjoyment. No film can do a book justice, and the inability for fans and critics who sometimes forget this basic fact is always quite frustrating. Now about me not reading ! the books, well this was quite possibly the best decision I have ever made. Over the past few winters I have entered a world that I did not know existed, outside of some friends who used to tell me what I was missing, I cared not for the land of Middle Earth, or for the plight of Frodo and his quest to destroy the ring. Now I feel like I was a simple Shire folk who never ventured out to see what was beyond my door.
I really want to thank Peter Jackson. No film as an adult has brought me back to the sense of wonder and enchantment that I remember feeling as a child. No film has made me forget about my troubles and worries, or really made me feel like I had traveled to a place that I could touch or feel. When I was a kid I had Star Wars, and while those films and the new prequels have an extremely special place in my heart, I now have a new favorite land. While watching Frodo finish his quest, I forgot about time, I forgot about hunger and I forgot about everything else based in reality. The great thing is I was not alone. Not a soul moved in the theater around me. No cell phone went off, no one was fidgeting in their seat. In fact in a three hour and twenty minute film I did not see one person stand up to use the bathroom. That fact alone should tell you how captivated everyone was.
How does a director manage to create a brilliant commercial vehicle that pleases your average filmgoer, yet to someone knowledgeable about how film really works, someone who knows that films are sometimes just happy accidents, how can they show the same film and please the critics and hard core fans? No matter if you cherish or despise the world of The Lord of the Rings, you have to take a moment and congratulate Peter Jackson and the work of all the people who clearly gave the blood and soul to a project that might never be equaled in our lifetime. If the Boston Red Sox cannot win a world series in over 80 years, how can we assume that in our modern age of big business and bottom line decisions, we will be able to recreate another story that can cause everyone, from the young and old, and all around the world, to fall in love in a fantasy universe.
I feel like I have traveled with Frodo on the quest, like I was the other member of the fellowship, and while my friend who watched the movie with me tonight felt that the ending carried on, I knew what I needed to see. When you become close to characters, when you have spent over 10 hours watching an epic unfold, you cannot just accomplish the mission and expect to close the curtains and get up and walk out of the theater. When the journey began we found Frodo and the Shire, we were painted a slow picture of Middle Earth and the surroundings, and at the end, we slowly leave our old friends to begin anew.
Things that really stood out today were of course a new Legolas drop your jaw I just did not see that moment. Legolas thought it would be a good idea to climb an elephant, with people riding in that top piece, and just go to town on the poor beast as it attacked. If you thought that moment of him climbing onto the moving horse with Gimli was coolÖ.you have seen nothing yet. The whole elephant attack was unreal, with people flying to and fro as the tusks dug into everyone. The attack on Gondor was an hour or so (lost track of all time) of blistering action and amazing effects that we have all come to expect from these films. Something I found unintentionally amusing was the Orc leader might have been SlothÃs brother from The Goonies, something to look for when watching. I really do not want to give away anything more, almost everyone who reads this s! ite is planning on visiting a movie theater opening weekend, and this is honestly a journey that everyone should take. While talking to someone tonight at dinner I told him how the film ends and he said that it is really close to the same as the book, outside of a few things, most notably Sauraman having control of the Shire.
I usually can see a film and immediately tell you what was wrong, or what could be better. In fact I know most of us can. With the film today I just do not know. Could things have been done better? Was the pacing at the beginning a little off? Did it take about forty five minutes or so to find the groove? Or were my expectations so high that I would need to see god in the theater to be happy. Probably. The truth is this is a movie, and a great one at that. I guess there is a lot of buildup with everyone, including myself, who really want to see the film win Best Picture, and get all the mainstream recognition that the trilogy truly deserves. Is this film Best Picture material? I think that is the one question I was asked at dinner more than anything else. My unbiased answer is yes, especially the way the first film was robbed by A Garbage Mind. But the academy is a weird bunch, and while this ! might be the best film of the year (who really can say what is the best picture), with the previous two and the fact that this is a really great movie, it will probably win based on the combination of the three. I really cannot say until I see the other big guns in the next few weeks. As it stands right now, Best Picture is New Lines, but I am still a little nervous.
Passion. True passion comes from the heart. When we see art from a painting to a sculpture, from an actor working for the work, or a volunteer giving because they want to, passion in what you do shines like the sun breaking through a rainy day. The Lord of the Rings displays a passion that I have not seen in possibly my entire life of watching films. Mind you there are many brilliant directors who each have a passion to share, but this is quite different. The passion that I see from the smallest detail to the largest miniature might never be reached again. HatÃs off to everyone who made these movies. I love them, and I want to thank you for making them as good as they are.
Frosty
-
+ Expand All
-
I'm first!
-
Frosty, you are soooo right! A resounding "YESSSS!" from the Netherlands comes your way. Can't wait to see the film, and I agree: it comes with a sense of loss.
-
Didn't really like it. Haven't seen the first two.
-
Wow! It SOUNDS truly GREAT! (yawn)
-
What a piece of shit that movie was. Thank god we have ROTK to look forward to still, for a little while.
-
ABM was a good film, but not best pic, that is for sure, FOTR was robbed...hopefully PJ and the cast/crew will get some justice this year..
-
... this is a movie." Really? Duh. (Elanor, that was right, wasn't it?)
-
Is it really so freakin hard to use a spellchecker before you submit a review?
-
This was like reading one of Harry's reviews where he talks about his feelings and not the movie (only worse). Where are you Drew?
-
If you want spoilers, head to tolkienonline.com, there are posts there with every minute detail. I'm just curious what people think, and it sounds like the conclusion is absolutely spectacular - I can't think of a trilogy where they've made it all the way through without dropping the ball, and it sounds like PJ just may have pulled it off.
-
Nov 28, 2003 2:38:58 PM CST
And what the fuck is up with mentioning unrelated movies already
by minderbinder
Put away your Trinity blow-up doll and move on, loser.
-
It's been a while since a coherent, sensible review has been posted here!
Can't wait to see it! -
If you'd read the books, you'd know there's a big difference between the necessary changes one must make to adapt a novel to screen, and the hatchet job PJ did that spins whole hours of crappy, cliched material not in the book. That you point out Legolas jumping on an elephant as one of the highlights shows what level your tastes are at. Lame cgi stunts do not make up for the bastardized story.
-
SOMEONE has to knock BOTH the Star Wars shitquels and The Shitrix 2003 disaster in every LOTR talkback. It's like the Yule Log at Xmas or mint juleps at the Kentucky Derby. Those are the rules, so I did my part. Now we just need someone to rag on Lucas and all's right with the world.
-
So, it seems Peter Jackson spares us from seeing "Scouring of the Shire", the last chapter, in the cinema. Not even in the estended version of ROTK, I suspect.
This proves that is almost impossible to make a perfect movie with that source material as Tolkien is. So much words coming from Jackson -
Except that he left out half of TTT and all of RotK. The Bakshi version does back up the theory that the books are unfilmable, I'm amazed the movies have turned out as well (and as loyal to the originals) as they have.
-
I liked the Bakshi version, but to say it's more faithful is just silly. Bakshi did FOTR and half of TTT in 90 minutes. Bakshi also cut out Tom Bombadil and portrayed Boromir as a viking. Some people just want to piss and moan about everything Jackson changed. If he could have done 3 movies 4 or 5 hours long he could have fit everything in, but then people would be bitching that they are too long.
This is one of the best series of movies ever made. Jackson has advanced the art of film making, so quit yer bitchin.
P.S. Lucas sucks.
-
I'd give anything to have un-read the books and see the story fresh. Glad you liked it and my Spin-o-meter has just pegged out in anticipation! ** OK folks, here's one un-read viewer who didn't say diddly about Saruman not being in RoTK. That's two data points that cancel each other out. NEXT!
-
I guess you call cutting a bunch of scenes into a shittily pasted together cartoon/live craptaction film that takes great source material and manages to make it look cheap and boring "more loyal than these behomoths" ....
...but if that's what you call loyalty, you can have it. The one thing the Jackson films do is put the last nail in the coffin of the Baksi film...yeah the Bakshi film had a dug grave pre-dug by it's own shittiness...but now there REALLY IS no reason to ever watch that turd again.
...and incidentally...Lord of The Rings IS A BEHOMOTH...THAT's THE POINT...and reason it took Jackson 10 hours to tell(yet still cut material)...if you don't like "behomoths...you don't Like Lord of The Rings...
=================================
-
Nov 28, 2003 3:48:20 PM CST
WHATS WITH ALL THE LOTR BASHING!!!! FUCK YOU GUYS GO RENT 'A BEA
by jimmyrabbit
Everyone of course his own opinion but honestly you cannot tell me you don't love one single aspect of these movies...damn your lives must be bitter, me however enjoy almost all the movies I see in theaters (a few crappy exceptions) but the LOTR will be forever remembered as the defining TRILOGY on celluloid. And BTW. WHOEVER SAID BAKSHIS VERSION WAS BETTER NEEDS SOME SERIOUS BRAIN SURGERY....BIAAAAAATCH
-
Luca$$ is a sellout who is more interested in selling toys (where his profit margin is higher) than making good films (not that he could likely do that at this juncture anyhow)...and the brothers Wack have been apparently been smorting too much of "the good stuff" after their original masterpiece resulting in the scatterbrained turds we got in 2003...Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED! IS THIS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE COME HERE TO SEE!!!!???? (it's true though...LOL).
-
Nov 28, 2003 3:51:38 PM CST
Can!t Y!ou Peopl!e D!o Eve!n th!e M!ost Ru!dimen!tary Pro!ofrea!
by duck of death
Sh!eesh
-
Bakshi might only have filmed part of the books, but inasmuch as he filmed them, his changes were different, but not really different in scale than those of PJ. Yes, Boromir looked like a viking? So what? With PJ, Gimli looks like a moron. Same thing.
-
Nio! Wee Can"T ! !!
Btu Kduos oN a Kooool SCrene Nme UDde!
-
Only here(or maybe some of those fanatical purists sites) do you actually find people who defends the crapfest known as Bakshi's LOTR. I think the public and critics have shown what version is better. Can you honestly imagine Bakshi's version being nominated for a best picture?
-
Minutes I would agree with but
-
I love the Peter Jackson films...they're so much better than any of us really had a right to expect. But that doesn't mean I'll never watch the Bakshi version again. In fact, I still think there are elements of the Bakshi cartoon that are handled better than the films, most notably the Nazgul at Weathertop and the Ford of Bruinen ("Come back, to Mordor we will take you...") And I've always liked the "Saruman of Many Colors" stuff, even if Bakshi's wizard is a ridiculous and crude stereotype. (Can't say much good about the Rankin & Bass RotK, though...um, Roddy McDowell's in it?) By the way, in case you haven't been following the RotK spoiler thread over at Tolkien Online, it's giving everything away. Sure, I don't want to know a lot of the stuff I found out today, but I am glad to know beforehand what's in and what's out, just so I don't drive myself crazy during the first screening on midnight of the 16th.
-
Peter Jackson has set a new standard for movie trilogies. LOTR puts Star Wars and Matrix to shame.
ROTK will win Best Picture this year. Mystic River is the only serious competition, but how many people actually saw it?
Sean Penn will win Best Actor, but ROTK will win Best Picture.
What's the big deal about the Scouring of the Shire? It sounds like there are already enough climaxes in ROTK without adding another extended denouement at the end of the film. -
...I replied to your post on that now hours old other RoTK TB. Wouldn't want you to miss it {[:^)
-
is what makes it the best fantasy story and movie.when we get the 3 complete extended dvds,life is complete.only "the hobbit" the movie is missing.
-
You guys aren't happy with the new Star Wars films (kinda understandable). You didn't like the Matrix sequels (VERY understandable) and now you're bashing the Lord of the Rings films? Man, you cunts are impossible to please.
-
Nov 28, 2003 4:30:27 PM CST
Peter jackson should be forced to read all 40 thousand signature
by jeffallee
Still I am sure he doesn't care that he let down millions of people. He has his 50 milllion bucks in the bank and that's all he really wanted out of the books. I can only hope the "trust peter" groupies will realise the total contempt he has for christopher lee and all fans of the books.
-
Chicago did not. But in hindsight, FOTR is a much better movie than TTT. If FOTR was released in 2002, then it "might" have won best Oscar.
-
Hey now! I was the one who started the
-
Nov 28, 2003 4:44:49 PM CST
I still haven't been able to sit through A Beautiful Mind.
by fluffyunbound
It's like The English Patient. I turn it on, and say to myself, "Why am I watching this again?" and turn the TV off in annoyance. It's crazy, too, because I have liked Russell Crowe in literally everything else I have seen him in. Crowe could star in "Eight Guys Kick FluffyUnbound's Ass" and I would probably still watch it and like it. But ABM is like watching paint dry.
-
That was wierd sorry for the double post...anyhoo... I can proudly say that I did make it through A Beautiful Mind... and all in 1 sitting!!!
---------------------------
It was OK, CERTAINLY not deserving of "best picture" over FOTR...but the bottom line is that ABM winning is not surprising ...ABM is simply the type of film the Academy always leans towards...they love dramas no matter how slow, boring, or mediocre they are in terms of film achievement ...now don't get me wrong, ABM was OK, and certainly was not a bad movie... but like some of the Dramas the academy has chosen in the past over the "glossier" contender...it will be forgotten by the next decade...time tells us what the "Best Picture" REALLY was in past years ...and FOTR will be watched by our grandchildren... ABM... well ....what was that about again.... I forget?
-
MAtrix films may have been a disapointment to you bashers, but many of us like to avoid the nerdum of middle earth and loved matrix.
-
Anyone read the recent Newsweek article on LOTR? Among other things, it says that Jackson left out the Houses of Healing from the theatrical version as well. It says he decided to cut out Wormtongue killing Saruman at the beginning of ROTK, and that he never did Scouring because he didn't like that part of the book as a kid and never has.While you all know I believe that Scouring and Saruman deserve to be in the movie to close up plot holes and tie up threads that are already in the movie (and will now not have resolution), leaving out the Houses if Healing from the theatrical is a blow to my heart, as that love story was always my favorite part of the book.
-
Oh please... save us the drama. My biggest problem with the films (I really do like these films). Is the fact that the Nazgul sees the ring, in Ozgiliath (can't spell well right now) it's not just that it changes the book. It's that the films contradict themselves. To anyone whom has played the ROTK video game - you are quite litteraly beaten over the head with the fact that it is imperative that Sauron thinks the ring is with Aragorn. But that is sort of imposible for them to think if they have seen the ring with the hobbits. I have to go but will finish this later...
-
A made-for-tv movie seperated from the small screen by the performances of Crowe and Connelly. Sentimental tacky crap, as Jack Black would say. Some cool moments in it, but best picture...hell, no. Fellowship was far and away the best picture of 2001. Moulin Rouge, second, In the Bedroom, third. btw, Crowe's best performances are STILL The Insider and LA Confidential. Gladiator was shit other than Joaquin Phoenix's uniquely vulnerable Commitus. Back on topic, if ROTK does not win, we all know that there will be an outcry of pissed of geeks. Me included.
-
Nov 28, 2003 5:35:39 PM CST
jeffallee needs to take his medication (I posted this on the oth
by hildebrand
I mean, honestly, are you not getting a bit too bent about the lack of Saruman? Are you Christopher Lee's grandson? Try to think about the choice in terms of the movie and not the books. I think this is something that is important to remember whenever our purist side starts yammering. Can the decision be consistent with the movie's story arc? Perhaps, as for many they probably will figure that Saruman was essentially toast when the Ents wrecked Isengard. Does it really destroy the rest of the movie? No, because for the rest of the story Saruman is out of the picture. Since the Scouring of the Shire is out, there is no big reason to go back to Saruman. He lost. Time to go after the source of evil. In the end he was just an underling. I am sorry to see it pan out this way, but I just cannot be crushed by this. I would be most interested in those who did not read the books, only have seen the movies, and what they think about a lack of Saruman. ***MorGoth, I think you are also among the irritated crowd about this issue (although clearly not to the same murderous rage stage that jeffallee has entered. What say you about the consistancy within the filmic LOTR universe that PJ has created regarding the Saruman issue? What happens if most who have not read the books say that they did not miss Saruman? Not picking nits, I am interested in your response. See, I guess though I have read the books many, many times, I decided from the beginning to try to watch the movies as creating their own identity, and therefore not expecting the book reality. I have found this strategy to be rather positive ( my purist side has not really complained about too much), and made the films some of my favorite.
-
Don't forget that the Nazgul can barely see our world. Watch that scene and you'll see that Frodo is trying to put on the ring, not show it to the Nazgul. You'll also see the Nazgul "sniffing", trying to "see" what's in front of him. Frodo was even physically closer to the Nazgul in FOTR, and the Nazgul didn't see him there either, even though he was just a few feet away (though hidden by the tree roots). The Nazgul attempted to "sniff" him out there as well.
Given that fact, there's no reason to believe the Nazgul saw the ring in Frodo's hand. He would have only "seen" Frodo and the ring if Frodo put it on.
Of course, I could be wrong. -
Ok, I must confess, I am glad that this is out. Call me hard-hearted, but the whole chapter is once of the most contrived in the book. You have these two great characters that you really don't want to kill off (someone from Denethor's line has to survive, and killing off one of the few decent roles for a female character may not have been wise), you really don't know what to do with them, so you have them...Fall in love. Aww, how sweet. Especially since Faramir is just a stand in for Aragorn. On another front, this means that we will be spared the incessant yammering of the one old lady who has nothing else to say other then, "the hands of the King are the hands of a healer", or somesuch. I am happy for Eowyn and Faramir, sure, but the loss of this courtship is not really a loss for me. In the filmic universe of LOTR, just how could Mr. Jackson (who has gone to some lengths to show Eowyn falling for Aragorn) show, with some depth of storytelling, the relationship between these two complicated characters, and have it be somewhat believable. Too difficult when you think about it.
-
The debate of what was kept and what was cut, what was added to help a movie move in a linear line does not bother me. This series was bound to anger fans, but a faithful adapatation was not going to work. I'm more curious at waht will happen this February. Capricious nature of the Academy Awards generally stays away from fanatasty films. It took until 1986 when Sigourney Weaver was nominated for Best Actress for Aliens, for the the cabal to honor a woman in an action/adventure role, let alone a sci fi flick. The old guard that runs the Oscar balloting do not see these films as anything than mindless action flicks (however, they do like the techinical stuff- the people who create the magical stuff, and honor them accordinly). I'm 90% sure the Academy will honor Jackson with Best Director, but you never know. Cold Mountain is a film the Academy likes in many sense of the word. Period dramas that feature a lost love or a person struggling to save what it means to be human, will always have a better chance at winning. I do believe the Oscar's our out of step with the times. Beautiful Mind and Shakespeare in Love did not really deserve Best Picture nods, but since the Oscar people are, if anything, conservative, The Return of the King will not win. I do think we'll have one those odd splits that have been happening lately. Jackson will win for Best Director, but Cold Mountain will win for Best Picture. It's a safe film, is all. If the Academy stepped into a new century, they would realize that occasionally, it's okay to upset the apple cart. Cold Mountain maybe a period piece, one designed to harken back to the epic film making of the 1950's and early 1960's, but that does not mean it should win because of that. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is perhaps the best series of films ever made (though, I realize there are flims buffs out there who would disagree with me). I try not to be a snob -though, I fail at that a lot - but I think we honor the wrong films, sometimes. I'm not saying that Hugh Jackman deserves an Oscar for Wolverine in X Men 2, but I think the Oscars need to see that even fantasy films such as these 3 films can and will live on longer in the memory of people than A Dangerous Mind. Still, in the end, I still think we'll see a split. Peter Jackson for Best Director and Cold Mountain for Best Picture. Should I bet on this?
-
Nov 28, 2003 6:09:14 PM CST
It BREAKS my heart, but "TTT" is still a crushing dissapointment
by ralph cifaretto
Aaragorn is posed as the star of "TTT," but he doesn't DO anything! Sure, he cuts off a lot of Orc heads, but do we see him continue on the journey towards leadership that he began in the 1st film? And the made-up "climax" where Frodo shows the ring to the flying Nazgul and Sam "saves" him...pointless and makes no sense. A pure invention of the filmmakers, desparate to inject some drama into their limp portrayal. I could go on and on. Let's hope ROTK does better.
-
IT'S SUCH ENTERTAINMENT READING ALL THE HATERS AND BASHERS ON A MESSAGE BOARD. EVERYONE'S ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION... PERSONALLY I LOVED THE LOTR TRILOGY DESPITE THE CHANGES OVER TO CELLULOID. PJ'S MOVIES ARE STILL SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER ON A WHOLE THAN ANY OTHER EPICS OR BLOCKBUSTER SINCE THE ORIGINAL STAR WARS. ANYWHO, ROCK ON, PEOPLE AND CONTINUE TO PROMOTE HATE MONGERING!
-
The Saruman sequence is necessary for Gandalf's story arc. Last time Satuman beta the crap out of him. Now Gandalf has died and come back stronger...we have to see him demonstrate this by confronting the guy who beat him last time. Also, Saruman was the main enemy for the first 2 films - his character deserves more resolution than disappearance. We the audience deserve more resolution. As for The Houses of Healing - I always liked that chapter. Eowyn learns to love someone for who they are, not because of some power play. I'll miss it in the theatrical version, but I doubt it will leave as much of a dangling thread as the Saruman sequence.
-
Nov 28, 2003 6:15:05 PM CST
Of changes to TTT, Peter Jackson being a fall-guy, and other stu
by effigy2002
You know, in a previous LOTR talkback, I made some comments to the effect that Peter Jackson was a 2-bit hack because of (a) his changes to The Two Towers and (b) cutting Christopher Lee out of RotK. Basically, I was saying that if he hadnt made such overt changes, TTT wouldn't have sucked as hard as it did, and we'd still have gotten to see Sauraman kicked out of Isengard by Gandalf (either where it belonged, in TTT, or in RotK). Well you know what? I take most of it back because I've come to realise that its not really Jackson's fault that that TTT took such a skew from the source material (though he certainly must take his fair share of the blame). Indeed, though his pacing is off in TTT, I must commend his directing skills... generally speaking, they're quite competent. No, instead I say we direct our anger towards Phillipa Boyens, since it seems that she was the one who wrote most of the screenplay for the films, and as such she should be held largely responsible for the changes that so marred the second film, and will undoubtlebly ruin the 3rd. You know, in the DVD interviews she calls herself a fan of the book. I hate liars... especially ones who ruin classic works of art by making it more mainstream. Seriously, Boyens is like some pre-teen who's just learned how to touch herself 'down there' and is giddily changing the words Tolkien masterfully crafted because she always thought (that one time she read the book for her high school book report) that it would have been sooooo much funnier if Aaragorn had fallen off a cliff and got licked in the face by a horse at some point in the story. "HAHAHAHAHA, how the readers would laugh, if I had my way!!!" she thought as she put down her homework and made a date with her girlfriends over the phone to go clothes shopping the next day and look at boys. By the looks of things, shes carried this obsessional desire for changing the work of the master into her adult life, because the changes she's made to the LOTR story are self evident and ultimately dreadful. If she really were a fan of the book, as she claims, she'd be here with the AICN LOTR purists, rallying against you morons who are so bugaddled in your devotion to these films that you cant see how the changes have hurt the story. Actually no, she wouldnt, because if she was a true fan of the book, there would never have *been* any changes to the story in the films at all! So in closing, RotK will suck only partly because of Jackson (he did, after all, make the decision to cut Sharky)... but largely, it will even worse than TTT because of Boyens and her inability to stop making changes to a book wich billions of people across the world have read, and loved (it's 2nd only to that other work of fiction, the Bible, after all), all in her attempts to make it more accessible. BRING BACK CHRISTOPHER LEE!
-
Completely agree with you about the HoH and I think the EDE is the place for it. I was prepared to spend ANY time on screen by Ioreth with my fingers stuck firmly in my ears! In fact, I was hoping that one change PJ would make would be for her to be captured by Orcs and have hers as one of the heads flung over the walls of Minas Tirith! I'm sure she'd still be yattering away though.
-
December 17th, now *there's* a great time to be a Tolkienite.
-
A case of your (but I'll win so make it Dos Equs(possible spelling error)) favorite beer (or a bottle of something) that RoTK will win Best Picture. Don't agree if you don't intend to keep your end of the bet though. I've been welched on once already. Your reasoning makes a lot of sense to me but I got a foresight on this one {[:^)
-
Good thoughts on Saurman and Gandalf. I wonder if they may at least speak to the issue you raise. If not, I wonder if the
Gray Havens will work toward the resolution of Gandalf's arc, showing that his duties are complete, and in this showing that he was, in fact, so much more then Saurman because he was able to resist the temptation to power. Just idle wondering. ***On another note, Effigy, good work, pissing off the many who have enjoyed the movies and all Christians at the same time. Perhaps you can alienate everyone else in your next post. I guess that if one goes trolling, one wants to catch every fish that they can. Of course, one wonders, if you hated the films so much, why you decide to vent your spleen at all. That's a bit of effort for something that you revile so completely. Or is it that you just want to show to all of the world that you are clearly more enlightened then everyone else on the planet. Was it good for you? Because it certainly seemed an award-winning masturbatory performance. Your mother must be so proud. -
I'd rather Modelo Negra instead of XX. Nonetheless, I fear that best director may be the best we can hope for, as I have no faith in the Academy in actually tabbing something like ROTK as best picture. I just do not see them as that creative. ***As for the woman at the HoH, yes, catapulting her head out of the city would be the best derivation money could buy. In fact the next time I read the book I will mentally insert just such a scene. (Glory!). Ahem, sorry about that.
-
I like what Jackson & Co have done with the different versions. The theatrical releases are more complete films in their own right: Fellowship was a journey film with a definite beginning, middle and end - even though the end leads onto another film, it still closes the story and journey of Fellowship. Two Towers was an action film, broader in scope, again it ends at the end of the action of Two Towers and wraps up that part of the story to make it it's own film. I'm hoping ROTK will be its own film, as much as it can be - a stunning conclusion. The Extended editions really tell the story as most lovers of the book would like - it's one big story, not really separate films with separate story styles as the theatrical versions are, but something that flows and keeps everything consistent. The theatrical versions did what they set out to achieve - grab your attention, tell the story, and make a good _film_. The extended editions are an expansion, telling the story in a different way to make a good _book adaptation_. That's the way I like to think of them, and if that's how Jackson & Co intended them, it's just beautiful work!
-
FXMoon, you are quite correct about the Nazgul
-
Look, lets not try and rationalise within the context of the world that the films have created the changes that were made in TTT. Lets just realise that Walsh and in particular Boyens, screwed up big time, by changing the words of an already perfect and well plotted out story. They admitted as much in the commentary that they made terrible changes, sounding almost apologetic in the commentary as Gandalf and Eomer ride down the hill into the Orc horde. They also said they shot an early version of the script, which further accounts for why TTT had such massive plot holes and such awful changes. Add to that that Boyenms is an obviously awful writer, and a liar, and you have the recipe that resulted in TTT being truly awfuk, and, I predict, the RotK being truly awful as well.
-
Although Doas Ecky, as my redneck cousin calls it, ain't bad either.
-
Nov 28, 2003 7:01:19 PM CST
Effigy, I think I figured out why you don't like the movies...yo
by minderbinder
-
Thanks for the review Frosty. (Sucks to be you Effigy2002. You give book lovers a baaaad baaaad name. I can't imagine having that much hatred in my heart for such a phenomenal achievement.)
-
Yep, you have got it regarding Effigy. The best thing is that Tolkien would have agreed with you, as he definitely did not like the more zealous of his readership and their slavish devotion to his fiction. Frankly, I would love to see Tolkien come back and tell folks like Effigy to piss off.
-
It would have been nice if there had been more Saruman in ROTK, but then I think there should have been more of him in Two Towers - nevermind, as long as they put him in the epilogue it should give enough closure to last until the extended dvds.
-
its true
-
Nov 28, 2003 7:31:27 PM CST
"I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words
by yo yo man
In other words: piss off, Effigy. You're bringing us down!!! Can't we just bask in the glorious HYPE for once, knowing that this might be the only film we ever see that actually lives up to it? When it's over, as both reviewers have said, there will be sadness. Let's enjoy the story before it's completed.
-
Once a story has been told in multiple media, comparisons will always be made between them to decide which was better. Take Harry Potter for example - most people agree the books are the best, but that the films are wonderful, faithful adaptations of the books. Now, I haven't read the books, so I can see the films with "fresh" eyes - and to me the films are not bad, but not really good cinema. There's just something that comes through saying "we got this story from somewhere else, and it wasn't originally thoughtout from a film perspective - but this is as close to the book as we could get". That's not the way to make a good film - but as I said, they're not bad. Now for LOTR you've got people who have thought about making this story from a film perspective - so while the story is no longer totally faithful to the book (in fact it differs hugely in parts) it makes a good film - which, surprise surprise, is what it is. So IMHO those people who dislike the films for not being the books should try watching them as films in their own right and see how the story works. After all, do people say Attack of the Clones was a great film just because the book adaptation of it sucked?
-
Ok flame-on people but from somebody that's tried endlessly to give a shit about the books, I love the FOTR & TTT movies and fully expect to love ROTK.
Why? Because Fran, Phillipa & PJ whittled the shit from an exercise in linguistics. Because PJ has injected spectacle back into the movies. I want to go and see something new, be taken somewhere exciting, forget the real-world shit for 2+ hours and these movies have done just that.
Do I give a shit that somebody called Tom Bombadil isn't there? No. Do I give a shit about the Scouring? No. Do I give a shit about the characters, their journey and the outcome? Yes. And that's all that matters to this particular viewer. The extended edition DVDs are love-letters from people that have poured years of their lives into these films. And the best you can do is piss and moan that they left your favourite bit out? You'd be ecstatic if the movies were simply some nerdlinger sitting on the toilet reading from the books whilst his "brethren" danced in the background wearing home-made capes and plastic swords, so shut the fuck up.
Here's a simple suggestion for you bashers - don't go watch the movie. Whacky concept, I'll grant you.
-
Not really a review, not really anything we don't know, no spoilers.. Ah well.
-
...but this talkback will not be blessed until elanor shows up.
-
I well understand the purist griping - the excissions (Bombadil, the Scouring, Glorfindel, the Barrow Downs, etc.) are bad enough; the Jackson/Walsh twists and additions seem even harder to bear. But I also know this: any book requires a great deal of compression and adjustments to successfully make the leap to film, an entirely different storytelling medium with far different demands, and Lord of the Rings is far, far more unfilmable than most. As it stands it *is* unfilmable, really. The wonder is that Jackson has nonetheless managed to capture so much of it onscreen. Consider an analogy: imagine you had gone on a vacation many years ago and had beautiful photos of it. Then you proceed after all that time to put together a scrapbook. Your memory would be imperfect - facts would get dropped out or confused a little; and even with your description and the photos you could only capture, imperfectly, isolated moments from the vacation, and hopefully the essence of what happened. This is what has happened with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. So many of the scenes, the places, the characters are perfectly and achingly captured; yet only fragments of the story can be told - enough to glimpse the truth and wonder of what was. In the end that's about all you can ask of a movie adaptation of a great book, and sufficient, I think, when you remember the book will always be there at the end of the day, ready to entrance you and stand on its own from whatever recapitulations (however wonderful) may be attempted from time to time. None of which detracts, or should detract, from Peter Jackson has accomplished, and that fact will be even clearer five, twenty and fifty years from now.
-
I've tried to read the books so many times and they just don't float my boat. I'm not interested in 30 pages of elf singalong everytime somebody new comes along, replete with a fully-supplied backstory "This is Wangmop, son of Glans, fifth cousin of King Drainopiss. Now let us sing for 4 pages". I'm not saying the books suck, clearly they don't - I'm just saying the books didn't work for me, they're not my cuppa. The movies, however, appeal because they don't have (what purists seem to relish and I can understand why) pages & pages & pages of un-necessary (in a movie context) characters/descriptive scenes. Even as a non-lover of the books, Gimli as comic relief makes me wince a couple of times but hey, if that's my strongest complaint then I'll take a couple of "dwarf tossing" jokes anyday.
-
Whether Jackson liked it or not was secondary to the more valid reason to whack it - too much denouement after the climax. Which is the destruction of the Ring. In a book you can have lots of denouement (and ROTK has loads of it as Tolkien wrote it); in a movie it can be death, especially to the casual viewer. As I understand it the movie lasts only 15 minutes after the climax; and even that may be too much for some. Adding the Scouring would have added a good 20 minutes of extra denouement, and it would not have done anything for Frodo's character or the Quest, any more than it did in the book. That is NOT to say that the Scouring is not a powerful story well worth telling and very important to Tolkien (and to me); just that it's not essential to the main story, the Quest, that Jackson has committed to telling. I'd love to see it but I understand why it was cut early on, just as with Bombadil. In any case, other scenes that did not make the Theatrical Cut of ROTK - the Mouth of Sauron, the Houses of Healing, the Voice of Sarumn - WERE filmed, and we are sure to see them in what will become, as was the case with the firts two films, the definitive version of The Return of the King: the Extended Edition.
-
I know what you mean. I read Goodkind for example - my wife loves his stuff - but it doesn't rock my boat, no matter how hard I try. And she feels the same about Tolkien, though she appreciates aspects of what he has done, particularly his skillful and subtle adaptation of Germanic mythos and archetypes. All that history and philology bores the knickers off some people but it's like mother's milk to me, and I can understand how others are bored to tears by it, just as it's one reason why I have trouble with fantasy works that don't bother with the same level of attention to background and cosmology as Tolkien did. There are some people out there who might not have read these books but for the movies but ended up doing so and loved them; there are some people (like you, I think), who loved the movies, but may only have cared for portions (here and there) of the books. But in both cases Jackson introduced people to Tolkien's story, and even if they can't wrap their noggins entirely around the depths of his created world, Jackson has captured enough of it that they instinctively understand its power and meaning, to say nothing of his team's ability to capture it. And if he's done that, he's done something very powerful and rare indeed.
-
the good guys win...how's that?
-
Parts of the book I enjoyed, parts just left me cold. I generally don't enjoy fantasy stuff, be it books/movies/games, just something about it doesn't ring my bell. However, in the case of the LOTR book, I may not enjoy it but I can see the appeal for others. It's like with some bands, they don't work for this listener but I can't deny the talent. Whilst I flip through pages and pages of Fellowship (trying to re-read them now I've seen 2/3 of the movie), I find myself skipping page after page thinking "don't care about this, don't care about that, nope, meh, naaah". It's the style it's written in, it just keeps me at a distance. But if Jackson can make me re-read them, then he's worked some kind of magic to interest people like me that have no love for the books. I don't understand this rabid shrieking from hardcore fans though, even with my limited knowledge of the books, I know unless you had 10hr movies per book, you're going to lose some content. But what remains, extended-DVD especially, is the essence of Tolkien and the attempt to wrest the images from a dead author's head and give them visuals.
It can never be 100% accurate, but they're head and shoulders above any other major "event" movies of recent years. Why? Because of the effort, care and love that went into them, that comes across in the DVD commentaries. These people wanted to do as good as job as they could, and this poster is only too happy to hand over his -
Before I get shouted down for my comments I want to say that I am am huge fan of the books, and I think that any time I have written on this site I have tried to make it clear that I love the books, and I love the movies. I have taken a graduate level course on Tolkien and read pretty much everything including things like Roverandom and Smith of Wooton Major. I think Tolkien's work is brilliant and complex, and I think that he is, as Tom Shippey called him, the author of the century. But, these books are not perfect. They are brilliant, but at times they read like lead. Tolkien himself refered to them as failures, and they are particularly difficult for modern readers to get into. Tolkien was trying to write myth, he was trying to write something in the vein of Beowulf. For that reason huge chunks of the dialogue simply won't work in a modern commercial movie. The books are also hugely long. As I said elsewhere, to do these movies completely as they are in tne book would take at least 15 hours maybe more. Changes were inevitable. Tom Bombadil is not a huge loss to the overall story, some people question why Tolkien even put that section in the books in the first place, other than to show that there are a few beings outside the influence of the ring. The Frodo/Osgiliath thing troubled me at first, but it might be explained away in ROTK. Sauron could think that a Hobbit has the ring and is headed toward Minas Tirith, so he attacks the city. I am reserving judgement. The change to Faramir is also disturbing because he is supposed to be the younger son who is more loyal but gets shit on because he is the 2nd son. That is why, in the books, he passes the test Boromir fails. (If I remember correctly, he tells Frodo he does not even want to see the Ring, lest he be tempted). The Elves at Helms Deep is a neat and tidy movie way to show that the battle against Saruman was being fought all over Middle Earth (which the books make clear) without having to shift to other locals in the middle of Helms Deep. The omission of the Scouring of the Shire is unfortunate. The point of the scene, in addition to showing how the Hobbits have grown, is to illustrate Tolkien's deeply held belief that all wars are lost, even the ones we win. War destroys even the victors (he says this in a letter to his son about the end of WWII!) because it destroys so much of what makes life worth living. It would be nice to have the Scouring, but it would add at least 30 minutes onto a movie that is already going to be very long, and from a film stadpoint will seem tacked on. There are other ways to achieve the same ends. The death of Saruman would be nice, just to have Christopher Lee onscreen some more, but I think it is clear that Saruman is done at the end of TTT. Gandalf does defeat him in the battle for Theoden. Also, if memory serves, the actual death of Saruman is in the appendix of ROTK and not in the narrative proper.
Lastly, putting aside the books, these movies are towering achievements from a film standpoint. As far as I am conderned these 3 films have extended the art of filmmaking. TTT in particular has shown, with Gollum, that anything is possible and with Helms Deep that anything of any scale can be created or recreated. Lucas once said something like he wouldn't make the prequel trilogy unttil he knew that anything someone could think of could be achieved in filmmaking. Jackson has shown that, not perfectly, but he has shown it. Now all we need is more people to find or create new material worthy of being made in the same manner. -
TTT was the best movie I had ever seen, but ROTK will be awesome.
yes, christopher lee should be in, but the battles, Minas Tirith, Shelob, and Mordor will more than compensate the scene.
Matrix was 'good', but reloaded was awesome. revolutions was ok, too. -
some people i know like the game better than lotr, and they say it's better than lotr.
is it?
i don't think so...
by the way, ROTK will rule -
kudos, Williammunny for a well developed and thought out narrative/description. I wish I had time to type all of that, but now I don't need to. In summary, I couldn't agree more.
RatSalad: u funny.
Creepythin: Please join me in disavvowing any knowledge of a third matrix movie. Say it with me "what third matrix movie?" Seriously, that thing blows purple chunky donkey terd, twice.
-
In order to be exact, it would be useful to remember that, with very few exceptions (the Ents attack over Saruman -
i think Viggo M might get Best Supporting nomination, and Sean Astin or Elijah Wood may also get nominated for soemthing.
I think ROTK will dominate the OScar nods, but i'm not sure how it will fare in awards -
I consider myself a great Tolkien fan, and have read LOTR more times than any sane person should. Let me say this: If you cannot understand why Jackson et al have made the changes they they did (not necessarily agreeing with every single one), then you are a fool. A book is not a movie is not a book. You could try to tell exactly the same story in both, but at least one of the two versions would suck. Peter wanted both to kick butt, which means things needed to be condensed, cut, modified, and added. Different media have different requirements. Get over it.
FOTR and TTT are my favorite movies every (I don't even bother to rank them) and I am sure ROTK will join them. Will I miss the Scouring, the Houses of Healing, etc? Of course! Will I be pissed when things aren't just like the book? No. They can't be, and I understand this. So should you. -
made were probably the best ones,
but i do hate all the camera time and glorifying of useless Rohan
villagers
i always said as I watched the DVD, that the soldiers should have made the women/children dig trenches infront of the fortress
buyay! -
and when i found out that saruman wasn't in the last movie i was very disappointed. The first two movies lead you to believe that saruman will get his. the end of TTT's was not him getting his. it was just C. Lee looking stupid and moving from side to side in his tower. very bad editing. it looked like the same shot over and over again. had i gone into ROTK not knowing about Saruman i would have been very confused. I did not assume he was killed or confined or whatever. and peter jackson stuffed up the TTT's. i don't care what anyone says. Women and children being used to portray a heightened sense of tension. very lame. the action was good enough to do that! the close ups on them. the come back from the dead again. gimli being turned into an idiot and legolas surfing down stairs! and the music score in MHO was too predictable. bloody hell. what happened? the first film was brilliant. the second merely good. the third? i'm guessing very good but the extended edition will be where it's at. call me a whinger but that's how I see it as someone who hasn't read the books. and i'm guessing that most people who haven't read the books will be equally puzzled about saruman.
-
comparison with LOTR 1, 2, and 3.
good things in ROTK
everything -
I liked the Bakshi, but I think the Jackson versions are better. For those that liked the Bakshi version, what exactly didi his versions have the Jackson's don't? Both cut out Tom Bombadil. Bakshi never made it to Houses of Healing or the Scouring of the Shire, so you really can't compare that to Jackson. The Rankin-Bass ROTK pretty much cuts Aragorn down to a bit part and Legolas and Gimli don't even show up, so if Bakshi had made it to second half of TTT and ROTK then he would have likely had to cut much of the plot out in order to do it in an hour and a half. I haven't watched the Bakshi in a long time so I can't remember all the details, but what DOES it have that Jackson doesn't? Again its important to keep in mind that with books as long as these, some things will have to go in almost any version. The Harry Potter people are going to have a hell of a time with books 4 and 5, Much will have to be cut. I know that the BBC did complete radio versions of LOTR and I think there were 15 parts altogether, which means somewhere around 15 hours. (Brits, please correct me if I am wrong.) Just no way to do that in 3 movies.
-
the extended cut came out, so that he would see his last scene in his favorite book
-
i am dieing to see bakshi's lotr, no matter how bad. I WANT TO SEE IT!
-
have made a great duo in LOTR?
Peter C. as Gandalf, Chris L. as Saruman. -
R U KIDDING ME? Look, you want HIGH quality acting with perfection in Elizabethan pronunciation of the English language and shoulda been oscars for Brannagh, then go watch Henry V. Shakespeare wrote one hell of a propaganda film way back when. But the battle scene? Holy smokes are we talking about the same movie? There swords flop around and waiver like flags in the wind. They substitute mud for blood in almost every shot......I'm not even continuing. Bottom Line: Henry V = amazingly well acted FILM. LOTRx3 = Excellent film with excellent ACTION scenes.
-
Yes, I know "Their"!
-
Is good in Henry V and was the only good actor in Chamber of Secrets. And he showed raw emotion in 'HV'. Greatest actor in Shakespearen films i have seen in a while.
-
that ROTK will not disappoint
-
Dude, now thats f'n funny.
-
was a smaller scale battle/movie
becasue fans of shakespeare came for the actual play.
nowadays, people come for blood and guts and a tiny bit of dialogue. -
was the best duo in cinema-ever!
lotr would have been icing on the cake.
their 'frankenstein' was way better than the karloff version -
Was the human face of the empire, becaus no one could relate to vader at the time.
I was amazed that Lee bought into Lucas's script. But it is interesting that Lee could actually fight. -
1 lotr
2 Matrix
3 Original Star Wars
4 Godfather
5 Fist full of dollars
-
i hate sword of shannara so much!
it sucks it sucks -
Your point is well taken. It is an important moment for Faramir. But I believe the scene DOES function as the climax of the Ringbearer plotline in the 2nd movie. It fails, IMO, for the reason you yourself mentioned - it's Faramir's scene, not the Hobbit's. The only thing that changes in that scene is that Faramir decides to let them go. Why else does that scene exist? No important one, but there is another reason, I think. Jackson & company had eliminated Tolkien's chosen climax (Shelob) for the Ringbearer plotline in TTT, so they invented one of their own. It's a big, loud scene, with lots of music, special effects, tears, and speeches, but nothing is accomplished story-wise, and because of its very nature, it falls flat. -----------Concerning Sam's corny speech, Fran Walsh herself said that they wrote that scene at the last minute because they realized that the 2 storylines (War & Ringbearer) didn't feel connected and they needed a scene to tie them together. IMO, that the filmmakers got so far into the film, and only THEN realized they had failed to dramatically/thematically link Tolkein's 2 storylines, points to their sad failure to successfully tell Tolkien's story. Does anyone doubt he would have been dissapointed with TTT? (I'd like to think he would have smiled and enjoyed Fellowship of the Ring.)
-
the books and the movies are DIFFERENT! try to wrap your minds around this concept! if you want the houses of healing, the shire scouring, and grima killing saruman, read the books! jeffallee, not to add to (much deserved) dogpile, but PJ did NOT make these movies for the $! Heck NO! haven't you been paying attention? lastly, the reason the recent star wars and matrix sequels aren't as good as the LotR sequels is becuase PJ filmed all three at once, thus insulating him from the attention, hype, and pressure to go bigger and better as the series progressed, and freed him to make the movies like HE wanted. Remeber, this is HIS adaptation. i bet Chris Tolkien wont' ever watch 'em, which is too bad since they're repopularized the books more so than anything he's ever done...
whew! that's a load off
ciao -
Some of you dont like the way LOTR is written...how sad for you.There must be something wrong if you cannot recognize a truly inspired tale like that.A story that doesnt seem as much to have been invented,as to be a collective subconcious memory...some people don't think Tom Bombadil should have been in the book?That happens to be one of the most important and magical parts of the whole thing!Jackson did a decent job of transporting not only the story but also the feeling of the book to the movie,and all the artists created a vision of Middle-Earth that is almost flawless.The story is not quite flawless;shoving the ring to the black rider is an inexusable moment,whatever comes next...The great sin of the movies is the music.I dont understand what so many people like about that insipid hollywood plastic orchestra.The same stupid dramaticly sweet violins we hear in every movie.Middle-Earth does not sound like that!They could have used Hedningarna,the swedish/finnish group that fuses ancient folkmusic into truly otherwordly music.They could have used the transporting ambient of Brian Eno.They could have used the moving ballads of Rush...As it is,the music of the movies slows them instead of enlivening them.
-
One forgets what it's like on a front page tb after lounging in a hammock by the Tailend Pool for so long. I'd better head on inside to find my armor before I post.***Thanks for the invite, Yo Yo. The only think I am compelled to say is that I LIKE the "complaints" that ROTK has "too many endings" or that the ending is "drawn out". That's
music to my ears as I know I won't want to leave these characters at all!***cutest, my hunch is that this tb will not last much longer before we get another one. We will likely be hopping from one to the next for a while until sometime around 12/17, when things will likely settle down again. But as long as the reviews are non-spoilerish
and so joyously positive, I'll keep reading. I have very little to say except that I WANT TO SEE IT NOW! How will I ever make it through the next two-three weeks?
Nearly-naked Frodo! Rearing- horse-Viggo! Despairing Faramir!
Ahhhhhhh. Thunk. -
Nov 29, 2003 12:20:44 AM CST
Wait a minute!!! How will Merry & Pippin meet Gandalf & friends
by robofag
Indeed Robofag is very surprised that no one here actually noticed this important point... although it is understandable considering that my AI is made of 57 G5 processors (ever heard Apple was a favorite among homo cyborgs?). Seriously, if you think about it, in the books, Merry & Pippin get found by Gandalf, Aragorn and the rest of the bunch while these guys arrive at Orthanc... to do a final meeting with Saruman. So how will Jackson manage to make Merry and Pippin join the group if they're miles away from them, and surely don't even know where they are? Are they gonna be brought to Helm's Deep or Edoras in the arms of Treebeard or what? Naaah that would be nonsense. In either case Gandalf has to return to Orthanc to find Merry and Pippin, 'cause he's the only one in the story that can only GUESS that they're here, without knowing... but that would lead us back at the same point; Gandalf HAS to go to Orthanc. And as for the Palantir -well I hope PJ has'nt been crazy enough to remove the whole Palantir thing from the movie!- I guess that it could be introduced as if Pippin (or Merry?) would have found it among the debris in Orthanc... But NO HOUSE OF HEALING!?!?!? Then now I'm even more confused than I was when I heard about the "no Chris Lee in ROTK" thing! I mean GOSH! This is a passionate scene, full of human compassion... this is the very first thing that illustrates Aragorn's evolution towards his roel as king of Gondor! All this compassion towards the brave warriors... and the will to heal them at all cost. And the way the scene's put in the books it is a direct reflection out of the terrible demonic death of Denethor... on one side there's madness and death, and on the other side, healing and survival. And this is not even a long scene!!! Man, where's your brain, Peter Jackson??? Have you become envious of George Lucas stupidity or what? What the hell's wrong with you??? ***And then Robofag, in a passionate stance of digital sadness, loses his mind and goes crying in despair right in the corner of his room....***
-
The book ended with a cliffhanger. Shelob was the climax. Then the capture of Frodo with Sam left alone with the ring. THAT'S how the movie should have ended. Win the battle lose the war ending... The Empire Strikes Back and Back to the Future have shown that cliffhangers are feasible. I wonder why the decision was made against it in the Two Towers?
-
Dorks. Scrounge around for a few hundred bucks and go find a prostitute. Get laid and get off the whole "Peter Jackson's versions have bastardized the original books!" Who cares? I've read the books, movies can't compete with your own imagination. That's a fact of life. Quite being so f'ing anal about it. The movies are INCREDIBLE! They make my eyes hurt with all the action. Oh well, I know you fags won't stop bitching. Just thought I would put in my two cents. No go sod off.
-
In terms of the editing, I think most comments are best reserved for after we see the films. I don't see the sense in criticizing editing choices for scenes we've not watched yet. But as a screenwriter, I can put these particular points forward: A book can linger in one place for as long as it likes. Movies have no such luxury. Books can be hundreds of pages, up to and over a thousand apiece. Movies typically work out at about a page a minute which means that even the extended editions must come down to about 240 pages apiece, at most. Typical movies run half that long or less. From the destruction of the Ring, The Return of the King lasts an additional eighty or ninety pages. The denouement of ROTK is a feature film in length. But this feature film worth of events, dialogue and action cannot constitute more than a twenty pages worth of screen time. So cuts will have to be made, scenes will have to be compressed and related by shorthand, and lines will have to do, where whole scenes were employed. There will be sacrifices made, but if we are lucky, Peter Jackson will have chosen the line of events that best works out the heart of the story. With that, I reserve further comment until after I see the film.
-
Word, say it how it is man.
-
Nov 29, 2003 1:12:12 AM CST
This is Jackson's magnum opus. In 100 years, this trilogy will
by tbrosz
-
Nov 29, 2003 1:24:48 AM CST
Bit off topic but hey roll on return of the king - but lest not
by richard1025
Anyone who still has reservations over AvP look at this link and love the master of game films - cos as we all know AvP was a comp game b4 it was a film (screw comic books ok ladiez), and they sometimes follow suit! Go P.W.S Anderson. He rocks!!!!!!!
http://www.movie-list.net/classics/mortalkombat.mov
Notice hows its in the classics section? Wonder why eh???? -
Awwww FLAWLESS VICTORY. Rezzie evil 2 cant be that bad either - seem to be a P.W.S.Aphile. Lets start a following on this site - we love his films for all its glory. 'Cept from Mr Jackson of course, as he's god - roll on 17/12/03 Whoo hoo
-
Nov 29, 2003 1:56:16 AM CST
cutest, I'd vote for this one (thus the post) since the discussi
by djinnj
Onwards! Well, I
-
Nov 29, 2003 2:40:39 AM CST
Actually the "floppy" swords were NOT historically accurate, you
by irritable
Why do you pretend to have literary and historical credentials Dick Herz? First you say that the obvious stunt swords used in Olivier's micro-budget masterpiece were "flexible - because that's an asset for a sword" [anybody taken in by that b.s. can discover the truth via Google in about 10 minutes] then you say a "lot of the "wavering" is just an optical illusion similar to the one you get when you hold a pencil by its middle, turn it horizontal, and wave it up and down." *****WTF! Are they flexible or rigid (and how can the "optical illusion" arise when the actors aren't steadily waving the swords up and down?)****And by the way, Tolkien didn't base LotR on Norse (ie Norwegian) myth anymore than he plagiarised the Prose Edda or Celtic myth as you ridiculously asserted a couple of TB's back. ****Read what Oberon said and actually learn something you clueless twerp.
-
I fail to see how the first two movies can be called classics. Too slow by far (We know how powerful the Ring is, but we are constantly told in every scene.), and not enough focus on what the 'Fellowship' are fighting for (Where are the songs and the history?), make for 6 boring hours of amatuer hour at the churchhall. 7 if you forked out for the cash-Err..., Tie-ins. However, credit where it's due, McKellen is Gandalf to a tee and I cannot fault the incredible use of special effects in these movies.
Overall though for me they are more miss than hit, and I think 'The Hobbit' would have been a better start point for 'Middle-Earth' on the big screen. Definitely not in my TopTen greatest movies of all-time. -
Effigy, I agree completely what you said about Boyens. I think TTT's minor "flaws" in the script have more to do with her wanting to reimage Tolkien's work her own way and make a name for herself since LOTR is basically her very first major movie script project. And she would never have been involved if she wasn't friends with PJ and Walsh. The brilliance of the films have the most to with PJ and I believe the good parts in the script especially the elvish fidelity stem from Walsh's love of the books rather than Boyens fiddling. I think PJ and the two really teamed up and agreed to give each one a chance to "contribute" their ideas. And I guess Boyens got a lot to do with TTT. PJ likes war scenes the most, Walsh likes the linguistic and historical aspects while Boyens, well she sees her chance to reinvent some characters. When I see the documentaries on the EE's yeah I do feel mad when I see Boyens again rationalizing her boneheaded changes. Still the films are the best adventures ever on film and the "steaming turds" of the Matrix sequels and Luca$ phantom skits are finally shown for the cash cows for a dumbed down audience they are. Don't get me started on Bakshi's version. They even tried to say 'Aruman!" instead of Saruman because they thought dumbed down audiences couldn't tell the difference between Saruman and Sauron. Then about halfway through the movie you can see the budget and quality fell apart and they forgot to say the "Aruman! Aruman!" thing anymore. The rotoscoping was incomplete., the extras can be seen wearing potato sacks for costumes. Helm's Deep is just some busted wall. Folks here who say Bakshi is better aren't really purits, they're just trying to say Bakshis was better because most no one has seen it. In fact, folks got turned off from Tolkien AFTER seeing the movie back then, or on video.
-
I'm last.
-
What was the Bakhshi ending? Just outta curiosity.
-
Godfather is not a trilogy. There are only 2 movies. The world has agreed to pretend that the third one does not exist.
-
Ends with Gandalf turning up at Helms Deep with Riders of Rohan. Frodo was just about to get to Minas Morgul Ie spookily like the end of TTT. Voice over declares that the good guys eventually win thus confirming the fact there would be no sequel.
-
Following our discussion on the pronunciation of "
-
That's 'eh' as in 'uh' (or as in 'duh', as the case may be!), which is the sound represented by that inverted E you mentioned earlier, Djinnj. And what I spelled 'Aaaye' should have read simply 'Ay'. We wouldn't want to mix it up with the 'aye' of 'Isengard', would we? Nope, we wouldn't. Anyhow, I hope this helps, or at least sparks some new discussion...
-
... the 'eh' that should be pronounced 'uh' is that in the 'ee-eh-mer' suggested by the note on the pronunciation of Rohirric names in the "Notes" section of Appendix E. Which, I argue (just to make it completely clear), should be pronounced 'ee-mer' or 'ee-uh-mer.' Yes, that's it. I'll get away from that keyboard now.
-
And so, here for anybody who still cares and after a period of Ent-like deliberation, my favorite scenes from The Two Towers. 1) The Battle of Helm's Deep. Well, DUH. The greatest battle sequence ever made, an unsurpassed spectacle of scope, sound, design, and execution, from it's ominous beginning to it's triumphant end. 2) Entmoot. Both movies have been adventures in weird and wonderful sounds and imagery, and this scene typifies that. 3) The Wolves of Isengard. An appetizer before Helm's Deep. 4) The Other White Wizard. Gandalf 2.0! 5) The Three Hunters. You definately don't want to get in the way of these guys, and how about Aragorn employing his Ranger tracking skills? It's CSI: Middle-earth. 6) Schemin' Gollum. Brrr. What an exquisitely disturbing note to end a movie on. 7) March of the Ents. Pissed off Ents, definately not a good thing. Just a great moment of cathartic rage.
-
Yeah. That would be not good.
-
Don't take Dick Hertz's "review" of ROTK seriously. I doubt he's seen the movie. The only thing he's mentioned that's in the movie is Legolas climbing up one of the oliphaunts a scene that's described in Frosty's review. The rest of the snot he's trying to pretend he knows what he's talking about is whining about the TTT. Battle of Agincourt in Henry V(1991)? Ridiculous, sure the French armor looked cool, but the action wasn't much more than the French gaining up on a kid in a mob and stabbing him like street thugs. And yes, real swords were flimsy because they were really light(3-7 lbs) in comparison to say polearms. The Bakshi ending also ended in an embarassingly lame way. Aragorn and Theoden are surrounded by cardboard stands of the orc actors (still dressed in potato sacks) and scream out Gandalf! gandaaalff! Then Gandalf comes riding in from some low hill with just like 8 stunt horse riders behind him waving his sword like a fly swatter(it looked totally lame), and the orcs just flee and some really bad cartoon effects where the rotoscoped Gandalf(they finally fleshed the whole animation part replacing the actor at this point; they were skimping in the last half of the movie trying to cover it up with wierd negative-photo colors of obviously the real-live potato sack dressed stuntmen probably wearing used gorilla masks from the original Planet of the Apes). Then Gandalf swings down and the this one orc fills up the whole screen and screams while I kid you not, splotched painted "blood" which looks like a 5 yrs old spilled bucket of paint streaks over the whole screen. Then again then again. Then that idiotic narration that "our heroes" defeated the lord of the rings, gandalf does some idiotic swinging-dance in time with the music and tosses his sword way up in the air and the "camera" or cartoon follows it up so we don't have to see the miserable non-sets at ground level anymore. They even add star like reflections on the sword common in cartoons in the 70's . The narration ends, and finally it goes to the credits. The most embarassingly bad ending I'd ever seen in any movie. I was embarassed in front of other people that watched it with me and didn't read the books for another 10 years.
-
Indeedy, I largely ignored that section knowing that JRRT was writing primarily on the elvish terms. D'oh! (Although, "duh!" would work here too...) He does state that "In names drawn from other languages than Eldarin the same values for the letters are intended, where not specially described above, except in the case of Dwarvish." That bit on diphthongs is short but clear. Of course, this still doesn't explain "Eyezengard" does it? If we follow the Eldarin "i" sound, it should be "Eezengard" as you've said. Of course, Tolkien was under pressure to finish the appendices, so perhaps he left some stuff out by accident!
-
It was 2 hours and 10 minutes.
-
Nov 29, 2003 1:27:15 PM CST
Next crybaby that complains the movies aren't slavish to the boo
by renonevada2000
Will have their bookd taken away. You've obviously memorized them so you don't need actual copies, do you? Also, who the hell is forcing you to go see the movies? Stay home, save your eight bucks and leave more room at the cinema for myself and my friends to go and enjoy them without some socially retarded nitwit sitting next to us grumbling the whole time.
-
Wow, what a terrible idea. They could've used Geddy Lee for a Nazgul shriek...that's about it.
-
D'oh!
-
i read in the War of the Ring website, that the Mouth of Sauron is out, and that Gollum convinces Frodo that Sam is disloyal, and sends him home, but Sam comes back at Shelob's Lair
-
Nov 29, 2003 4:32:50 PM CST
This movie will also completely own "Yor:The Hunter From The Fut
by doom ii
-
Okay, it -
they jumped on the Matrix bandwagon, then rode it right into the pile of shit that II & III turned out to be. now they look like total losers for tying their whole identities to the Wak brothers money making scam and are trying desparately to cover their asses by slinging shit at LOTR. it is an old saying, "misery loves company", and there aren't any group of geeks more miserable right now than Matrix geeks.
-
The two towers section was a total mess. No explanation of Rohan at all. No eomer. No Faramir. No explanation of why there is even a battle of helms deep. Gimli is taller than Legolas. They couldn't even decide whether to go with Saruman or Aruman. And don't get me started on the character designs...The Balrog and (especially) Treebeard were the most bollocks things i have ever seen.
-
Well, if by "fucking world" you mean Canada, perhaps. Neal Peart proves that you can be an extraordinarily accomplished musician and have absolutely no soul. And Geddy Lee, c'mon dude...might as well listen to the Chipmunks. The idea that the Jackson films would be better if Howard Shore had been replaced by a cut-rate prog-rock outfit like Rush is completely nonsensical and ludicrous.
-
Well, in Bakshi there was Rohan, there was Eomer, and there was what it was necessary, it is explained by Gandalf while he and the others ride on horse on to visit Theoden. Man, this is just silly, I mean: it is simply amazing that a cartoon movie like that had so FEW flaws, compared with this MEGAHUGE films of PJ. I remenber Treebeard in Bakshi, very clearly. It was nice in a way. Less irritating than seeing Lothloriien -
My two favorite moments from 'The Two Towers,' at the time anyway, are two that have only just recently been included in the movie (via the Extended Edition; and no, I didn't buy the theatrical cut folks; I'm not contributing to Wal-Mart's world domination pool): the first one caps the first disc: Faramir inspects a Southron(?) and laments on the nature of war, and the second one caps the battle of Helm's Deep: the Huorns exact their revenge on Saruman's orcs, who think they've found reprieve in the tangles of a forest. While they're certainly not the most captivating moments of transcendence to grace cinema in the last 10 years, they're a welcome addition to the film, although some of the inclusions (see: Merry and Pippin do Cheech & Chong, to the cheers of millions of college stoners and the bashful pride of PJ for "successfully" injecting contemporary romance and humor into Tolkien's landscape) left a sour taste in my mouth. Okay, now for the more anal portion of my post: having read a good chunk of the books and remembering the "gollum" noise Smeagol made, am I the only one who assumed this was a slimy, exaggerated kind of gulp? It's manifestation as a sort Edward Hyde cough doesn't make the movie any worse; in fact, it probably suits the character better. I'm just curious to know whether or not I'm the only one who interpreted it otherwise.
-
Nov 29, 2003 11:19:18 PM CST
To those who think Rush is the greatest musical group Canada has
by renonevada2000
Moxy Fruvous.
-
Fellowship of the Ring is the only, ONLY, book I have ever quit reading before I finished. Just got bored with it. Of course, I'm not a fantasy guy. Nothing against those who are, just ain't my thing. Maybe it's the conformacy issue, to wit... Lord of the Rings is to the genre of Fantasy what Elvis is to white pop music. Everyone's heard of LOTR, quite a few people have read it, and maybe even more people have seen the movie than have read the books. I fall into that camp. I've seen FOTR and TTT once each, in the theaters, a few weeks after they came out. Was I holding my breath? No. Did I enjoy them? Sure, I guess. But I was over it by the next day. Jeez, I guess I sound like the girlfriend I had once who had never seen any of the Star Wars films. It's just, I guess, the point I'm trying to make is that some people see these films just as another film. They don't know anything about the story and don't really care. They may be entertained, but... that's it. I'm not trying to say "Hey, it's just a movie." Movies can be incredible life-changing experiences. LOTR just didn't do it for me. In my humble opinion, "The Right Stuff" is the best movie ever made, but I'm honest enough with myself to admit that that's not because of any particular cinematic quality, but because it spoke to me. I am 30 years old and a pilot now largely because of that movie. Perhaps LOTR speaks to you who love it in a similar fashion, and more power to you. But don't get down on people who don't see it the same way. I will see FOTR a few weeks after it's been released, but I assure you, I will get up to go the bathroom, probably more than once. And if I may say so, "Willow" was the best fantasy movie ever made. "Not a woman!?!"
-
BTW, Geddy Lee is a friend of mine. Rush friggin' rules the wasteland. Their music should be used in every movie ever made. And "Yor: The Hunter From the Future" is a damn fine bit o' cheese.
-
Nov 30, 2003 8:19:32 AM CST
As much as I want ROTK to win best picture and PJ to win best di
by red raider
A film like Mystic River. The academy is a joke, and everyone with the slightest ounce of grey matter knows it.
-
Nov 30, 2003 8:31:58 AM CST
I agree with previous talkbacker: Rush rocks & should already be
by red raider
The Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame has an obvious bias against progressive rock. Assholes. I've seen Rush twice in concert,and both shows were incredible. They might be way past their prime, but I'd like to see any of today's younger drummers try to keep up with Neil Peart.
-
Nov 30, 2003 9:45:06 AM CST
Not that it matters, but Rush is not an appropriate band for the
by fluffyunbound
Maybe if they do a remake of "The Running Man" or "Logan's Run" Rush can be involved. LOTR is much more a Zeppelin thing.
-
A well worded post with valid points, but as a prior poster indicated, please revisit that whole "Willow" thing...Maybe you liked it because Luca$$ made it, I don't know (I also tried to like it, and after seeing the cinematic tradgedy that was "Willow", tried to understand why, again Luca$$ was wasting his time on stuff he was not good at...All I have been able to think since is "Thank the lord Luca$$ didn't get ahold of the LOTR rights". His feeble attempt to replicate it showed clearly how badly he would have screwed it up...as a double-negative, I think that younger version of Luca$$ may have had enough darkness left to not make the prequels such a mess...oh well...hopefully one day we'll have the ORIGINAL OT on DVD (Because in this unique case, ironically, someone CAN take that away...what an idiot he turned into)...
-
I had several of their albums when I was younger and, while Led Zep does spring to mind first for me when thinking of LotR, Rush did in fact do a couple songs on one LP that were most definately Tolkienesque. Not that this has anything to do with anything, just sayin'. Once upon a time, it wasn't that outlandish a concept. Ribbons, those were both very effective scenes included on the SEE, and to me, the Merry and Pip scene was very in keeping with their characters. After alla that doom n' gloom, it was reassuring that they could still be hard partyin' Hobbits! As for the Gollum noise, like you (and I'm sure, a lot of other people), I could only imagine it was simply some gross nervous tick of his, but it worked quite well as it was done in the films. It wouldn't surprise me if the Academy passes up LotR again. It's just a damn shame. There have been some worthy performances in these movies. BLU, 80s fantasy movies are a mixed affair. There's no denying the achievements of films like Dark Crystal, Legend, Ladyhawke, Willow, and The Princess Bride. These movies will always have their fans. But some of 'em just go nowhere, and I'm quite curious to know what Ridley was on when he made Legend.
-
The name of the album I mentioned was "A Farewell to Kings".
-
Hey dood, I
-
I am thinking there will be another tb tomorrow reporting on the Wellington premiere, no? I hope so.***Now, for an attempt at a tailend topic. What is behind the Ithilien Ranger's ban against fishing (or touching or swimming in the water of) "The Forbidden Pool"? Is it just to protect their hiding place? Is the power of Ulmo involved?***
And something I keep forgetting to mention: has anyone else noticed (and been amused by) the apparent in-joke of the writers, calling any ideas in the film that differ from the book as belonging in "The Ring of the Lord"? It's on the director's commentary and it made me giggle it did. -
I still say LOTR is mythology, not fantasy. I have always been interested in myths. I like science fiction movies but don't read sci fi books. I have never read any "fantasy" novels other than the first Harry Potter book and that was so I could see if the movie was a good adaptation or not. Well wait, when I was young I loved Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan series, that might be considered fantasy I guess.***Go morG! You tell 'em!
***I loved "Willow" at the time but I was also aware of its connection to LOTR. I remember feeling that it was hokey and cheap (while still entertaining) and worried that this is what LOTR could easily turn out to be in a less-than-inspired filmmaker's hands. Comparing it to PJ's films from a filmmaking standpoint is not worth the effort.***I remain unconvinced that the Academy will reward ROTK for anything other than it already has (which would not be bad) because of comments like
"it ended six times" from DGA attendees, who are often similar to Oscar voters. And the more money it makes, the lower it's chances will fall. Please understand that I will thrilled to be proven wrong and I will buy everyone drinks. Especially this year with the screener scandal, I think there will be pressure to choose a small
"independent" film, which will be ironic, of course, since LOTR is the "biggest independent film ever made". I trust though, that the world will embrace this film as it has the first two and it will be long included in what are considered movie classics and that a tradition will emerge of showing them back to back on TV during holidays.***Now come on, y'all. Start showing up! -
From what I know, swords must be somewhat spring like- that is, flexible enough to absorb strain from impacts and, but strong enough to return to it's original shape. To be rigid, it would have to have crystalline structure, and crystalline structure is prone to breaking along the planes that the molecules align along. That's how gem-cutters do their work. Also, Vibrations can resonate in such structures and shatter them, like a soprano shattering a wine glass with the right note. So a sword with too little give breaks easier than one that has some give to it. As for the pronunciations, I have this to offer. In languages of fiction and of fact, pronunciation is an aesthetic creature. Clumsy sets of syllables are often elided, skipped, if you will. difficult letter clusters are often softened over time into more acceptable ones. Pronunciations do not necessarily follow complete rational and logical rules. Just take a good long look at our language, and you'll get the idea. I like the Movie's pronunciation because the "eyes" sound comes across as more appropriate for a fortress than the "ease" sound. When creating a spoken language for the benefit of the audience, you have to have an ear for the clumsy and unintentionally absurd words that might come out.
-
I shit on Peter Jackson and all three of his overrated Lord of the Rings movies.
-
Yeah, the smoking scene is justifiable in terms of character, and I have to admit I found it mildly amusing, but I don't like the fact that Peter was sort of winking at the audience with his direction of it. ********** I'm not worked up over Andy Serkis' alterations to the "gollum" noise, I even said myself that it probably worked better on the screen than my interpretation would have, it just threw me a bit. For a while I've upheld the notion that Andy's performance as Gollum was overrated, but after seeing the film again the other night (and my apologies, I haven't watched anything but the film proper yet), I'm coming around. I think a few of the newly-added scenes enhance his depth of character and I appreciate more fully that the role is a deliberately showy one, and what I originally reflected back on as overacting the first time I saw it in the theatres really suits his character just fine. Combine with that the spot-on voice work and mannerisims and the technical difficulty of the role (all three of which I'm sure will be detailed in the DVD's plethora of bonus features) and Andy Serkis gives a performance that, if not Oscar-worthy, is at least very, very good. The character is one of the most memorable in the last decade, thanks in part to Serkis and the WETA team.
-
Nov 30, 2003 7:41:25 PM CST
Yes Gadzooks. Lucky this is a movie site, not a cure for cancer
by elanor
Dear kovacskiller: I would say that trolling is what is overrated. Because you need not shit on anything. If you feel that way about LOTR, try this: DON
-
Thanks for proving point about stereotyping...jackass. ** kovackskiller...wotsamatter, jealous of Petey Jax? Please, let us all know of your own wonderful film contributions. I mean, you have such a gift for language and all. Some of you surface-monkeys have fewer brains than pin-head shrew. At least pin-head shrew make more sense than to waste body fluids in such a manner. But then, I am only snaga and what do snag know?
-
When Treebeard comes over to see what's going on with Merry and Pippin, we're treated to him, the "authority figure" if you will, looking on in bemusement as giggles resound and smoke billows outward from beyond the doorway. If that isn't an overt reference to tokers getting busted, I don't know what is. Again, I'll live with it, but I definitely could have lived without it, and the levity of the scene would have worked just fine without it as well. There are plenty of anachronistic jokes in the film(s), but that one in particular bothered me. I mean, I was fine with the reference to weed when Saruman admonished Gandalf for smoking it, but this time around it just seemed inappropriate. It is what it is, I guess.
-
Thanks, Ribbons, for your explanation, but I am a long-time pot smoker and I sure didn't see what you saw in the scene (perhaps it's dulled my brain, too?) I saw an Ent who has been living an isolated life who hasn't heard laughter in a long while, and has NEVER heard hobbit laughter. I think he is wondering what the laughter was about, and perhaps where the smoke is coming from, too. I first read LOTR during the hippie days and it was popular at the time to read pot-smoking into Tolkien's hobbit's love of leaf. But it was no more true then than it is now; Tolkien never intended it to be so, he was just fond of his own pipe into which he put only nicotine. Granted, PJ may indeed be trying to suggest both types of weed but I still think you are reading in a bit that isn't really there (which is your right, of course, but sorry in this case, since you also don't like it.) I see Treebeard as curious, not as any kind of busting authority.
-
Hmmm, I don
-
Thanks to you both for your responses to my post, which I must admit I wrote late at night in the throes of a Pabst Blue Ribbon lager binge. My comment about "Willow" was more than a bit tongue-in-cheek. I like it because I like fine, moldy cheese. BladeRunner, you are correct that "Legend," "Dark Crystal" and "Labyrinth" are all great fantasy movies. The soundtrack to "Legend" is an almost Rush-esque Tangerine Dream wacky masterpiece borrowing the voice of the Yes frontman, good listening. And "Labyrinth" has David Bowie in tights with a spiky 80s goblin mullet... what more can one ask for? MorGoth, I take your comments humbly, and your points are well-made; however, I feel I misrepresented myself. I am certainly not judging everybody who sees these movies as a zealot. And even for those who ARE Tolkien zealots, I have to grudge against them. I suppose I was merely trying to point out that there are those of us out there who enjoy the movies, but don't find them to be the best ever made. I also suppose that my opinion wasn't asked for, but that is the whole point of these talkbacks, to give answers to questions that nobody asked. Still, I apologize for any offense I may have given. It was not my intent.
-
Where I wrote "...I have to grudge against them" I meant to type "...I have NO grudge against them.." A typo that could greatly ruin my meaning. D'oh.
-
... congratulations on the
-
I didn
-
It's obviously an ambiguous scene, but then again, "Playmakers" isn't about the NFL. I still contend that it's a reference to marijuana, if only perhaps as a send-up of people's misperceptions of Tolkien's "weed" (which was nicotine, I'm aware) in the '60s. When confronted about the question, PJ could, with a wry smile, say that Merry and Pippin were merely laughing because they were so happy to have found Old Tobie or Toving or whatever (which they were) and that Treebeard sauntered over to the doorway because he was tentatively curious to uncover the mystery behind a looming cloud of smoke (which, technically, he was) and that was all that he meant to convey in the scene. However, the change in music to the Merry & Pippin Mischiefmaker Theme, the way the shot was framed, and our language as a culture (or coalition) would dictate otherwise. He could also claim that Gimli merely didn't want to be "tossed" because he's proud (which is, likewise, ostensibly true) and that he's never heard of this dwarf-tossing thing you keep spouting on about, but once more, we know better. The scene also hearkens back to (either) Merry or Pippin's dream about uncovering a supply full of Old Toving. In the dream, they "smoked the whole room." It's a good thing they found all those apples.
-
I know, since Bilbo and Gandalf smoked the stuff without experiencing any altered planes of reality, that in the movies, the same innocence of content is carried over from the books. However, I think that that shot in particular WAS a reference to marijuana, perhaps capitalizing on Merry and Pippin's characters to get such a reference across. It may have even been written without the idea consciously being suggested, but in my opinion, it wasn't directed that way. That's why I feel that it was winking at the audience: almost like the "yellow spandex" line in 'X-Men,' but not as subtle. Hmm...with that quote in mind, perhaps "winking" was the wrong choice of words after all, but (I feel) it was a reference to something more contemporary. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. I said what I thought and why I thought it, so at least it's out there for to be agreed or disagreed with.
-
I thought you were going to gig me on the Geddy Lee and Rush discussion for not saying Geddy was also a great bass player. At least I think so. I mean, he
-
Sorry elanor; I skim through posts a lot. You're right: Treebeard may or may nor be the surrogate authority figure and I might be reading too much into it, but it looks to me like a visual quote of a principal in front of a bathroom.
-
Or, more appropriately, a hall monitor in front of a dorm room. The "he wouldn't understand, he's not into that kind of stuff," hoarding kind of mentality reminds of that. Perhaps that's reading FAR too much into things, but it's an idea. Hopefully I didn't help perpetuate a flurry of jokes about potsmoking in these movies. Either way, I'm done talking about them .....nnnnow.
-
...no need to get snippy. I said I agreed with you some time back. It will be interesting to see if PJ ever comments on it. Also, I think I'll ask some people who are definitely NOT tuned in to that sort of thing to see their take on it. You must acknowledge that we are sometimes wrong in our perceptions no matter how obvious they appear. That said, if it's found out that's indeed what PJ was doing, I think it was hilarious but it's also a sort of a double entendre and, to me, not really comparable to the
-
Nov 30, 2003 9:55:49 PM CST
For what it's worth, it looked like a pot smoking reference to m
by fluffyunbound
Silly Principal Treebeard.
-
Hey it
-
Morgoth, I am pleased to hear from you. Geddy's voice never bothered me, I just always thought "Wow! That dude can wail." Yeah, rock music would be innapropriate, although I sometimes think about it certain scenes. Especially when they show the Riders of Rohan. Pure Norwegian Black Metal. While I'm no longer a dumb-assed teen, I still love Led Zeppelin, and get a little chuckle from all the Tolkien references. But I'll refrain from further mentioning this, for fear of riling the more fevered Ringworms. They'll snap into ya like a SlimJim if it even smells like you're making light of this saga. Talk about a therapy market in the making! Lighten up, Professors. Feel the soothing winds of the 21st Century. If you think anything's still sacred, you need a C.A.T. scan. Damn, Morg. I was shocked to discover you didn't read any other fantasy.*** Ribbons, I haven't listened to the commentary track on the SEE yet, but for my part, I've never picked up on any knowing, tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink moments in the Rings movies. But, hey, it's well established by now that I have a pretty good tolerance for the anchronistic jokes. To me, Middle-earth kind of transcends that sort of thing. Absolutely. Gollum is an extraordinary achievement of both technical execution and spot-on performance.*** Lord save us from pathetic, desperate little trolls.*** Hey ya, Snaga! Good to hear from you, and once again, you put the haters to shame with your concise observations.*** Elanor, I think you hit the nail right on the head there. This applies to many movies, but especially this series: If you want to read something into it, I assure you, you will find it. Drug abuse allegories, homosexual relationships, racial strife, parallels to Naziism, the negative aspects of the industrial revolution, the horrors of war, playa-hatin', alla dat. Hello? Hairs? Splitting? Forgive me if I refer to LotR as fantasy. I mean it in the best possible way! Now, here's the thing: My buddy the esteemed BladeRunnerUnit remarked in one of the other TBs that Gimli's "axe in his nervous system" line was wildly anachronistic in this middle ages type world. Lord, I don't know why I'm doing this, but- Tolkien denied that magic had much to do with his world. He made a point of saying that the term "wizard" meant something entirely different from sorceror or magician. True, he could be a little vague, but aside from the actual supernatural powers of the Elves and folks like Gandalf and Saruman, a lot of the architectural genius of the Dwarves, and the medicinal (and forensic!) skills of Aragorn, suggest highly advanced knowledge. Phew! I hope that made sense. I rarely go to these lengths to explain something, but thought it was worth a shot. 'Cause man, I get tired of hearing people gripe about these piddling things. It only alienates goobers like me who enjoyed it and thought nothing of it.
-
First time poster, long time reader. I feel as though I actually know some of you people by now! I've read many different opinions here since before the movies began till now. One which strikes me how many people think of Gimli. He's been ragged on quite bit especially after Towers. I personally agree with their portayal of him. Think about it. he's the one most trying to fit in with the fellowship and his surroundings. The guy's used to his own kind. Aragorn grew up with elves-legolas has had dealings with men-Boromir hangs with aragorn- the hobbits are the type to get along with anybody and so is Gandalf. But Gimli has a serious inferiority problem hanging with this group. At home he's royalty, never deals with anyone outside of the dwarves and is the same hieght as everyone else. Outside of the mountain he's the embassador of his race. And he's short. Point is they portay him as trying way to hard to fit in with the tall guys which leads to his at times bumbling behavior. Makes sense? yeah, no?
-
Totally agree,that was about the only thing i didnt like about Movie-Gollum.And his fingers are too thick.And they do make him a bit too strong a fighter,he's supposed to be a wreck that knifes people from behind.But give Serkis an oscar please,he is fantastic....................................And Rush would have been good in the movie.The voice of Geddy Lee is a perfectly middle-earth-trubadourish.And they could even use the heavy-rock songs for the battles and chases...only they would have had to do it all on accoustic guitars and fiddles.If you dont think that combination can be heavy then listen to Hedningarna.Would have been so much better than Boring Shoring...........................Peter Jackson,finish what you started,forget about Ding Dong and do The Hobbit!Now!
-
I don't like the fact that he's been cut from Return, but allthis hate coming from some of you about this one. MorG, sounds like you wanted to hop a plane and give PJ five across the eyes. Talk of disrespect to Lee and such. The way I see it is the actors are contracted to play their parts. What happens to the footage afterwards is out of thier hands and they shouldn't complain with the decisions made. They got paid(much more than most of us will ever see!) and its out of their hands. Frankly, I believe if the film makers think this is the best, than I say we trust thier judgement. They've given us arguably the best version us fans could have ever even hoped to see. And we all know the EE is the true movie anyway. Lets not rag on these filmakers! God bless PJ!
-
I guess those posts gave off a kind of argumentative tone, but believe me, there's no hard feelings, especially over something as stupid as an open-ended joke.
-
I'm not a Rush fan at all but ill give them a few good songs. I don't think their music or any thing they could compose should have been involved in making these movies. I thought Shores score was amazing but I also think other composers could have done just as well- maybe better. maybe. But Rush, I don't think so.
-
Thank you, Irritable, for letting me know where I stand. Glad you enjoyed my post. The secret ingredient... is care. Just as you are entitled to your opinion, I was simply expessing mine. And while I didn't exactly have you in mind, okey-dokey, Pokey. If you want to take it personal (guilty conscience?), it's no skin off my ass. Duh. Some people ARE a bit too heavy, gettin' into a tizzy over a dwarf burping. Jay-zuss. And it wouldn't kill them to take the ego down a couple thousand notches ("Hey, I've got more degrees than a rectal thermometer and speak thirty-squirty languages." Great! But didja LIKE the movie?). I read the posts because, hey, some of them are actually interesting, and I consider several people who come here friends. Even when I disagree with them, I respect them. Look, not that it's any of your concern, but I was irritated (heh) by some stuff I'd read in past weeks, put off by the air of self-congratulatory superiority. My bad, okay? No excuses. That's just my personal thang and I'll avoid it in the future. Can ya find it in yer heart to forgive me? To anybody else I offended, what can I say? Either it just doesn't apply to you, or the truth hurts. Nuttin' but love, man. And hey, thanks Morgoth, for taking what I said in the spirit it was intended. I was just making an observation, but I knew the risks involved. I am the imp after all, and no way in hell is everybody going to think "Hey, we DO sound full of ourselves sometimes!" I ain't mad at ya.
-
Always glad to see a new poster who likes the movies! A fine defense of Gimli and one that he long deserved. But get ready to do battle with Orson!!!!***
Devil's Own, I took your post as friendly in house mocking. You and irritable were just living up to your names I think. 8~)***
As for "nervous system", it doesn't bother me so terribly but I would have preferred
"spine" as BRU suggested. PJ does love his gags and lor bless him but he deserves to please himself a little after 7 and a 1/2 years of work. Good god that's a long time! Did anybody read the latest new on TORN about how he shipped one finished reel at a time so that he could keep making things better down to the last second?
He is right now, watching his fully completed film for the first time.***Well, enough writing for tonight. I will look for the dawn for dawn has ever been the hope of men. (only morG knows what I mean, heh heh) -
...because I watched that Ent stooping over the doorway, and wasn't even sure if it was Treebeard from that distance or some other Ent, nor did I associate the scene with an authority figure catching anyone out. Just assumed an Ent was curious what they were doing in there, or checking for more orcs.... But then, I was unoffended by both dwarf tossing and shield surfing, for reasons I have elaborated elsewhere - take away our cultural references, and the one can be simple pride and the other utility. As for "nervous system" - well, I'd rather he'd said "brain." As for the Forbidden Pool, I never read (in book or film) any significance to the pool being "forbidden" other than to keep the secret of the hide-out. It must have been well within the perimeter of their pickets, and had a sight-line to the waterfall over the cave, which might have made a busy brain think. ***And since I did use the word "no-nobilization" (though I am reasonably sure I was not the first) I must raise my hand as being at least one of DO's targets, though there have certainly been longer and more scholarly posts than mine on display. At any rate, my response would still be: if someone's words don't interest you, or their posts are too long or repetitive, don't read them (though I do think there have been some rather long off-topic ones lately, when there is so much to discuss ON-topic). Just as with LOTR itself, passages that are particularly disliked by some are "specially approved" by others; if you don't like what's being discussed or the tone of the discussion, skip over to what you like. ***To some extent, this also relates to any criticism that Tolkien could have used a bit of editing, or was an amateur writer (in the more denigrating sense). Anyone who had tried to "fix" the book would have ended up leaving out bits that are by others best-beloved. For every reader who wants to skip to the hobbits, there are others who want to skip to the Men. For every reader who wants to leave out the long descriptions of trees and gulleys and moon rises, there are others who drink in those descriptions as making the very flavor of the book. Never mind editors - sometimes a writer doesn't know his own best work (Conan Doyle being the classic example). I'm sure one of these days, someone will put out an abbreviated Tolkien, but I won't want to read it (even though I'm always very impatient to get back to Frodo).
-
Dec 01, 2003 12:23:04 AM CST
"a new Legolas drop your jaw I just did not see that moment." E
by hipcheck13
...ye gods.
-
D.o.T., it
-
*Nobody* (at least nobody I know) could "keep up" with the great bass-players of that heroic age. I meant to say "stopped following".
-
Irritable, I am so over this. I'll be a big boy and say I meant some things I said. But, it wasn't invective directed at anyone in particular ( Once again, very perceptive, Elanor). It's not much of an excuse, but as morGoth once said, sometimes you get something festering in your mind. And when you're not feeling 100%, you may comment on it. Never a good idea, but it happens. It's complete coincidence that I quoted a couple words you used, sorry for the misunderstanding. Live and learn. And dear DoT, I wasn't lying in the past when I said I found thte posts of people like you and morGoth fascinating. I'm sorry you would ever think otherwise, perhaps I just strike a wrong chord with you. As you have suggested, I do just that: I try to skim past the meandering, off-topic posts. Later.
-
I also never took away a sense that Treebeard was The Man about to bust Merry and Pippin for smoking pipeweed. He probably just thought the whole notion of smoking is really strange. You can kind of see his point. Anyway, there's been lots of reviews, but I need MORE. I always need more... in other news, I heard from someone that agreed with me about Frodo's wussification (they're a SW fan) that his courage is ramped up a bit in ROTK, so I remain cautiously optimistic.
-
And your frustrated comments reminded me why those geniuses of the TB, Snaga Ape and Jagaurt, are so great. Short and funny. Cheers.
-
Dec 01, 2003 8:29:55 AM CST
"this new films, which WOULD HAVE NEVER EXISTED if Lucas hadn
by minderbinder
Funny one. And I wouldn't say that BTTF 2/3 showed anything positive about cliffhangers. Neither did as well as the original, and people BOOED the ending of 2.
-
I knew I was boring someone.... Although, I was serious with that question, irritable! Hrm. ----- OK, (picking nits) I know this is coming at it backwards and all, but there is a simple proof that the wraith did not see the ring at Osgiliath. He didn't stop and take it! However one reasons out why he didn't see it, he didn't (and I really have no trouble finding reasons for myself). So, Sauron won't perceive any inconsistancies with the ring traveling in funny loops and whorls on its way to Minas Tirith. Of course, you can think that the presentation of this is poorly done and overly obscure, but that's a different criticism. ------- For what it's worth, I didn't get an MJ vibe from the pipeweed episode either. ----- I was thinking of how to define LotR, in terms of its narrative form (at severe risk of boring folks again, I'm afraid). I think what Tolkien did was actually merge at least 2 genres by having two sets of heroes following two sets of arcs at the same time, the hobbits which are "ordinary folks" (although T said only Sam was representative of a typical hobbit)and the elves and men who are epic heroes. Tolkien himself referred to it as Romance, and I think Aragorn's story fits that, but the hobbits don't. They have a much more modern story to tell, part bildungsroman and part modern exploration of evil, death, war, mercy, desperation and the human struggle. What is so brilliant is that he was able to merge the two almost seamlessly _because_ the hobbits are so out of place outside of the Shire. Probably another thing he would have been warned off of if 'professionals' had had editorial control. ---- Apologies if this is dull, I finally got DSL (after 3 months of major headaches trying to get a working cable modem), so I'm reveling a little.
-
but does anyone else think the Wilhelm Scream was used at Helm's Deep? I could've sworn one of the elves gave that distinctive holler while diving off the wall.
-
Dec 02, 2003 7:48:47 AM CST
AAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
by thegodfather
I think I'd make a huge "holler" if I fell off a huge fucking wall!
-
Dec 02, 2003 9:50:15 AM CST
Thank you, the godfather, for the stretching out the talkback. F
by mortsleam
What a way to make my triumphant return. Hmph.
-
It sounds awesome. 1 and 2 were cool. I could care less if the movies are different from the books. FOTR the book was kinda boring, TTT and ROTK weren't as boring. My standing on trilogies:
1.Matrix (cool), Matrix Reloaded (cooler), Matrix Revolutions (awesome until the end).
2. FOTR (cool), TTT (Awesome), ROTK (?)
3. Star Wars: ANH (cool), ESB (awesome), ROTJ (awesome) -
For as much as you participated in the linguistic debate, I think Devil's Own comments were mostly aimed at me. Talk of denobilisation, boasting about speaking thirty-squirty languages, and all that happening within the last few weeks... yes, I think that's me. And while I did offer an apology for all my off-topic posting back in the old tackback, it seems I didn't apologise hard enough for Devil's Own. So here goes, Devil's Own: I'm really, awfully, frightfully sorry for sounding like a prat, and I'll humbly try to keep the language stuff to a minimum from now on. All right now, mate? All right now, Daughter of Time? For I don't think you were very pleased with my last few contributions to the old talkback, either. Really, I'm sorry, guys. Or girls.
-
Dec 02, 2003 12:49:51 PM CST
Howdy back at you, Cutest (even though I'm probably one of the w
by elaine
And as for a subject of discussion... er, what about the soundtrack? I finally got my copy a few days ago (after a surprisingly long and initially fruitless search), and have begun to familiarise myself with it. I particularly love the last ten seconds of track 11 (Shelob's Lair) and the ending to track 15 (The Black Gate Opens). Terrific dramatic stuff, that. Pippin's song and "Into the West" are great, too (despite Annie Lennox' voice being rather too harsh, I think), and I actually had tears running down my cheeks the first time I heard "The Grey Havens", which is appropriately, heart-breakingly melancholy. If a mere melody can make me that emotional, then what, I wonder, will happen when I see the same music accompanied by images on December 17? I'll probably be bathing in tears. Thankfully I don't think there's anything wrong with that. **** As for nit-picking about the way the book has been adapted, I've obviously done my share of nit-picking in the past few weeks (a-hem!), but I'm trying to come to terms with my peeves. And surprisingly enough, AICN talkbackers have been instrumental in that process. There have lately been a few posters who have defended the way Jackson and co. have turned the rather flat Faramir and Gimli of the books into more dramatic or at least more understandable characters, and to my great surprise I've actually come to agree with some of the points they've made. There probably wasn't much else a film-maker could have done with Faramir and Gimli. Mind you, that doesn't prevent me from finding many of Jackson's Gimli jokes extremely crude, but hey, maybe I'll get over that, too. If I read enough of those talkbacks, maybe I'll actually turn into a Gimli fan at some point... Nah, not bloody likely. But anyway, you get my point. I'm trying, Cutest, I'm trying!
-
You couldn't have proved your lack of interest in the recent language debate in a more convincing manner, Cutest. For if you'd actually read half of my posts in the other talkback, you would have known I'm Dutch, not English. But no offence taken, my friend. I'm quite an anglophile myself, and I do indeed speak the Queen's English with that lovely posh Oxbridge accent that you Americans (I assume you're American...?) either love or love to joke about. And I adore "The Young Ones" as much as you do, it seems. **** Now, what's your take on the soundtrack? Brilliant, isn't it?
-
None whatsoever. Truth be told, I found your slip rather funny, and a good measure of how exceedingly dull all that language talk must have been to you and others. And anyway, as a person who has made her share of dumb, tactless, indiscreet and downright offensive remarks (in recent talkbacks as well as in real life), I have little reason to upbraid others for little slips, haven't I? As for familiarising yourself with a soundtrack beforehand, I didn't buy the "Fellowship" and "Two Towers" soundtracks before watching the film, but I've made an exception this time round because I needed SOMETHING to satisfy my curiosity with, and because I've found that I actually get more emotionally involved in a film if I know the music. There's something about the anticipation of certain bits of music, about the ability to mentally supply the notes that are still to come, which helps me get into the story more, the same way that a familiarity with the images sometimes helps you appreciate them more. I guess you could call it the joy of anticipation. But to each his own, eh? At any rate, you needn't worry about this soundtrack; while it's less accessible than either the "Fellowship" of "Two Towers" soundtrack, it does feature some extremely beautiful stand-alone bits (the flute in "The Black Gate Opens"! Aw, man!) as well as some pieces that I don't care much for right now but which I'm sure will go brilliantly with the images. It's dark, it's sad, and equal bits glorious and melancholy - in other words, exactly as it should be. Now bring on the film...
-
I personally have found the linguistic dissertations absolutely fascinating. What better way to honor the memory of a man who turned his own fascination with language into a remarkable work of art? *** And sorry to all you Rush-o-philes, but there
-
We get "The Return of the King" on the 17th, and I plan to see it on that day, along with most of you lot. And anyway, I don't mind spoilers. Quite the contrary. I find it quite interesting to watch a film with everything I've heard about it in the back of my mind. It helps me compare my own reactions to the film with others'. I can see why others would want to see a film completely unspoiled, and compare their reactions with those of others afterwards, but I generally prefer to know what to expect when I walk into a cinema. Weird, eh?
-
I'd like to add something I just mentioned to morGoth in an e-mail. When I first heard Annie Lennox was singing "Into the West" I was apprehensive. Not because I dilike her singing, in fact I think she has a remarkable voice, but she just didn't seem to fit. Truth be told, I was holding out in vain dufusyteII like hope that Enya would be called back for one more time. But alas, it wasn't meant to be. And then I heard the 20 second clip from the soundtrack review and I thought my fears were realized. But after having listened to the soundtrack four times (once with the CD player hooked up to my Christmas tree lights!) I can honestly say it's an amazing song. A great use of Tolkien's words. I'm misting up as I type this. It's going to be hard to make it through this movie with my protective ironic detachment in tact. *** And to settle a bit of controversy from an earlier Tailend: the proper chronological order of Tailender appearances goes: The Fab Five (Plus luminaries ranging from Vanyar to Pippin's Diamond to JD,) then Conan, then Alice, then me, then Runelord and Xyxan, then all of your interlopers -- Bean and cutest, I'm lookin' at you! (;{= Although I've been lurking since late 1999 and posted a handful of times as "mortsleam" in aught-aught before I became the Walrus in time for Fellowship, then got banned and returned to my old handle, then got banned again. Which brings us up to date. Anyone still awake? *** By the way, Runey, if you're around, I'm doing fine. Thanks for your concern. There doesn't seem to be any permanent scarring on my face, and my right has only one pale white patch of new skin. I'm still afraid to get near a stick of pasta though. Not even elbow macaroni...
-
I'm glad you're back for the assurance that you actually found the linguistic stuff interesting alone! But just for the record, I agree that the notion of a rock band (any rock band, no matter how brilliant) providing the music for a fantasy epic (for that is what I will call it, no matter how degrading some of you appear to find the term "fantasy") is absurd. The result would have been absolutely aaaaawful. I'm rather surprised no one invited Lisa Gerrard to the party, though. She's done some brilliant soundtracks in the past, and I think her voice would have suited "Into the West" much better than Annie Lennox'. Although I do agree with Daughter of Time that Lennox' delivery of the song improves upon acquaintance. I'm actually beginning to find the song quite haunting now.
-
Here we were, writing about Annie Lennox at the same time, and apparently with the same idea: that one gets used to the song after a few times, and then begins to love it. It IS quite a haunting song. I only heard it for the first time the day before yesterday, and now I can't get it out of my head. I keep humming it, and will probably keep on doing so until well after I've seen the film. It does seem to be that kind of song. Still, I think I would have preferred the Lisa Gerrard version of it. More so than Enya's.
-
No time for catching up too much, need sleep urgently! I will say that Into The West grew on me the first few time I listened to it, but since I quite liked it on first listen, I now thinks it's absolutely wonderful! Far better than May It Be and at least as good as Gollum's Song. Other notes, Gondorian Theme at full power is wonderful, another great theme (after Fellowship and Rohan themes). Billy Boyd and Viggo Mortensen did great. Minas Morgul, with it's HUGE versions of Sauron's and the Black Riders' themes from previous themes (obviously for the Witch King) send shivers down my spine. The bittersweet moments throughout the later tracks (The
Fields Of The Pelennor, The End Of All Things, The Grey Havens), including the few bars scattered around of the main Into The West melody really excite me, I can already feel the mood of the ending of the film, and it's going to be magnificent in it's glory and it's melancholy. Love the little touch of the as-yet-heard-nowhere-else melody from the Misty Mountains (during the attempt on the pass of Caradhras) being repeated in the Mountains of Shadow, in some of the early Frodo/Sam/Gollum tracks. ---------- Sorry I've been away guys, had a hectic weekend, and when I found no less than FIVE LOTR TB's on the go, I couldn't find where you'd all settled down quickly enough! I've only scanned back a few posts, but I regret not being here to chat with you all, cutest and Elaine in particular. Anyhoo, goodnight all, and I'll speak to you tomorrow! (Given the time difference, I'll probably do all my catching up - and hopefully a bit of chatting with you Elaine - before most of you guys are out of bed, so don't be surprised if you come here tomorrow and find a mountain of Beanisms!) :) -
Dec 02, 2003 7:58:40 PM CST
To The Talkbacker Who Said Prog Rock Died in the 70's
by roger thornhill
...it evolved into speed metal in the 80s with Metallica and has continued even to this day with groups like Tool. Prog rock is hardly dead, it just got a bit harder and faster.
-
Thank you kindly, mortsleam, but you give this simple barkeep far too much credit. I am generally in awe of my learned betters! That being said, I'll issue a voucher for a free round of drinks and a lap dance at the Orcette Tickle Bar with your name on it. *** Elaine - welcome to Tailenders (belated, yes, but I've been far too busy lurking to mind my manners!) and I truly enjoyed the linguistic discussions. Off topic? Maybe, but isn't that what happens when friends talk? The conversation evolves and branches out. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Who are the fab five again? I don't mind that you missed me out of your list, BUT I was a TEer before Miami and Pallando (well at least back when Pallando was 'Uh..Clem'). Anyhoo... I was interested to see that PJ said the most difficult part of the whole filming process was his frustration at his own lack of imagination. He said there were times during the filming when at the end of the day he would feel that he had shot TV on that day and the exhaustion and stress was having an adverse affect on his imagination and creativity.
-
And thank you very much for your kind words of support. I had a feeling if anybody here was gonna understand me, it would be you! Lordy sakes, I think I still got a little ass left. I know what you mean. Sometimes it's very exasperating, what with everybody jockeying for position of Supreme Cosmopolitan Know-It-All. Note to fellow Tailenders: This DOES NOT refer to you! (Remember kids, a little CYA policy never hurts.) Fer instance, how do you like Dr. Wrong's review talkback (or as it has now become known, the Contemporary Theology and You Seminar)? Grrr... And it's not like I'm narrow-minded, or jealous. The only people I'm jealous of are cats who can do Christopher Walken impressions! And I care just as much as the next tailender about the quality of these films. For example, I understand the absence of rock 'n roll in the movies. I would never want them to border on parody. And like you, I have good will towards our friends across the pond (Brit chicks make my blood boil!). Ofcourse, with ambassadors like Raw Bean, that's easy. There is a chap who can be dignified, engaging, witty, and humble all at the same time. AH!! Hey, Bean! Didn't see ya there... heh. Mortsleam, welcome back. Uuuhmmm... that stuff you mentioned... isn't that like New Age/ Electronica? AAAAAHHH! That's the Devil's music!! And I don't mean in a good way!! Kidding! Loving! Now, Tenacious D, that's more like it! They would fuckin' rock all of Middle-earth!! YEA-HA-HAH!!! If it's consolation to anybody, I'm sure I'll be scarce here as the 17th draweth nigh. I'm a creature of superstition, as irrational as that sounds in this day and age, and I pretty much steered clear of this site during the last two films, for fear of it ruining my groove. We'll see. And then my other concern is, when it's all over I guess we'll see each other in different talkbacks. Perhaps, we can have a tailender reunion when the RotK SEE DVD comes out!
-
... 5 LOTR TB's going on at once and some douche bag stretches out the one where the Tailenders have congregated!? I'm so confused, *blink* can we move? *** Oh, Hi everyone, kind of typed out for now, read it all, umm, 'what's the thread' as they say? No good trollers, no, no fissshes either...
-
You always know how to cheer me up! G'night.
-
Well, you may know all the languages, but _I'm_ the one who posts the thousand word treatises! I've really got to learn to reign it in.... And now, of course, a response to one of MY posts leads to the Stretching of the Talk Back (add a little reverb there). Regarding all the new reviews coming out and all LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!!! I already know too much for my own good and don't want to know ANY MORE.
-
I was cornered by Frogstar Fighters and had nothing at all to fight them with, not an electronic sausage. :)
-
"I have good will towards our friends across the pond (Brit chicks make my blood boil!). Ofcourse, with ambassadors like Raw Bean, that's easy. There is a chap who can be dignified, engaging, witty, and humble all at the same time." Thank you for the kind words, I'm just happy to come here and talk with such intelligent, friendly people as yourself and all the other Tailenders. Even that little scamp Pippin, with his lack of interest in linguistics (though a lot of it was a bit beyond me, I'm afraid, Devil's Own and cutest, I must apologise for contributing to extending the linguistic discussion considerably; I found it fascinating (don't feel bad Elaine, I enjoyed the talk and am as much to blame as you if it bored others), and his excellent taste in comedy. The Young Ones AND Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, good show! What do you think of Hitch Hiker's Elaine?
-
Dec 03, 2003 6:28:04 AM CST
The most absurd thing I've ever read was said by someone called
by raw_bean
In defence of Bakshi's LOTR, and specifially responding to the criticism of having Gimli taller than Legolas, he said somehting like 'when did Dwarf ever impy stature?'. Oh the chuckles.
-
Incidentally, thanks for coming to look for me on those other TBs Elaine.
-
This may be an old debate that I enter late, but I have to ask, why do you guys (and girl) insist that Tolkien
-
At the risk of saying something absolutely unbelievable, I haven
-
Dec 03, 2003 8:02:01 AM CST
Since it seems OK to bring up some linguistic stuff every now an
by elaine
... I
-
First off, JD: if you posted a little more often, you wouldn
-
He of the pointy blue head, er, HAT, has dispatched "THE BOOK" to Austin!(To Shards-of-Narsil, or directly to Harry, I'm not quite sure at the moment). Alas, the dear Istar wordsmith has gone on 'sabaticool' and will not be joining us on the TBs for a while. He sends his regards to all the Tail Enders, but is going to avoid the ROTK AICN reviews until he has seen it for himself.
Namarie Mellyn, Trubba Not, 'I'narr en gothrim glinuva nuin I'anor!' SM{;-0 -
... not 'Ponsting', an I wudnt come near 5 faggers of that mummeling littl weak link Moaters. Whered yget that idear? Now Riddley, THER were a connexions man! I ben reading the talk backs and I thinkit that the new an bes wielder of TATOW myte be Devils Own. Its ben a terble wait aroun my froat and Im reddy to pass the filfy thing on to some 1 elsers. Dyou pirntout hes hevvy enuff, Tail End Crowd whats gathert here?
-
Technially, LOTR + Sil are fantasy. However, Tolkien wrote them (Sil more than LOTR) in an attempt to create (or almost, RE-create) a mythology, or at least, a work of fiction that resembled a mythology. I think he would have liked to aim for having the Sil able to be picked up by an uninformed reader, have them fall for the literary conceit that Tolkien had merely translated long-handed down tales and poems, and for the reader to completely believe that this was a compendium of collected works from some Northern European (or specifically English) mythology. If you read the History Of Middle Earth series, particularly book 5: The Lost Road And Other Writings, you will see that because of Tolkiens beliefs in sub-creation and racial memory, he half-believed he wasn't 'creating' a pseudo-mythology, so much as remembering one. (Sub-creation was his theory that since the creation by God, all humans had an inherent desire to recreate or re-enact the story of creation in their own stories, hence the similar themes that run through mythologies (getting back to Joiseph Campbell!), as all mythologies were just some kind of fuzzy race-memory of the 'true' mythology, of Genesis and the Fall of Man.) In The Lost Road, he was going to connect his own invented mythology to others (in the midst of telling a very intersting, yet never finished, time-travel story that I wish he had finished). One example being that of Numenor, whose downfall was going to be told in the Atalante (with umlaut on the e; don't know how to do funny charaters!), or 'Downfall' in Sindarin. Here he was giving the sketchy real world myths of Atlantis a root in his own mythology, and even an Elvish root for it's name! He occasionally had dreams that he felt were of the fall of Atlantis/Numenor, where he was in a strange land that was drowned in a massive wave. He gave this dream to the characters in his book, where it was passed down through the generations from those that actually experienced the catastrophe. This is why his writing is unique. It is not meant to be read as though it is real, and is really happening, but is meant to be taken as an invented mythology, which like all mythology, is merely a genetic echo of the events of Creation in the minds of humans. All of this applies more to the Sil than LOTR, because the Sil is pure invented mythology, whereas LOT was meant to be a sequel to the Hobbit, a simple fantasy novel, but Tolkien couldn't keep his invented mythology from keeping into LOTR. This is why I feel that LOTR is such a wonderful book. I love the mythological romance of the Sil, but combined with a ripping good fantasy novel yarn, you achieve fantasy nirvana in LOTR, for me at least. ----- As for Hitch Hiker's, it's a great book, as are the first three sequels. I must confess to rather detesting the 5th book though, and I'm not alone. Incidentaly, I doubt you'd have any easy way to get hold of them, but the two radio series were even better than the books, and the TV series was quite good as well. -- And no, you're not the only one, "Across the seeeeaaaaa, A pale moon risehhhhhs, the ship have come, to carry you hoooooooooome!"
-
I just don't know where that came from. Perhaps I'm getting whiplash from trying to keep up with five ROTK Talkbacks simultaneously...
-
Dec 03, 2003 1:57:23 PM CST
Was it Mostly Harmless (book 5) that had the invinvible forces o
by raw_bean
Been a while now. Anyway, the crikkit stuff was ace, so if that's in Mostly Harmless I'd still say it was worth a read.
-
Thanks for your lengthy, detailed and very informative reply. It seems we both agree that technically, at least, Tolkien
-
I firmly believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure. I live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief.
-
Dec 03, 2003 4:02:33 PM CST
Good one BG. HGTTG: I love it. Do you froogs know where your tow
by skyway moaters
Heh!
-
Elaine, I know exactly what you mean. LotR feels like a novel. Sil feels like history (cohesive narrative and all that). BUT, if you want something that feels like the mythological and oral tradition which has gaps and missing bits, try The Book of Lost Tales pieces. Messy, inconsistant, names change, threads are lost and found again. TOTALLY different.
-
Dec 03, 2003 6:19:48 PM CST
I turn my back on the TBs for a couple of weeks and you guys sta
by sabster
Hello and and a very belated welcome, Elaine! You
-
Great. Excellent. That's what I call mythology! Thanks, Djinnj. I'll give the "Lost Tales" a try when I'm done with "Neverwhere", "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide" and the countless other books I should have read when I was eighteen (although, to be fair, "Neverwhere" hadn't been published when I was eighteen). Aaargh.
-
Thanks for confirming that the word "kankeren" doesn't exist in German. I was beginning to wonder whether German slang had undergone some major revisions since I last learned any! As for Germanifying/Dutchifying the names of the characters, our translator seems to have done that, too. Took is "Toek" in Dutch, and Brandybuck "Brandebok". And now that you mention it, the name Baggins has indeed been changed to "Balings" in Dutch (for no reason that I can see; as far as I know, "Balings" doesn't mean anything), and Gamgee has been turned into "Gewissies", which is a very old-fashioned expression for "certain". **** As for the pronunciation of the Dutch IJ... the closest thing to it is the German EI, but it's slightly different. I can't really tell you what it sounds like as it doesn't seem to exist in any other language. Rather like our EU and UI, which I think are unique to Dutch, too. And don't get me started on our SCH, which seems to give you guys huge trouble. :-) **** And just to stir up some friendly rivalry: how come we always get to play you guys in the early stages of major football championships? There's just no getting away from you, is there...?
-
It's funny, Elaine, that you say that your Dutch translation translates only a few names, and usually literally. I say this because there is a strongly expressed letter (not at all vulgar, but he was clearly NOT pleased) from Tolkien to Allen & Unwin in '56 about the changes a translator had made. From the letter: "_In principle_ I object as strongly as possible to the 'translation' of the _nomenclature_ at all (even by a competent person). I wonder why a translator should think himself called on or entitled to do any such thing. That this is an 'imaginary' world does not give him any right to remodel it according to his fancy, even if he could in a few months create a new coherent structure which it took me years to work out." (p. 249-250, letter #190, Carpenter, Houghton Mifflen, 2000) He goes into more detail and then says: "May I say now at once that I will _not_ tolerate any similar tinkering with the _personal nomenclature_. Nor with the name/word _Hobbit_. I will not have any more _Hompen_ (in which I was not consulted), nor any _Hobbel_ or what not. Elves, Dwarfs/ves, Trolls, yes: they are mere modern equivalents of the correct terms. But _hobbit_ (and _orc_) are of that world, and they must stay, whether they sound Dutch or not....." (251) In the letter, he says he enclosed a detailed commentary on the list of changes, and he volunteers in several letters to help translators figure out what is translatable, what the origins of the terms were for him (so they could get a better grip on how they should handle it) and possible analogues. I wonder if anyone actually took him up on the offer! This also makes me wonder why "Shelob" wasn't left alone as a proper name in your edition. Or, if change was considered absolutely necessary by the publisher and since the roots of the name refer to a female spider, why it wasn't reconstructed using the analogues of those roots. Hrm.
-
I just re-read your post, Elaine, and realized that I conflated the German doc versus the Dutch edition. D'oh!
-
heh. Doh! With an alternate spelling of D'oh! is in the OED. The etymology is a hoot.
-
it's precisely BECAUSE mythology survives only in fragmented, confused forms that Tolkien wanted to make his own up. Specifically, since the Norman invasion basically wiped out any major Enlish (Anglo-Saxon) mythology from English culture (and left English mythology with little more than the Arthurian legends, which are a mish mash of a French story and a possible historical Romano-British King, and Robin Hood, which I have an especial loathing for as my name is Robin [Raw-Bean, geddit?], leading to unceasing teasing right through my childhood!), so Tolkien wanted to create his own mythology for the English people. It would be ironic if the sketchy and incomplete version of the Silmarillion mythology contained in the Book of Lost Tales (the first two volumes of the History of Middle Earth) seemed more like real mythology to you because of the degradation and loss of real mythology over the years leading to it being in a similar state. Whatever; as far as I'm concerned, the Silmarillion is a truly great and beautiful representaion of a mythology, even if a fake one (you say the Sil reads like history djinnj; even the Ainulindal
-
Your ALWAYS correcting me bean! *snif* Right you are though: FROOD not FROOG, it's be years. So, shall I assault you with, erm, read you some Vogon poetry now? Or would you rather just jam the three foot long tabasco soaked knitting needles in your eyes right now and get it over with? Or, I suppose, you could just chug a pan-galactic-gargle-blaster (probably got THAT wrong too), stuff your towel in your ears, (be sure to extract the poor innocent Babel Fish first), and hope for the best...
-
However I don't think I've done anything to warrant a recital of "Ode To A Lump Of Green Putty I Found In My Armpit One Morning" (hope I haven't gone and got that wrong, it's been years for me too!). The very fact that you can still function enough to correctly write 'pan-galactic-gargle-blaster' means you've obviously never had one (although obviously neither have I)! And if you must persist in threats against my person, I'll be forced to unleash my trained Ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast Of Traal on you! ---- And now to bed!
-
Oh my! Moaters! Didn't we have fun with the trolls today, eh? Sometimes I just get in a mood and today was the day.***Hello you wonderful people! I am dreadfully disappointed that Harry is still ignoring me. Oh well.***I must apologize to all for having spoilers in my review. I got yelled at by MPG for it and have sent e-mails to TORN to put up a warning.***
Kudos to Elaine for gathering the faithful here. But can we get Ingold to fix the stretching?***As for fantasy/myth Elaine, I'm not really really serious, I just get tired of people putting it down and sometimes I think it's because the fantasy label tends to mislead people who have a knee-jerk reaction against it. I am always trying to get folk to pick up the books and that is one way that has been successful for me. I think I concentrate on its relation to myth because that is closer to my experience of the work; having a creation story, sun and moon story, a strong connection between the gods and natural forces (Ulmo, Manwe, Aule) as well as the sense that one can draw life-lessons from its stories. And also partly because I know that's what Tolkien intended it to be. However I suppose calling it "myth" might lead people to think that I believe elves and hobbits used to live here, so I guess that's just as misleading!
Ultimately, I think of fantasy as an escape from reality and myth is a making sense of reality so you can deal with it.
I like both types of experiences. But I tend to like movie fantasy and book reality.***Pallando is definitely one of the Fab Five, even though he posted then as
Uh Clem. And Ingold and BG have been around here longer than I have I think. ***Walrus, uh mortsleam, I think you're right about Indy Clones being fett. Old trolls never die, eh? But Dufy wanted Loreena McKennit not Enya***OH! I nearly forgot! I am TOTALLY in love with "Into the West" now. Been humming it all day long. Totally, totally, totally adore it. Yay Annie Lennox! Yay lyrics! Yeay Howard Shore! -
Indeedy, raw_bean, you've caught the nub of it. It really is the the Quenta Silmarillion and the Akallabeth which read like history, whereas the Ainulindale and Valaquenta have clearly deliberate stylistic similarities to scriptural writing. But I was pondering this today in a different context. I was thinking about the lack of overt religion in LotR, and it occurred to me that in the stories we have a situation much closer to that of myth than modern history. Essentially, the Sil documents a time in which the 'angelic creatures' which shape the world exist within living memory (Galadriel's, for one). So the few rituals that exist in it or in LotR are not used in an attempt to influence the world (or one's self) but rather as an act of recognition and reverence, doing honor to beings that do not need to be invoked because they are present, as it were. This is all terribly simplistic, but I think you get my meaning. Now (back to history vs. myth), the thing with myth generally is that it is written with the gods as agents within a story in an unknowable past, and the stories are read allegorically. While they may have a literal interpretation, their vitality comes from the allegory, the updating into reapplication in the here and now. Modern historiography, however, is very different. It strives towards creating narrative interpretations of 'factual happenings' that exist 'objectively.' They are not intended to educate via allegorical reading but rather through realistic or literal reading (_this_ is what really happened, and so we must learn from it). Also, they create an illusion of "fly on the wall" observation, a "knowability" of the time examined. So, while the Sil is like myth in its components, it reads like history. On one hand because of the smooth narrative (as Elaine noted) which leaves out or glosses over gaps, and because its content is used literally rather than allegorically throughout Tolkien's novelistic writing. I'd better stop as this is getting terribly long! Too simplistic, but I think my "drift" is clear. Let me know if it's not!
-
Umm, shouldn't that be 'The Poster Formerly Known as Ingold'? Personally, I think he should resurrect Ingollum/Smeagold. He, uh, THEY were a riot.
-
13 hourish long episodes of flawless radio heaven. In New Zealand, quite a few of the key cast members were given the CDs to get the gist of the characters.
The acting is out of this world. Sam, voiced by Bill Nighy (look for him in Love Actually, playing a character called Billy Mack, also in Underworld playing Victor, the vampire boss) totally nails the character. As does Frodo, voiced by Ian Holm (Bilbo from the films).
The late, great Michael Horden as Gandalf.
A little known thesp, Robert Stevens gives a pitch perfect Aragorn.
You might be thinking I have a vested interest in posting this message, and you'd be right.
I'm interested in bringing to peoples attention an amazing radio play that every fan of the film should listen to.
-
but I don't totally agree about the Sil. It doesn't read like history to me because of it's high, romantic, poetic qualitites. As for allegory (or should that be applicability :) ), I think you could probably find some in there if you look hard enough. And the contents of the Quenta Silmarillion resemble on real world myths sometimes (and the Akallabeth is a telling of the myth of Atlantis!). The tale of Luthien and Beren for instance, I would say is no more or less allegorical than the real world myth of Perseus slaying Medusa the Gorgon. And you could compare the story of Turin Turambar to that of Oedipus, doomed by fate to have bad luck, and to sleep with his mother without knowing that was who she was, and to kill his father (Turambar slept with his sister without knowing who she was, and killed his best friend). Also, I'm pretty sure I read in the History of Middle Earth that the Tale of Turin is pretty much Tolkien re-telling in his own manner a real world legend, from some Scandinavian mythology I think (similar to how his story of Numenor is his own version of the Atlantis legend). I'm sure Christopher Tolkien wrote about a story that his father liked, with a doomed hero with a black sword that spoke to him and who slept unknowingly with his sister. ----- What you seem to be talking about when you say 'myths' are specifically fables. Yet you accept that the Ainulindal
-
I've often considered looking for that radio adaptation, and I think your glowing recommendation might have finally decided me. :)
-
"And the contents of the Quenta Silmarillion resemble ON real world myths sometimes" would have made a hell of a lot more sense without the ON. They merely 'RESEMBLE real world myths'.
-
Dec 04, 2003 5:53:52 AM CST
Didn't realise this TB was still alive ... been watching the may
by irritable
A bit like watching knife fights in a sewer full of boiling testosterone. Dr Ong may have to reconsider his career as an amateur film critic. Creationism and biblical fundamentalism are alive and kicking - though under fierce attack. A few classic posts from Snaga-ape, who has ripped a new one for Grimloch.*****Anyway, djinnj - I think you asked a question about the Great Vowel Shift. I'm not qualified to answer. But some writers say that the Shift began as early as the twelfth century. In view of Henry II's restructuring of english life with Normans taking over the estates and running the new bureaucracy, it's difficult to imagine that their language didn't eventually have a trickle-down effect on the "accents" of the conquered people. But if the Shift started as late as the fifteenth century, as some say, then something else was happening.****Elaine, don't apologise for the language posts. People can skip the stuff they don't like. As for Fantasy and mythology - the labels are a little arbitrary. "fantasy" writing involves imaginary, unrealistic, visionary elements - with no particular time frame. *** "Mythology" involves traditional stories, partly or wholly fictitious, underlying popular cultural and religious ideas. The time frame is pre-history.****"Fantasy" (with a capital F) is a pulp fiction genre involving "fantasy", occasionally "mythology", generally crappy writing and often involves plagiarism of Tolkien and a few other original writers. It's a label for book-shop owners. As Tolkien is nothing like Pratchett, he's not a Fantasy writer as far as I'm concerned******As for translations, Tolkien came up with all sorts of explanations for what he was doing. He said he was inventing a mythology for England. So it's fantastic mythology. The stories became so detailed and ordered that they turned into an imaginary pre-history of Northern Europe.****As I said to morGoth earlier, I take Tolkien's explanations with a grain of salt. I think he was just writing the sort of book he would love to read - as he and CS Lewis famously said. That's why the LotR and the Silmarillion are so eccentric, unique, profound and fascinating. Who cares if the prose style isn't always impeccable, or that there's too much exposition, or that the guy is old-fashioned or even unsophisticated about a whole range of things. The merits hugely outweigh the shortcomings.****As for translations, as djinnj pointed out, "names" were hugely important to Tolkien and he hated people tinkering with them for translation purposes. The conceit was that LotR was itself a careful translation into English from a foreign language. But not all names were translations, some remained in the "original" languages. The hobbits
-
Terry Pratchett isn't a Fantasy author, he writes Satire. His excellent and hilarious satirical comedies just happen to hide under a thin veneer of Fantasy. His works are no more Fantasy books than Monty Python's Life Of Brian is a religious film! ---------- And you meant 'imitation' or 'copying', not 'plagiarism'. I don't think I've found a Fantasy novel yet, no matter how derivative of LOTR it is, that has whole passages copied verbatim from Tolkien's work! :)
-
It's a treat. I'm quite evangelical about spreading the word. I really like the films. I was yabbering like a coked-up howler monkey as the days slowly ticked away to their release dates.
But the fact remains that the characterisation in the radio play is much, much better.
The actors in the radio play deliver their lines in a much more natural, matter of fact way (when it's appropriate), and there's no irritating, pointless, slushy monologues.
A dewy eyed Sam reminding Frodo of why the world is still worth fighting for in The Two Towers really had me fuming. I was half expecting Ricky Lake to step into the shot to console him. I remember the Sam in the books, and the radio play for that matter, being Frodo's stoical, no nonsense rock, not an over emotional hothouse flower.
Having said that, I realise that radio productions have one huge advantage over film versions. They only need to cast the right voice. The actors in the films do their best, and I'll grant you, there are some sturdy performances. Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood and Ian McKellan especially.
Don't mistake me, for all their glaring faults, I still love the films, and can't wait for the movie.
AAAAAUUUOOOOO!!!!
Someone pass me the tranquilisers!!!! -
you seem pretty down on Fantasy as a genre of books, and I'm not going to disagree with anythig you said, but can you name a genre of fiction which is less rife with unoriginality and poor quality shelf filler material? And are there any Fantasy authors you DO like? Two of my favourites are David Gemmell and Robin Hobb, neither of whom seem to take rather too much 'inspiration' from Tolkien as many Fantasy authors do. Have you come across their work?
-
BEAN: Good call on Christopher Tolkien providing the internal consistency and readability of "The Silmarillion". I may not be a Tolkien scholar, but even I knew that the dear old professor left his myths in a mess. Which was a very mythological thing to do, but not one which made for great readability, I fear. **** I'm sorry if my remark on the sketchy, fragmented nature of "Lost Tales" striking me as more authentically mythological than "The Silmarillion" led you to believe that I'd actually prefer the "Lost Tales" to "The Silmarillion". I assure you that I probably won't. Really, I LOVE "The Silmarillion", for exactly the qualities you mentioned to Djinnj: because it's high, romantic and poetic AND readable, which, judging from what little I've seen of them, the "Lost Tales" are not. I merely meant to say that the "Lost Tales", being sketchier and gappier than "The Silmarillion", sounded more like authentic mythology to me. But again, I have no doubt which book I'll end up liking more: the more fully realised one. Regardless of whether it's JRR's or Christopher's vision that I'm reading. **** So you have a Robin Hood trauma, eh? I know what you mean. I used to get all sorts of annoying Pippy Longstocking (is that what she's called in English?) jokes when I was young because I wore my hair in two reddish braids. Cured me of Swedish children's literature for the rest of my childhood, that! Which actually was a damned shame, as I later found out that Astrid Lindgren did indeed write some of the finest children's lit out there. But, er, back to old English-or-not-quite-English myths. I actually LOVE the Arthurian legends, sketchy and imported though they may be. There is something hauntingly romantic about the Arthur saga, the vanished Avalon, etc. - something well captured in the modern retellings by Mary Stewart and Marion Zimmer Bradley. Have you read any of those? **** Good distinction between myths and fables, by the way. I won't go into details, but I think you're right. **** ELANOR: Thanks very much for your review, which both Miami and Hildebrand forwarded to me. You did an amazing job of capturing the whole experience without giving anything away - or not much, anyway. Not that I mind spoilers, but you know what I mean. **** I also liked your distinction between fantasy as an escape from reality and mythology as a way to make sense of reality. Good fantasy, in my opinion, is both an escape AND an eye-opener, but I won't go into that, because you've stated elsewhere that you don't read fantasy other than Tolkien. **** Interesting to hear that you prefer film fantasy to book fantasy. I don't. I tend to find film adaptations of fantasy books (and fantasy written especially for the screen) tacky and devoid of the romantic, heroic, otherworldly atmosphere that good fantasy authors create so well. In fact, the only fantasy films that I really like are "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Dark Crystal", for which I have a childish passion. Most other fantasy films are just too... cheesy for me. **** Incidentally, my defence of fantasy fiction does not mean I only read fantasy. In fact, my love for fantasy (both serious and fanciful) is a fairly recent thing. Until two years ago I fully concentrated on "real" literature, with Jane Austen, Henry James, Thomas Mann, Ian McEwen, Charlotte Bronte, Fyodor Dostoyevski, etc. being my favourite authors. I must say I find my current moving back and forth between fantasy and real literature refreshing, though. Not to mention inspiring. I think I draw more life lessons from fantasy than from serious fiction these days. **** IRRITABLE: You're right to distinguish between "fantasy" and "Fantasy". I agree that there is a lot of staggeringly bad Fantasy about, but there are fantasy authors who are worth reading - serious ones as well as funny ones. I wouldn't equate fantasy with Pratchett just because he happens to be its most famous practitioner. Although I must say I'm developing quite a taste for Pratchett myself. :-) **** IRRITABLE & DJINNJ: I know names were tremendously important to Tolkien, so I understand why he was so upset at seeing his carefully chosen names rendered invalid by well-meaning but incompetent translators. It would upset me, too. But as far as I know, no translator working in any language has tampered with the Sindarin names; they seem to be the same in every language. I also think hobbits are hobbits in every language (although the plural of Gollum's "hobbitses" varies from language to language), and orcs orcs, although the latter might be spelled "ork" in Dutch (not sure about that). Shelob is simply called Shelob in Dutch, no matter what she is called in German. **** Kalimac Brandagamba and Razanur Tuc? Lovely names. Much better than their English renditions, and pretty much what I expected hobbits' names to sound like. **** Ingollum/Smeagold? Wow! Now there's a talkbacker (talkbackers?) I'd like to see resurrected. Ingold...? Please...? **** Indiana Clones = Fett? Now that would be something. I've missed good old Fett! I'll have to start paying more attention to that Clones guy. **** Pan-galactic-gargle-blasters? Good heavens. What am I getting myself into?
-
I must admit that Sam's speech at the end of TTT did very little for me too. It was a late addition to that part of the screenplay, and I think PJ and crew tried a bit too hard at recreating the feeling of Sam & Frodo's wonderful reunion and dialogue at the end of FOTR. I've said it before (as have others), but I still think the last 20 minutes/half an hour of FOTR are sublime, almost perfect cinema, even just on the theatrical version. With TTT however, I was very thankful for the much extended ending, because the end of Helm's Deep was beautiful, yet incomplete without a final resolution, and having Sam's speech be the last Frodo & Sma stuff in the film before Gollum's wonderful cliff-hanger bit was unfortunate, and the addition of Faramir sending them off really helps me finish TTT on a high note. ------ I'll definitely look forward to that radio adaptation. Then I'll have a beautiful and extradordinary visual interpretation of LOTR in the films, and a great character and story interpretation in the radio series! Not to mention the book itself, of course ;)
-
Dec 04, 2003 8:02:44 AM CST
No sentimentality in the radio adaptation, eh, Summer Pudding?
by elaine
Good. Good. I'll check it out, then. Like yourself and Raw Bean, I have major trouble with Sam's speech at the end of "The Two Towers", which I find toe-curlingly mawkish. I'm beginning to get used to it now, but if I can get my hands on a slush-free version of the story - one in which I get Sam's speech as it was delivered on the stairs of Cirith Ungol and in which I don't have to see Haldir die in slow motion - so much the better. I'll see if I can find it on Amazon. (Oh, and no Gimli jokes, either! Bliss! Yes, I'll go to Amazon right now.)
-
The Silmarillion is an aestheticly beautiful, enjoyable read. The Lost Tales and the rest of the HoME I find to be (and I'm sure you will too, if you ever read them) more an intellectual pleasure; fascinating and a treat for the mind BUT ALSO with liberal sprinklings of emotive and beautiful works that never saw the light of day previously, either because Tolkien rewrote it, or never finished it, or changed his mind about it. Book 3 of the HoME, The Lays of Beleriand, contains the wonderful unfinished alliterative verse Lay of Turin Turambar, and as I said earlier in here, I wish Tolkien had written Lay of Earendil, and the The Lost Road. ------- Yes, my younger sister was also teased (mainly by my elder sister!) with the label 'Pippy Longstockings' when she had 'pigtails' as we refer to them. --- I'm afraid I've not read into Arturian legends at all. -----
Thank you for the agreement about myths and fables. ---- I still say Terry Pratchett isn't a fantasy author, his books are satirical comedy dressed as fantasy, and damned good too! -
And in case it's not clear, I was replying to your previous post Elaine, not the most recent. :)
-
Forty-eight quid for the BBC radio adaptation on Amazon. That's a lot of money, but it might be worth it just to have a complete view of how "The Lord of the Rings" can be adapted. And it is indeed described as "listening perfection" on Amazon. **** Yes, I agree Pratchett is satirical comedy dressed as fantasy. Doesn't matter; it's still hilarious. The bit in which Mort walks through a wall and meets the Klatchians, who will kill him if he doesn't convince them that he's a demon from the outer circles of hell, is probably the funniest thing I've read this year. Gave me stomach cramps, that. **** Pigtails? Aren't they little tails rather than plaits?
-
Yes, yes, yes, I'll read the "History of Middle-Earth" (all God knows how many books of it) as well as the "Lost Tales". Soon. I promise! On the preciouss!
-
... of stereotyping Fantasy writers. Bean, I really meant to type Terry *Brooks* - the Shannara bloke - not Pratchett, who I agree is a clever satirist. But your point is still correct. I was having a dig at second-rate fantasy writers, particularly those who steal ideas from Tolkien. You're quite right to say that they can't all be tarred with the same brush (No. 1 trolling technique) and "plagiarism" was too strong.***My reading preferences are more in line with Elaine's - (Ian McEwan - YES!) - found it hard to finish the few fantasy books I started. Ursula LeGuin was an exception (although she's often labelled as Sci-Fi). Haven't checked out the writers you mentioned but read your earlier posts - maybe a Christmas research project.****As for other genres, the bar is set fairly hight for historical novels and detective thrillers, though there's plenty of second-rate work available in those genres.***Agree with you and SummerPud about Sam's speech. Ick! Somwhere on the EE is a recording of Peter Jackson reading the scene - tears and all. Priceless. Glad he stuck with directing.
-
And you're right, call it whatever you want, Pratchett's work is side-splittingly funny. --- 'Pig-tails' ARE plaits (usually referring to having two, one on each side, as opposed to a single plait at the back), as opposed to a 'pony tail' (which is what I have) where the hair isn't braided just gathered back and tied so it hangs loose like a horses tail. --- Just to clarify, the Book of Lost Tales is not published as a work in its own right because it was never completed. It forms the first two books of the History of Middle Earth, where Christopher Tolkien presents and discusses what IS finished, and outlines the rest of it that Tolkien never finished off. So the HoME, including The Book of Lost Tales, is only 12 books. :) ---------- irritable, never fear, you're right about the quality on originality (or lack thereof) with mamny Fantasy authors, but if you do ever have a look, David Gemmell and Robin Hobb, though very different from each other and everything else, are definitely among the best modern fantasy writers, to my mind. I think I'll have to try Ursula LeGuin, I've heard good things about her work. -- To my mind, fantasy that dresses up as sci-fi is still fantasy (and no worse for it) a la the Star Wars films, and Anne McCaffrey's work, and there is a distinction between this and real Science Fiction, like the work of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, Frank Herbert and Kim Stanley Robinson. Although technicaly, all sci-fi fits under the broadest definition of 'fantasy', but then so would horror novels and books of mythology by that definition. -- As for PJ, his work on the Bag End set test as Bilbo in the FOTR EE was hilarious, yet compared to Rick Porras as Frodo, Randy Cook as Sam and some poor random bugger as Gandalf (complete with oversized head on a long stick to simulate size difference), he turned in an Oscar-winning performance!
-
The man's a god.
I haven't read all his books, but the ones I have read (The Child in Time, The Innocent, Amsterdam, Enduring Love) are all incredible.
This is spooky, our tastes in film and literature being so alike. I imagine this is how cults start.
The film adaptations of his books haven't been much to write home about though. Here's hoping Enduring Love will buck the trend.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0375735/ -
I should point out, Elaine, that although I have read Unfinished Tales I am only just over halfway through the HoME (need book 8!) myself, and would like to read the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien but haven't got it yet, so I'm by no means a Tokien scholar or any kind of authority on the subject. It's only been a few years since I first picked up the Sil in my late teenage years! A lot of what I've been posting over the past few months on these TB's has not been any kind of deep, long pondered ruminations on Tolkien, but simply the first things that leapt to my mind as I read each book of the HoME and Unfinished Tales! So while I was flattered at what I took to be your implication that I was a Tolkien scholar, really I don't know any more than you could with a few weeks of reading! In fact, I bet a lot of the linguistics and philology stuff from the HoME would sink in better with you than I. :)
-
Elaine: In America, if something makes your toes curl, it
-
Yes, Christopher Tolkien's immense undertaking of organizing his father's work imposed a sense of order on the Sil which Tolkien had been striving towards but never reached (and I don't think he would have made it quite so 'tight'). I think CT says somewhere that his editorial work on the Sil was essentially publishing a summary of what it would have been if his father had finished it. The whole myth - history thing is oversimplified, I know, because they are at once the same thing but not. It's like trying to define 'art,' one gets into a mess fairly quickly! It really is the coherent narrative bit which gives (for me) the 'history' feel to the Sil. The Letters are great and to prove it, I'll email you a short excerpt I've already typed up for a friend. It's the entire text of one of my favorite letters.... ---- In terms of other fantasy writers, I have a soft spot for Orson Scott Card, although I prefer his earlier SF. I grew up reading Mary Stewart's Arthurian cycle and her version of Merlin is STILL my favorite (I like him better than Arthur!). LeGuin will not disappoint. ------ I haven't heard the BBC radio play version, but I have the 46 CD (52 hour) unabridged Recorded Books version (perfect for those 2 hour commutes I used to have). Well, they say it's unabridged, but it isn't quite. It doesn't have the appendices, not even just the narrative bits! It's read by Rob Inglis and is otherwise really very good. He doesn't do any terrible exaggerated voices, but does give some characterization, so following dialogue isn't difficult, etc. It's like having a kindly old uncle (with a lovely slightly gravelly voice) reading with great enthusiasm to one at bed time.
-
I did think after I wrote it that it was missing just those two words, but I wasn't sure. ----- Har har har, hullo Pip. As I said before, I think DT is ace, but it's far too different in style and theme for me to think of it as the LOTR of the 21st century. As I've said before, the Dune novels feel like the sci-fi LOTR to me, in terms of scope and achievment, if again not in theme r feel. I believe you asked me about the Dune prequels by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson? Did you ever get round to giving them a try? They're great. I just read the Machine Crusade, second book of the Legends of Dune series (started with The Butlerian Jihad), and I couldn't put it down. Definitely worty of the memory of Frank Herbert. ------- That would be nice gjinnj. And couldn't the Sil be described as a 'mythical history' of Middle Earth? If we stick with that description we're both right! :)
-
You are not quite right about the Audiobooks version. Appendix A, 'Annals of Kings and Rulers' (from 'Numenor' to 'Durin's Folk') can be found starting on disc 14 of RotK (it runs from disc 14 through disc 16). Also, the 'Prologue' from 'Concerning Hobbits' to 'Of The Finding of the Ring' and 'Note on Shire Records' can be found on Disc 13 of RotK (not FotR). Apparently they were "forced" to put it there because they were limited to the 16 discs that are part of FotR, probably because of packaging concerns and time limitations. But you are so very correct in that it is a wonderful version of LotR to own. I am very glad that I bought it two years ago. Rob Inglis does a fantastic job! [Of course he does! It's a fantasy, isn't it? :~)] ***And what is this Fab Five business? Does it really matter who came first? But for the record, even though I started reading AICN's reports when the news of the movie first broke, I never posted until Oct., 2001, one whole year AFTER filming had begun. [Yeah mort, even I was somewhat intimidated.] There were a helluva lot more people who were posting before I had felt comfortable doing so.
-
How did I miss that? You are quite right. D'oh!
-
Warner
-
Because although Audiobooks put out a tremendous product, the neglected to do one important thing: provide an index as to where chapters begin and end. I remedied that situation during a cross country trip to Portland, Seattle and Idaho in Aug, '02. I brought the discs and a portable cd player on the flight, and wrote up an index. Thus I now know that my favorite chapter, Flotsam and Jetsam can be found on TTT disc 7, from index numbers 6 through 21. It was a lot of work, but ultimately worth it. If you want I can e-mail you a copy. Just let me know your e-mail addy (the addy linked to my name is still active -- and don't worry about the spamblocker, I'll get it sometime today).
-
Thanks, Miami! I contemplated doing that at one point and quailed. What a long task! I've sent you an email anyway, although my addy posted here works. Also, raw_bean, I've sent you that text. It's one thing I was really hoping to find in the Letters, and by gum there it was! I think you'll see that it supports things you've said in the past about why Tolkien resolved Frodo's quest in such a way. - - - now, all will be well if I can just get my car out of the shop and into a theater parking lot for FotR tomorrow.
-
Got the Hanukka Mathom(s)! Thank you Thank you! Haven't had a chance to listen to the whole thing but the packaging is fabulous (so, um, ulp... I guess it IS a Tr*&%$y?!.... IT IS NOT! SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH MOATERS! Not listening, not LISTENING!) and the part I've heard is of pretty excellent sound quality. So much so that Pontsing and Fister are fighting over who's is who's! Anyway, thanks again brother Mofo and a Happy dogone Hanukka/Holidays to you and yourn! *** AWP! did ya'll see where ol' Snaga blew his cover?! Maybe no one will notice now that that talk back has gotten to the 'tailend' stage? Crap! We got tailenders dropping like flies around here! First poor Ingold gets axed, and now Snaga Ape blows his cover: RATS. I mean we've got people hijacking user IDs and spewing pedophelia threats and threatening violence to my poor toofies and the powers that be don't do NUTHIN. Harry ignored Elanor' post; he's been ignoring me for about a year now and I was right there in Austin!This site is going down hill I think. *snif* *snuffle* Well, at least we've still got each other eh TErs? Namarie, Trubba Not, 'Aa' menealle nauva calen ar' malta'.
-
I spend more time online! Have you seen the bit on TORn from the Hollywood Reporter? Says PJ hints that the SEV for RotK could be over 4 hours long. I'd say it'd have to be! If PJ keeps adding stuff like he has been, I'll be suprised if it comes in under 4:20. In fact, I'm still not sure how he managed to fit everything into just under 3:30!
-
When I was a kid, being called
-
I don
-
djinnj: Your mail has been sent! ***Moaters: you are very welcome. Hope you like yours and that Fister Crunchman and Pontsing Barset like theirs as well. Don't forget to follow those instructions when listening to track 28 of Pontsing's fave+!!! :~)
-
I wonder what readers who are not familiar with certain swoon-related discussions on these talkbacks will make of your
-
The T2T soundtrack has been nominated for a Grammy!
-
It's gorgeous, and fits in the box with the cds when judiciously folded. --- Sabster, I agree with you and the other good comments; elanor's review is perfect. Enough detail to reassure, and to get us slavering, but not enough to mess with the revelatory experience of seeing it for the first time. I am VERY comforted by the concept of Naked Frodo. (Not for naughty reasons! Please get your mind back up into the gutter. *Harrumph*) It's just such an inexpressible scene on so many levels, and somehow, when you add the vulnerability of being naked in body (and with the threat of being naked in spirit) before one's enemy.... *sniffle*
-
Dec 05, 2003 4:57:31 AM CST
Curling toes, Merlin, red hair and a weird little fact about a c
by elaine
So pig-tails are plaits and "toe-curling" is a compliment in America? My, the things one learns on this site. And that's quite aside from film news and Tolkien lore. Just to be on the safe side, though: I meant "cringe-inducing", Mortsleam, although you'd probably guessed that. And if I may correct you in my turn, it's Famke JANSSEN. :-) And no, I don't agree that Tori Amos should have sung "Into the West". Lisa Gerrard should have sung it, dammit! **** RAW BEAN: Not a Tolkien scholar, eh? All right, I'll take your word for it. But you do express yourself extremely confidently for one to loth to the epithet, and I'm easily impressed by that kind of stuff. **** DJINNJ: I'm with you on the Merlin love. Arthur is a bit of a prat in Mary Stewart's books, but Merlin... whoa. What a magnificent reimagining of a mythical character. The way his childhood is described, and his relationship to his father, and the infrequency of his visions... not quite the self-confident, powerful Merlin you get elsewhere, but all the more memorable for it, I think. I also agree on Orson Scott Card. I haven't read his later books because I keep hearing they're shite, but I really love "Ender's Game" and "Ender's Shadow". There's something about these preternaturally gifted children battling themselves, each other, the adults and the Buggers that moves me. Great stuff, and so easy to read. I haven't read Le Guin, but I'll give her a try at some point. **** SUMMER PUDDING: "Enduring Love" is going to be filmed? Oh, wow. I didn't know that. I'll have to look into that... I agree that so far, McEwan adaptations haven't been what they should have been, but all the same I'm glad I've seen them, as I might never have discovered McEwan otherwise. I came to him after watching the adaptations of "The Cement Garden" and "The Comfort of Strangers", which, though heavily flawed, I found pleasantly disturbing enough to try finding the books they were based on. I've never stopped reading McEwan since. He is my favourite modern author, hands down. But yeah, I hope they'll do a better job on "Enduring Love". Anyone bought the rights to "Atonement" yet? **** SABSTER: "Pippi Longstocking" a compliment? Yes, that's what my mother used to tell me whenever I got upset at being called Pippi. She used to say that Pippi was a really strong, inventive and original girl and that I should be proud of being compared to her. Unfortunately, children don't want to be inventive and original; they want to be like everyone else, and I wasn't, because I had red pigtails. Boo hoo. (Incidentally, I'm not really a redhead anymore. Just when I'd come to terms with my red hair, and had actually begun to grow somewhat fond of it, it began to fade, to the point where it's now more blonde than red. Alas. Are you a real redhead?) **** You learned Swedish because you loved Astrid Lindgren? That's one of the coolest things I've ever heard - much cooler than me learning Romanian because I wanted to be a gymnastics coach in Romania, for instance. I'm not surprised to hear you found Danish more difficult than Swedish, though. I don't know much about Danish grammar, but one thing I do know about Danish is that the pronunciation is hellishly difficult. My Danish ex (who looked disturbingly like Viggo Mortensen in his blonde, half-Danish incarnation, by the way; the first time I saw Viggo I thought I was looking at my ex!) tried to teach me some phrases, but I (who usually pick up pronunciation very easily) found it very hard to make them roll off my tongue properly. It was all the more frustrating because many Danish words are SPELLED exactly or at least recognisably like their Dutch equivalents. It's just the pronunciation that's so hard. By contrast, the pronunciation of Swedish seems much easier - more straightforward, if you wish. And very much like Frisian, or so my Frisian relatives tell me. (Just out of curiosity: what is that Danish desert again, the one they use as a tongue-breaker? I pretty much know how it's pronounced, but I never learned how to spell it.)
-
My God, it's hard not to mix up languages sometimes.
-
My senses were just barely a-tinglin
-
Three random inclusions: it is my first Hanukkah present ever, you look strikingly similar to Wilson from
-
But then you'd probably guessed that. Aaargh.
-
Yep,
-
Yes indeedy, a DT miniseries would be grand, ans as far as concerned, they should keep churning out great X-Men films 'till the actors start dropping dead! -- Incidentally, I realised that earlier I used a Hitch Hikers Guide referrance on you (about Frogstar Fighters, and Marvin's quote about an electronic sausage) that would be totally unfamiliar to anyone who has never heard the radio series of Hitch Hikers, which I would guess includes all of you from the US or on the continent. It's a damn shame, because the radio series is the best version of HHGTTG by far, and although everything from the first series is in the books, I don't much of the second series material is. For instance, the Total Perspective Vortex? The Shoe Event Horizon (which I must say I think the city of Barcelona is fast approaching)? The race of sentient birds who live in the two mile wide ear of a giant statue of Arthur Dent? ------ Elaine, here in the UK we take 'toe-curling' as positive as well. -- I wish there were more lovely women in the world who were impressed by a geeky knowledge of Tolkien! :)
-
It started out as a radio series, by the way, and it works best as one. Listened to the first two episodes for the first time in years last night. Each episode ends on a cliffhanger, but the second episode ends with Ford and Artur having been rescued by Zaphod and Trillian so there doesn't seem to be a cliffhanger there, until the voice of the Book announces the end of the episode as usual (goes something like this): "Will Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent be able to adapt to their new social situation? Will Zaphod win Arthur over after stealing his date Trillian from that party back on Earth? And will any of them survive the devastating missile attack launched against the ship 30 seconds into next week's program?" ------- A 4 hour+ ROTK djinjj? Kewl! *eyes misting over* We wants it preciouss, yes we does. Sneaky editing Jackson! It stole it from us! But the preciouss will be ours, once the DVDses are out!
-
I know I said last night that it
-
A common use for the phrase might be: "Then she gave him a kiss that curled his toes." ---- Bilbo's Last Song has been released as it's own little illustrated book, but I'm prety certain it's from LOTR, at or about the Grey Havens.
-
Sabster: I am not familiar with that song at all. In the back of LotR there is a glossary of songs and poems which includes the first line of each, and that song is not listed there. Nor was I able to locate it in The Hobbit, which I just leafed through. Btw, when you think of toe-curling, think orgasms. :~) ***Runelord: Despite what Moaters and Alice wrote in e-mails (Moaters asked what that D & D creature was. Alice thought he was a rabbit), I'm here to tell you that Gregor (not Gregory) the Magnificent is a Dragon (note the capital D), a direct descendant of Smaug, seven generations removed (Dragons are much more refined these days, don't you agree?). He was born (hatched?) 502 years ago in the Smoky Mountains (why do you think they smoke?) of what is now western North Carolina. I trust you're impressed. As for the music, Bruce juice just didn't fit. The first instrumental is from Mark Knopfler's 'Local Hero' soundtrack (I love that movie!) 'Brothers In Arms' is another Knopfler song from his band, Dire Straits' 'Brothers In Arms' album ("These mist covered mountains, are home now for me..." If that doesn't get you thinking about LotR nothing will!), and finally, Bob Seger sings 'Miami'. [And Pippin sings the Bath Song and Frodo sings 'Man In The Moon'. :~)]
-
I think there is a German expression along the lines of
-
Never make the mistake of thinking it was the radio adaptation of the book though, the radio series came first! -- I'm furiously trying to remember if the pre-historic ending is the end of the first series or the second. If it's the second, then that'll be why you recognise Frogstar Fighters. I think that's the ending of the first series though, so the Frogstar Fighters may have cropped up somewhere in the books (it's been a while!) or the film (which I've not seen); they're definitely not in the TV series. --- What is 6 times 9, brother?
-
BEAN: Call me weird, but to me, the combination of geeky knowledge and passion is the sexiest thing imaginable. I go all gooey when guys debate and defend the things they love in an articulate, authoritative way that features big, academic-sounding words - sort of like Jamie Lee Curtis does in
-
I meant to ask you a Pratchett question yesterday, but didn't get round to it. What is the Discworld novel in which Selim the Grim (sometime ruler of the Ottoman Empire, and owner of some of the most jaw-droppingly beautiful - that phrase DOES exist, right? - swords in the history of mankind, judging from what I saw of them in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul) makes an appearance? Someone told me he's in one of the books, but so far I haven't been able to identify it, and I'm quite curious to see how he is described...
-
Oh dear. What did I do to cause this?
-
Dec 05, 2003 11:10:31 AM CST
Who knew an innocent little sexual innuendo would provoke such a
by mortsleam
And thanks again Miami for so succinctly spelling it out. You
-
Voici Dictionary.com's reply to my "toe-curling" query: "Log in for this definition of 'toe-curling' in Webster's Millennium Dictionary of English, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members." Hmmm. I never associated "Premium membership" with the privilege to look up dirty words, but I fear that's the only explanation for this rather curious reply. On which note I think we should find ourselves another topic for a heated debate. How about, er, Tolkien...?
-
First my posts go to the top, now they're in the middle (OK, towards the end). Is this the talkback's knee-jerk reaction to a little sexual innuendo...? In that case, we must REALLY find ourselves another subject for discussion...
-
Dec 05, 2003 12:06:02 PM CST
"Call me weird, but to me, the combination of geeky knowledge an
by raw_bean
Where've you been all my life?! ;-) --- My ex-girlfriend was always bored to tears whenever I tried to share the thoughts bubbling round in my head on the things that interested me, and I think I've had the same effect on some of my friends and family on occasion. That's one reason why I'm very happy I met all you Tailenders, with whom I can have these fascinating discussions (toe-curling aside!).
-
Looking around, this has happened to lots of TBs, and I can think of only one common factor. Does anyone remember if there was a guy here earlier with a link to somethingawful.com, and raving about the AICN spoof they have there? It seems he was spouting off about it on every single TB he could find, and now it looks like he's been banned, and all his posts removed (some TBs have people complaining about him but not his actual posts anymore), hosing any TB he had taken part in. *Sigh*....
-
... but if you do, I suggest we move to 16603 "Elle Woods Reviews..." It's relatively short and UNHOSED!
-
I can't say as I remember Selim the Grim, but I've been meaning to re-read the books for a while, my sister has them all. I'll see if I can find out. ------- Sorry Pip. To remind you, if 42 is the Answer, the Great Answer, to Life, The Universe, and Everything, what is the question? According to Earth (because Arthur and Ford and a ship full of people descended from telephone sanitisers and other useless people) colonised the Earth and ruined it's calculations, it's "What is six times nine?". ---- *whispering* Pssst! I saw Elaine first, you keep away! ------ ;)
-
Men who can recite Russian poetry make my toes curl (and John Cleese did a very good job on the pronunciation)!!! Hmmmm, Russian, now here
-
There was a audio version of the book version of the radio program?!? How strange. I wonder if it was this that you heard, cutest, or the actual original radio series? Never mind, don't tax your brain about it. -- Does your completist tendency run to having the TV show as well mortsleam? I must say, I love the graphical book interludes, and it was genius to get as much of the case and sound effects crew from the radio series as possible to work on the TV series.
-
this TB was getting a bit on the big side anyway, even before the hosing. To the new TB! (But not right now, time for some food, and then perhaps a pint or two (it comes in pints?!) of ale at my local. :)
-
Huge gifts, men fighting over me, men offering to lecture me on astronomy in their best Antonio Banderas voices... all that, and tonight "In the Mood for Love" is on the telly, too. Yep, that's quite a Sinterklaas I'm having here! **** Cutest: Thanks very much for the offer, but I'm afraid astronomy and quantum physics might just be a tad too geeky for me, no matter how passionate and eloquent your lecture would undoubtedly be. You'd have to attribute all sorts of human emotions, dramas and ambitions to your stars, planets and universes to make their plight understandable to my romance-addled girlish brain, which might tax your improvisation skills more than the sight of me doing a virtual Jamie Lee Curtis warrants. Although I'm quite certain that the Banderas accent alone would be enough to make me swoon, even without my actually understanding a word of what you're saying. **** SABSTER: Privet! I agree that Russian is a beautiful language. I hardly understand a word of it, but it sounds very melodious - poetic and yet precise. I love it so much that I will probably learn it at some point, if only to be able to read Dostoyevski in the original and to hear what Oksana Akinshina (one of my favourite actresses) actually says when she stares into the lens with those dopey eyes. Must be quite a treat. **** I haven't read any Patrick O'Brian, but I saw "Master and Commander" last night and loved it, even if it's fairly predictable. Russell Crowe is excellent, Paul Bettany is even better, the cinematography is impressive, and as if that weren't enough, it's also one of the best-observed tales of charismatic leadership and male friendship I've seen in recent years. Great stuff. **** "Seniorenblond"? That's a wonderful word. I've never heard it before, but I think I'll introduce it to the Dutch language. Long overdue, if you ask me. **** I will head over to the Elle Woods talkback at some point, but only if others join me! At the moment it's rather empty there...
-
Dec 05, 2003 3:05:33 PM CST
Hear ye Hear ye: Game of Stump the Connexions Bloak...
by skyway moaters
... initiated over at the 'Elle Wood' TB. Get thee hence!
-
That would undoubtedly make me weak with giggling, but I doubt it would would effect Jamie Lee Curtis-like moaning and wriggling any more than quantum physics. Nope, just you'll just have to impress me with your amazing Tolkien knowledge! Either that or a well-thought-out essay on the state of Korean cinema, delivered in a phoney Canadian accent. Yeah, that'll do nicely.
-
To wrap up this TB, a reply to raw_bean, re: The Hitchhiker
-
Sorry, mate. Not a chance. :-)
-
Wow, back where it all began. So much has happened since then. Who knew what kind of trouble I was getting myself into? If I had it all to do over, I wouldn't change a thing. Hope you appreciate that.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 383 total posts 380 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 75 total posts 73 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 71 total posts 68 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 77 total posts 55 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 54 total posts 48 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 165 total posts 41 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 500 total posts 35 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 28 total posts 28 posts