Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Dr. Ong's beautifully written RETURN OF THE KING review

Hey folks, Harry here... Soon it will be the time for all of us to see RETURN OF THE KING, personally... I choose to see it with friends, the same way I've chosen to see FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS. That's what these films are most about for me, about friendship and fellowship. No earthly power could get me to see this film without my closest friends. The test of that friendship is the ability to see it without your friends and turning that possiblity down, to hold the experience till it ripens with those you most wish to share it with. This review, for some reason reminded me of that. I can't wait to see this, for the first time, with those that I'll see it with... each awaiting each new image with an earnest "Gosh, Gee and Whiz" It will be something... special!

I went to see The Return of the King tonight and it had an effect on me. It made my coffee taste better.

I loved Fellowship, but it didn’t add up to the book. I loved The Two Towers, and it tied the book. But Return of the King is a genuine improvement on the original book. Not that Jackson added things that rivaled the genius of Tolkien, but he went through the book with a highlighter and streamlined the epic so that the emotions come through clearer and it hit me over the head like a Dwarven hammer.

Return has a brilliant way of contrasting innocence and beauty with overt power and truly ugly acts. The theme is set up with a beautiful documentation of Smeagol’s brutal journey beginning with a fishing trip with Deagol. Jackson sets up this premise with simple whimsical country folk who go from fishing on a lush pond to brutal murder.

But unlike other movies that house awful brutality, Return contextualizes it in a way that makes it in no way gratuitous. I contrast this film with steaming turds of post-modernity like Kill Bill and Matrix Revolutions. All three films are loaded with battles, heroes and darkness, but Return gives them something real to fight for friendship, family and the meek who confound the intelligent elite who corner the market on overt power. All of my movie-lovin’ friends drooled over Kill Bill, and Return will embarrass anyone who attributed any post Pulp Fiction greatness to Tarantino. The curtain of Matrix Revolutions is pulled back and we find out that Neo may not even exist. Spoon-bending and questioning reality is not the things heroes are made of.

Folks, we are in trouble. We have been blinded by low craftsmanship, low expectations and the ultimate dumbing down of the audience that the studios more than willingly are happy to underestimate. But Return could only be made by a 20th century devout Catholic who devoured Latin, Norse mythology, participated in WW1 and watched the horror of WW2 unfold before his eyes. Don’t look for moral-relativism in Return, it ain’t there. We see “good” men try to negotiate, understand or bargain with evil, and they are crushed and despised even more than the Orcs who may not have had a choice in the matter.

I can’t describe the joy of watching a Hobbit and his gardener dismantle the arrogant evil of their times. Sam, Frodo, Pippin, Merry, Eowyn and Strider the hippy turned King are the heroes of this story. These are all types of good people who do not live up to their potential and must go through the fires of Mordor before they are refined into humble but even more powerful warriors capable of destroying that which is seemingly impossible to destroy.

As a content creator in Hollywood, it was a joy to turn around and see the rest of the audience watching the screen WITH THEIR JAWS DROPPED OPEN I see Kill Bill and Revolutions and I say, “I could do that sitting on the toilet.”. . I saw Return of the King tonight and I was utterly humiliated. Hollywood’s been caught with their pants down. All I can say is wait til’ you see The Passion.

After I saw Kill Bill, I had to take a shower. I poured myself a cup of coffee and it tasted worse. I can’t explain it, but after seeing Uma prostituted out while in a coma I couldn’t just enjoy my popcorn and dismiss this fecal matter as a comic book. Thank God Return came along at just the right time… a time that is hopefully, “The turning of the tide.”

I’m Dr. Ong

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:50 a.m. CST

    Sigh!

    by HardcoreRocker

    I saw 6 movies and am in the process of reviewing them. None of them are "great." I need to see a GREAT movie. I'm counting the days til this film comes out. Please come swiftly, Return of the King. How I await you. www.rockithardcore.com

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:53 a.m. CST

    King the of Return

    by Wingdemon

    This freakin' movie is going to rock! I can't wait! This will not, repeat NOT be a disappointment like the shit Matrix. If it does *shiver* turn to crap, ... good bye cruel world!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Hype machine in full effect

    by AlwaysThere

    Its going to be a long 3 weeks.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:11 a.m. CST

    Um, yes.

    by twindaggerturkey

    Dr. Ong, that was a very nice review.^^ (It was especially lovely after all those reviews where AICN folks describe what they had for dinner and how many times they masturbated and so on before they saw the film in question.)

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Dr Ong is not Spielberg

    by ObiJuanJabroni

    Kill Bill Fucking ruled. Don't ever ever criticize that movie ever again. You couldn't sit on the toilet and shit out Beaches.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Yeah, not bloody likely.

    by IndustryKiller

    An improvement on the book? That's rich. Sorry but I don't need to see the movie to know that's bullshit. I especially can't trust the guy when he says that Two Towers matched the book whereas Fellowship didn't considering Fellowship was unarguably a more faithful and overall better AS AN ADAPTATION than Two Towers. I'm sure there will be a ton of responses telling me what a cynical bastard I am but if you have read the books and say with a straight face the movies are better you're out of your mind. Maybe you enjoy them as much (even that's a VERY large stretch) but there is no way in Hell they are better.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:17 a.m. CST

    Is this a Kill Bill or ROTK review?

    by ribbitking

    How bout concentrating on the movie you just watched?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Was that a review?

    by c4andmore

    That seemed more set on downing Kill Bill than saying anything at all about ROTK. That was a non-review. So what was good about the film, besides the fact that hippy-king Viggo rises to power. I love LOTR but this article was crap. I want my 2-minutes back.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Ribbitking

    by c4andmore

    hehe...great minds think alike, you beat me by 17 seconds.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Quit with the other movie references already

    by Xenu's Sister

    I'm getting so tired of hearing movies I love smacked down within a review of another movie I love (will love). I love films. I love good, interesting, unusual films. THERE'S ROOM ENOUGH! I love the Matrix movies. I love Kill Bill. I love Moulin Rouge. I love One From The Heart. I love The African Queen. I love Once Were Warriors. I love Brazil. I can't imagine not being eclectic in my taste in movies. The world would be awfully dull if you were only allowed to like one or two types of movies. I don't understand this series vs. series attitude. It's like little boys in a pissing contest. I'm head over heels adoringly in love with this LOTR trilogy, but it doesn't make these reviewers right about The Matrix and Kill Bill being bad. All this kind of thing does is make me question the writer's sanity and true love of movies. This person could shit out Kill Bill? Well, when he makes something as unique and wonderful as Kill Bill, let's have a name and a screening. I want to see it.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Like, thirteenth!!

    by WorstPoochieEver

    I can't wait for this film, nor can I imagine my life after it is over. At least after the first two, I could beg to be put in a coma for 12 months to ease the passing of time between epics. Now, what will there be worth waking up to...

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:34 a.m. CST

    The only information about the movie in the review.......

    by ribbitking

    Wow...he mentioned the Smeagol/Deagol scene.....and that is the only specific scene he mentioned.... Do you think he actually saw the damn movie?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:45 a.m. CST

    YOU cannot do KILL BILL while sitting on a toilet

    by Jon E Cin

    GET OVER YOURSELF!!!! You probably couldnt shit out Gigli!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:52 a.m. CST

    For all the AICN traditions... bean pole'ing, hogan as the baddi

    by Kampbell-Kid

    It just completely shows how much of a narrow minded ass you are reviewing films if you perdictably leave topic to mention other completely different films like gee uh I dunno what always gets mentioned in every flippin post on here... <place your bets> MATRIX!!! Mr. reviewer... Uma Thurman hacking people up made you feel "dirty" compared to Orcs in TTT hacking people apart and eating each others asses out of desperated hunger because "meats back on the menu boys" wasn't dirty?! Not bashing any one of these films mind you, just frickin tired and exhausted for years of other non-related films being thrown into comparison to what they are reviewing under some sick pretense that they have journalism background and get paid to write this obnoxious stuff. :) Stick to the topic which is the review and keep the <director's name> raped your childhood comments for the KY bottle.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3 a.m. CST

    Normally I avoid bashing another reviewer but this one really ge

    by TheFoywonder

    Dr. Ong feels compelled to inform us that he's a "content creator" in Hollywood so that we'll know that he's in the biz and therefore has a more informed opinion than the average internet reviewer. Dr. Ong feels compelled to tell us that he could essentially write movies like KILL BILL and MATRIX REVOLUTIONS while sitting on the toilet. Well, "content creator" could mean you are Stephen Spielberg or the guy who wrote 8th draft of the FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY script. If you feel compelled to tell us you're a "content creator" in Hollywood in an attempt to give your opinion more credance than the least you could do is not hide behind a fake name? You can make movies like KILL BILL and MATRIX REVOLUTIONS on the toilet? Fine, tell us what content you've created? Tell us what shit you squeezed out, for crying out loud? While I don't doubt that ROTK is a great movie that doesn't change the fact that there's a serious undertone of pettiness to this commentary, and that is what this is. This is someone's blog entry and not a movie review. A blog entry written by someone in Hollywood who seems to have chip on their shoulder.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Beautifully written my ass

    by Peter Venkman

    blah blah blah I like to bash on Tarantino-aint I cool? blah blah blah This movie is great blah blah blah Did I mention I work in Hollywood and you don't? blah blah lah I could tell you about the movie, but why bother? blah blah blah The Matrix blows, I told you, but no one ever listens to me blah blah blah *grunt grunt grunt* *SPLASH!!!* Oh look the screenplay to Jeepers Creepers! I'm soooooo much more talented and creative than any of those shmucks everyone loves and worships. blah blah blah Call me Dr. Dong

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:03 a.m. CST

    Did you guys know Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal" was origin

    by Gere's AssGerbil

    Sorry to post off topic. Won't happen again.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:10 a.m. CST

    He didn't see the movie....

    by ribbitking

    Restating....He made no comment about the movie that one of us couldn't have made.... Harry calling this a 'beautifully written reveiw makes me question where we were supposed to see the sarcasm....... ps....'content creator'....sounds like a garbageman calling himself a 'personal waste professional transporter'.....

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:12 a.m. CST

    More on topic, I do actually prefer the films to the books.

    by Gere's AssGerbil

    I just watched the Two Towers: Extended Edition for the first time tonight, and I just made this realization. The books take themselves WAY too seriously. I like that Gimli gets to play the fool a little bit, and I enjoy the several lighthearted moments added in the films. And who wouldn't prefer to SEE the battles played out rather than just read about them? Many, I'm sure, but not me.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Was this review written in crayon?

    by kranglemeister

    This is quite possibly the worst review I've ever read. How old is this guy, 12? Has he actually read the books, and more to the point, has Peter Jackson? I think Jackson's murdered The Lord of the Rings; he's buggered about with the plot, introduced NEW characters, altered others beyond recognition, and what passes for dialogue wouldn't look out of place in Beverly Hills 90210. Jackson's labouring under the impression that LORT can't work as cinema without massive alterations, so he's substituted all the subtley and, dare I say, 'Englishness' of the books with overlong action set pieces and dumbed-down hollywood bullshit. IndustryKiller's got it right in one and, like his goodself, I don't need to see 'Return' to know that sucks.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:21 a.m. CST

    I agree...

    by Kampbell-Kid

    I can agree most can't write a review without mentioning other films but dear lord already with: "Hi, today I'm reviewing Chicks With Dicks 5. However, before I begin schmoozing via e-mail I shall be chic and fist my readers Del Toro style sideways with a bean pole to just go out of my way to say that MATRIX blows so bad that it made Chicks With Dicks 5 film of the year. Oh yea, I can pinch a loaf better than any Tarantino script! Off to Starbucks... Chao!" Can we say bleh!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Kranglemeister - you know ROTK will suck, why are you here?

    by ribbitking

    Why are you posting on a board that refers to Return of the King when you think the previous two are crap, and the third will be the same??

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:29 a.m. CST

    Post away, but remember: you're our guest, you're using OUR band

    by eternal76

    I guess this mantra doesn't hold true for jackasses that just seem to fucking hate films... Too cool for school motherfuckers... "This film better than that... I liked the original better... Not as good as the book... He doesn't give me the reach around..." Fucking A people, what the hell happened to you guys... Were you always pretentious ass fuckers who reminded the teacher not to forget to give the class homework before the weekend? Or did you nut-shitters have to work real hard to hate on those who bring the oohs and ahhs for the whole world to see? I think a lot of us here forgot to just have a good time... Not just us, even a lot of the filmmakers too... I think that's what's putting most of us off... They don't seem to care, so why should we... But I like to think, that there are still those, who look at that monitor, yell out "action" and have a smile on their face when a scene is done justice... I guess the best advice would be from the cartoon, The Critic. "If the movie stinks. Just don't go." Oh by the by... Peter Jackson rules! and Dr. Ong can go fuck a proctologist...

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:33 a.m. CST

    Eternal76 - The Critic......

    by ribbitking

    I love when the studio exec jumps out the window because 'the jig is up'!!!!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:41 a.m. CST

    The Critic......

    by eternal76

    My favorite was when Arnold says the line, then shake his head and says, "What am I saying?"

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:59 a.m. CST

    Dr. WRong fails to explain...

    by grendel824

    ... how the greatness of one movie (ROTK) can somehow dimish the quality of others (Matrix, Kill Bill). How about using some, oh, I don't know, LOGIC, REASON, or even some kind of SKILLFUL LYING OR RHETORIC to at least try to prove it. Pathetic.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4 a.m. CST

    How many more Return of the King reviews are you going to post H

    by tequilaworm

    C'mon big man, stop it already...CHEERS Amigos!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Content creator?

    by NoOpinion

    You mean you create the contents of the sandwiches on the buffet table, because you sure as hell can't write a review. Pompous bastard.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Ribbitking - Why the hell not?

    by kranglemeister

    Oh silly me, I thought I was entitled to comment freely about the film(s) under discussion, regardless of whether I liked them or not. The point, I assume, is to take issue with the review and its subject, not to descend into mindless aesthetic faschism. You don't seem to have a problem expressing your opinion, so why question me when I do likewise? The review is BAD, the films are BAD, does this mean we stop discussing them and move on to the next populist hollywood trash on the agenda?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Guess what Kranglemeister......

    by ribbitking

    ....I didn't give my opinion on a movie I haven't already seen yet.....

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:29 a.m. CST

    A lousy review...

    by JacksonsBane

    ..by a sanctimonious asshole. I wouldn't put the genius Kill Bill in the same sentence as that crap-fest Matrix Revolutions. My definition of a film review includes actual details about the film, so in that respect, there hasn't been a single review of ROTK yet. Where are you Moriarty?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Ribbitking - guess what?

    by kranglemeister

    Hey ignoramus, clean the crap from your eyes and cranial cavity, and READ what I posted. The basis for my opinion was the first two films, which are low-brow, dumbed-down kid fodder, and have ALREADY knackered Tolkien's narrative to a level which NECESSITATES the third film to be SHITE. If you had sufficient nous you would have understood this point without me having to spoon-feed it to you like a toddler.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:47 a.m. CST

    About to watch the 'dumbed down kid's fodder' again.....

    by ribbitking

    ....probably somewhere around the 20th time I've watched Fellowship/Two Towers....... Guess I'm just prone to liking such excrement......

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:50 a.m. CST

    Ong's review was right on.

    by krylite

    Even Newsweek said ROTK looking good highlights the smoking train wreck Revolutions was. Movies have to be compared with each other. Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction successfully puts gloss and artsy style over cruelty and "fecal matter" which makes it slick enough to be worthy of the big screen. I haven't rewatched Pulp Fiction and I only remember it as a highlight for Samuel Jackson, Thurman, and as a comeback for Travolta. You must be all trolls. ROTK will clean house in 3 weeks. Remember to pick your jaws off the floor.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:56 a.m. CST

    Ribbitking

    by kranglemeister

    You said it pal. Why don't you have a read through Halliwell's and try some real cinema? Surely there must be better things to do with your time than re-watch Jackson's bunglings? Have you even heard of von Trier? Almodovar? Haneke? Techine? Get a life mate.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:58 a.m. CST

    no earthly power could get me to see this film without my closes

    by Windowlicker74

    my god this is really bad. i wonder how he watches texas chainsaw massacre.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5 a.m. CST

    Actually Kranglemeister........

    by ribbitking

    I'm more of a Kasdan, Verhoeven, Dante, Anderson, Tarantino type of guy..... So take your pretentiousness and shove it up your ass....

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:23 a.m. CST

    why is this loser bringing up the Passion? because these stories

    by Windowlicker74

    keep your fundamentalist crap to yourself and try to write a decent review allright? content creator, that was funny though, but it was meant as a joke right?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:27 a.m. CST

    von Trier? Almodovar? Haneke? Techine?

    by eternal76

    Lars von Trier... last film I believe was Dancer in the Dark. Pedro Almodovar... Talk to Her (Hable con Ella if you want to be a dick about it). Michael Haneke... The Piano Teacher. Andr

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Well, at least Dr Ong isn't full of himself or anything

    by St.Buggering

    Yes, you could have made "Kill Bill" sitting on the toilet. We'll buy that for a dollar. And would you, by any chance, be sucking your own dick on said toilet? Jesus, buddy, get over yourself. If this is what passes as a "beautifully written review", then I suppose that's a statement on the quality of the writing around here. See Harry's comparison of "Blade II" to female oral sex. Man, I'm really looking forward to "Return of the King", and this review still managed to piss me off. Wanker.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 6 a.m. CST

    Windowlicker74

    by jmc98

    Ooh! Keep your keep your nihilistic, atheist opinions to yourself. :P As for this review, I guess Harry means that it's beautifully crafted next to the bizarre, incompetently done ones he seems to spew out on a regular basis. Doesn't like Kill Bill? WTF?! o.o

  • Sometimes, would you believe it, humans enjoy all kinds of movies. WOW!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 6:17 a.m. CST

    This review is a piece of shit it says nothing and its brief

    by Spacesheik

    Dr. Ong that wasn't very informative. As a matter of fact all revies stemming from that DGA event are shiite. Just review the fucking film man and stop making references to MATRIX or KILL BILL etc. When you said TWO TOWERS was better than FOTR that's when you lost me man.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Anyone who says that PJ "murdered the books"

    by Asimov's Brain

    ...is a total tool who will never be happy with anything put onscreen.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Prentious? Moi?

    by kranglemeister

    Ribbetking - Don't confuse pretentiousness with a healthy interest in so-called world cinema - why is a preference for hollywood 'auteurs' (if they be), any less pretentious than one for a selection of european directors? Are you saying that there's something intrinsically better about directors who don't approach more 'serious' subjects? I think the pretentiousness lies in ignoring cinema that YOU feel is pretentious because the meaning isn't splattered on the screen in ten-foot-high letters. Ps. Tarantino has died from the neck up. eternal76 - My issue with LOTR is principally the way in which Jackson has taken a perfectly decent narrative structure, strong, well delineated characters and brilliant dialogue, and then chucked most of it into the bin. I don't really have any problem with him as a director per se; he seems more than capable of knocking out a polished action/epic (which LOTR is), my bone of contention is why he felt his revised narrative/characterisation/dialogue would or could be better than Tolkien's. As far as I can see, the changes make no sense cinematically; they are unnecessary and only serve to lessen the gravitas and integrity of the story. As for Merry's speech, I think it does just the opposite; the whole point was that the Ents were roused by there OWN anger, not by some hobbit persuading them to fight; I thought that part was a travesty. Why change it? And if you have to make so many changes why do the film in the first place? In answer to your 'fantasy' question: I've got nothing against fantasy as a genre; I still read LOTR with the same passion and excitement that I had as a child, and will continue to do so. What pisses me off about this particular FANTASY MOVIE is the way Jackson has dumbed-down the original text, thereby making it less erudite, exciting and engaging for all. Michael Haneke's last film was Time of the Wolf by the way (or Le Temps du Loup, if you want to be a dick...)

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Kranglemeister...

    by XTheCrovvX

    First off, just to get it out of the way, Dr. Ong's a clown shoe. At the very least, for one brief shining moment, all TBers are in agreement on this fact, and we can all toss his review right into the trash bin with Jeffery Wells' LOTR abuse......Second of all...this whole business of comparing movies....comparing LOTR with Willow, that's acceptable.....comparing The Matrix with Dark City, most definitely (much as I love The Matrix trilogy, one reviewer had a damn good point when he pointed out the trilogy takes 6 hours to say what Dark City did in an hour 45 minutes)....comparing OT Star Wars to prequel Star Wars, fine....does anybody see ANYTHING these films have in common with each other aside from being trilogies that just happen to be released relatively close to one another? The factioning of fanboys pisses me off to no end...as does using one franchise as a launching board to put down another....simple rule here kids (and I use the term "kids" in the least kind way possible)....if you're on a LOTR board, talk about LOTR, love or hate. Same for a Matrix discussion, same for Star Wars. You can hate all you want there. If you can register your hatred without bringing trilogy faction bullshit into the mix, the world will be a much better place......Now, onto business...Kranglemeister....I cannot disagree with you more on the storytelling aspects of Tolkien's work as compared to Peter Jacksons.....structurally, Tolkien is far less interested in these characters than he is in building a world for the characters to live in. As a result, the emotiopnal impact is far lessened. Peter Jackson is the reverse. He's interested in the cinematic aspect of things. And in cinema, especially when telling a good vs evil story, he felt some stakes needed to be higher in order for things to work, for audiences to care. As a result, you have Arwen as Aragorn's anchor....you have a good intentioned Faramir conflicted by desire to please his father.....you have Ents that choose not to fight until they find that their species is being burned to the ground....Merry doesn't persuade them to fight....instead, it's really Pippin who does it, by showing the Ents that the war is already on their doorstep....it IS their own rage that gets them to fight...I personally feel if the films had been told note for note straight from the books, we would've had a beautiful, but almost completely unengaging epic. People need something to care about, and although to purists, creating new, bigger conflicts is catering to the mob, from a filmmaking standpoint, the books simply wouldn't translate as well to the screen any other way EXCEPT to the purists....and I don't think Peter Jackson had just the Tolkien scholars in mind when he decided to make this trilogy. Anyways, that's my two cents, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you have to think of it in terms of moviemaking, not just rote faithfulness to the books.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:46 a.m. CST

    kranglemeister

    by eternal76

    I love Tolkien, I think the man had an amazing gift when it came to putting ink to parchment, I love his writing... But you have to agree, that the man had a gift of "Dude you totally missed it, you had to have been there." style of story telling... The battles, the major fights, were pretty much told "off hand" by the characters. I understand why he did this. But when it comes to the medium of the silver screen, that don't fly none so good... I truly believe that Jackson in no way believes he bettered the stories, but instead told the stories as best he could with the medium provided. Hell I would love to see the scouring of the shire... But what would that involve? probably a good hour worth of film time, and a 5 hour flick probably doesn't go to well with the studio execs. There's your problem, if you have to blame anything or anyone, blame it on the suits. Cause I don't think Peter Jackson would have left anything out if he could have helped it. The man is a hobbit for crying out loud. Hell if he does "The Hobbit" And I pray he does, I want to see Gandalf take down the Necromancer. I truly do... I know Tolkien didn't write it like that, and it's a completely different machine... But like I said, book vs movie... I think one of the first lessons we learned in film school, is show, not just tell... Sadly for books, it might not transfer over so well... And as far as Merry persuading the Ents... One of the things that I love that Peter has done, which you can see more clearly in with the extended DVD's is stick to that first line of FOTR... "This book is largely concerned with Hobbits..." I really think he's doing his best to portray that to an audience who still probably think Hobbits are midgets... Hopefully those who get fascinated with the films, will go out for themselves and find the utter orgasmic joy of the books... I mean it's done wonders to that Harry Potter shit... oops, other movie reference...

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:51 a.m. CST

    What he said...

    by eternal76

    XTheCrovvX beat me to my point, and probably said it better than me considering it's 5 am here... Oh and Serial Experiment LAIN said everything that Matrix said, not in an hour and 45 minutes, but helluva lot better...

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Bruce Campbell would have been great doing that review

    by TheAquabatman

    Can I just say, Xenu... right on dude.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Serial Experiments Lain

    by XTheCrovvX

    not to go too far off-topic, but coincidentally, I just finished watching the last episode of that series last night....screw the ending to Revolutions...THAT was a REAL mindjob.......

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Nice Review

    by Damer1

    I couldn't agree more.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:56 a.m. CST

    One more reason...

    by Explody

    This "review" is on e more example of why I find myself going to CHUD.com for movie news and reviews more and more than this shit site. "Beautifully written" my ass. This tool didn't even see the fuckin movie! Unless the review is by Harry or Moriarty, I refuse to believe what I read in any review on this site. They'll post anything they recieve just to prove they got the scoop on everyone else. Like the article a couple of months ago where someone posted a bunch of trailer synopsis' and Harry called them reviews. Harry, just stop posting whatever shit these people send you. Ever heard of quality control? Nick has. P.S. Dr. Ong is a 14 year old boy from Gatlinburg laughing his ass off at you, Harry.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:04 a.m. CST

    As far as I can tell, CHUD has not been updated since Wednesday.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Harry's content may be questionable at times, but questionable content is superior to NO content. Harry does the sensible thing: he posts the review and lets us figure out who we believe and who is full of shit. It's not like he's the paper of record or something. And just reading the talkback to Dr. Ong's absurd review has been entertaining and informative. So what is the big deal?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Oh no wait, they just updated CHUD.

    by FluffyUnbound

    To post an interview with Brad Meltzer. Extry Extry!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Asimov's

    by Planck

    I pity you if you got nothing out of the books than an action slugfest in which the little guy prevails. Fact is that Jackson took Tolkien's view of his world and turned it into its precise opposite. Where Tolkien is concerned with spiritual matters, Jackson labors purely in the physical. And as for your claim that people who don't like the movies would like nothing put on the screen: I found plenty of the elements I would have liked in these movies in others. This stuff about filmmaking realities is a copout argument by people who can't construct an original argument of their own.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:32 a.m. CST

    MAJOR SPOILER WARNING! The Reviews On This Site... Are Shite

    by filker-tom

    Not being worried about having ROTK spoiled (I already know the big ones, and all but one of them involve problems which will be resolved to an extent with the Extended Edition), I read with interest all three of the incoherent babblings Harry is passing off as "reviews" of ROTK. It's nice to know that: (a) the great works of literature can inspire the untalented and unpoetic to attempt to fill those voids in their souls; (b) reviewers are doggedly determined to judge an adaptation of what is regarded as the best book of the 20th century not by how accurately in both detail and emotion it translates that work, but what new stuff the adapter brings to the table to "improve" it (and I do not say this to slam Peter Jackson, who has made to my mind remarkably few false steps with this epic); (c) ROTK roolz, Matrix Revolutions and Kill Bill sukk. Knowles, my respect for this site has been plummeting for over a year now, but this is drivel even beyond your drivel. The level of discourse here has degenerated to the approximate level of a "Who would win: Superman or Hulk?" panel for ages 6-12 at a bad comic con, and the crap you pass off as "news" not only ISN'T, it isn't even SAYING anything much beyond "Is this good? Gosh, maybe. Make up your own mind, 'cause I won't actually tell you anything about it. But don't like this other stuff, 'cause I don't." Which, I suppose, is right in keeping with the era of the Bush Administration, but that's another discussion, for another board. Adios.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Eternal

    by Planck

    You say > It's interesting to see a grown man say that a FANTASY MOVIE was too kiddish... Who do you think Tolkien wrote LOTR for? You? or the kid you were? I would suggest you read Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories". You might find out that the answer to your question surprises you.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:36 a.m. CST

    'As a content creator...'!

    by Batutta

    I'm wary of any filmmaker who calls himself a 'content creator'. Makes him sound as passionate as a guy who writes stereo instructions. He's obviously on some Christian crusade, well, I'm sorry but I don't have to believe in some imaginary man in the sky in order to lead a moral life. I respect the values that Christianity preaches but not the emotional blackmail it uses to enforce them. Matrix Revolutions was a sucky ending to a trilogy, but it's unfair to judge Kill Bill until it's seen in the context of the second film.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:41 a.m. CST

    So because Jackson shows the battles Tolkien describes he "labor

    by FluffyUnbound

    Frankly, so far all of Tolkien's major themes are there: his pastoral outlook, his embrace of continuity and opposition to change for change's sake, his somewhat hybrid Platonist / Manichaean cosmology of a gradually deteriorating universe, decaying away from original beauty and perfection, with a slowly weakening good and evil locked in a death struggle that diminishes them both in the end - all that I can see that has been removed is Tolkien's overt defense of the English rural class system, which he seemed to regard as edifying. And it makes sense that was removed, since that way of life is dead and gone, and there's no one left to defend. You can argue that some of the subtleties of Saruman's and Denethor's motivations aren't trumpeted as loudly as they might be - but Saruman's are at least touched upon, and if people don't pick up on that it's their fault. The jury is out on Denethor. Frankly, the purist argument works best on a superficial, events-checklist level - fine, there were no Elves at Helm's Deep. But on a thematic or "spiritual" level there is as much Tolkien on display here as one could reasonably expect. Particularly in the EE's.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Oh, really!

    by Scorsese12

    So only a devout Catholic can produce a work like that? Well, sht then I guess I'm a true artist just because of my faith! Puh-leeeze! I myself am Catholic but I'd never harp on some dude's religion thinking that his faith made it a better work. That's bullshit. Please remember that a couple of nice Jewish boys wrote 'Casablanca' and many other people of various faiths wrote fantastic, beautiful works. "Only a devout Catholic could write this"-- my ass. That guy's an embarrasment to my faith and whichever belief that anyone else may/may not have.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:07 a.m. CST

    hey Scorsese12,

    by antmanx68

    He didnt mean that non-catholics cant write great stories, he was saying that because Tolkien was such an old school catholic that Return of the King is the way it is. It's true, im catholic, and Catholics (although not perfect by any means) really have a Good vs. absolute evil theme going through out the entire religion. As opposed to Jews, muslims, buddhists, whatever else..... I would say that having read Lord of the Rings a few times that Tolkien's being a devout catholic had a huge hand in making those stories what they were...... It's kind of obvious if you're familiar with both Tolkien and Catholicism.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Man, I was with you until you brought up "The Passion"

    by Rosie_Cotton

    Mel Gibson is as Christian as Hitler's left testicle. Tolkien would spit on that shit. Seriously. Gibson is the absolute antithesis of everything Tolkien believed in; please don't attempt to make some half-assed comparison between the two projects.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:25 a.m. CST

    The Passion?!?!

    by MSILENUS

    OK I loved Kill Bill. It had the feel of craftsmanship to it. I dont need to read a review from this sanctimonious opinionated twat. OK ROTK is fantastic etc etc but I dont need to read your bias. And Gibson is part of a fringe group that seperated from the Catholic Church and said fringe group obviously harbors very anti-semitic feelings. This guy sounds like he tries to tell everyone else how to live their life and sticking his nose in where it dont belong. You dont like realism in your movies go watch the Wizard of Oz or something. Nitwit

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Dr Wrong

    by dcan

    Ong are you a real Doctor? I'm guessing not since it's highly unlikely that anyone who has that much disdain for Kill Bill could possibly have passed medical school. Number One: Comparing Return of the King with Kill Bill is like Comparing apples and oranges. To like both is certainly not a mutually exclusive brain dead action. Number Two: There are no real heroes in Kill Bill. Uma is driven by an ugly negative emotion. Tarrantino reminds us of that constantly and wants us to think about it. He also wants us to think about why we watch such films. Number Three: You clearly have something up your nose about your faith. As a fellow Christian let me tell you- it comes off arrogant. There are lots of thoughtful people in the church who would disagree with tons of what you said. Can we agree to disagree or am I to find myself imprisoned on a high tower awaiting your decree. You're no Gandalf and I'm no Saruman. And by the way niether is most of Hollywood. All is a see is bunch of Hobbits tryin to work it out. Dave

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Fuck off, naysayers! ROTK will ownz youz!

    by the flashlight

    Yeah, you heard me, you pathetic collection of basement-dwelling, virginal, masturbating to Leia in Jabba's Palace garb, Neo-wannabe, half-witted Columbine Kid rejects. On a more serious note, these three "reviews" Harry's posted so far are certainly, as another poster put it, bloodless. Vague, ambiguous, and short on detail as well. I have no doubt the film will rule the world, but I'm still waiting for the first real review (not that any review written by some two-bit internet dweeb with his own geocities site (LOL!) will influence my intent to see the movie at least 10 times in the theater). I saw Revolutions, and was underwhelmed, and ultimately unmoved. I couldn't have cared less whether any of the characters lived or died. Fuck Zion, with their raving, carefully proportioned multi-cultural cast, and their Aliens rip-off loading dock suits firing gatling guns like the marines fighting the Bugs in Starship Troopers. And Kill Bill? Haven't seen it.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:26 a.m. CST

    On Catholics and moral relativism

    by the flashlight

    First off, I wouldn't be caught dead paying money to see Gibson's ode to anti-Semitism known as, well, what are they calling it this week to avoid a lawsuit? Second, if any of you read Owen "I don't have a fucking clue" Glieberman's review of Two Towers in Entertainment Weekly, you'll know that one of the main reasons he didn't like the film was because there wasn't enough moral ambiguity in the story, we didn't see Aragorn's or Gimli's "inner conflict" and self-hatred as they were forced to hack apart hundreds of marauding orcs. But then, that's the typical pansy-assed liberal chowder-head for you, the same kind of gimp who doesn't like Black Hawk Down because (insert whining, lisping fag voice), "it's just a bunch of ugly Americans mowing down anonymous Somalies. Why doesn't the movie show all the bad, bad reasons for why the evil Americans were there in the first place? Wahhhhh, I shitted myself...MOMMMY!!!!" I for one appreciate movies where we know who the bad guys are, we know who the good guys are, and the good guys win in the end. Fuckin A! Does anyone ask about the "inner conflict" of the Wicked Witch of the West? Or are we never to watch the Wizard of Oz again?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:30 a.m. CST

    XTheCrowX and eternal76

    by kranglemeister

    I know,to some extent, what you mean about Tolkien's depth of characterisation (or lack of it maybe), and your right, there is little 'overt' emotion in the book. But I still managed to become emotionally involved with the characters and story, and I don't see why one has to cinematically paint with such broad strokes - surely the right kind of intensity in a stare can reveal a multitude of emotions - without the need for overblown emotionality. I do agree that literary and cinematic stories must obviously be told in different ways, but I felt that by contemporizing LOTR, it detracted from its 'mythic' sense; eg Aragorn's way-over-the top selfdoubt and the consequent need for Arwen to be his anchor. Aragorn SHOULD be a strong self-sufficient character, and I don't think that playing up his neuroses makes him any more sympathetic or admirable. I realize that I do sound like some purist zealot only interested in verbatim replication of the original, but in my opinion LOTR didn't need to be spoonfed to the public, just as the book didn't. I believe that cinema can and should deal in subtlety and intelligence, even in an epic such as this, when it comes to human (or hobbit) relationships; and unfortunately I don't think Jackson hit it this time, for me at least. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to rant at you guys. Later.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Dr Ong can say what he likes

    by Melian

    I think this review was more about Dr Ong's reaction to the film, than the film itself, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If it put him in touch with his faith and his belief in good and evil, great. I am not myself a Catholic, but I have to say I was startled by some of the religious intolerance on this discussion board (particularly the iloveyoungboys.com comment and rantings about the Ten Commandments). We are talking Lord of the Rings here (and the Matrix Revolutions and Tarantino), not the Bible.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:56 a.m. CST

    by Shunkeat

    he probably just read the other two reviews, but added his dumb thoughts on Matrix to cause a stir. kill bill is awesome, too. ROTK will be THE movie of 2003.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:57 a.m. CST

    i almost

    by Shunkeat

    thought to put AICN on my favorites, but it isn't worth a dime.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:05 p.m. CST

    i willa dmit that i am catholic, and i like Revolutions...

    by Shunkeat

    and i know ROTK will own Big Fish and Cold Mountain any day in December. but the point of Tolkien was not his catholicism: i doubt he would want anti-semetism or anti-protestanism on his reputation. No, the point of his stories was unity and friendship and learning to accept one another for who they are. Take for example, Gimli and Legolas, elves and dwarves are supposed to hate eachother, but they become FRIENDS! They build a ship and got to the WEST! That's true untiy and friendship.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Oh my goodness.

    by Mostholy

    Given the constant hyperbole that infects these talkbacks, I know this is just going to be lost in the noise around here. But I have to say, this is the single worst review I've ever read at AICN, and that's saying a lot. This isn't "beautifully written." It's pretentious schlock. The fact that a meandering blowhard like this would get props from anyone for his writing style is staggering to me. Ugh...good riddance.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:12 p.m. CST

    it is beautiful...

    by Shunkeat

    it is beautifully written... for Harry atleast

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Is it Bee- atch, Bee- otch, or Bee-yotch? I prefer Bee-YOTCH!

    by Devil'sOwn

    Just wondering. Anyway, in the grand scheme of things, I don't care if the books are "better" than the movies. Hell, isn't that accepted knowledge by now? The point is these movies stand magnificently on their own. You do yourself a disservice if you sit around and gripe about how the films are not a precise translation of the printed page. Pay attention- NOT GONNA HAPPEN. If you are displeased with the final product, that's "okay". Perhaps you need to give it up and stick to some other films that are to your liking. Xenu's Sister and Kampbell-Kid, my sentiments exactly. What does Kill Bill have to do with the price of tea?! There just wasn't any excuse to make that "comparison". And I am in no way defending the reviewer, but watch out for the "shut up until you can do better" comments. I had a person who works at this site try to attack me on that score a while back ( the irony being that wasn't even what I said!), saying something to the effect that that is an immature position to take, and one doesn't need to do better to recognize quality, or lack thereof. Just a friendly heads up, if that's your argument, you better have some ammo to back it up. Some of these Peter Travers-wannabes get their panties in a knot when you remind 'em they're not superior to you.*** I just wanted to take this opportunity to say, in light of all the recent bellyaching, the LotR films in general have been glorious achievements, Fellowship was a dazzling intro to this world, and Towers in particular is easily one of my favorite films of all time (at least, until Return of the King comes out!). It is from beginning to end, filled to overflowing with action, gorgeous scenery, astounding special effects, an exhultant soundtrack and enough epic moments for three movies. I don't mean to dismiss what the anal purists and nit-pickers are trying to say, but the bottom line is this movie places an emphasis on the importance of friendship and faith in trying times that does not seem contrived, but feels genuine. I am so sick of reading pompous, windy posts from "scholars" in previous talkbacks, who take things way too damn seriously. Actually having the gall to question the director's ability because he introduced a few moments of much-needed pathos, saying it "contributes to the 'denobilization' of these characters". Please, don't waste your precious time sitting around congratulating each other on how many volcabualry words you can spew out at this paltry geekfest of a site- the world needs you! While I respect your knowledge, apparently you were absent the day they were giving lessons on subtlety and restaint. Can someone not just be a fan who enjoys these movies because they have way-cool characters who have wicked-awesome swordfights?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Beautifully written?

    by DarthCorleone

    Only on this site could bashing of other films in lieu of actually discussing the topic be interpreted as valid critique. For the record, I loved Kill Bill, didn't care for Revolutions, but that's not the point. Apples and oranges, man.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Oh, and for the bright boys and girls who missed it the first ti

    by Devil'sOwn

    There IS such a thing as overanalysis. Proceed with caution, lest you suck all the joy and wonderment out of these movies.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Seeing as how every other movie in the world got brought up...

    by DarthCorleone

    Speaking of Gibson's Christ movie, are we going to get to see Monica Bellucci nude in that?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Monica Nude

    by antmanx68

    Although her character is a hooker, i think she wont be naked........ Go check out Bram Stoker's Dracula.... Where her boobies are out and she bites Keanu's weener.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:22 p.m. CST

    A lot of angry atheists here...

    by CaptainHendry

    It's interesting how this rather innocuous review set you guys off. What is there to be angry about, really? The suggestion that Tolkien wrote a masterpiece based on his Catholic view of the world? Sort of hard to argue that point. I think I know what really pisses you guys off: It's seeing how much the Christian elements of Tolkien's work are the ones that make it work as a story. You hate that because it shouldn't be. As for Matrix, well, the first movie had lots of Christian symbolism and allegory and the 2nd and 3rd took their inspiration from gnosticism. Sure they still had a few images (like Neo's death) but something was missing, right? We all read about the crowds waiting out the credits for "the real ending." I was there first day and I saw it myslef. What were all those people waiting for. I'll tell you, but you won't like. They were waiting for Neo to come back. They were waiting for his moment of triumph. They were waiting for a resurrection. And had that moment been there, Revolutions would have made another $100 million dollars. And that's what all the screaming is about, isn't it. To drown out the fact that you wanted it too.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:23 p.m. CST

    I create content everyday. Out of my ass!!

    by RainJacket

    I'll bet this guy has a business card that reads "content creator" on it, and he hands it out to every dumbfuck he sees. I'm sure there's some homeless guy standing outside of a Del Taco somewhere who has 15 of his cards. I mean, "Kill Bill" is garbage? Remember Howie Long in "Firestorm"? Now that's garbage. I know a lot of people hated "Revolutions" because they expected too much from it, but is it really garbage? No. It's not. Now "Tomb Raider", or a Paul Walker movie. That stuff actually IS garbage. How come Content Boy couldn't mention those? Has he not seen "House of the Dead?" We're LUCKY to have movies like "Kill Bill" and "The Matrix", and "The Lord of the Rings". Even if they are hated by a lot of us internet freaks.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:30 p.m. CST

    I suppose this guy saw it

    by don_gately

    But who can be sure. "Beautifully written," Harry? Please. Maybe you could screen these things for actual content.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Bjarki....... you are a twit.

    by antmanx68

    .....and i mean that in a nice way. there is no time to show Saruman's demise...... with the added scene in TTT extended edition it is DEFINATELY implied that he has been rendered powerless and thrwarted once and for all..... You see merry and pippin looking at him stranded on the balcony and they're cracking jokes about what a tool he has become..... that spells it out. And if you knew anything, you'd know that it will most definately be in the extended cut of Return of the King..... for the die hard lord of the rings fans who dont care about pacing or running time the scene will be there for him... and the extended cuts are the REAL version of the movies...... the deal between PJ and new line was that he would cut stuff only if he could get the extended cuts out on dvd before the next theatrical release.... so..... there you go.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:32 p.m. CST

    CaptainHendry!!!!1

    by antmanx68

    Right on, i totally agree with you..... Just so you know loved matrix 1, hated 2, was mildly amused by 3 but was waiting for a Ressurection scene where maybe Neo appears to Morpheus and says that he has not left them and even though his body is gone he will remain in the matrix as a savior/guardian entity..... that would have been badass.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Tolkien and Gibson

    by williammunny

    I don't know all of the particulars of the group that Gibson belongs to, but from what I do know the group dislikes most of the changes made by Vatican II and, in particular, wants a return to the Latin Mass. Tolkien disliked most of the Vatican II changes, and lamented the loss of the Latin Mass. His parish, St. Aloysius in Oxford, still does a Latin Mass every Sunday. I am not saying he would like Gibson, or the Passion, or agree with all of Gibson's beleifs, but he would find some common ground. It is also worth mentioning that most of the criticism of Gibson's movie as anti-Semitic are coming from people that haven't seen it, and have only read a very old draft of the script. I love it when people who claim to be enlightened minds bash movies with out ever seeing them. Lastly, I think that even if you don't like Gibson, don't agree with his politics, and hate his movies, you have to give the guy some credit for having the balls to make a movie with no commercial appeal. It's kind of like when New Line bet the ranch on an unknown Kiwi director by giving him $300 millions dollars to turn an epic series of books into a trilogy of movies even though many previous attempts failed to get off the ground or to do justice to the subject matter.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 1:47 p.m. CST

    So who wrote this review, Michael Medved or Capalert?

    by wash

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2 p.m. CST

    What a load.

    by QUIXOTE

    Just review the movie and keep your sanctimonious opinions about "moral relativism" to yourself. Irony and ambiguity have existed, in the arts, long before KILL BILL or THE MATRIX so your entire thesis is crap. I'm genuinely looking forward to ROTK and I respect Profesor Tolkien's black/white view of good and evil. However it is not, and cannot, be the last word on the subject. This "review" is worthless. It tells us nothing about the film, except that it meets this clown's standards of morality. What an ass!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:03 p.m. CST

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...

    by IncredibleYoda

    Somebody write a review that doesn't in some way, great or small, compare any of the LOTR films to any other film. This means no mention of Star Wars, Matrix, Kill Bill, Spider Man, Superman, The Hulk, Hocus Pocus, Getting Even With Dad, Cats and Dogs, Cop and a Half, Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot, the Paris Hilton sex tape, The Land Before Time, Ernest Scared Stupid, Twins, Joe Dirt, and Problem Child. So there, the challenge is out: somebody write a review without having to resort to comparing and contrasting the greatness of the LOTR films to anything else that has ever graced the silver screen.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:20 p.m. CST

    What up, Dr. Ong??? I saw ROTK at the DGA last week too and The

    by jackson healy

    Let's see you do that sitting on the toilet! "Oh, let's all bow to the silly little hobbits like a bunch of faggots!" Bite me, Frodo!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:30 p.m. CST

    WTF is all this Kill Bill bashing...

    by maceodkat

    Kill Bill was a fan-fucking-tastice film. I was holding back the urge to jump down in the TB's for the smack you were laying on KB, but I waited, and waited, and waited... WTF was the beautifuly written part of this review? come on Harry, was it the Matrix remarks? didnt you come out ** R A V I N G about the final chapter, ** and the non-"Aliens" looking rigs and the whole kit-n-kaboodle?? Q made a film that not all can love, but my fucking MOM as seen the fucking thing 7 times, each instance bringing a new familiy member or friend..and it's her first QT movie, she walked out of Pulp because of the language.. I have only viewed the film on screen once, and then again on a buddy's very horribly captured bootlegg. the haunting scenes, fantastic scores from the RZA, and riviting actors make it one of the most enjoyable movies(and I've seen everything)all year... The loud siren and tilted red camera angles every time the Bride is confronted with her Death Squad brings a smirk to my face, the giggle of GOGO before swinging her ball & chain. Hell down to the Pussywagon driving hospital pimp Buck, who's there to fuck... Confronted with the fact that its theatical run is almost at a close I'm going out today to enojoy it on the big silver screen one last time before I'm lucky enough to stand in line for vol. 2 I'm not anti-Jackson in any way, shape, or form. Infact I have my 12:01 tickets already in hand. I clicked on to this review in hopes to find a wonderfully written review by one of the AICN Clones, and what do I get this jerkoff with a axe to grind against QT just because this faggot didnt watch any Shaw Bros. films... I guess i've rambled enough, and vented enough... mace out Mace out

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:34 p.m. CST

    the book and movie each do things better

    by Shunkeat

    the movies helped me fully visualize Helm's Deep like never before: the books never gave that good of a description.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:39 p.m. CST

    NEW RULE>>NO MORE DR ONG REVIEWS PLEASE

    by Jon E Cin

    This guy is obviously a Hollywood tool! Probably a pissed off PA or "content creator" that counts script page numbers. Anyone who bashes a movie like Kill Bill in a fucking LOTR review is a complete idiot!!!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:39 p.m. CST

    lotr

    by Shunkeat

    LOTR is the best novel(s) ever writen. Never have I been so entranced into another world as Tolkien's. And yes, the Kill Bill bashing must stop because it is Taratino's best work (so far.)

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Frodo sends Sam home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Shunkeat

    I read in the War of the Ring site that Frodo sends Sam home after Gollum tricks Frodo. But at the Lair of Shelob, Sam comes back!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Shunkeat

    by spideyman1218

    How about some spoiler warnings. Some of us aren't reading those sites you mentioned, because we want to be surprised. None of these reviews had spoiler tags, which is why I'm here. Thanks a lot ass

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Streamlining the epic!

    by greenleaf

    "Not that Jackson added things that rivaled the genius of Tolkien, but he went through the book with a highlighter and streamlined the epic so that the emotions come through clearer and it hit me over the head like a Dwarven hammer." It this in hommage to me or is it a natural display of imbecillity? Feeling charitable today, I will blame the reviewer and refrain from any extrapolation (or generalization). These reviews sure are a lot of fun! :-D Now, if you'll excuse me... I must attend my weekly meeting with the RMA (Relativist Moralists Anonymous).

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:26 p.m. CST

    "Beautifully written"?

    by mansala

    Harry you're scaring me. Please tell me you (of all people) are not pushing any ulterior agendas.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Mr. Hollywood "content creator"

    by decfx

    What a piss poor review! Hey Mr. Hollywood. I worked in the biz too. It doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. What did you work on? Hey everyone! Here's my ROTK review. It was cool. Gollem was in it. There were some cool battles and PJ cut some stuff out. I worked in Hollywood doing VFX and worked on movies like Face/Off, Pitch Black, End of Days, Star Trek: Insurrection, X-Files and more. I may have been sitting on a toilet at the time on some of them. Dude, know your role and shut your mouth! -out

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Mal...

    by Devil'sOwn

    Just so we're clear here, I wasn't defending Kill Bill, just wondering what it had to do with the topic. I'll have to take your word for it, I haven't seen the movie yet.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Sorry Bud, but Kill Bill Kicked Ass

    by brianwarnard

    Sounds to me like you were more looking for 'Tin Cup' or 'A River Runs Through It'. Kill Bill was clever, sharp, funny, and fucking bad ass.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Franchise Wars...

    by Theta

    I'm sure you think you could pull "Kill Bill" off, Dr. Ong, but bluntly I doubt it. It's easy to dismiss Tarantino as a "trash" director until you realize where he got the name of his production company from (and it's NOT "Reservoir Dogs.") Comparing LOTR and Kill Bill isn't fair to either of them; they are entirely different movies aiming for entirely different effects using entirely different means. Kill Bill is simply attempting to be a superior piece of violent larger than life entertainment, and it succeeds in that respect admirably. LOTR is trying to be an involving emotional epic, and it succeeds as well. Crafting either is goddamn hard.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Books vs. Movies

    by PurityOfEssence

    It is silly to think that a film can or will ever be an exact carbon copy of a film - it won't. I like the books better than the films, they are more fleshed out. As far as the books taking themselves to seriously, well I can't say I agree - one thing I didn't like about TTT was Sams ending speech it was just too heavy handed. Another problem with the films is the self-contradiction - Frodo shows the Wraith the damn Ring - So sorry it's over... Obviously it's fun to wittness the battles in a visual sense - but people have no attention spans to or are just to damn lazy to use their imaginations that they can't read books anymore. Quite frankly I find almost every scene with Arwen to be incredably cheesy - not Episode two cheesy but pretty damn cheesy. "No Frodo no" and the whole Aragorn river thing with her floating above him, lame ass. Further in the new trailer it's Arwen who is insisting that Aragorn get the sword of the King, now in the books this wasn't an issue becuase Aragorn to Anduril with him once the Fellowship departed Rivendale (he also had it before they went to Rivendale as well). But the fact that Arwen in the films is in any way making this decision is sort of silly, it seems to me as an attempt to make her a stronger female character. To be honest I find Arwen in the films so annoying I sometimes wish that Aragorn would just end up with Eowyn. The Arwen role is to me annoying not becuase of the change from the books - but just the embarrasment level she provides, Liv Tyler with her weepy lines... Yes the character change to Faramir pisses me off but the reason it pisses me off is that it leads to one of the most ludicrous plot holes in the films (wraith sees the ring) and what really gets me is that in the next film they make it out that Sauron thinks that Pippen has the Ring. Even though one of the the raiths has seen the damn thing way the hell east at Ozgilliath. Yeah that makes sense, further once the Ring was located doesn't anyone think that every host in mordor would descend upon Ozgilliath? It just is a silly idiotic plot hole. People realy should try to put continuity in thier films...

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Beautifully written my ass.

    by Vegas

    There wasn't even a fucking REVIEW. It was just a few paragraphs bashing Kill Bill and the Matrix! Exactly what is wrong with fucking fanboy "criticism" these days.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Your coffee tastes like shit!

    by trafficguy2000

    Why are you comparing two TOTALLY (three if you include the Matrix) different styles of film to one another? WEAK! " I felt dirty!" Go pound sand ya pansy.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Off topic but...

    by PurityOfEssence

    This whole thing about the passions being anti-semetic is sort of bizzar. Jesus was symetic, so were his followers, the whole thing that it was the evil romans that killed Jesus is sort of silly, Pilate tried to release him saying he found no fault in him. Some of the Jews at the time (especially those who were stired up by the Pharacies) called for Jesus' blood to be upon themselves as well as their children. Regardless if you believe the biblical accounts or not - it's worth a read just to see how the whole thing went down. What is Gibson supposed to do - change the Biblical story to make it more PC. The thing is: Some Jews followed Jesus, some were to afraid too, and others wanted his blood. That sounds like just about any societies reaction to a controversial figure. Scriptually Jesus' closest friends were semetic, as were some of his most ardent persecutors. It's not a race issue - it's a social/community response. It can happen anywhere - the fact is if Jesus came to earth in America, Canada, Indo-China, Affrica, anywhere - he would have been killed regardless (since the film is based on scriptual accounts as well as that book it's best that we stick with the concept that what is being depicted is historical fact, for the purpose of this conversation). If Jesus came back, fudamentalist Christians would probably not know how to respond to him, becuase he would not be what they expected.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Dr. Ong's Review

    by silentdrowning

    Absolutely Dr. Ong, whoever you are. Kill Bill and Matrix are filled with the same empty post-modernity that doesn't give the characters any sincere motivation. Visually cool, sure, but with no heart. Apparantly Thurman's character offs Bill, the father of their child out of an overriding sense of vengeance in spite of the fact that the Bill and the child have a intimate bond. If this message isn't something else Hollywood is flushing down to us through the drain of post-modernity I can't say what is. Honestly, do you think The Passion is going to get 'airplay.' McCarthyism is one thing but this is persecution from the inside. Are there not still a lot of powerful jews in Hollywood (I being racially part jewish myself) which aren't going to let even a big leaguer like Gibson come to bat. Yes, no? cf. the distribution and media attention of Luther.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Kicked in the Nuts!

    by Batutta

    Go to http://www.channel101.com and check out their hilarious shows. Ultra Force and Computerman 2000 (surprise star in this one) are totally hilarious, as well as the aforementioned nutbuster. Channel 101 should be on direct tv

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5 p.m. CST

    I will go see The Passion, because I prefer the work of people w

    by FluffyUnbound

    I guess I could just go see more formulaic "very special message" Oxygen network crap instead, but that would require me to eat my own testicles, so I will pass. If you make a film with a religious message, and everyone is comfortable with that film, I can guarantee you this: your film sucks. I have contempt for almost everything in the world that touches on religion, EXCEPT for that sliver of the populace that actually takes it seriously, instead of including it as an "element of their lifestyle". Thank you for not building bridges, Mr. Gibson. Burn a few bridges down instead. It casts an interesting light.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:10 p.m. CST

    How dare you say "steaming turds of post-modernity like Kill Bil

    by empyreal0

    This is an insult to the act of defecation, an act which is FAR, FAR more pleasurable than sitting thru Quentin's latest massacre. I've taken shits with more creativity than that hack spent on his last three films.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:20 p.m. CST

    This is no absolute evil

    by Vision

    If you say there is absolute evil or absolute good, then you are evil and part of the problems of the world. (And fix your html!)

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:24 p.m. CST

    I do have to disagree about Revolutions, however.

    by empyreal0

    Maybe I find it excusable that you are required to dig deeply in order to find the purpose behind Revolutions, and you don't. Maybe I find it okay that the characters are simplistic because the world they inhabit and how they fit into its symbolism is the actual focus of the story, but this is folly to your eyes. Maybe I enjoyed the purely visceral battle for Zion, which wasn't as emotional as Helm's Deep, but was absolutely incredible to behold nonetheless, and you didn't. All I know is that while Revolutions certainly did come across rather hurried in terms of its script - not an ounce as polished as the original - it did still have an interesting meaning buried within. Where Tolkein's epic has buried in it perhaps one very powerful theme, the Wachowskis have toyed with dozens. Tolkein's is a profoundly human moral statement - the Wachowskis' is a broad survey of metaphysics, raising limitless unanswerable questions. I love both. But I have to insult Kill Bill one more time. It had no meaning, no purpose, nothing of any value whatsoever, and truly is the more revolting side of postmodernism.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Um, so when did LotR become a story without shades of grey?

    by djinnj

    Just wondering. I know Sauron is pretty much as bad an evil as one could get. But there are all sorts of fallen characters and all sorts of redemptive moments. Plenty of imperfection, even in dear Frodo and Sam (our heroes, after all). Remember, even Gollum has his moments.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Wow...

    by j1126

    ...he really hated Kill Bill, but isn't this review a little late.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 6:17 p.m. CST

    So, what about ROTK?

    by Uncle_Les

    We all knew Kill Bill was gonna offend little pansy boy conservatives, but I for one would like to read a ROTK review on this site that sounds like it was written by somebody that actually saw the film. Peace Out.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Re: BladeRunnerUnit & Osgiliath, etc.

    by The Hillbrothers

    That idea makes sense, I agree, but I thought the real idea was that the Ringwraiths were rather "blind" to the Ring unless someone puts it on. Someone suggested a long time ago that the Ringwraith is only approaching Frodo as an easy target for his mount to munch, but that as soon as Frodo were to put on the Ring (he's about to) the Wingwraith would see it and then there would be real trouble. Frodo was compelled to climb up and put on the Ring in order to reveal it to Sauron because the Ring wants to go back to him. Sauron's attack against Minas Tirith was planned all along as the next step in his plan for world domination. The reason Jackson chose to show us Osgiliath is that it's obvious in the book that Osgiliath is an important defense point for Gondor (abandoned though it was), yet not so obvious in the films without showing the audience. Geographically it makes sense because it's not far from Ithilien, where Faramir captures Frodo and Sam. As for the debate about the changes made to the story from the book, XTheCrovvX and Eternal76 both make excellent points. I agree. I love the books, and I love the films, even if they're dramatically over-the-top some of the time. They're two different animals. You'd have something to complain about if someone tried to rewrite the book, in print form, with a modern Fantasy style (most of that genre sucks nowadays which is why I stick mainly with Sci-Fi books, and while I'm at it, let me plug John C. Wright's Golden Age series if you love Sci-Fi with an epic scope and have a patience for detail- it's a classic in the making). And as for that "review," that's exactly what it's not, by definition. It's a reaction, sure, by not a very coherent one. If Ong had managed to stick with the point, all he would have managed to do is praise the source material. Well, duh. Most of us can agree LOTR was a great book. But bashing other films along the way will only cause people who like those films to distrust your opinion. Therefore it's safer and smarter to not bring up other films unless, like someone else said, there is a point to the comparison. Since the only things ROTK has in common with Kill Bill and Matrix Revolutions is the year in which they were released and a high anticipation level, why not compare it to Matrix Reloaded, X2, The Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator 3, etc? So far all we know from these "reviews" is that (SPOILER whether or not you've read the book) Legolas climbs an Oliphant, and that part is really cool. Well, I'll bet.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Somebody shoot me if I ever refer to myself as a "content creato

    by truthseekr1488

    But anyway, he's comparing apples-n-oranges by mixing in the Matrix and KB with a ROTK review. I like movies of substance and depth as much as the next cineaste (heh) but once in a while a funky amoral pastiche like Kill Bill can be refreshing. I also found it inspiring...after reading an interview in which Tarantino discussed his influences, I went out and rented various DVDs like "Coffy," Japanese action flicks, Anime, and most recently "Once Upon a Time in the West." Some of this stuff is better than Tarantino, but if I hadn't seen Kill Bill I might not have been turned on to it for years. I didn't get this inspiration from the Tolkien...I mean, where do you go from the Ring trilogy -- Norse saga, the Bible maybe? Fine for some but it feels like a cinematic cul-de-sac.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:38 p.m. CST

    ROTK and Culture Wars

    by pmcgowan

    OK, it's a given that the problem with Dr. Ong's review (other than the fact than it wasn't a review) is that he wants to use the joy we all have about ROTK to vent about what he deems to be unchristian in the world. First, let me just say that I don't think he does a very good job of it, personally. There is a smugness and self-righteousness there that is decidedly unchristian. At the same time, I have to say that it just doesn't make sense for people to come back swinging and say that while you love Tolkien, Dr. Ong and all other Christians should shut the *&^% up and that Christianity is made up of a bunch of lies and fantasy and child-molesting perverts. Why not, even if you don't believe, simply give Christianity (and specifically, in this case, Big Bad Roman Catholicism)some basic credit for being the spiritual foundation (not the linguistic nor the cultural, but the spiritual) foundation for Tolkien's work? Is that really so hard?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:44 p.m. CST

    COMPARING MOVIES IS LIKE SPORT - FOR NERDS

    by NERD FIGHT

    That's why you guys do it. It's like getting behind your favourite team.'Gaytrix beats Lord of the Quims' 'No it doesn't' 'Yes it does'...blah blah blah

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Can we please stop comparing movies to other movies?

    by Ribbons

    Your cofee does not deserve to taste better if you're petty enough to cut down other people's work.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 7:55 p.m. CST

    BNAT 5

    by johne5

    This is a clear admission to the viewing of ROTK at Butt Numb A Thon. As if we all didnt know already.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Rivendale? Isn't that where Archie and the gang shack up at?

    by Devil'sOwn

    I keed, I keed, Monkey's. And Ong? Get off the pipe, son. That stuff'll rot yer brain. Not exactly sure how religeon entered into this, it makes about as much sense as any other AICN "review". Remember Harry's Revolutions review? Hoo, boy. That was so far out there, I couldn't even see it. And speaking of the Matrix, tres unprofessional comparing it to LotR! Man, I don't which call you made was the worst, but it may benefit you "reviewers" to see other amatuer review sites do it, and in the future address what's relevant about the movie. grind your ax elsewhere, dog.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Re: Repost for argument: Re: Osgiliath Now

    by PurityOfEssence

    Your argument is actually the only possible excuse that I myself have tried to come up with, except for the fact that there is a major flaw. Once the Witch King saw the ring (in the words of bill paxton "Game over man, game over.") Sauron would know imidiatly of its position, meanwhile Isengaurd is being trounced, the reason Pippen is thought to have the ring is becuase of the Palantir - right? Don't you think Sauron could figure out that Pippen is not in the same place as Frodo. The whole seeing the ring thing was unecesary. Why would the Gondorians risk taking the ring that much closer to mordor. Don't you think it seems a little odd to take the ring from rivendale all the way to osgiliath and then back track to Minas Trith (excuse my spelling I am on some heavy pain killers, I spent last night in an emergency room being treated for dehidration and other things). Its sloppy film making, and while I think that Jackson may be able to pull off your angle (it would be nice if he could) I think it makes for to much convolution of the story. Another thing is why would the witch king give up on pursuing the ring becuase of one freakin arrow?

  • So I'll just say I was glad to read another early review to whet my appetite? Anyone don't like these reviews? Try another site.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Is it necessary?

    by devanjedi

    Is it necessary to bad-mouth other current films with large fan followings just to make your own review seem larger? As soon as he talks about how much he hates Revolutions and Kill Bill, I lost interest- regardless of how I feel about those two films! "I like ROTK because I hate Kill Bill! I am a christian who believes in absolute morality and so I love ROTK and will love a movie (Passion)about Christ regardles before it has been released." Give me a break.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Dr. Ong Called it correctly

    by reelgriff

    Kill Bill was junk. Beautifully shot, nice score, good looking chicks, great sprays of blood...but to what end? It was vile, pointless crap. The interesting thing about mentioning QT in relation to PJ is that PJ also did crap, for a while. But he moved past it, to the very moving "Heavenly Creatures." One wonders what QT would do if he had a moral conscience, if he applied his considerable skills to telling a story worth hearing...a story that would add to those who heard it, not leave them lesser and feeling defiled for listening. PJ is trying to tell a story about heroism, about the large and small heroes, about fighting for what's right even when it appears hopeless. (and BTW, I like a review that gives us impressions, rather than a shot for shot synopsis of the film)

  • Yup, and with that logic I should be listening to you... why?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Kill Bill was good

    by Shunkeat

    but it was not perfect because (as stated MANY times before,) it has no point to all of it. Flimsy plot. That is why I think LOTR is better in important respects-the plot! Return of the King will be considered the centerpiece to many of these actor's careers: i don't think Elijah Wood could top LOTR by doing another 'North' or 'Flipper'.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:16 p.m. CST

    to eternal76

    by shuttrbug2k1

    Actually the line was "Fly, you fools" but I'm being nitpicky. Ian McKellan almost made me cry when he said, "Run You fools." Was it the story? Merry's "You're a part of this world..." speech couldn't have touched upon Tolkien's intent on humans beings roles on this planet more clearly... What about the directing? The battles, the atmosphere, the relationships, Gollum; they all pissed you off? It's interesting to see a grown man say that a FANTASY MOVIE was too kiddish... Who do you think Tolkien wrote

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Dr Ong should be pissed on

    by Jon E Cin

    Typical hollywood trash thinking he can make a good movie...TRY IT CONTENT CREATOR SHITHEAD!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:18 p.m. CST

    gollum was the most amazing CGI creation I have ever seen!

    by Shunkeat

    But will Shelob top Gollum this December?

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:19 p.m. CST

    If I was a " content creator in Hollywood" I'd be too embarassed

    by Silver Shamrock

    And if I had the stones to say "I see Kill Bill and Revolutions and I say, 'I could do that sitting on the toilet.'. " I'd at least be man enough to list MY resume after a bold statement like that. C'mon Content Boy, don't write checks that your ass can't cash! Tell us what gems of cinema you have made on your toilet. We'll be waiting.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:27 p.m. CST

    shunkeat says "kill bill was great and so is LOTR"

    by Shunkeat

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:40 p.m. CST

    re: "Content Boy"

    by Ribbons

    I don't think he was implying that he could actually make good movies, simply that both 'Kill Bill' and 'The Matrices Reloaded & Revolutions' were not movies in the first place but rather crap, and therefore, he's produced similar steaming coils while on the john. To quote a postmodern show: "That's not very Christian-like."

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 9:50 p.m. CST

    PLEASE

    by JimmyTheHand

    Can we PLEASE get the Moriarty review already, these other ones would rather spend their time talking about coffee than ROTK. Come on Moriarty, you are the only one I actually listen to on this site.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10 p.m. CST

    BILL MUST BE KILLED..........................

    by JMJ

    KILL BILL, FOR WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE, WAS F'IN PERFECT. END OF STORY, YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU DISAGREE. THAT IS A FACT. I PRAY TO GOD I NEVER READ A BAD REVIEW ABOUT THAT GLORIOUS FILM AGAIN.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:16 p.m. CST

    I hope so

    by silversonic

    Sounds like a great movie Doc, I only hope you and me are a like. I loved the Matrix Revolutions you just have to remember the movie was a bout one word "choice". Any way the dude who plays the hobbit says that this movie is better they the two previous, I will take your and his word for it. Keep it coming. Oh Kill Bill sucked hope fully Vol. 2 will recover the disappointment.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Enjoying the movies more then the books

    by Cartman86

    Isnt enjoying a movie more then a book what you want? Throw out the book and forget it when you watch it!! If you really watch the movie then you will just find it so entertaining. I know its hard to see some of the scenes cut that you fealt would have been very very awesome. But I can handle it and find them enjoyable.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I know what this means!

    by trafficguy2000

    Content Boy is destined to become a new cliche on AICN, Harry you are a magnificent bastard!!!!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Eh . . .

    by Hellpop

    Eh, I was hardly moved . . . and anyone who didn't appreciate what Kill Bill was, and who degrades it before seeing all of it- doesn't have an opinion I like. . . besides, everyone already knows ROTK will rock, who needs reviews to back that up?!

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:23 p.m. CST

    OT re: Mel Gibson's "The Passion"...

    by viola123

    First off, trying not to read too many "RotK" reviews, but Harry calling this review beautiful did make me want to read it. And I will leave it at that, *g*. As for "The Passion," since it has been discussed here, I wanted to add my two cents to say that I think it's highly unfair that Mel Gibson's film be judged before it is seen, and what the "New York Post" did was awful. It makes me very sad to think that there's really nothing Mel can do about this violation too. My hope is that once his film is released next year that prominent people in Hollywood continue to speak up for him. I know his fans will be there, but it would help a great deal I think if there are people, like Ridley Scott and Sidney Pollack, who continue to speak for the rights of "The Passion of the Christ," and protect it in a way from those who are determined to see it in only the worst light possible. Talk about agenda! I hate it. And thank you much for those who wrote about the brave move Mel did in making "The Passion" to begin with; for making something personal, at his own expense (monetarily, time-wise, and personally too). He made something he believed in, and must have known the obstacles he would face. I could I guess make a pun in relation to his Oscar-winning film, but I won't, *g*. I just think Mel should be applauded for following through on a project very dear to him. It has taken him away from movies for nearly two years now, and I just have faith in him that he made something to be proud of. We just need to wait to see it ourselves. I'll be there.

  • Nov. 29, 2003, 11:26 p.m. CST

    J D

    by Ribbons

    To drag out what's becoming a rapidly tired phrase on these talkbacks, "apples and oranges." Just as you can probably understand the prickly response that met Dr. Ong when he was too lazy to think of anything better to express his rapture with 'Return' for than an exaggeration of the imprint of disappointment that other movies left him, your aligning yourself behind the "underdog" doesn't make it any more tolerable and, as one who seems to be a hardcore Matrix fan and who's recently weathered the same storms Ringers are shacking up for in the next couple of weeks, I assumed you'd be more sensitive to the situation. To argue about which movie had more grey in it as if it erodes all virtue in the other is completely and totally pointless.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 12:48 a.m. CST

    Just saw "the Last Samurai"

    by Rusty_nutz

    TLS is the best movie in a long time, period. I think this movie will absolutely own ROTK come Oscar time. Judging from the previous two movies, there's no way ROTK can match TLS in terms of sheer excitement and emotion. Quite frankly, the LOTR series has up to this point been extremely boring and trite. TLS makes LOTR look like that epic disaster Waterworld. Here's hoping ROTK falls on its face come Oscar night, as it would well deserve.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Utterly gratuitous

    by Mafu

    Mr. Ong, despite being a crafty and skilled writer, should not have written this piece of shit. Fuck him for dumping on Kill Bill and Matrix Revolutions. I almost don't want to go see ROTK now, just to spite the weaselly, self-righteous little fucker. The gratuitous jabs at the two other movies was unnecessary, in my opinion. In fact, as I write this, I'm convinced he didn't even watch ROTK. I'm sure that if he had, he wouldn't have bothered comparing it to films that stand on their own merits. Jackson is obviously putting out the best film of the year, if you're a geek. Leave it at that, you fuckhead loser piece of Ong.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 1:39 a.m. CST

    To krangelmeister

    by Mafu

    Get over yourself, you pathetic whiner. No one gives a fuck about your opinion, no matter how hard you try to cram it down everyone's throats. Go stick your collection of Tolkien's books up your ass. Then, in the morning, when it dawns on you that nobody on this site cares whether you repeatedly flagellate yourself this way for the next fifty years, you can acknowledge the fact that we live in a video-driven age, and that Jackson's films are beautiful works of modern art. On to my next thought...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:13 a.m. CST

    Nicole21..Your riposte failed, your guts lie steaming on the flo

    by JasonDkEldar

    You have to actually say something from your OWN lips (or rather type from your own hands the thoughts formed in your own mind), not remembered from your Philosophy courses or googled on your web links. I believe the weak parry you attempted just then left you open quite easily to be hoisted on your own poitard. As for the folks who insist on dragging the Matrix films, Tarantino's newest, and Gibson's unreleased film(title undetermined since Miramax may not win the injunction for good as titles are not really eligible to hold on non-adaptations), you really should let the LOTR films stand on their own. The shades of grey are there for the seeking. Elrond has them, as do the Valar whome the Elves trust and revere, along with the wizards whose corruptoion Gandalf has faced twice already in the movies. The Matrix has absolute evil, but its shades of grey unfortunately are rather like the Thomas Covenant books and the Doctor Who books, as wekk as the Hitchhiker's series, they are all grey on the side of good, not bad.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 5:26 a.m. CST

    Dr. Ongs real identity?

    by cgLoki

    http://imdb.com/title/tt0382217/ - he makes reference to it in his (lame) review. At first I thought it was a reference to The passion of the Christ movie (which you did as well). Instead a quick IMDB search gave us another 'movie' that came out this year, and as you can tell, its a student short film at most. You can also see that the 5 people who made it got their 8 friends together to vote the meek score of a perfect 10. That makes it the best movie ever. I guess every movie out there should just stop being made... this guy has reached perfection and everything else will just not compare. If I am way off base then hell, I did more research on this then this guy did writing this fake review. WORD.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 5:47 a.m. CST

    Nah, the twitching is only because Johnny's axe is buried in his

    by irritable

    Rush gets out of rehab, straight away his posting his fascist views on AICN under a girl's name. Go figure.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:03 a.m. CST

    to shuttrbug2k1

    by eternal76

    It was 5 am when I wrote that... but you're right, fly you fools was the line... AS for now, I am going to figure out how I can steal that space ghost chair and table that they got up over in the geek gifts section... Oh and stop with the religious shit guys... everybody knows Gandalf is a buddhist... Now I am going to go compare Matrix with Overdrawn at the Memory Bank, The Passion with Laser Mission, Finding Nemo with Too Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, and Star Wars with Battlefield Earth... HA! Suck my balls...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 7:04 a.m. CST

    BladeRunnerUnit

    by DocPazuzu

    Good point. However, the Chinese had mapped the human nervous system centuries before the western world. Since LOTR is fantasy, there is no reason not to think that a similar grasp of biology may either have been achieved in Middle-Earth or assimilated from the relevant Eastern culture. Actually, there are lots of things in LOTR that EXCEED even our modern capabilities. I doubt very much, for instance, that we could hollow out mountains and create great underground cities like the dwarven habitations.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 7:24 a.m. CST

    Gimli was a neurosurgeon

    by eternal76

    I was going to go to bed, but this is too much fun... Hippocrates, the father of medicine, first recognized stroke over 2,400 years ago. At this time stroke was called apoplexy, which means "struck down by violence" in Greek. This was due to the fact that a person developed sudden paralysis and change in well-being. Physicians had little knowledge of the anatomy and function of the brain, the cause of stroke, or how to treat it. It was not until the mid-1600s that Jacob Wepfer found that patients who died with apoplexy had bleeding in the brain. He also discovered that a blockage in one of the brain's blood vessels could cause apoplexy. In the fourth century B. C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle believed firmly that the nerves were controlled by and originated in the heart because it was, in his interpretation, the first organ of the body and the seat of all motion and sensation. Not surprisingly, he was misled by his confusion between ligaments and nerves in drawing this conclusion. Six centuries later, the Roman physician Galen contradicted him, disparaging those "who know nothing of what is to be seen in dissection." Instead he concluded that the brain was the most important organ of the body, with the nerves emanating from it. SO... Gimli son of Gloin, could have known what a nervous system was... According to the 18th century reference... But that's just being picky, now isn't it? As far as Legolas? Captain King's journal entry is the first description of he'e nalu, the Hawaiian word for surfing, ever recorded by Western man. Since there was no written language at this time in Hawaii, King's journal entry serves as man's earliest written account of this Hawaiian sport. Not only is the passage humorous, it also portrays how foreign something like surfing must have appeared at first sight to King and his men, especially when most European sailors of the day could not swim. Other travelers from the West who followed Captain Cook's arrival to Hawaii had a difficult time comprehending what the Hawaiians were actually doing in the surf. Early print-block engravings that began appearing back in Europe show an often skewed perception of the sport. The ancient Hawaiians, however, left us more accurate evidence of their sport. Petroglyphs of surfers, carved into the lava-rock landscape, and chants that tell the stories of great surfing feats, carried a symbolic lore throughout the generations. Some of these chants date as far back as 1500 A.D., which leads us to believe that surfing may have begun long before this time in the Polynesian culture. What we do know about the origin of surfing in Hawaii is that it was part of the Kapu system of laws, which held Hawaiian royalty above the commoners in the kingdom. Chiefs used surfing and other Hawaiian sports as competition to maintain their strength, agility and command over their people. Not saying that Legolas is Hawaiian, but the elfs did go on a ship into the West... hmmm... But again, that's just nit picking... Surf's up...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 7:29 a.m. CST

    OH YEAH ANOTHER THING...

    by eternal76

    Magic... Jesus was the first one to do magic when he did not just have one fish... But 2 fish!!! And the water to wine thing... So Gandalf is historically correct... But the Hobbits aren't... Because little people didn't show up until the Spaniards invaded the Philippines... Just kidding guys, don't get to serious on this shit...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8 a.m. CST

    eternal76, some excellent points there ...

    by irritable

    ... but I don't see why you're skeptical about Legolas teaching the Hawaiians surfing. After all, Hobbits invented golf, which was passed down to the Picts.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8:03 a.m. CST

    legolas at Mount Wannahockaloogie

    by eternal76

    it's the blue eyes and blond hair that throws me off... but hey, I'll take a leap of faith...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8:19 a.m. CST

    so many cockheads, so little time...

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    'Christianity' was teh most significant cause of the destruction of 'native' (celtic and germanic) British religion and mythology, the loss of which Tolkien bemoaned. ***** Some folk complain about Kill Bill. Well, I happened to like it, and I think those who don't, generally and simply haven't been desenstised to sex and violence to the degree that I have. I recall someone citing the vaso-coma-rape episode as an example of 'heartless' filmaking. And yet, this was my absolute favourite part - I laughed out loud when the vasolube was produced. Long and hard. Desensitisation, desensitisation...I don't yet see any disadvantages - except that rare is the woman who shares my sense of humour.***** I have trouble swallowing criticism of ROTK from people who haven't seen it yet - mostly in regards to the absence of certain beloved scenes from the book. It especially amuses me when certain folk submit the Scouring of the Shire as being necessary to "demonstrate how much the hobbits have changed". I invite such people, upon completion of ROTK, to recall to their minds the first half of fellowship. If this taxes them, so, then I invite them to actually re-watch the first have of Fellowship - TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE QUITE FUCKING AWARE OF JUST HOW MUCH TEH FUCKING HOBBITS HAVE FUCKING CHANGED. (I apologise for swearing - foul language does indeed correlate wtih ignorance.) It would pain me terribly to think that the filmakers actually cared about such nonsense, but, of course, they don't.******On nuerosurgery and assorted other anachronisms: get over it. it was obvious from the start that Peter was happy to throw in a few verbal "gags", just so he we remember that he actually made these films. I think the physical authenticity of what they are doing more than makes up for it. Dragonheart, anyone?****** Mel Gibson's religious convictions are highly amusing - as are all such convictions, to an athiest. I can listen to him in an interview, and think, yeah, he is of my culture - and then he starts on about the big "R", and I recall that he spent the first 13 years of his life being mind-fucked in the U.S. Not one of us, at all. Still, I look forward to the Passion - I do love my fantasy filmmaking. ****** Eternal76 - you are pedantic. Exactly who are you trying to impress? I sense insecurity, baybe. (But if you're younger than, say, 16, then I apologise and take it back. I was also very insecure when I was your age. You just keep on trucking, Eternal76 ;) .) A man sees. A man hears. A man knows.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8:34 a.m. CST

    It's disgusting how overhyped this flick is already

    by Lord_Soth

    I see, this will suck more than its predecessors...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Yes! It's related!

    by Owen's Back

    Becaue since 2001 Michael is asking were can he buy a couple of those little things called Hobbits.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 9:46 a.m. CST

    concerning oscar race

    by Zam Wesell

    samurai should be good, but nothing innovative or anything weve never seen... although its good to bring back some appreciation for one of the better genres. cold mountain is going to be pretentious and too overbearing, dont worry a bit. im afraid the clint eastwood flick has a chance at winning director, and if it does theyll acknowledge rotk with best picture. there really is nothing out there against rotk. master and commander was good but not oscar worthy, especially since it never fucking ended right. go peter j

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:13 a.m. CST

    possible best actor nominations:

    by Shunkeat

    Tom Cruise will be snubbed (again) he might not be nominated even. Possible Best Actors: Russell Crowe (MaC) Sean Penn (MR) Jude Law (CM) Ewan McGregor (BF) Elijah Wood (if he acts as well as people have been saying.) Tom Cruise (TLS)

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:15 a.m. CST

    who do you think will win the Oscar Race in

    by Shunkeat

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:16 a.m. CST

    post-LOTR universe

    by Shunkeat

    the post-LOTR world? Will Troy win it all?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:49 a.m. CST

    re: The Flashlight

    by Rosie_Cotton

    "First off, I wouldn't be caught dead paying money to see Gibson's ode to anti-Semitism known as, well, what are they calling it this week to avoid a lawsuit?" Too true. Furthermore, I don't know where "Dr. Ong" gets off on this crap, because Tolkien was a Catholic, and would have viewed Gibson's bizarre radical divisionism with horror; and considering the fact that his son put his life on the line fighting to stop Hitler, I doubt he would have viewed the anti-Semitism with much pleasure either. However, "I for one appreciate movies where we know who the bad guys are, we know who the good guys are, and the good guys win in the end. Fuckin A! Does anyone ask about the "inner conflict" of the Wicked Witch of the West? Or are we never to watch the Wizard of Oz again?" Then obviously Lord of the Rings is NOT for you, dear. Because that is everything Tolkien was NOT writing about. There are very few good guys and bad guys in a war, only people fighting on two different sides; that's what Tolkien learned fighting in World War I, and that's what anyone who's ever fought in a REAL war (versus playing a video game or watching some documentaries on TV) knows as well. "He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had lef him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace..." That's from The Two Towers, the book; it made it into the Extended Cut of the film, which made me happy. Because that's what The Lord of the Rings is about. It's a fantasy story which shows reality, which I far prefer to realistic stories which show a fantasy, which seems to be more what you hunger for. But then, that's a typical pansy-assed conservative chowderhead for you; someone who had his mommy wipe his ass for him until the age of sixteen can't be expected to read a fucking book I guess.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:12 a.m. CST

    You know, fuck the Know-Nothing anti-Passion people.

    by FluffyUnbound

    You know the crime Gibson commits that leads people to accuse him of anti-Semitism? He believes that the events of the gospels took place as they are actually described in the gospels. The mainstream Churches have employed text criticism to revise their estimate of what "actual" events the gospels are intended to describe - for example, shifting blame from the High Priests to the Romans, despite the fact that the gospels themselves explicitly do not do this. And frankly, they do this because they realize that the overwhelming majority of the population is too mentally lazy to realize that if the gospels are not literally true, then there is no reason for Christianity to exist. At all. I am in the camp that believes that the Bible does not describe truth, and that [consequently] no one should subscribe to the religions built on the foundation of its supposed truth. Gibson believes that the gospels are true, and [consequently] believes in a religion based upon them, and has now made a film based on his beliefs. Both my position and his position are comprehensible. What is NOT comprehensible is anything in between. If you do not believe that the Bible is true, if you do not believe that the theology and social teaching of the Christian churches in the past was true, and if you do not believe that any of the moral commands [not teachings; commands] associated with the churches are valid, then PLEASE stop calling yourselves Christians en masse, so we can finally either kill these things off, or at least leave them to the people who actually believe in them. Please, spare me the disgusting spectacle of seeing you describe your non-Catholicism as congruent with Tolkien's, or of seeing you describe the tired platitudes about acceptance you learned at Brown or some such hellhole as congruent with actual Christianity. Thanks.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:24 a.m. CST

    so fucking overrated

    by kovacskiller

    Fuck the Lord of the Rings movies,they are so fucking overrated,I hope Peter Jackson gets AIDS

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:35 a.m. CST

    All I'm hearing is junk.

    by quangtran

    There are a lot of things bugging me about these talkbacks. 1. All those people complaining about the quality of AICN review. You fail to remember that AICN is a fan website written by non-professional fan. Most of the talk and even the reviews fail in their attempts at decent sentence structure, correct spelling and readable content. A disturbingly large amount of them also forget to put CAPITAL LETTERS in their sentence. So the guy likes Return of the King a lot more than Matrix and Kill Bill. So What! So will the rest of the world. The rest of the world will love this trilogy more than the declining Matrix sequel and the fun but brainless Kill Bill movies. 2. All the lame purists complaining about changes to the book. I think that it

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 12:18 p.m. CST

    The only thing missing on this Talkback ****DRUMROLL****

    by j1126

    Dr. Ong is the sexiest beanpole on the planet.....brother.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 12:53 p.m. CST

    What the hell?

    by TS Thomas

    I'm starting to worry for Return of the King now that a reviewer here believes that The Two Towers was equal to the book & this beats it. Scary days indeed. I mean, did he even see this film? He mostly talks of Kill Bill & partially Revolutions.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 12:58 p.m. CST

    A Practical Use for LOTR

    by Beddy Sidious

    By visualizing Gimli & Gandalf in some hot dwarf-on-wizard action, a man can stave off orgasm for hours at a time. Next time you get lucky, try it - it beats the hell out of tantrism!

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 1:15 p.m. CST

    by JimmyTheHand

    "Fuck the Star Wars movies,they are so fucking overrated,I hope George Lucas gets HERPES"

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Gaffer seen holding nose while reading Dr. Ong

    by morGoth

    Oh yeah, a thinly disguised morality lesson masquerading as a movie review by a sanctimonious and arrogant

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Anything new, Harry?

    by Shunkeat

    When can Harry post something new, other than the Onger's very BAD review? Atleast post another GOOD review of ROTK, I mean, I'm dieing for a better (and longer) review. By the way, when can Harry post on Kill Bill 2, or Troy scoops?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Better stoned

    by silversonic

    Last night I was a little stoned when reading Dr. Ong's review on Return of the King. The link tile is completely wrong "beautifully written" my ass! Who the hell wants to hear about coffee tasting better after watching a good movie? Harry please fire this guy, or at lest send him to a writing camp. Reviewing movies to other movies is not really reviewing a movie is it? Tell your writers to leave other movies alone, and focus on the movie they are reviewing.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Every film takes it's chances, especially if it's a creative one

    by Lobanhaki

    There are many Great films, artistic films that I simply don't care for. I can see the care and the professionalism in a movie, and still not like it, for one reason or another. Don't any of you get that feeling? Movies are not something that can be made according to certain rules and be universally acclaimed without reserve. Even the Canon classics are not so universally praised and appreciated. People think differently, understand the world differently, and no one is going to be able to make a film that everybody understands, nor one that pleases everybody that does understand it. What we see as a unified response to a film, is in actuality the sum of many different responses to the film. I believe it is when people begin to expect all response to a film to agree, or start believing that they should, that we get these corrosive backlashes like we saw with the Matrix. Marketing is part of it, but fanboys are another part of it. Both groups of people try to create consensus out of the varying responses, try to impose a pattern on everybody else. And both are frustrated by the varied responses that people as human beings are capable of offering. The wisest of people come to understand that this is just the way it is. The more foolish, unfortunately try to tell people their views are uncool, or collaborative with undesirable ideals, and not succeeding, those people begin to try an exclude and overwhelm the dissenters. To no more positive effect, of course. In the end, There are many people who liked, even loved, Matrix Revolutions. In the end, there are many who agree that Kill Bill is quite a good film. These are not the only response, but they are responses that have been given. To belittle those who do not follow one's antipathy toward these other films is to give up one's right to similarly hold true to the films that spark one's own imagination. Let us just agree to disagree.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 2:31 p.m. CST

    ROTK will be the best movie in a decades

    by Shunkeat

    ROTK will approach Titanic in every aspect: both money and number of awards...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:04 p.m. CST

    You know, if Moriarty's review is under New Line embargo until t

    by FluffyUnbound

    Since Moriarty went all nutty Thanksgiving night in the chat area about how his review was coming ASAP. That was 3 days ago. L

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:04 p.m. CST

    You know, if Moriarty's review is under New Line embargo until t

    by FluffyUnbound

    Since Moriarty went all nutty Thanksgiving night in the chat area about how his review was coming ASAP. That was 3 days ago. L

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:06 p.m. CST

    God Bless AICN

    by BillEmic

    Where else would someone like this Dr. Ong be able to post his ridiculous drivel? Honestly, if that is what passes for a review of a film...This wasn't a review, more like a means for Dr. Ong to pass along his religious agenda and slam any film that tries to portray the grim nature of life (i.e. Kill Bill). I love the Lord of the Rings, books and films, just as much as the next fan boy - but if every single movie out of Hollywood were a clear cut, black and white "the meek good guys versus the tyranical villains" story of friendship and love...well, cinema would be intensely boring and I don't think anyone would enjoy it. Thankfully, in my opinion (but obviously not Dr. Ong's), there's room for movies like ELEPHANT and KILL BILL that explore the gray in society, as well as films like Lord of the Rings and other similar adventure movies that deliver clean cut slices of moralism and heroics. I don't know, this review was just so narrow minded - come on, there's room for both Lord of the RINGS *and* Lord of the FLIES. They're both just as reputable pieces of art. And both reflect certain aspects of life. I hope Dr. Ong can spare us his religious rhetoric and agenda in any future reviews.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:13 p.m. CST

    I'm with you, morG. Let's head back to Frosty

    by elanor

    But frist: To J_D: First let me say that I love the Matrix movies (especially #1) and their thoughtful, stylish and kick-ass ruminations on "choice". I also have no problem if you wish to see LOTR, the book and the films, as lacking "shades of grey". You are not the only reader to have foreseen Gollum

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Plot holes patched for cloudrider

    by elanor

    cloudrider, you said you sometimes found these tb's illuminating. I hope this will help patch a few of the "holes" you find. I always want people to read the books but I know not everybody will. That's cool. You have brought up some excellent points of seeming "illogic" in the films. I don't mean to make excuses for everything, but I hope my comments may give you food for thought.***Regarding the Ringwraiths (the nine kings) "illogical" stopping at the water crossing, there is a very good reason for this in the books although it is unexplained in the films. BUT, since you yourself noticed it in the film in two places, perhaps it might occur to you that it has more significance than meets the eye? Did you see "Field of Dreams"? In two places characters stop at an unexplained "border". Joe Jackson cannot cross the white line on the ballfield to join the family for lemonade on the porch, and Frank Whaley turns into Burt Lancaster when he chooses to cross it. Such a "border" is a movie convention that we buy in a movie like that. In LOTR, the fact that the first Black Rider screeches to a stop rather than leaping into the river to grab the hobbits on the wooden ferry/raft should strike any non-reader as odd. Then, when all nine stop again at a water crossing rather than plunging in to overwhelm the one brave she-elf (!) it should strike you as doubly odd. Or maybe you might think there is something about water that these Ringwraiths do not like? The answer is twofold, both of which are unexplained in the movie but at least consistent. I would also remind you of another "river" moment in T2T when Aragorn survives a seemingly un-survivable fall off a cliff and we see him floating on water to the safety of the shore. Shortly afterwards he has a "vision" of Arwen who says dreamily "may the grace of the Valar protect you". Nor is it coincidence that water is the "weapon" the Ents use against Saruman, either. These moments are all related. (as is, I believe, the waterfall that hides Faramir and his men from enemy eyes. Gollum's ability to trespass there is a meaty subject for discussion, but I will try to stay on topic). There is a power in the water of Middle Earth, in its rivers and waterfalls, that is aligned with the forces of good. The "god" of the water is the Vala "Ulmo" who, of all the Valar, has remained the most steadfast in protecting the remaining Elves of Middle Earth. In addition, the Ringwraiths are cowardly by nature; they instill fear, irrational fear, but this power is not accompanied by courage. In the book, Tolkien tells us through Stider that the Ringwraiths fear water and lack courage. Non-readers should not be expected to know this from the films nor do I fault the filmmakers for leaving out such an explanation (I fear it would come off somewhat "midoclorian-esque" don

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 3:56 p.m. CST

    By the way, when can Harry post on Kill Bill 2, or Troy scoops?

    by trafficguy2000

    After the check clears!

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Ignorant Arseholes

    by Baron Merlot

    ObiJuan... "Kill Bill Fucking Rules"? Is that the best you can do? *sigh* What a waste of space your post was.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Could we have some REAL reviews from REAL people, please?

    by orson

    I would get enthusiastic about the reviews posted here so far - if they weren't so obviously grown in pots of earth. I want to hear from some fellow moviegoers or talkbackers....Elanor - are you going to see ROTK soon?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Kranglemeister, i'm coming in late in the game here . . .

    by ol' painless

    so I'll try and keep this short. You make good points as to why you think Jackson doesn't follow the book closely enough. My counter-argument consists of a mathematical formula: Limitless Budget ($15-25 billion perhaps) + Strict Translation of Film = 193 Hour Film, the first 27 hours of which would consist of hobbits eating delicious meals and running around naked on hilltops while some guy will bells on his hat sings "Hey Dol! Come Derring Dol!" = approximately six people globally (I include you in this figure) having the desire, stamina and fundamentalism to endure it. Personally, I would be climbing the cinema walls, going native, and surviving on lettuce grown macrobiotically from my own faeces after 127 hours, but I guess I lack the purity of your vision. I await your version of LOTR as eagerly as I await my next meal of lettuce.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 4:58 p.m. CST

    King Kong

    by Shunkeat

    I hope King Kon isn't 3 hours: it is a good movie, but it wil not hold my attention as much as LOTR.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 4:58 p.m. CST

    No no no, Devil's Own, you've completely missed the point...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ....dear boy. Our entire purpose in posting to this site is to nit pick. Our mission is to moan about the minutiae, dissect the un-dissectable with extreme prejudice, and heap copious and maloderous abuse upon anyone or anything that diagrees/flies in the face of the mental image we have of what a REAL LOTR film would be like. Polite debate? HA. Logical arguments? HA HA. Civil discourse?! BWA HA HA! You are in the WRONG place squire...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Re: Rosie Cotton & Play d'oh, Gibson having the right to do his

    by Commando Cody

    Hey, Rosie and Play D'oh...s0 sorry you don't like the state of world affairs or can't grasp the intellectually deep concept that there actually ARE "bad people" in the world who need to be put down forever like the mad dogs they are. And that, yes, there IS an inherent good vs. evil in the world and that, yes, many soldiers go off to war because they BELIEVE in serving their country and they do NOT all come home feeling emotional ambivalence. This may be a shock to you, but far more soldiers (than not) come home from the front simply recognizing they did what they chose to do...they did what they felt had to do...and now it's time to move on. But after reading your posts, I'm sure you actually have become deluded enough to believe all your Bush-bashing, liberal whining, and tears of hypocrisy (complimented by an utter lack of spine for standing up to DO something) would make the world a much better place. And I'm sure you actually believe Bush is the anti-Christ or reincarnation of Hitler or some other utterly asswipe, childlike notion. Tell you what, get back to the rest of us when you actually snap out of your comas and wake up to reality. Oh yeah, along the same lines -- Gibson has every right to make the PASSION as his own artistic vision (or are you against free speech?) and it's NOT anti-semitic to stage and structure the film the way he has. Anyone bringing up that charge against Gibson is a buffoon given that (1) the movie isn't even out yet for you to judge and (2) all Gibson is doing is interpretting the gospel LITERALLY. As a true believer in the word of the Bible would. He's simply putting things on screen as they are actually WRITTEN. Fluffy Unbound had a great post I agreed with in core principal about the matter. Oh, yeah, as to ROTK...I assume it will most likely rock and my guess is that it's going to be the best of the 3 (personally, FOTR put me to sleep twice in the theater, but I loved TTT). I'm rooting for Jackson to come through and the tidbits I've seen so far look grand. However, much as I hate to curb anyone's enthusiasm, I think predicting Oscar gold is getting ahead of things. Other end of year movies aren't even out yet...and truth be told, ROTK will be heavy on action and effects (and box office earnings) once again possibly convincing Academy voters that the movie was either (1) somewhat fluffy as deserving a "Best Picture" statuette or (2) given its large box office take, was already rewarded enough. Plus toss in the traditional Academy stance against fantasy (sure, they'll NOMINATE fantasy so they can say "See, we're cool! We're with it!") but the truth is they don't like to GIVE it to fantasy. Hell, when you come right down to it, in line ahead of fantasy, comedy (as a genre) is still waiting for more Oscar validation as well...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 5:33 p.m. CST

    There was a content creator called Ong/

    by Pontsing Barset

    Who wrote reviews with his shlong/He said, "but then/It's easier with a pen/For you see, the pen's twice as long" ...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Well danged if you ain't the clever one J_D...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... "Saw it coming half way through the book". As amazing as it may sound: SOME people who read this board don't know how the thing ends yet! How about a *spoiler* warning next time eh bub? *** I would also argue that there is a lot more moral complexity, if not defacto ambiguity to LOTR than you apparently recognize. Yes, "good triumphs over evil", but at what cost? As the Elves would say: It's just a small victory in the overall scheme of things, as the "free" peoples continue to "fight the long defeat"...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Jaquen H'Ghar, it's called HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOR JACKASS!

    by eternal76

    a pedantic indeed... dude if you would have actually read my talkbacks you would see that I was fucking around, lightening things up a bit, because ass-clowns, much like you, think a little too much of themselves (I sense insecurity, babe... I don't think you have grown out of it), and seem to forget that sometimes we just like to have fun around here... But maybe your convictions as an athiest won't allow you to get your mind too terribly fucked here in the U.S. "convictions, to an athiest"... sounds like "content creator" horse shit too me... Anyway, enough of that shit, it's a joke jackass, bottomline... And as my grandmother used to say, "If they can't take a joke, fuck'em."

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Real review of ROTK....

    by orson

    Folks, there's a guy over at Tolkienonline calling himself "Marty" who has seen ROTK and is giving extremely specific and detailed descriptions of how the movie plays. Warning: there are MASSIVE spoilers - without meaning to, I managed to spoil a few surprises for myself whilst skimming over this thread. There are one or scenes that didn't make the final cut that I find a bit baffling and upsetting. Here are two examples ******* SPOILERS **********(1) The Mouth Of Sauron is NOT in - goddammit, I was really looking forward to that bit. (2) Denethor has NO palantir. So how on earth do they explain his descent into madness and despair???....******END OF SPOILERS*********** Howvever, the review is extremely positive and Marty says it's just as good as FOTR and TTT... Here's the url. http://www.tolkienonline.com/thewhitecouncil/messageview.cfm?start=0&catid=13&threadid=74209

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:39 p.m. CST

    That's it, game over man!

    by trafficguy2000

    Spike Rush wins! I now declare this talkback over! Now, back to our normally scheduled bitching!

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:43 p.m. CST

    And that ladies and gents, was 13 year old Spike Rush's school r

    by eternal76

    Here's a tip kid... don't come off like a tool, and you won't get fucked with... Now go play in the other room while the grown ups continue their circle jerks...

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:50 p.m. CST

    If anything, the secularisation of art has freed artists up to s

    by Rain_Dog

    When art was controlled and sanctioned by the Church, creativity and personal expression were not the ideals to which art aspired - replication of nature's beauty and the works of the divine creator were. Surely, in a media-saturated age, someone making a film which pays homage to the directors who have inspired them is more of a personal statement than an account (no matter how well crafted) of a story that has already been told. And here we get down to the crux of my problem with Nicole21's post - she seems to misunderstand the distinction between artistry and craftsmanship. Mel may be a technically gifted film-maker (I don't think so, but hey, whatever floats yer boat), but to hold him up as the highest example of artistry just because he's pushing your own simple-minded black-and-white moral agenda is pretty ignorant. "The Passion" going to be an intensely personal statement for Gibson only insofar as Mel's opinions mirror those of the far-Right Catholic sect to which he belongs. And call me all the names under the sun, but I don't think blind acceptance of religious dogma equates to superior intelligence or moral backbone - quite the opposite in fact. And your Natalie Maines argument is equally flawed - you criticise the Left for not sticking up for Gibson, flout your own credentials as the true upholder of Free Speech, and then dismiss Natalie Maines as a "bubble-head" just because you disagree with her. While the Left criticises Gibson, no-one but the most extreme are arguing that The Passion should not be released. But you play the argument as if that is the case, whilst simultaneously offering tacit approval of the fascist tactics taken against the Dixie Chicks for daring to express an opinion that differs from yours. This is intellectually dishonest to a degree that I have, unfortunately, been forced to take for granted when talking politics with right-wingers these days. It's easier to dismiss your political foes as "lefties" or people who are simply "PC" - in doing so you absolve yourself having to defend your views with anything other than mindless invective.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:51 p.m. CST

    KILL BILL RUUUUUUUUULES

    by atbeen

    well doc if U dont DIG kill bill then IT SHOULD SO SUCK to be U

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 6:54 p.m. CST

    The same goes for you, "Commando Cody." Just out of curiosity,

    by Rain_Dog

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 7:18 p.m. CST

    KILL BILL 2 will fuck ROTK up the ass and come in its eye

    by Mister Pink

    Actually I like the LOTR movies and will see ROTK on opening day but WTF is up with this nimrid "reviewer" shitting all over KB? Hey, Mister "Content Creator" if yoy can create KB or PULP FICTION sitting on the toilet then why the fuck hasn't anybody ever heard of you? what the fuck IS a "content creator" anyway? What do you do, write storyboards for HEY ARNOLD? Also could you please explain what the fuck being Catholic has to do with Tolkien's ability to write LOTR (other than a willlingness to believe in fantasy, that is)? I do agree that the MATRIX sequels sucked ass but KILL BILL was a work of fucking genius. Dr. Ong is not worthy to fetch Mr. Tarantino's coffee much less diss his work. Let's see you try to pork Mira Sorvino or Uma Thurman, asshole.--------BTW, THE PASSION is based on an even bigger work of fantasy than LOTR. I am constantly amazed that any intelligent person still actually believes that some guy two thousand years ago went around performing magic tricks and came back to life after getting hismself croaked by the Romans(it was the ROMANS, not the Jews. The Gospels are completely full of shit on that account). I got news for you, people. IT'S ALL MADE UP. Pull your heads out of your asses. There ain't no fucking fairy in the sky watching over you. You are a fluke of evolution and nothing more.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Politics and movie talkbacks

    by williammunny

    The only thing worse than reading people on a movie talkback giving there opinions on films is reading them give their opinions on politics. Now having said that, I will give mine: It's over people. The dream of democracy is over in this country, has been since 1913 or so. Left, Right, it doens't make a difference, it's just a matter of which special interests are in control, but we were sold out a long time ago.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8:37 p.m. CST

    My bad, Moaters.

    by Devil'sOwn

    I had no idea. I am SO naive. Excuse me now while I hang my head in shame... Nnnaaaahh! Screw that. I stand by what I said. If folks want to come here and point out flaws, either real or imagined, that's peachy. I'd certainly never suggest we relinquish our right to free speech. But a few of these nimrods need to put some ice on it! It doesn't hurt to ask yourselves before you post- Does the world really need more pretentious assholes?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Mister Pink

    by PurityOfEssence

    "but KILL BILL was a work of fucking genius." Really can you tell me why it was genius, you probably can't you know why, becuase you probably don't know why its genius, other than its a trendy thing to say. "Dr. Ong is not worthy to fetch Mr. Tarantino's coffee much less diss his work. Let's see you try to pork Mira Sorvino or Uma Thurman." Wow, um okay, you must be twelve or younger, if "porking" women is how you show how good of a film maker you. Will "porking" either of these women make you a better film maker? Don't get me wrong I love kill bill, (I also love Resevior and Pulp) but apparantly you must gauge how good a film is based on "porking" abilities or something... Further I think you've got a little bit of a crush on QT there: not fit to critisize Mr. Tarantino, well how does one become fit to critisize QT, by "porking" Uma or Mira? By your logic I guess - yes (either that means that alot of film critics and fan boys have been "porking" these to actresse, or your whole logic system is flawed). Your idiocy only mounts when you take on the gospels: "after getting hismself croaked by the Romans(it was the ROMANS, not the Jews. The Gospels are completely full of shit on that account). I got news for you, people. IT'S ALL MADE UP." Well here is a few senteces with so many contradictory components that its hard to decide what to start with. 1: "The gospels are completely full of shit on that account" uh yeah, wouldn't they be full of shit on every account, you know since they kinda promote the whole Jesus being raised from the dead, miracles (sorry "Magic Tricks"), so what's the point of limmiting it to who killed Jesus. Even better is how you state to all the unlearned bumpkins that the gospel is wrong in who killed Jesus even when the gospels point out that it was the Romans who carried out the execution. So either way you look at it, you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Then finally you set everyone strait with your infinite wisdom, stating that: "ITS ALL MADE UP." If its all made up why even bother discussing who really killed Jesus if it never happened in the first place? I am going to assume you're an "atheist," which I have absolutly no problem with - I have known plenty of atheists who are quite likable - and deffinatly aren't condasending towards others beliefs as you are. Regardless this is not a conversation about the existence of any form of a supreme being, nor do I have any interest in it becoming one. However your blatent display of idiocy gives atheists a bad name. The fact is you apparently feel the need to sound "intelligent" so you wrap yourself in a veneer of faux-intellectualism, talking about things of which you have no real idea about or have only heard in passing from a friend. Your idiocy is booth ustounding and somewhat frightening, apparently you still need to pull your head out of your ass.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 9:14 p.m. CST

    conan better?you would have to be really stoned...

    by pipergates

    No,you cant compare Bush to Hitler,that

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Hey, Monkey

    by Mister Pink

    !.) I could spend a lot of time telling you why I thought KILL BILL was ingenius. It mostly has to do with style and execution. Either you understand that stuff or you don't but it's raelly beside the point. MY point was that the author of this review shat all over a brilliantly executed movie and therefore demonstarted cinematic ignorance. As to the Jesus stuff, I majored in religion and history in college and i know quite a bit about Biblical criticism and Christian history. I say the Gospels are full of shit because the passion narratives, particularly the trial before the Sanhedrin, are riddled with factual and procedural inaccuracies which betray the fictional nature of the narratives. I can go into detail if you want. Before you decide whether you want to continue this pissing contest i should warn you, I'm smarter than you are...Oh, and I'm an agnostic not an atheist.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 9:52 p.m. CST

    will anyone read this? ;-)

    by Amy Chasing

    Is it be reasonable to compare Kill Bill with ROTK? Matrix (any of them) with ROTK? Star Wars prequels with ROTK? Or any permutation of the above? Can you compare apples with pears? IMHO Kill Bill is an excellent tribute to Hong Kong & Japanese action/anime films. Matrix is an excellent adaptation of anime to live-action film & stories. And the Star Wars prequels are excellent examples of what can be done if you've got the money and processing power to make virtual worlds and effects. If these films intended to be what I think they are, then they've achieved that with room to spare and are excellent films in their own genre and in their own right. How then can we compare such separate entities with ROTK and each other. They each tell different stories, in different ways, in different styles. Yes they're all movies. Yes they contain characters that must struggle to do what they think is right. But that's where the similarities end. No matter what you do, (unless you're a genetic engineer) an apple will never be a pear. I wonder why so many of us persist to claim they are?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Franchise Wars

    by BillEmic

    Yes, AmyChasing, I read your post! However, I think the franchise wars will continue at AICN forever...fanboys will always be arguing about what's better: Lord of the Rings or Star Wars? The Matrix or Kill Bill? Because fanboys latch on to different franchises and, if you insult their franchise, their pride is wounded. So they have to "defend" themselves in nasty tirades against other fanboys. I mean, there's still some Matrix fanatics that refuse to believe that the Wachowski Brothers completely ripped off of Dark City and countless Asian filmmakers! Oh well. And I still find it amusing how so many people drop a phrase like, "The historical innacuracies of the Bible prove that Jesus never existed! It's all a pack of lies! Fall at the alter of Darwin!" and expect everyone to swallow it like it's some profound theological statement. Yet the Bible has been around for thousands of years...Darwin's theories are relatively new in comparison, and don't hold up very well under intense scrutiny.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Monkey's are fun: Pot Meets Kettle! More news at 11!

    by ol' painless

    Holy shit, Monkey. You truly define the meaning of the term

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Franchise Wars or How I Learned To Stop Thinking & Love My Bum

    by Amy Chasing

    Agreed BillEmic, so many people just switch off the brain before speaking/writing and so verbal diarrhoea continues to pollute the bandwidth of our lives. If only everyone would stop and think before punching "post", then perhaps the multitude of arguments about this movie vs that movie, this religion vs that religion, creationism vs evolution, etc. would cease before they even start because people would realise they just have to think things out for themselves, believe what they like (because, in the end, belief is all you've got - as a scientist I have to concede this), and know that their perspective isn't anymore or less valid than anyother in this frame of reference that is our world.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Frodo has a beer and cheets on Sam

    by JDM123

    I think what we all really want to know is how do they address the homo-erotic subtext between Frodo and Sam in this movie?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:43 p.m. CST

    BillEmic is a fanboy

    by devanjedi

    You've attached yourself to religion the way the fanboys you despise attach themselves to the films. Actually, if you think Darwin falls apart under "intense scrutiny"- read any of Richard Dawkins' (after having read Darwin's 'Origin of Species') and then we'll talk. I'd like to hear about your intense scrutiny.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Also, I think Creepy Thin Man is a creepy thin man

    by devanjedi

    FACT!

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:51 p.m. CST

    I should clarify something

    by Mister Pink

    I didn't mean to imply that boning movie stars is indicative of cinematic genius, I was only making a sarcastic point that Tarantino at least has had SUCCESS in Hollywood and that boning movie stars is a fringe benefit of success. This was meant only to be a comparison to Dr. Ong who has NOT had Hollywood success (despite his rather arrogant claim that he is a better writer than Quentin Tarantino) and therefore CANNOT bone any movie stars.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Why do I bother

    by williammunny

    The Jewish historian Jocephus mentions Jesus, thereby providing independent proof of Christ's existence (i.e. proof other than what is in The Gospels). Whether you believe the rest is up to you, but from an epistemological point of view, there is as much proof of his existence as any other person that lived 2000 years ago, (Check out the Comrade Ogilvie scene in Orwell's 1984). Secondly, Teddy Roosevelt set up the National Parks and wildlife refuges in the early 1900s. Lastly, comparisons between Hitler and anyone (except maybe Stalin) are invalid and show a lack of imagination of the person doing the comparison. Making hyperbolic comparisons between Bush and Hitler don't help an argument, they just make the arguer look silly. How about having some nuance to our thinking people.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:02 p.m. CST

    And the moral of the story is...

    by cmsapp

    Peter Jackson's LOTR is probably the best we could have gotten, everyone wanted the Matrix to be better, Kill Bill is good to Tarantino fans, The Passion should be released,and this guy needs to write better reviews. Whew... Thanks for the entertainment. Reading these posts are better than some of the movies I have seen though I'm not going to say which. :) Peace.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:04 p.m. CST

    cloudrider - a message

    by elanor

    Hello again. I am eager to talk more about your concerns but it is late here and I cannot compose a worthy response to you without a bit more time. So please look for my reply tomorrow or the next day. If Harry posts another article about ROTK on the front page I will be on that tb. If there is no new one, then I will reply here. I especially enjoy talking with someone who does not know the books because it helps me to understand how successful PJ has been (or not). Have a great night. See you later.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:05 p.m. CST

    BillEmic, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

    by Mister Pink

    Evolution has withstood more than a century of intense scientific scrutiny and it has only become stronger. To suggest otherwise shows extreme ignorance. Evolution is a proven fact. There is ZERO dissent in the scientific community about common descent (and "creation science" is not science). Please tell me one thing about evolutionary theory which you think doesn't hold up and I'll be happy to set you straight. The evidence for evolution is as strong as the evidence for the atom or for gravity.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Good man, Dick.

    by Devil'sOwn

    Conan fucking ROCKS!!

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Re: devanjedi

    by BillEmic

    I understand where you're coming from, devanjedi...however, I honestly was not trying to make a "case for Christ". I'm not a fanboy of any particular religion and I'd like to think that I take any particular world view with a grain of salt and cynicism. Alas, I was merely stating what should be obvious - that Darwin's theories are anything but infallible. If anything, they're open to intense debate. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone that "Christ is the answer" or anything...merely stating that hollow comments like, "The Bible is full of contextual errors, Jesus is dead, it's all a hoax," and leaving an explaination at that, like it's some kind of profound statement - well, I grow weary of that kind of pretentious atheist stance, which leaves no room for arguement because, naturally, the atheist is always right..?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:17 p.m. CST

    williammunny

    by Mister Pink

    I'm aware of the Josephus reference and there is also a reference by Tacitus. I think these extra-Biblical refernces are pretty good cirumstancial evidence that Jesus EXISTED, I just don't think he was God or performed any miracles or came back from the dead. He was an itinerant Jewish Rabbi who was executed as a public menace by the Romans because he caused a ruckus at the temple during Passover. The stuff about the trial before the Sanhedrin is fiction. We can tell that it's fiction because it gets all of its procedural details wrong and because the narratives show Jesus being convicted of "blasphemy" for making staements that were not blasphemous under Jewish law. Also, crucifixion was a purely Roman method of execution which was forbidden for Jews to participate in. If the Sanhedrin had wanted to kill Jesus (although he had committed no crime under Jewish law)they could have stoned him. They didn't need the Romans to do it for them.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Evolution Under Fire

    by BillEmic

    I'm not going to pretend like I'm a scholar of evolutionary studies but I think there's enough debate on both sides to conclude that evolution is not exactly 100% proven. From what I've seen, evolution is used largely as a tool to spread the secular humanist view among American children from grade school on up. Even Darwin himself admitted that the complex nature of the human *eye* alone defies logic, and to claim it is the result of natural selection would be absurd. Still, no remains or fossil has been found with a "partial", or transitional, eyeball. And what good would a partial eyeball be? A half formed eyeball does not provide half vision; it provides no vision at all. Thus, wouldn't it be weeded out by natural selection? The second arguement would be the second law of thermodynamics. I know, this one gets scoffed at. But all things, left alone, tend towards disorder. "Nothing is static. Everything is falling apart," as Tyler Durden would say. Now you say that this only applies to closed systems. Our universe is not a closed system. But before the "big bang", it would be the size of a basketball or so...and that would be a closed system. So how do you get the order and orbit of the planets from that? Well, then evolutionists say that the second law held no sway back then. So...they change the rules to fit their arguement./////// Again, I do *not* want to pretend like I'm some kind of scholar of evolution. I just hope things don't get antagonistic here. Let's stay civil fanboys...?

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:28 p.m. CST

    So, Eternal76, you're a pedant who thinks he's funny, too. Excus

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    Of course, you're not alone - such slop is symptomatic of a brand of 'humour' that's depressingly broad currency on the net - the 'tailenders' are particularly offensive in this regard. But hey, if bashing out reams and reams of pointless, tedious NOISE floats your boat, and even elicits a chuckle from fellow carriers, then please, don't cry yourself to sleep on my account. Keep on typing and giggling, typing and giggling, Eternal76 ******On my 'mind-fucked in the U.S.' call - sure, it was offensive, and, sure, I'd take it back if I could. I stand by the sentiment, but I certainly do not want to offend fellow human beings. In explanation, all I can say is that I am anti-American by emotional response. Irrational, it is. But it also tends to appropriate and taint any otherwise rational statement which might serve as a vehicle for anti-Americanism. Rest assured that I struggle everyday to overcome this affliction, and I hope that one day I will succeed. Perhaps you could pray for me, Eternal76.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Pink

    by williammunny

    All I was saying is that Christ existed. The rest is up to the individual to believe or not. I don't know much about 1st Century Jewish Law, so I will defer to you on that, but in as much as most of Christ's early follwers were Jewish, wouldn't they have known the laws? It seems if they wanted to make up the story they could have done a better job. Also, the account in Jospephus makes it clear that the Romans executed him on the "accusation of the principal men among us." Since Josephus is Jewish, I assume "us" means the Jews.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:34 p.m. CST

    BillEmic

    by devanjedi

    I get your point; and while your point about evolution may seem valid I again direct you to Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene" for a clear picture (if you are curious) and a sensible answer to all your arguments.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Moral debate

    by BillEmic

    As a side note, is it honestly fair for anyone who perscribes to evolution to even discuss concepts of "good" and "evil"? Even evolutionists will say that Hitler was evil. But if evolution is correct, there's no such thing as good or evil, at all. And you can say, "Oh, but I have my own moral code," but if evolution is true, your moral code doesn't add up to bollocks. We're all just animals acting out in a chaotic world - products of our environment. Nothing we do is good or bad. That seems to me to be what they're teaching in schools across the nation. And adults are "shocked" by the seemingly nihilistic behavior of modern American youth. Honestly, not to sound ignorant, but it's all in "Fight Club".

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:39 p.m. CST

    williammunny, again...

    by Mister Pink

    Sorry to belabor this but let me set a couple of things straight. First of all none of the gospels were written by Jesus' followers, despite the claims of Christian tradition. They were all written between 70 and 100 AD, long after the crucifixion, by people who never met him. Secondly, the Josephus reference is shot through with Christian interpolations (forgeries) and the bit about "the principle men among us" is not part of what Josephus wrote. There exists a manuscript which does NOT include that and several other bits which do not match Josephus' style or tenor. It was common for early Christians to punch up other writings as part of their own propaganda. Some hstorians think that the entire passage is a forgery but I don't subscribe to that theory.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Devan

    by BillEmic

    Hey, I will honestly check out those works for real. I appreciate you being civil, unlike a certain individual around here that will go unnamed (although he's obviously a Resevoir Dogs fan).

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Pink

    by williammunny

    "The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke", G. J. Goldberg, The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995) pp. 59-77. Throughout his history, Josephus talks about "the Jews" in the third person when recounting past events, yet here he talks about "the principal men among us." Does this first person "us" mean this phrase was not written by Josephus, but was added by a later Christian who had a theological agenda? The same use of the first person occurs in Luke in the parallel location: "our chief priests and leaders". This is a peculiar usage in Luke-Acts. The simultaneously appearance of a single odd usage in two corresponding texts indicates it appeared in the source document from which they were both derived (or, equivalently, that one text copied closely the other). We therefore can conclude with very great confidence that this phrase appeared in the original passage as written by Josephus. There are in fact other instances when Josephus employs peculiar phrases simply because they appeared in his sources, which he was closely adhering to. The Agapius translation does not have this phrase, so gives no support,; we recall that nothing from Agapius is conclusive due to the double translation into the Arabic. Taking rather the hypothesis that we consider likely authentic that which appears in two out of the three texts (Luke, Josephus, Agapius), we can accept this phrase as genuinely appearing in the Antiquities.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:43 p.m. CST

    BillEmic, let me make this as clear as I can...

    by Mister Pink

    There is NO scientific debate about whether evolution occurs. It is a settled fact. The moral implications have fuck-all to do with whether evolution is a fact. Humans are a social animal and have adopted "moral" codes as a means to survive in groups. Morality is evolution in action.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:49 p.m. CST

    BillEmic - re: Evolution of the eye

    by Superpaddy

    In fairness you admit that you are no scholar of the theory of evolution of species by natural selection, nor am I, but I do understand the theory. You on the other hand are clearly one of those many who is quick to attack the the theory while having never taken the time to actually understand it. You complain that it has never been fully proven, but no scientific theory can never be 100% proven precisely because it is a theory, because science, unlike religion does abide unquestioned dogma - any scientific theory can be questioned and either scrapped or amended when a fault is found. It is a self-correcting discipline. Furthermore, while Darwin himself may have been incapable of explaining the evolution of an organ as complex as the eye, remember that there was much he know nothin of - cell structure, DNA. It is called the Darwinian theory because he and Wallace came up with the basis, but many have built on his work in the 150 odd years since. And, for your information the evolution of the eye by natural selection does not "defy logic", nor is it absurd, there were thousands of partially sighted creatures in the past and many exist in out modern world who do have exactly what you describe - half formed eyeballs, and they DO not provide half vision, and if that is as much vision as that creature needs to survive in its environment, then it is enough. For a more up-to-date text than that of Darwin, I refer you to 'The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, in which he tackles and roundly refutes this idiotic notion that the eye disproves the theory of evolution.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:55 p.m. CST

    In my haste I never proofed my last post, please ignore it and s

    by Superpaddy

    In fairness you admit that you are no scholar of the theory of evolution of species by natural selection, nor am I, but I do understand the theory. You on the other hand are clearly one of those many who is quick to attack the theory while having never taken time to actually understand it. You complain that it has never been fully proven, but a scientific theory can never be 100% proven precisely because it is a theory. Science, unlike religion does abide unquestioned dogma - any scientific theory can be questioned and either scrapped or amended when a fault is found. It is a self-correcting discipline. Furthermore, while Darwin himself may have been incapable of explaining the evolution of an organ as complex as the eye, there was much he knew nothing of - cell structure, DNA etc. It is called the Darwinian theory because he and Wallace came up with its basis, but many have built on his work in the 150 odd years since. And, for your information the evolution of the eye by natural selection does not "defy logic", nor is it absurd, there were thousands of partially sighted creatures in the past and many exist in our modern world who do have exactly what you describe - half formed eyeballs, and they DO provide half vision, and if that is as much vision as that creature needs to survive in its environment, then it is enough. For a more up-to-date text than that of Darwin, I refer you to 'The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, in which he tackles and roundly refutes this idiotic notion that the eye disproves the theory of evolution.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:55 p.m. CST

    In my haste I never proofed my last post, please ignore it and s

    by Superpaddy

    In fairness you admit that you are no scholar of the theory of evolution of species by natural selection, nor am I, but I do understand the theory. You on the other hand are clearly one of those many who is quick to attack the theory while having never taken time to actually understand it. You complain that it has never been fully proven, but a scientific theory can never be 100% proven precisely because it is a theory. Science, unlike religion does abide unquestioned dogma - any scientific theory can be questioned and either scrapped or amended when a fault is found. It is a self-correcting discipline. Furthermore, while Darwin himself may have been incapable of explaining the evolution of an organ as complex as the eye, there was much he knew nothing of - cell structure, DNA etc. It is called the Darwinian theory because he and Wallace came up with its basis, but many have built on his work in the 150 odd years since. And, for your information the evolution of the eye by natural selection does not "defy logic", nor is it absurd, there were thousands of partially sighted creatures in the past and many exist in our modern world who do have exactly what you describe - half formed eyeballs, and they DO provide half vision, and if that is as much vision as that creature needs to survive in its environment, then it is enough. For a more up-to-date text than that of Darwin, I refer you to 'The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, in which he tackles and roundly refutes this idiotic notion that the eye disproves the theory of evolution.

  • Nov. 30, 2003, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Pink again

    by williammunny

    Whether the Gospels were written by his Apostles is not the issue. Circa 70-100 AD won't most Christian converts still from Jewish Sects? Wouldnt they have been familiar with Jewish law and procedure?

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:05 a.m. CST

    williammunny, you are quoting a Christian apologist

    by Mister Pink

    Trust me when I tell, current historical scholarhip is almost unanimous in rejecting the Josephus passage as either a partial or total forgery. For one thing, the historian Origen said that Josephus did not believe in Jesus, for another thing, we HAVE an intact manuscript which does not include the interpolations (in fact, the original blames only Pilate for the crucifixion. It also has Josephus expressing ideas which no Jew would have expresed without converting to Christianity which Josephus never did. No Jew would have called Jesus the Messiah because Jesus did not fulfll any of the Jewish expectations of the Messiah. The interpolated passage comes to us by way of Eusebius who was notorious for tampering with his source material and for rearranging facts to suit his agenda. The only real argument in historical Jesus scholarship (and i specialized in this shit in college) is whether the passage is partially forged or totally forged. The only opposition to this comes from religious quarters not from objective historians.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Jesus' death, Evolution & Mr. Pink

    by pmcgowan

    I have no real interest in the evolution debate - I buy the theory based on scientific authroities - I don't know (*&^ about biology so I don't have the confidence to call it a fact. All the same, I do not see why my accepting evolution would necessarily need to lead to abandoning the belief in an absolute morality and requiring that all thinking people cede that all moral codes are learned, socialized and behavioristic . . .I don't think Plato's insights into reason leading us to morality are dead yet. My real question has to do with Jesus and the Sanhedren. Pink, you state that the differing accounts of the trial as seen in the Gospels must lead us to the conclusion that the whole thing is fiction. I agree that any crtitcal reading of the Bible must take the discrepencies into account, and that the evangelists were not writing history but theology. But to DISMISS the existence of a trial outright in light of the existing evidence (the gospels)and lack thereof (i.e. no explicit counter-claims of the same period). . . isn't that a bit of a leap? I think of "Roshomon" and Kirosawa's insights on the frailty of memory, and of the fact that 40 years after JFK people still disagree about what really happened. Isn't it possible that something like the all night trial happened and what we received from the Gospel versions of the event is the gist of the story, with some of the details being changed? Anyway, not looking to get into a pissing match - just see it as a possibility. The whole debate fascinates me.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:13 a.m. CST

    BillEmic, my friend

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    You said "if evolution is true, your moral code doesn't add up to bollocks." All I can say (laughing) is : "Same with yours, buddy, same with yours." And at least my "moral code" is founded on (as much as possible) rational interpretation of the world, and completely acknowledges that its 'axioms' (a central one of mine is that life should persist in the Universe) are subjective - therefore such moreal codes are less vulnerable to an unfortunate revelation - such as "God does not exist - if you do wrong you will not go to hell". Your argument is an interesting charactersitic of religions and those who subscribe to them. This is the idea that if we suspect that A (evolution) is true, and we believe that A implies B (no 'real' morals/meaning), and we don't like B, then we should try to change, ignore or "sweep under the carpet" A - at least for the 'children' - the ignorant masses for whom, at least, we fear A implies B. Not only is it patronising and irrational. It is also futile my friend. Truth is a very powerful force. That's probably why most athiests don't feel the need to proselytise - we feel education does it for us, and that cultural evolutionary pressures are pushing towards athiesm anyway. The best thing for YOU to do is to argue that A does NOT imply B - that just because God does not exist, doesn't mean we must/should abandon our "morals" (many of which are custom/tradition that predate monotheism/hell/heaven anyway. Of course, this is the opposite of what most carriers of religion (yourself included) are doing - you are arguing that A implies B in the hope that I will aid you in suppressing A. thankfully, I am too rational to do so. ******On modern Amercan youth - compare the U.S. with, say, Denmark (almost any western democracy will do). Which nation is more religious? Which nation is more violent? The answer to your problem is education, not religion. Think about it, BillEmic*****A man sees. A man hears. A man knows.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Er...Was That Dr. B-Ong? If You Could "Do That On The Toilet,"

    by hipcheck13

    'nuff said, oh abusively extrapolating one.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:19 a.m. CST

    What many of you are missing in your biblical arguments...

    by St.Buggering

    ...is that the Bible was not originally written in English. What you're quoting is not what was originally set down. Many translations, the King James in particular, are highly suspect in their dedication to the original text. My grandfather read something very close to the original language, and just as a for instance, the commandment originally read "Thou shalt not shed innocent blood", not "Thou shalt not kill". It's a slight but important difference, and the translations are rife with them. Don't take anything from King James as the original intent of the authors.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:30 a.m. CST

    william and gowan

    by Mister Pink

    to will first: the Gospels were written by Greek converts to Christianity, not Jews. We know this because they were written in Greek and because they show a radically different understanding of the Messiah than is shown in Judaism. To gowan: I wasn't addressing discrepancies between gospels but inaccuracies in regards to the way Jewish trials were conducted. The Sanhedrin did not hold trials at night, nor on the sabbath, nor on Passover. The gospel accounts of Jesus' trial would violate all three of these rules. Furthermore, the sanhedrin could only hold court at the temple while the gospels place the trial at the home of the high priest. Also, a period of twenty-fours hours was required between a trial and a verdict. the gospels have the evrdict being pronounced immediately. The most damaging claim for me is that the gospels have Jesus being convicted of "blasphemy" for statements which were not blasphemous under Jewish law. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. The Jewish Messiah was not expected to be divine, just a human king who would restore the kingdom of Israel. It was also not blasphemy to claim to be the "son of man" because in Aramaic and Hebrew idiom "son of man" just meant "human being." It didn't mean God or even Messiah. It's association with the Messiah comes from a passage in Daniel which describes the Messiah as "one like a son of man" in other words, a human. The phrase was later reinterpreted as a titular reference to the Messiah by Christians but it has never held any such connotation in Judaism and definitely held no such meaning for the Sanhedrin. Just to be thorough, it also wasn't blasphemy to call oneself the "son of god." This phrase also held no implication of personal divinity but was simply a phrase used to designate anyone who was favored or chosen by God. It was, at most, a claim to be a prophet which, again, was not a blasphemous thing to claim. One might be WRONG in claiming to be the Messiah or to be a prophet but it wasn't against Jewish law.

  • When I hear someone say reviews I assume they mean that they will talk about the movie and say what they thought of it and why. I'm obviously mistaken. What we're constantly getting here are comparisons to other movies, and it gets old. Obviously you don't have to sound like professionals but just review the fucking MOVIE and stop sticking your opinions of other shit in. Judge what you saw based on what it tried to accomplish and how successful it was. Is that really so hard? In the end this is still the fault of the people who run this site and have established that mentality as the norm.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:48 a.m. CST

    "A man sees. A man hears. A man knows."

    by Amy Chasing

    As Jaquen H'Ghar wrote, but may I alter this to say "A man sees. A man hears. A man believes." - I am a subscriber to the idea popularised in The Matrix that since all we "know" of our reality is what our senses tell us, we get no guarantee that they're right. No matter how many people you've got to back you up or how much evidence you can accumulate to support your view on reality, without an absolute frame of reference - your beliefs define your reality. By this rationale, you really can only "know" things as much as anyone else here can - thereby making all arguments for anything & everything valid. Whether they suit your particular situation, that's up to the debaters. :-)

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Shades of PInk in Josepheus writings.

    by silentdrowning

    In Pink's posting he claims that scholars now reject Josepheus' testimonies. This is untrue. The rejection of Josepheus' text as being interpotations is a popular Internet sensation (like weblogs) but hardly accepted by the majority of ancient text scholars. > For one thing, the historian >Origen said that Josephus did >not believe in Jesus, for >another The claim made here is based on the 'The Antiquities.' The text reads ". . .and James, the so called broher of Christ" It stands to reason, and most scholars accept this from other accounts of Josepheus, that since Josepheus was a Jew he ostensibly marginalizes the reference to Jesus', even his mere existence. Surely the alleged insidious Christian scholar would have spoken more of Jesus in his 'interpolations.' This should suprised no one. A Jew would have trouble even saying the name of Jesus in any serious context. I still have arguments with my jewish Grandmother as to the mere tremendous historical impact of J.C. (cf. Christian traditions bad and good). > original blames only Pilate for >the crucifixion. It also has >Josephus expressing ideas which >no Jew would have expresed >without converting to >Christianity which Josephus >never did The claim made here is from another passage in the 'The Antiquities.' This is the passage that some, note SOME, scholars speculate as possible being added by later early church Christian scholars. The reason why most scholars reject this is because, and again other references strengthen this case, early Christian scholars and deisciples with such a stong oral and written artifacts (eg Paul's letters) of Christ still around would not made such a gross error (placing the blame of Jesus' death in the hands of PIlate); Pink calims that the original text, and this is true, seems to blame Pilate, it would then reasonably follow that if anyone interpolated the text (with or withouth an agenda) it would have been Josepheus. OF course this is speculation of mine and others, but that is what we are dealing with isn't it? > we HAVE an intact manuscript >which does not include the >interpolations (in fact, the To which text do you refer? Is this a single extant copy? The more reasonable position concerning Josepheus, and I don't say this condescending at all, is that: the fact that he did follow the Christian movement in his work to such a great degree, tends to talk little or critically of it and Jesus in particularly, emphasizes traditional Judaism as PInk brought out, is more than enough implicit evidence that Josepheus accepted the life of Jesus Christ seriously enough to give early Christianity the attention (and rejection) which he did. Would any of us here, with all the current discussion, claim that The Matrix as a film, or Tolkien as an author, never existed. Of what then do we write?

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Mr. Pink and Gospels

    by pmcgowan

    I don't man . . .you obviously know your stuff historically and textualy, but I'm still not buying that all this PROVES that the trial is a fiction. I don't mean to sound anti-semetic, but isn't it possible that Jewish procedures and laws were tanked in the name of getting rid of a dangerous guy? I mean, in all races and cultures, mock trials and trumped up charges and verdicts that are rammed through procedurally happen all the time (last time I checked, we're not supposed to go to war without a declaration and consent of Congress, but it happens). The gospels communicate that some of the Jewish leaders, mad with envy, wanted not just to kill Jesus but to humilitate and discredit him. Now, I for one am sickened by ideas like "the Jews are guilty of Deicide" and am ashamed of much of my faith's history on this matter (OK, that's out on the table, surprise, surprise, I'm Catholic). At the same time, I still don't see why I MUST buy that the trial is a fiction based on procedural discrepencies? Your argument for the claim of fiction is based on the concession that Jewish legal and ritual procedures always went according to script. Frankly, I don't see anybody's legal system living up to that degree of consistency - self interest far too often gets in the way of the rule of law. I suppose that your other arguements, the ones about Jesus' titles, are meant to lead to the conclusion that the Sanhedren had no reason to even be interested in Jesus. OK, that's possible, but if we say that Jesus was an itinerant preacher and charismatic leader with an enthusiatic following, isn't it possible that the local leaders of an occupied state would be awfully nervous about such a guy, regardless of what he called himself?

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 1:37 a.m. CST

    passion

    by Danger Mouse

    I still can't believe Gibbson whould bother to make a film in accurate but dead languages and then be completely inacurate in other areas. His roman soldiers are dressed in gear that would have been crappy in a 50 year old film. On another note, Jackson has saved cinema. The man is a god!

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 1:57 a.m. CST

    ol' painless

    by PurityOfEssence

    Who said I was christian? When did I use gay slurs? The whole point of that diatribe while maybe a bit harsh, was that the way Pink structured his argument made no logical sense: it wasn't A it was B, but regardless none of it even happened. If it never happened then why debate over the fictional account of a fictional event. The whole point of the fucking thing was sarcasm.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Why the hell was I apologizing about posting off topic?

    by Gere's AssGerbil

    It seems the religious fanatics have commandeered this talkback. Hey, people, there are websites devoted just to this sort of discussion, but this one ain't it. 'Course, nobody's got anything interesting to say anyway (except Dick Hertz, a true blessing amidst amidst all the blather) including me, so carry on. Before I go, though, a quick question. When will people realize that getting in a huff over something they dislike (such as Gibson's The Passion, Rushdie's The Satanic Verses or even Al Franken's latest book) and subsequently stirring controversy is the best way to promote the object of their objection to the masses? By the way, ROTK will rule.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Tolkien: BOOKS VS FILM

    by Lukecash

    I am one of the many who were greatly dissapointed in TTT. I will tell you why-because it veared far away from the book. **** I am not one of those who demanded that EVERYTHING be exactly the same as the book. I didn't care that Tom Bombaldi was or wasn't in there. I didn't care that Arawen role was expanded (It was based off of Tolkiens writing) What bothered me was the attitude of the writers. **** One of them said on the extended DVD "No matter how we tried to change the story of FOTR-we found ourselves going back to the original plot" They INTENTIONALLY went out of their way to changes Tolkiens work. The changest they made to Aragorn, and Faramir were unforgviable. Tolkien had shown them throguh the Hobbits viewpoint-thus their "character arcs" were already completed by the time the story started. ****** And this is how Jackson missed the boat. The Lord of the Rings Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli Faramir were SECONDARY characters-not the main ones. Frodo, Sam, Gollumn, Merry and Pippin were the main characters. While Jackson is developing them-he sacraficed what made the book so good...We were the Hobbits and seeing the world from their viewpoint. We were also seing them grow. ****** And the Scouraging of the Shire, was the true ending to the book. The whole point of Frodo's journey was to protect the Shire, and the good that happens in the world. The ending was that Shire was was ruined by the war, but the Hobbits grew stronger against evil NOT by becoming evil.*****I liked the extended version of both movies-I think they were great. But they are in NO way faithful to the book, nor BETTER than the book. ANd I Still Love Star wars....expecially the sequel. Jackson could take a few lessons from Lucas in NOT wasting time. Of course, Lucas could take lessoons for Jackson to allow his characters emotions.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 3:19 a.m. CST

    PJ's LOTR will be the definitive adaptation.

    by krylite

    Don't worry about PJ. It's unfortnate Walsh and PJ weren't the only scriptwriters. PJ's vision is still the best we're ever going to see on the film plus the production had oustanding good sailing where the whole crew worked their butts off for Jackson. Plus PJ is a superior editor. I'd doubt a Verhoeven, Spielberg, or Yoda forbid a LUCAS LOTR would be any better, actually the other way around.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 4:18 a.m. CST

    BillEmic

    by DocPazuzu

    Not only are there animals with half-formed "eyes" in the world, which has been pointed out by another TBer, there are also animals which, over time, have actually lost their eyes -- or at least the power of sight -- because of changes in their environment. The cave fish of Mexico spring to mind. Also, I've never understood the adamant adhering to the idea that evolution and a belief in a higher power can be nothing but mutually exclusive. In my many debates with religious dogmatists, the stock answer when confronted with something they can't provide an answer to is "God works in mysterious ways" or "that's the devil talking." These people -- rather than accept what modern science has done nothing but reinforce over the last hundred years -- will revert to a positively medieval worldview rather than assimilate and adapt (evolve, one might say). For a group of people who whip out the old "mysterious ways" at the drop of a hat, it seems odd that evolution wouldn't fit those criteria, as opposed to magically creating everything in six days. It's fundamentally a question of poor self-esteem. How can we be truly special if we've sprung from much more humble biological progenitors? Ironically, these are the same folks who say we are nothing BUT animals and riddled with sin until we have achieved whatever particular spiritual reward is promised by their brand of faith. What they are basically doing is second-guessing what they otherwise call an infallible and inscrutable God. Because, after all, why would God do something that we can't understand? In all fairness, however, I know plenty of religious people who have no trouble reconciling the theory of evolution with a belief in God. In the western hemisphere this does seem to be a uniquely American problem. Most people of faith who live in the so-called secular countries of the west seem to have no trouble whatsoever accepting science in all its forms without losing said faith. The whole

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 4:50 a.m. CST

    A prayer from one athiest to another, Jaquen H'Ghar, cause he as

    by eternal76

    Dear Jesus Allah Buddha... Please help this poor soul who's particularly offended by my, and others like me sense of humor. Help him realize that he's in a Return Of The King talkback... That I could care less if he's anti-vegemite, a self loathing Aussie, or Yahoo Serious' little brother... Make him aware of the fact that he butted into a humorous discussion between me and another talkbacker and therefore assumes he can nitpick at the shit I was saying... Please help him take that Didgeridoo, that is so far up his ass, the poor boy can't see straight... That he could use academic, bookish, donnish, or scholastic in place of his favorite word pedantic... That even if A man sees. A man hears. A man knows. He can still be a prick. And not get over himself... For he struggles with the affliction everyday as he says... And as far as his Anti-American deal? Don't let the fact that he's in an American website, talking about an American movie, and dealing with Americans strike him as ironic. That's it, oh great and powerful Oz... I am so dropping this topic with this jackass... Amen

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Hmmm . .. you have failed to convince me, Monkey

    by ol' painless

    You gave away the fact that you are Christian by your rather too impassioned arguments about Romans vs Jews, and your conveniently detailed knowledge of the Gospels. And it is obvious you wrote the post in such a disorganised anger that you didn

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:49 a.m. CST

    Koine Greek

    by williammunny

    Pink, it was my understanding that pretty much everyone in the Meditaranean Ancient world spoke Koine, or Common, Greek. The fact that the Gospels were written in Greek doesn't establish that the Apostles were Greek, just that they wrote in the language of the largest number of people at the time. Also, I haven't been reading up on the Josephus thing that much, not my field, but from what I have seen it seems that the passage is generally accepted as true, except for 2 or 3 sentences in it. Specifically those dealing with Christ as the Messiah. The passage that I quoted doesn't seem to be in question, at least as far as I can tell. Lastly, I find it odd that someone with the name of Goldberg is a Christian apologist, but hey, to each his own.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Goddamn...

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    This talkback sucks. But you know, just to be awkward which is what I do and what I like, I will say this. The interpretation and appreciation of art through a moral framework and allowing your morality to shape your aesthetic is perfectly valid. It's not for everyone, and even for the people it works for there will be difficulties because not everyone's moral universe is the same - and that's only as it should be. It's perfectly okay to think "Kill Bill" is shit because it's immoral. Ironically, it's the opposite of the Heideggerian (think it was him, the Nazi guy anyway) point of view of art perceived without morality, which is also kind of hard to take. For the record I loved "Kill Bill", but there are elements there which are meant to be exploitative. It's a brilliant pastiche of exploitation cinema, so it would actually be weird if they weren't there. And some people are going to react to that on a moral level. So. My point is that Dr. Ong can do that thing if he/she wants. You don't have to agree with it, but it's valid. And he/she wants to juxtapose that with the moral underpinning of LOTR. That's all right too, I suppose. I remain mystified as to where the Matrix hate and the SW hate is coming from, but while I don't object to using your own moral axis to evaluate art, I can also assess what a critic's priorities are and how much they are in line with my own. I'm not a big-time Christian - I'm with FluffyUnbound and also I think Kierkegaard (what can I say? Philosophy sucks and I slept through it) that the deal with Christianity is that if you believe it, it's the biggest deal in the world. If you don't, don't waste everybody's time.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Nice review. And I thought BOTH movies so far have been better

    by minderbinder

    And kill bill did suck. Hard.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 8:29 a.m. CST

    Apples and Oranges

    by Drath

    I enjoyed Kill Bill, but the movie (and it's ads) never made me think it wanted to be anything but a plot-lite popcorn chop fest, so I'm confounded by the criticism that it

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Kill Bill: Piece of Crap (I agree)

    by Bruno Diaz

    I like this review. It's true. Jackson's LOTR trilogy is so much better than the majority of the crap Hollywood's been shoving down our throats as "good" lately. Kill Bill especially was an absolute piece of shit. It was like a bad student film, something at AFM that wouldn't sell. Not to mention, who the hell can buy Uma Thurman kicking anybody's ass? I FUCKING HATED Kill Bill and I love all of Tarantino's other movies. I only hope he one day redeems himself. LOTR does show what crap we've lowered ourselves to accepting as good lately. It's a real movie, timeless, epic in the most ancient, resonant sense, and so beautifully, brilliantly entertaining. It stands out and, over the course of decades, will continue to stand out as an absolute hands down classic.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:16 a.m. CST

    "Don't let the fact that he's in an American website, talking ab

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    You see Eternal76 - I'm laughing now. You CAN be funny - you've just got to stop trying so God-damned hard, darn nabbit. Technically speaking, this website is in the international domain - but I grant your point, based that most of the contributers are seppos. I have to call you up about LOTR - as far as creative input, they are undoubtably NZ films - with leavings of U.S, British and Oz talent, to be sure. As for the dealing with Americans - well, its not ironic, exactly, because what's the point of insulting people if you're NOT 'dealing' with them? It is, however, offensive - and for that I most 'umbly apologise. And as for your star-spangled chest-thumping routine, do you really think I haven't heard it before - and despise it? A word of advice. Next time some "foreigner" starts Hanging Shit on the 'ole Stars and Stripes, resist your John Wayne instinct to start talking about soft power and hard power and GDP and moonlandings and 'you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for me' and so on and so forth (all of which can be combatted by an equally inflammatory statement like "Its amazing what 280 million chumps with anglo-saxon institutions and a single market and a single language on an easily defendable, large, resource rich continent can achieve through slavery, German rockets, Japanese germs, a general European brain drain, always acting in its self interests, with a governing system that sells democracy like whores sell fucks" Yada yada yada. So instead of inciting this response, the next time you encounter anti-Americanism, what you should say is something like this: "I have not insulted you, or your country. I do not deserve this. I find your behaviour offensive - and so do most of the people here. I did not visit this website to have my country, or my sense of humour, attacked, by someone who does not know me and who i suspect has never set foot in my country." Or something like that.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:17 a.m. CST

    "Don't let the fact that he's in an American website, talking ab

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    You see Eternal76 - I'm laughing now. You CAN be funny - you've just got to stop trying so God-damned hard, darn nabbit. Technically speaking, this website is in the international domain - but I grant your point, based that most of the contributers are seppos. I have to call you up about LOTR - as far as creative input, they are undoubtably NZ films - with leavings of U.S, British and Oz talent, to be sure. As for the dealing with Americans - well, its not ironic, exactly, because what's the point of insulting people if you're NOT 'dealing' with them? It is, however, offensive - and for that I most 'umbly apologise. And as for your star-spangled chest-thumping routine, do you really think I haven't heard it before - and despise it? A word of advice. Next time some "foreigner" starts Hanging Shit on the 'ole Stars and Stripes, resist your John Wayne instinct to start talking about soft power and hard power and GDP and moonlandings and 'you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for me' and so on and so forth (all of which can be combatted by an equally inflammatory statement like "Its amazing what 280 million chumps with anglo-saxon institutions and a single market and a single language on an easily defendable, large, resource rich continent can achieve through slavery, German rockets, Japanese germs, a general European brain drain, always acting in its self interests, with a governing system that sells democracy like whores sell fucks" Yada yada yada. So instead of inciting this response, the next time you encounter anti-Americanism, what you should say is something like this: "I have not insulted you, or your country. I do not deserve this. I find your behaviour offensive - and so do most of the people here. I did not visit this website to have my country, or my sense of humour, attacked, by someone who does not know me and who i suspect has never set foot in my country." Or something like that.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:17 a.m. CST

    "Don't let the fact that he's in an American website, talking ab

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    You see Eternal76 - I'm laughing now. You CAN be funny - you've just got to stop trying so God-damned hard, darn nabbit. Technically speaking, this website is in the international domain - but I grant your point, based that most of the contributers are seppos. I have to call you up about LOTR - as far as creative input, they are undoubtably NZ films - with leavings of U.S, British and Oz talent, to be sure. As for the dealing with Americans - well, its not ironic, exactly, because what's the point of insulting people if you're NOT 'dealing' with them? It is, however, offensive - and for that I most 'umbly apologise. And as for your star-spangled chest-thumping routine, do you really think I haven't heard it before - and despise it? A word of advice. Next time some "foreigner" starts Hanging Shit on the 'ole Stars and Stripes, resist your John Wayne instinct to start talking about soft power and hard power and GDP and moonlandings and 'you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for me' and so on and so forth (all of which can be combatted by an equally inflammatory statement like "Its amazing what 280 million chumps with anglo-saxon institutions and a single market and a single language on an easily defendable, large, resource rich continent can achieve through slavery, German rockets, Japanese germs, a general European brain drain, always acting in its self interests, with a governing system that sells democracy like whores sell fucks" Yada yada yada. So instead of inciting this response, the next time you encounter anti-Americanism, what you should say is something like this: "I have not insulted you, or your country. I do not deserve this. I find your behaviour offensive - and so do most of the people here. I did not visit this website to have my country, or my sense of humour, attacked, by someone who does not know me and who i suspect has never set foot in my country." Or something like that.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:17 a.m. CST

    "Don't let the fact that he's in an American website, talking ab

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    You see Eternal76 - I'm laughing now. You CAN be funny - you've just got to stop trying so God-damned hard, darn nabbit. Technically speaking, this website is in the international domain - but I grant your point, based that most of the contributers are seppos. I have to call you up about LOTR - as far as creative input, they are undoubtably NZ films - with leavings of U.S, British and Oz talent, to be sure. As for the dealing with Americans - well, its not ironic, exactly, because what's the point of insulting people if you're NOT 'dealing' with them? It is, however, offensive - and for that I most 'umbly apologise. And as for your star-spangled chest-thumping routine, do you really think I haven't heard it before - and despise it? A word of advice. Next time some "foreigner" starts Hanging Shit on the 'ole Stars and Stripes, resist your John Wayne instinct to start talking about soft power and hard power and GDP and moonlandings and 'you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for me' and so on and so forth (all of which can be combatted by an equally inflammatory statement like "Its amazing what 280 million chumps with anglo-saxon institutions and a single market and a single language on an easily defendable, large, resource rich continent can achieve through slavery, German rockets, Japanese germs, a general European brain drain, always acting in its self interests, with a governing system that sells democracy like whores sell fucks" Yada yada yada. So instead of inciting this response, the next time you encounter anti-Americanism, what you should say is something like this: "I have not insulted you, or your country. I do not deserve this. I find your behaviour offensive - and so do most of the people here. I did not visit this website to have my country, or my sense of humour, attacked, by someone who does not know me and who i suspect has never set foot in my country." Or something like that.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:17 a.m. CST

    "Don't let the fact that he's in an American website, talking ab

    by Jaquen H'Ghar

    You see Eternal76 - I'm laughing now. You CAN be funny - you've just got to stop trying so God-damned hard, darn nabbit. Technically speaking, this website is in the international domain - but I grant your point, based that most of the contributers are seppos. I have to call you up about LOTR - as far as creative input, they are undoubtably NZ films - with leavings of U.S, British and Oz talent, to be sure. As for the dealing with Americans - well, its not ironic, exactly, because what's the point of insulting people if you're NOT 'dealing' with them? It is, however, offensive - and for that I most 'umbly apologise. And as for your star-spangled chest-thumping routine, do you really think I haven't heard it before - and despise it? A word of advice. Next time some "foreigner" starts Hanging Shit on the 'ole Stars and Stripes, resist your John Wayne instinct to start talking about soft power and hard power and GDP and moonlandings and 'you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for me' and so on and so forth (all of which can be combatted by an equally inflammatory statement like "Its amazing what 280 million chumps with anglo-saxon institutions and a single market and a single language on an easily defendable, large, resource rich continent can achieve through slavery, German rockets, Japanese germs, a general European brain drain, always acting in its self interests, with a governing system that sells democracy like whores sell fucks" Yada yada yada. So instead of inciting this response, the next time you encounter anti-Americanism, what you should say is something like this: "I have not insulted you, or your country. I do not deserve this. I find your behaviour offensive - and so do most of the people here. I did not visit this website to have my country, or my sense of humour, attacked, by someone who does not know me and who i suspect has never set foot in my country." Or something like that.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 11:15 a.m. CST

    william and silent...

    by Mister Pink

    I'm not really sure I'm making myself that clear. I'm not trying to argue that Jesus didn't exist or that Josephus didn't mention him. I have no problem with the reference to James in ANTIQUITIES or with some of the longer passage. I just don't believe he said that Jesus was the Messiah or that he came back from the dead. I also don't buy the bit about "the principle men among us" condemning Jesus to the cross and I'm far from the only one. Silent's contention that the interpolative theory is an "internet" phenomenon is itself an internet phenomenon and my source of info on this does not come from the internet but from reading a ton of historical scholarship (not to be confused with CHRISTIAN scholarship). I also base my views on the hsitorical inaccuracies in the gospels which I have already enumerated. Williammunny: The attribution of apostolic authorship to the gospels is based purely on tradition and is not supported by any external or even internal evidence (none of the gospels actually name their own authors). For one thing they were written too late. Mark wasn't written until c. 70 AD, Matthew in the 80s, Luke in the 90's and John around 100. Matthew is dependant on Mark and Q which means it couldn't have been written by the apostle because an apostle would not have relied on secondary Greek sources. Matthew also quotes from the Greek Septuagint rather than Hebrew Bible which is a strong indicator that the author was a Greek gentile, not a Jew. Luke also relies on Q. John is written far too late to be a secondary source. The theory that Greek was commonly spoken in 1st century Palestine is just that, a theory. It isn't actually supported by a lot of evidence other than that Palestine was heavily Hellenized at the time. The common language of the time was Aramaic but it's possible that some people spoke some Greek. It's NOT likely that it was the lingua franca, though. Furthermore, the Jewish language of scripture was and is Hebrew, not Greek. Jewish authors would have used Hebrew and they would not have relied on previously composed Greek writings as the synoptic gospels do. Furthermore, the apostles were peasants and would not have been able to write much if at all.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Pissing myself laughing

    by Summer_Pudding

    This has to be the funniest TalkBack ever. Top drawer stuff especially kranglemeister's comments. Keep up the good work chaps

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 2:39 p.m. CST

    I think shaking hands is in order, but...

    by PurityOfEssence

    My reply was not impassioned, I maintained the same angry tone from my Kill Bill comments to the point were I spoke about the gospels. Yeah I have read the gospels, as well as other religious texts. So has Pink apparently. Side Note --> Pink based on your further comments I appologize, you obviously have spent a fair ammount of time studying christian mythology, you have shown that you actually do have some knowledge of the texts and of Jewish law, and the lingual differences between hebrew and greek texts. Plus the fuax-intellectualism comment was unfounded. However I do stick by the fact that the logic in your initial statement was flawed. <--- end. Anyway just becuase someone has knowledge of something doesn't mean that they subscribe to it. But thats not the point of this. You are extrapolating emotionalism from text. I could watch a special on Jesus on the History Channel and come up with what I stated. My point is not who killed who, I don't care. MY POINT WAS and IS: if Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) did not exist and was merely fictional as Pink's first post would imply (none of it ever happened), then why debate over who killed a fictional person? That is the part I found to be elitist nonesense - correcting people telling them that they're wrong about one point, then turning around and saying none of it happened anyway - why correct people in the first place. Second why would anyone look at any part of the so-called gospels as being vallid if they think the entire thing is false. It does not make sense. You and I are looking at this from two different viewpoints. Further you continue to insult me even as you extend your hand in freindship, make up your mind. If you're done, then I'm done, its over. And yes I hope we will both be enjoying ROTK this december - infact I hope everyone finds a film that they really enjoy.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 3:59 p.m. CST

    "I Think, therefore I am".

    by Pontsing Barset

    And that is the ONLY thing [your own existence] that any of us can ever be entirely sure of in this off colour joke known as the universe. Can you say "Entropy"? Can you say "Nihilism"? Any geniuses out there up to the task of discrediting Metaphysics? Hmmm?

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Morality

    by BillEmic

    I just have to say that...if anyone still actually feels "conflicted" over Kill Bill, then need to do a double take. I don't remember this film being marketed as anything more than Tarintino's homage to Asian cinema, with doses of action and humor. And frankly I think you'll find that Kill Bill is more reflective of "real life" (or as much as fantasy films can be) than Lord of the Rings. Vile and terrible things happen in lfe, often without reason. Rarely are the lines clearly drawn between "good" and "evil". Most things in life fall into a shade of gray. Is it honestly fair to discredit such achievments as HAPPINESS and ELEPHANT, two darkly stirring films, because they don't present a candy-coated portait of life? Because they disturb the politically correct? I love LotR as much as the next fanboy, and it provides a unique rush, but a movie like ELEPHANT literally haunted me days after I saw it.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 5:32 p.m. CST

    "And frankly, they do this because they realize that the overwhe

    by empyreal0

    I'd say the Mormons are doing pretty well, don't you? They're one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I guess that means whatever was written on those golden plates Joseph Smith found MUST have been true. Fluffy, a good christian like you should KNOW that just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is right.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 5:40 p.m. CST

    christian irony

    by Danger Mouse

    The real irony in this debate is that the Lord of the Rings was very much written as a christian book, albeit a mystical one...

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:17 p.m. CST

    My final word, Monkey

    by ol' painless

    Don't confuse a nice little debate with me insulting you. Insults are for the 15 year old flamebaiters who profess love for Star Wars in profanity strewn screeds typed with one hand on the keyboard and the other under the table. Don't worry: I don't place you in this category. And the offer of a handshake was a genuine one. I love a good debate, and in fact, I've even come to like you. You've stuck to your guns,stayed on message, and your posts in reply are notably less aggressive than your first. I applaud you, Sir! Now let us both get our damn tickets to this damn movie and damn well enjoy ourselves till we damn well puke our damn guts out!

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Concerning the debate over evolution being a "fact" - here's a l

    by empyreal0

    While I do agree that evolution has been a truly monumental, and positive step forward for science, it is not a "FACT". I'd also say (in the typical useage of the word) it is hardly more than a statement of belief to say that evolution is "true", and even the most ardent scientific realist must concede eventually that this belief does amount to a rather well-informed guess. Those who claim it is proven understand little of the scientific process, and very little about the limits of empiricism. (Plus there's the whole issue about the past being invisible to us in the present, but I'll get to that.) Empiricism will give you the little answers, but you have to devise the larger, more general theories to house them. A little Thomas Kuhn for you: evolutionary theory, both the biological process and the cosmology often mislabelled as 'Evolution', is what we call a paradigm. This paradigm contains within it the rules required for either incorporating or discarding smaller conceptual frameworks (ie, theories which directly explain data) into the greater paradigm, but no two paradigms can ever rate eachother without begging the question. Each paradigm (eg, Evolutionary theory vs creationism) contains within it its own rules. Kuhn would say we have a stalemate where rational comparison is concerned. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say that Creationism is every bit as valid as Evolution. That would be absurd! Enter Laudan. Laudan says that a paradigm (or as he calls them, a research tradition) can be measured by its overall ability to solve conceptual and empirical problems. This includes internal problems. Evolutionary theory's ability to fuse together several seemingly disparate areas of science and its amazing track record in predicting change, variety, and other various consequences make it quite the contender. I would argue that on the whole, evolution is a much more efficient paradigm than creationism, as I've yet to see creationism enter into the arena of prediction and measurement (except where they hijacked and grafted on "microevolution"). SO, now here's where we get to the past. We can't measure the past in the sense that we can no longer measure "be there", and the conditions that DID exist in the past, most likely, have changed. I am going to GUESS (as most evolutionary thinkers have) that the "microevolution" we can measure today has probably always occurred in some form or another. This is a guess, and it's fair to say that, but once again, I'd say it's a better guess than saying otherwise. Why? It offers us problem solving abilities. We can go back and speculate with a great amount of data from the present at our disposal as to what has happened in the past. This is how science accomplishes any and all discussion of the past in ANY area: geology, biology, political science, etc. The entire area of forensics is based on study of past events. This is what evolution does that creationism refuses to do, and why creationism is a poor excuse for science. Does this make evolution TRUE? Hardly. Just better.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:29 p.m. CST

    ol' painless

    by PurityOfEssence

    I too have enjoyed the fact that this did not turn into a flame war and am glad that this is settled. I also respect a good debate. Here's to seeing you line (or at least being in line for the same thing), I'm just can't believe it's this close to release, it wasn't that long ago that we were freaking out over the FOTR trailer (CAVE TROLL CAVE TROLL).

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:37 p.m. CST

    This review is, literally, right wing propaganda. READ THIS:

    by thehague

    Kids, he hasn't seen the movie. Anybody with a passing interest knows that the Smeagol stuff is at the beginning of the film, so his mention of this is bogus. His post is a right-wing, born again Christian propaganda message. It's about ROTK because that's what's big and cool now. We live a world of constant marketing and propaganda. News forums, chat rooms, etc. are full of this nonsense. The right wing in America is shotgunning the internet with this kind of clumsy blather. This is another post from a conservative call center/think tank/etc. Not even subtle, really: THE REVIEW: "...Return gives them something real to fight for friendship, family and the meek who confound the **intelligent elite** who corner the market on overt power." THE TALKING POINT: Oh, you mean the liberal elite? or the liberal intelligencia? S-U-B-T-L-E. Here's some more FOX News talking points: THE REVIEW: "The curtain of Matrix Revolutions is pulled back and we find out that Neo may not even exist. Spoon-bending and questioning reality is not the things heroes are made of." THE TALKING POINT: Remember - never ask questions. All the answers have been agreed upon thousands of years ago. In the "Holy Land". Heroes that question reality are EVIL. THE REVIEW: "Don

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Pink...

    by CaptainHendry

    Interesting comments but I think your concept of what constitutes scolarship leaves a little to be desired. Is it really only the Christian scholars who have an agenda? Everything you're said fits nicely with the liberal orthodoxy known as textual criticism. You analysis of the dates of the Gospels is speculation. Both Luke and Matthew record the Mount of Olives conversation in which Jesus tells the disciples that the temple will be destroyed, which it was in AD70. So either the books were written prior to that date and the author chose not to point to the fullfilment of these passages as did many church fathers of the 2nd century, or these books were written after that date in such a way as to trick the reader into believing they contained prophecy. Positing outright duplicity on the part of the authors can be called scolarship but it can also be called railroading the text. It is certainly unprovable. The same argument holds for John and the Apocalypse which fail to mention the fall of Jerusalem (John's Revelation does mention Jerusalem without any indication that it has ceased to be). Once again, your arguments necessitate a belief in the basic unreliablity of the author. As for Q, I'm not aware that any such book exists in any form in any language from any time period. There is nothing more than supposition to show that one ever did. Ancient historians of all stripes are notoriously unreliable, but it is exceedingly unlikely that the Gospels were manufactured wholesale in the way that you suggest within the lifetime of those who were alive to see the events described. Too many of the ealry church's converts were religious Jews for anyone to possibly pass off an account of Jesus' trial which was false on its face and contrary to every normal procedure of the Jewish court. It would be like me asking you to believe that Al Gore's 2000 bid for the Presidency ended in failure in Vermont at the hands of Howard Dean. If the choice is between your knowledge of the Jewish court and that of 1st century converts, I'll go with them.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 6:59 p.m. CST

    One more thing about the review...

    by CaptainHendry

    I got an e-mail from the guy who wrote it. Never met him/talked to him before, but I can tell you he is not a PA or a script reader. He is someone with real writing credits who is now working on a script for a studio. And he has definitely seen the film. His description to me contained more detailed impressions of various scenes in the movie. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

  • That is the difference. Belief in a religion does not require proven evidence, it requires faith or it means nothing. Science requires fact otherwise it is nothing. Evolution is a FACT and has been proven. Evolution is a PROCESS. Even if believe in a higher authority you cannot ignore the fact that evolution is way Everything works. Otherwise everything would spontaneously change without reason and that doesn't happen.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Then why didn't he review the film?

    by thehague

    He did not review the film. He commented on how the plot, characters, etc. reinforced his world view. He attacked Kill Bill and Matrix in this review based on his philosphical differences with the content of the films, not on their artisty, or lack thereof. He pounded these points home again and again. This was a carefully constructed piece of propaganda. (Written specifically for the fanboys crowd.) If the good doctor would like to talk about the adaption of the novel into screenplay form, the lighting, editing, sound mixing or VFX - then we gotz us a review. Barring that, it's FOX News Lite. Regardless, the guy is a hack. Based on his detailed, nuanced review of ROTK - his personal creative work must be right up to Hollywood's creative standards.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 8:11 p.m. CST

    JD

    by DocPazuzu

    Actually, the more the years progress, the more scientific discoveries are enforcing the idea of evolution. The only places Creationism (or "the Law of Creationism" as you would no doubt call it) is gaining a foothold are within groups of fundamentalist christians and muslims, who diminish God by saying things like "nature is too perfect to be random." Why is evolution such a threat to people like you? It's because you automatically think that evolution, if it were true, would somehow "contaminate" or lessen your idea of a divine spark in man. If there is such a spark in man, what makes you think you're an authority on how it was put there? Or WHEN it was put there? That's about as pretty damn presumptious as you can get -- being a judge of how God gets things done.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Empyreal, you didn't read closely enough.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I am not a Christian. This is because I do not believe that the gospels are true. Unless the gospels are true, there is no reason to accept ANY "witness account" regarding Christ, his divinity, Resurrection, or purported statements. There is even LESS reason to accept liturgies based on events like the Last Supper, the only evidence for which is those same gospels. My statement was meant to express my disdain for people who can be convinced that the cosmology of the Bible is false, its history is false, and that its claims to divine inspiration are false, but still somehow think that this doesn't add up to the religion of their birth being false. Inertia beats thought just about every time, unfortunately. And by the way, having read the Book of Mormon, I have to say that other than the word "Jesus", I can't find a single item anywhere in it that in any way resembles anything like Christianity. I guess they wanted to use the brand name, but that's about the only thing they have in common. The Mormons may persist in describing themselves as a type of Christianity, but they aren't fooling me.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Well, if that's true, CaptainHendry (that you heard from Dr. Ong

    by Big Dumb Ape

    You said "I got an e-mail from the guy who wrote it. Never met him/talked to him before, but I can tell you he is not a PA or a script reader. He is someone with real writing credits who is now working on a script for a studio." If that's true, hasn't he been back here to see how many people thought he was full of shit? And if not, in trading emails, did you tell him to check out the posts here (least the first half before it turned into a religous debate.) For a talkback that's run this long -- and given how heated it was to begin with, where people were saying Ong was full of shit for claiming to be a "content creator" -- it seems to me Ong would've posted SOME kind of reply by now to clarify his position or his review. Oh, and as for him having "real writing credits" I'd be curious for him to step out of the shadows and prove it then. That is, if he's actually written material that's been PRODUCED...let him list it. At least that way, he can put his bravado where his mouth is and we can all openly judge for ourselves he actually DID crap out better material than KILL BILL or MATRIX REVOLUTIONS, or if the truth is all he's ever done is write some crapfest like ZAPPED 3 for Scott Baio. On the flip side, if he's just now beginning to work on something for a studio for the very first time -- and is to date unproduced completely-- then his whole notion that he can crap out better material than Tarantino or the Wachowskis is just him beating off publicly (which is what everyone was mocking him about to begin with.)

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 9:39 p.m. CST

    CaptainHendry

    by Mister Pink

    The passage which speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem is why we know it was written AFTER that date. The author is retrojecting prophesy into Jesus' mouth. It was not necessary to point out that the "prophesy" had been fulfilled because EVERYBODY KNEW that Jerusalem had been destroyed. It would have been belaboring the point. It's like if told you that some psychic had predicted there would be a massive terrorist attack on New York on 9/11. I would have to say "and then there WAS a massive terrorist attack on 9/11." I would assume that you already fucking knew that. With regard to the Q gospel, there is no question that Matthew and luke used a common written source of sayings in Greek. The word for word agreement of the sayings and pericopes would simply not be possible for two independent translations. There is nothing speculative about any of this. Q is almost universally accepted these days even by "Christian" scholars (and btw, what I meant by that distinction was that historical scholarship is objective and scientific while "christian scholarship starts with certain base assumptions about supernatural events). The default assumption of OBJECTIVE scholarship is that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. If you want to assert that Jesus made a predictive prophesy about the destruction of Jerusalem 40 yeras before it happened then you have the burden of proof. Occam's Razor says that the words were placed in Jesus' mouth after the fact. Prove otherwise. If you want to say that God "inspired" two separate authors to make identical translations of the same Aramaic oral traditions independently of each other then it's up to you to PROVE it (and btw, the literary style of the Q passages is distinctly different than the styles of either Luke or Matthew so you'd also have to explain why they both inexplicably lapse into an identical and mutually uncharacteristic style for the exact same passages in the exact same words. This is more identifiable in the original Greek, a language I highly recommend taking up if you're serious about New Testament criticism). I don't have to prove that impossible shit is impossible, you have to prove it IS possible.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:06 p.m. CST

    What the fuck?

    by cmsapp

    "Evolution is losing credibility fast." To what? Things popping up out of thin air? Show me! I see more species dying out than coming in. Nature is to balanced my ass. How is man balanced with the rest of the world? He's not, because he EVOLVED. It's called NATURAL SELECTION. PEOPLE NEED TO READ MORE THAN ONE BOOK.

  • Dec. 1, 2003, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Siiiiiiiiigh

    by BCfreeB

    Why does December 17 seem farther and farther away every all the time. Oh well, back to my two towers extended edition dvd. www.unseenfilms.com

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 1 a.m. CST

    Hey, ( . )( . ), you are a dumbass.

    by Mister Pink

    Listen, tits, you obviously have no idea what the word "theory" menas in science so let me explain it to you. Theory does not mean "unproven." A SCIENTIFIC theory (as opposed to the vernacular use of the word which is more akin to "hypothesis") is an explanation for a set of facts or phenomena which is SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. If it's not supported by evidence it's not a scientific theory (which is why Creationism is not a scientific theory). The atom is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Theories make testable predictions. If the predictions are born out, the theory is supported. Every conceivable test or or prediction about evolution has been thoroughly born out. You should also know that no amount of proof can ever turn a theory into a law but that doesn't mean a theory can't be a fact. Evolution is, in fact, a FACT.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Pink...

    by CaptainHendry

    I'll grant it is an unfortunate necessity of God's nature and ours that he must be believed to be seen. But this is an inevitable (and entirely logical) outcome of a personal God seeking real relationships with his own creations. Faith is the absence of certainty which allows choice to be real choice. Put another way, there is no real love without the potential for hate or -- more often -- indiference. Obviously this is unacceptable to you (as it was to me for many years). As for your view of the NT, I would merely ask you to consider that your position is merely a tautology: Miracles never happen and prophecy is impossible, therefore stories of miracles and prophecy in the NT are impossible. I don't know why you bothered studying it in school when your suppositions make the text entirely unnecessary. What path is left to alter your opinion? I could share my experiences, but these could also be written off in the same manner. So we are left with only one option, that God should perform a miracle specifically for you. And perhaps He will. But, as anyone who has read the NT (or seen Pulp Fiction) knows, even a miracle does not convince those determined not to be convinced. To await a miracle is to demand all of God and nothing of oneself. "Ask, seek, knock and the door will be opened." This is a consistent message in the NT. Do not wait on your epiphany. Your epiphany waits on you.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 5:07 a.m. CST

    (.)(.) & J_D

    by DocPazuzu

    To paraphrase the great Dr. Henry Jones, Sr., -- morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them. That is, books other than the ones officially endorsed by your congregations. I realize it

  • As said Xenu's sister, no need to compare movies that don't have the same goal. Kill Bill is a certain kind of movie, ROTK is a certain other kind of movie. What is the need to compare? I personnally am a big fan of Peter's Jackson's and Fran Walsh's job on LOTR, and this does not prevent me from having loved Kill Bill... I didn't like Matrix revolution that much, and so i don't want to see it mentionned in a ROTK review! It's too bad that you criticize other movies because your review does not need this. I mean, you wrote very enthousiastically, some of your sentences are even beautiful, we can see that you wanted to share something, but then we are like "uh?!..." as we suddenly read a comment on Kill Bill, whereas it has nothing to do here. If you compare with such movies, if people reading liked these, you will provoke prejudices towards the movie you try to defend, and if they didn't like it, it makes it appear as a trivial product you compare to other products... We can do very nice reviews about a movie without saying things like "compared to this stuff which is shit, this one is such a masterpiece". It looks like you are doing comparative commercial. Next time, just say something like "it's such a masterpiece", as simple as that. You will just share your enthusiasm even MORE!!! Other than that comparision issue, this is a nice review. Thanks, you lucky guy, i cannot wait to see it now. Hopefully we'll have the two other previous movies (director's cut) in theaters down here to make this waiting seem shorter. :)

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 5:50 a.m. CST

    DocPazuzu...

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    You rock. "Evolution is losing ground as a theory" indeed. I'm with Bill Hicks - what sort of God is interested in "fucking with your head" with tests of faith that involve disbelieving the evidence of the senses with which you've been provided? Even Jesus had time for Doubting Thomas. And if its Satan running about planting evidence - when did he start "creating" things? Did he make the world? Many scientists have found that a belief in evolution is not incompatible with a belief in Christianity. Genesis is illustrative, not literal. If Jesus tells a parable about three servants, do we automatically assume that these three people were real? Jesus: "Once a man had three servants..." Apostle: "What were their names?" Jesus: "Oh, it doesn't matter what their names were..." Apostle: "What do you mean, their names don't matter?" Jesus: "For Dad's sake, they were called Jim, Hugh, and Bob, all right? And their master gave them talents..." Apostle: Rounded up or down to the nearest denari? Jesus: "Sod it."

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Brilliant

    by PantslessBob

    Way to go. Brilliant thesis there: all movies should be the same... That's great. Keep it up

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 7:34 a.m. CST

    (.)(.)

    by DocPazuzu

    By literally drawing my parallel to its extreme, you are proving the truth about religious fundamentalism in AliceInWonderlnd's post (a post, I might add, which illustrated my points much better and funnier than I ever could. Kudos, Alice!). Yes, you are right -- my car can't start without an engine. However, if I got up in the morning, went to the garage only to find that my car wouldn't start and lifted the hood to discover my engine missing, I would indeed be surprised. As for evolution, more and more scientific discoveries are confirming its validity. Therefore, it's the theory that so far seems the most probable based on what we know. Again, try reading the books your brethren no doubt burn along with Harry Potter, Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare. You still haven

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Passion is the one thing missing in the LOTR films.

    by arjaybee

    These movies have good acting, great special effects and are technically sound, but they are hollow. They have no soul. Heck, there are times where they make you downright sleepy (especially 'Fellowship'). The screenplay has major pacing problems and you really never get a sense of the life of Middle Earth and its makeup and to those who haven't read the books (I have), it's hard to place where anyone is at any given time in relation to the other characters. As a big fan of the books, I have to tell you that these films have played like long versions of 'The Phantom Menace' to me. Yes, some of it is good, but for the most part it's a bunch of wiz-bang with no soul.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 10:08 a.m. CST

    "these films have played like long versions of 'The Phantom Mena

    by minderbinder

    Really I am.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 10:17 a.m. CST

    "these films have played like long versions of 'The Phantom Mena

    by DocPazuzu

    Man.... that's just messed up in so many ways. Not that I loathe Phantom Menace, but damn.... You really are missing out.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 11:23 a.m. CST

    This guy has gotta be kidding...

    by Kielbasa

    If this wanker can't see that spending 40-50 million to make Kill Bill (which he hasn't even seen all of) is just as impressive, if not more, than Jackson spending 300 million, 3 years, and putting in a bunch of cgi baddies to make LOTR--than this guy is obviously either extremely ill-informed or just simply not one to be judging the quality of filmaking.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 11:47 a.m. CST

    A few points for the Evolution debate....

    by raw_bean

    "We don't need the Bible or religion to disprove this, maybe you should take a Math course of simple probability and then do some research on the chances of protiens forming amino acids and DNA and the Human Eye, as well as some reading on population growth and the Law of Entrophy. Go ahead..." -- To come right back at you J_D, try reading up on the Anthropic Principle (I think that's right, been a while since I read about it). It is indeed incredibly unlikely that life evolved from nothing. Why did it happen? Irrelevant question; if it hadn't happened the way it had you would not be here to ask the question. ---------------------- "Evolution is still a theory, and has not be proven." ---- The entirety of science is theory, and it is statistically impossible to prove that something completely. You can have a million experiments or observations that support a theory, and they are not proof that it is true, because there is always a chance, no matter how infinitesimal, that the very next piece of data will proove it false. It cannot be proved with one hundred percent certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, because there's always the tiniest chance that all the theories and laws of gravity, relativity and motion are wrong, and it's just been an immense fluke that the world has confirmed to these incorrect laws for as long as it has been observed. Science does not deal in certainties, that is for religions. Common sense dictates that though it cannot be totally proved that the sun will rise tomorrow, the chances that we've been so wrong about the laws (theories though they are) of physics for so long is small enough to ignore. Science is concerned with having enough indication to feel reasonably sure that a given theory is an adequate description for the way things happen, one that best fits all the available facts. Some facts: The fossil record shows many species of animal that are now non-existent. The fossil record fails to show the existence of many modern day species in past eras (although, back to the statistics again, it cannot disprove that they existed then; it is possible, no matter how unlikely, that the very next archeological dig into Jurassic rock will reveal human remains alongside Dinosaurs, and it would just be an astronomical fluke that they'd never been found before). Coelocanths (though they DO still exist today), with stubby leg-like fins, first appear in the fossil record while fish (with fins) had been around for a while, but before any evidence of legged amphibians existing. Mammal-like reptiles, with skeletal structures that suggest mammalian warm-bloodedness and live offspring childbirth can be found after egg laying reptiles had been around for a while, but before any evidence of actual mammals. Small, light Dinosaurs with feather-like scales, beak-like faces, and hollow, bird-like skeletal structures can be found after reptillian Dinosaurs had been around for some time, but earlier than any evidence for the existence of birds. Conversely, see Archeopterix, an ancient bird with reptillian teeth, and a more Dinosaur-like than bird-like tail. Four legged but large headed and tailed mammals that spend most of their lives in shallow water are found after four legged mammals have existed for a long time, but before any whales or other sea borne mammals can be found at all in the fossil record. And that's all just off the top of my head. -------- "All the so-called evidence of "evolution" has been within-species evolution" -- How far does 'within-species' evolution have to go before it becomes 'between-species' evolution? It's all the same thing. The commonly accepted definition of 'species' is the ability of animals to procreate successfully with each other in the same species; animals they cannot cross-breed successfully with are from a different species. Within-species evolution, continuing slowly over hundreds of thousands - millions even - of years, leading to one branch of a species that can no longer breed with the rest of the species :- bingo, one new species. Since human beings share 70% of their DNA with the banana tree, I suggest that evolution does not have to go as far as you seem to think to get from a 'monkey to a dog'. ----------- Just to be slightly on-topic, I now own the ROTK soundtrack. Damn, but it's good!

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Raw bean

    by Elaine

    Why don't you join us on the Frosty talkback and gush about the soundtrack there? **** Fascinating dinosaur stuff, by the way. I'm impressed!

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 1:27 p.m. CST

    (.)(.)

    by DocPazuzu

    You keep referring to me as a religious person, as if that's supposed to rile me or something. But you also go to pains to call me a secularist. I believe both in God and evolution -- something which your rigid fundamentalist mind can't truly grasp. I urge you to be intellectually honest while engaging in this debate if you don't mind, meaning don't for a second try to convince us you don't believe in creationism. While we are (still) waiting for you to answer the earlier questions, I invite you to read raw_bean's excellent post dealing with the matter of science and scientific theory. By the way, one more question: do you believe God created the light from distant galaxies "in-flight" as well?

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 2:35 p.m. CST

    waffling (.)(.)

    by DocPazuzu

    I never said it offended me, but you bandy the term about as if someone who believes in evolution WOULD be offended by it. I just thought it odd. As for the eye, I'm going to go ahead and refer you to Superpaddy's post earlier in the TB. If that's not good enough for you, I can recommend "In the Blink of an Eye: The Cause of the Most Dramatic Event in the History of Life" by Andrew Parker and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. You are dodging all questions put to you, by the way, which might shed some light on your own beliefs. That's an easy way to enter this type of debate. You can simply attack the opposing opinions but never have to defend your own. It's sad to see you lack the courage of your own convictions. Feel free to come back when you grow an intellectual, philosophical and theological spine.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 2:58 p.m. CST

    J_D

    by DocPazuzu

    You're missing the point entirely. There are no such things as "missing links" or "half-formed" species. That would imply that all species you see today are the crowning achievement of that particular branch of development -- for all time. If, in a hundred thousand years, archeaologists dig up a neanderthal and the next week dig up YOUR bones, YOU would be the missing link between the neanderthals and the people of the future. See how that works? But that will never happen, right? Because there were no stone age hominids and we're living in the "end times" and Armageddon will happen long before then, right? Riiiiiiggghhht.......

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 3:01 p.m. CST

    That's right (.)(.)...

    by DocPazuzu

    ... keep ignoring the posts explaining scientific theory, and do go on refusing to answer the questions put to you.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Good show ol' bean. note for JD as well.

    by empyreal0

    "You can have a million experiments or observations that support a theory, and they are not proof that it is true, because there is always a chance, no matter how infinitesimal, that the very next piece of data will prove it false." Precisely! And thus, it would be a mite disingenuous to call Evolution a "fact". This is why I persist in using terms like microevolution even though it is a bastard term invented as part of speculation by an evolutionist and hijacked by creationists. It simply refers to the measureable phenomenon, which you can witness in the lab or in nature in real time - the shifting of a population's genotype by means of natural selection. (Macroevolution refers to speciation - the "point" at which a member from one branch from a common ancestor is unable to mate with a member from a different branch.) Even though micro/macroevolution amounts to a meaningless distinction, I find it sometimes helps to use them anyway. *** To JD, evolution is not 'random'. Read up a little on complexity theory and fitness landscapes. Current science does not argue for evolution being a random process, rather, it is the culmination of countless naturally self-organizing processes. (don't believe in self-organizination? watch a tornado form.)

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 4:09 p.m. CST

    (.)(.) on irreducible complexity

    by empyreal0

    Single celled organisms didn't "start it all". Reduction can go further than single cells. For example, self-replicating proteins could be the building blocks that arrived at single celled organisms. If I'm not mistaken, a self-replicating RNA protein was created in labratory settings some time ago, proving that such a thing IS possible. See http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html for some information on that. Why is this process no longer happening on a grand scale? Because life and its environment change together. That's what makes evolution so interesting, is the shifting biosphere that results from changing organisms.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 4:17 p.m. CST

    (.)(.)

    by DocPazuzu

    I have been nothing but straightforward in presenting and defending my beliefs. Since I am loathe to copy verbatim chunks of text out of books explaining why the evolution of the eye is no more fanciful than the evolution of the brain, the leg or indeed the nose, I referred you to a perfectly good source of scientific information which might help you understand this state of affairs. The posts I have referred you to merely present excellent explanations pertaining to this debate, explanations which neither you nor J_D have bothered to confront for reasons which are all too obvious. As for my questions to you, they were quite clear in form and should pose no problem for you to answer if you are so inclined. By all means, if there is a post here in the TB that would answer those questions I put to you, please refer me to it. You are still playing your cards close to your chest, while pretending to play devil's advocate. No amount of phony fundamentalist aloofness or disingenuous, sarcastic self-deprecation can disguise that fact. The worst and most heinous snake-charmers are not the ones in ramshackle churches, by the way, but the plastic-toothed, hairsprayed, gold-adorned, moneysucking spiritual vampires on TV. Those are also the ones whose patented, simplistic and cretinous interpretations of scripture are most threatened by the complexities of evolution as the governing mechanism behind creation. It's all about holding sway over the flock. Autopilot indeed....

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Lab

    by BillEmic

    That's the problem: a RNA protein may have been created in a lab - but that's a *lab*. A hostile, changing, and still forming earth is a far different environment for an organism to be created within.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 4:18 p.m. CST

    sorry for sticking my oar in here, but . . .

    by ol' painless

    (.)(.), I still haven't heard your own opinion as to how you explain seeing the light from suns millions of light years away in a universe which should only be about 10,000 years old according to Creationist theory. It seemed a pretty fair question to me.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 5:08 p.m. CST

    (.)(.): you are one stupid fuck.

    by Mister Pink

    1.) There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity." That is not a genuine concept which is at all recognized or employed by science or biology. Nothing has ever been found in biolgy which would ever neccesitate such a presumption. IC is just made up, pseudo-scientific, religiostic bullshit. 2.) ALL species and ALL fossils are transitional. Species are never static or "finished." They are ALWAYS in transition. YOU are a transitional species. Nonetheless, we do, in fact, have MANY fossils or "missing links" which show transitions between species including in human evolution. What you are employing is a logical fallacy called "God of the gaps." No matter how many "transitions" are found, creationsists just say "yes, but what is in between THOSE transitions?" It's an infinite regression and it's bullshit. Furthermore fossilization is a very rare occurrance comparatively speaking and we would not EXPECT to find a complete fossil record without any "gaps." Even so, we have more than enough evidence to amply support evolution. I won't bother explaining the DNA evidence to you since you wouldn't understand it but why don't you try and explain retrogenes sometime (look it up)? 3.) Abiogenesis, that is the origin of life from non-living matter, has NOTHING TO DO with evolutionary theory. How it got started is irrelevant to the theory. God could have zapped the waters or pixies could have sprinkled magic pixie dust, it doesn't matter. The origin of life does not affect evolutionary theory in the slightest. 4.) Do YOU have an alternate theory to evolution which is supported by empirical evidence? If so, let's have it. You'll win a Nobel Prize. 5.) What ABOUT that light from other stars question? Do you have an answer or don't you? 6.) I realize this whole discussion is a ridiculous hijack of what was supposed to be an LOTR talkback so you're getting a lot of answers in shorthand. It's not a great forum for an evolution debate but i strongly suggest that you read the FAQ at talkorigins.org and maybe try your hand at some of THOSE discussions. After you get your ass handed to you (and those boards are frequented by PHD level biologists, not movie geeks like us)maybe you'll come to reconsider. You are sadly misinformed. You really are.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 5:41 p.m. CST

    (.)(.)

    by ol' painless

    Sorry to bother you by asking this question again, but I was still wondering if you could offer your theory on why light from suns a few million light years away can be seen in the sky when Creationist theory says the Earth is approximately 10,000 years old. I think it is an interesting topic, and hope you can post a reply soon, thanks.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Yes it does! Thanks!

    by ol' painless

    How old do you think the Earth is? No exact times, a ballpark figure will do :)

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 6:04 p.m. CST

    ol' painless, just to play devil's (err, christ's?) advocate

    by empyreal0

    Normally I side with the evolutionists; at least the well-informed ones who don't take the obvious and very flawed fact/faith dichotemy angle on the whole argument to be gospel. So to speak. But in this case, I have to say that some creationists somewhere have come up with a fantastically interesting (though flawed, of course) theory on WHY that light appears to have come from millions of light years away, based directly on gravitational time dilation. http://philologos.org/bpr/files/t008.htm tells a little bit about it - read down to where it says something about "Interesting timing on this subject...".

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 6:05 p.m. CST

    ol' painless, just to play devil's (err, christ's?) advocate

    by empyreal0

    Normally I side with the evolutionists; at least the well-informed ones who don't take the obvious and very flawed fact/faith dichotemy angle on the whole argument to be gospel. So to speak. But in this case, I have to say that some creationists somewhere have come up with a fantastically interesting (though flawed, of course) theory on WHY that light appears to have come from millions of light years away, based directly on gravitational time dilation. http://philologos.org/bpr/files/t008.htm tells a little bit about it - read down to where it says something about "Interesting timing on this subject...".

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Once more into the breach

    by raw_bean

    As DocPazuzu says, there are no 'missing-links' as such, because there are no distinct species that need to be linked to one-another, in the long run. It's an analogue change, not a digital one. A slow but constant change from one thing to another. At every point in-between, the species is still complete, it jsut has certain features that are links between what it had come from and what it is going to carry on developing as. For this, see my post above. How many more 'missing link's do you need? I stated about a half dozen! If 0 is one species, and 1 is another that it eventually evolves into, then there are infinite numbers in between (0.5, 0.12345, 0.3434343434, 0.000000000001, and so on), yet each of these are 'fully formed numbers (or species)'. You cannot have some kind of half-formed species any more than you can have a half-formed number. EVERY species is a missing link, up until one particluar 'branch' on the evolutionary tree is cut off by an externally caused extinction. You may say that we do not see the fine graduation of species from one thing into another, only fairly distinct little jumps along the way from 0 to 1. The thing about the fossil record is, it is incredibly, unbelievably unlikely that any given dead organism will be fossilised. The fossil record gives us a very tiny number of snapshots in time. If you picked three numbers between 1 and 10 (say you got 2, 4, and 10), the fact that they could end up fairly far apart does not mean there were not more fine gradations in between. And yet, if you read my post citing examples of 'missing links', there are enough species that seem to fit in the gaps between species that were no more, and species that were yet to be. None of you have come back about my examples of factual evidence that suggests evolution. ------ As for the unlikelyhood of the basic building blocks of life like amino acids building themselves up accidentally, look up the anthropic principle. I read about it in Stephen Hawking's Universe In A Nutshell. ------ Incidentally (.)(.), I am distinctly of the male persuasion. ----- BillEmic, the constantly changing and incredibly chaotic formation of the Earth only increase the chance that a fairly unlikely chemical compound will form, and when you add in complexity thory as DocPazuzu stated, you can easily show how ordered sytems seem to develop faster than common sense would make it seem likey in a chaotic system.

  • you can demonstrate how order patterns develop from apparent random chaos with incredibly surprising speed, just like complex amino acids or self-replicating compounds can develop of a 'primordial soup' of chemical and physical chaos. I may see if I can find a link to instructions on how you can repeat this experiment (it's a bit hard to explain without drawings to demonstrate), though given the creationists' lack of desire to answer my post of scientific evidence supporting evolution, I doubt any of you would be interested.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Oops, 'orderED systems' I meant.

    by raw_bean

  • And I don't know enough relativity to contradict it. But it only gives a possibility for the immense age of the universe despite the 10000 year old Earth, which is irrelevant since the evidence all points to a 4.5 billion year old Earth, in whch case you do not need to explain a 10-20 billion year old universe.

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 7 p.m. CST

    Cheers for that

    by ol' painless

    Yeah, I reckon so too. I read somewhere it could be in the region of about 10 billion, but of course, no-one knows for sure. So you feel Creationism

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 7:05 p.m. CST

    actually, (.)(.)...

    by DocPazuzu

    I only said I was loathe to copy text from books for the sake of a TB, when it would be much more beneficial for you to read the books as well. Also, I find that the eloquent posts here by raw_bean and empyreal (among several others) more than cover all the bases. Why should I repeat their posts when I agree with them fully and need only refer you to them for your answers? They explain it much better than I could anyway. However, none of this changes the fact that you have neither answered my questions (referral or original), nor taken the trouble to debate the other people who also support evolution. If I'm such a poor challenge for your mighty intellect, then please feel free to disprove their posts. I have no doubt it would be immensely entertaining. To be honest, I don't think you have a believable leg to stand on in this debate, and I also think you lack the courage to take the others on. I knew you were a fundamentalist from your first post -- not after some word or phrase you may have used subsequently. If you were intellectually honest, you would come out and say you think a literal interpretation of Genesis is a much more reliable source of evidence for us being here than all the scientific discoveries which seem to support evolution. Also, I'd really be interested to know how these atheist scientists you speak of think we sprang spontaneously into existence without a higher power. Perhaps you could refer me to a book or another TB post?

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 7:34 p.m. CST

    So um, tits...

    by Pontsing Barset

    ... (.)(.) (hey that was kind of fun!) So, just supposing you're right and there is no empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution, what theory of 'how all of this got here' is supported by what we can observe about the Earth and the life it supports? Do you buy into that mythical hogwash in the book of Genesis? What empirical evidence supports that rubbish? You got some other supportable theory? Panspermia? Pods from outer space? Is all of geology a crock of shit or then? Or maybe the THGTG idea that the Earth is an organic super computer built by some planet designers in the Orion system? Enlighten us O Mammarian one!

  • Dec. 2, 2003, 8:31 p.m. CST

    What you are forgetting J_D...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... about the theory of evolution, supportable or not, is the mind numbing expanse of time over which it has theoretically taken place. You keep talking about the 'laws' of probability without taking into account that a sufficient passage of time flattens out even the steepest probability curve. How do you KNOW it wasn't all serendipity? Or are all the observations we can make regarding the age of the universe a crock of shit as well? (They COULD be). You can't PROVE that there's intelligence behind 'creation' anymore than Doc can prove that evolution is a fact, or that the 'spark of life' on this planet was or was not 'dumb luck'. The order that we perceive in the universe has more to do with the 'laws' of physics as we understand them - We're the right distance from a star, we have liquid water, we have a protective atmosphere, etc etc. - or not. And that

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Pink and Captain Heandry

    by silentdrowning

    Pink: Friend, The Q source is a very odd thing. It is TOTALLY hypothetical--there is not the SLIGHTEST evidence of its existence--it is never found in the mss., it is never referred to by ANY ancient writers, and it is never found in any archeological data. The existence of Q is POSTULATED, solely to account for differences between the synoptic gospels. It is a pure hypothesis without ANY 'hard evidence'--you might say, a veritable "document of the Gaps." This is not to say that Q did not exist, nor that it was not used, but rather that we should be less dogmatic about (and critically dependent on!) such a gossamer document. As such, it is only necessary (or useful) IF ONE BELIEVES that Matt/Luke were dependent on Mark. If one believes in Matthean priority (i.e. that Mark was independent of Mt, or dependent on Mt) then the "need" for a Q source disappears (and so does the embarrassment of not HAVING any evidence of its existence!). Did someone mention Ockham's law of parsimony? BTW, 'supposing' if the earliest extant copy of a NT book dates to after the life of Jesus, it does not logically hold that the claims of Jesus were invented by a believer with an agenda. Heandry: Friend, you should know that you can't be Christian an be an honest to goodness historical scholar, without an agenda that is. Every scientist and scholar has an agenda of some sort. Unless you have been truly duped by an extreme flavor of post-modernism will you know that it is a fundamental part of the human ontology to live your life according to what you belief to be true and implicit in this is sharing that truth, whatever it is, with The Other. Whoever that person plugged into the Matrix is. BTW (#2), making the claim of a ressurection is not claiming the impossible. It is claiming the improbable, let us be honest here. The two are different things. BTW (#3) Conan, Arnold S., is proof enough that evolution works on the macro level even without a billion year timespan.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 1:38 a.m. CST

    [sigh] Silent....

    by Mister Pink

    Q is inferred from the what is IDENTICAL in Matthew and Luke not from the differences. There is absolutely no reasonable wuestion that the two gospels used a common written source. And by touting the priority of Matthew you are REALLY flaunting your ignorance about Biblical criticism. Almost the entire gospel of Mark is contained within Matthew. This means that Matthew was dependant on Mark.You won't find anyone in contemporary scholarship who still believes in the priority of Matthew except the most blatantly apologetic fundamentalists. It goes like this, dude. Q came first. Then Mark. Matthew used Mark and Q. Luke used Q possibly some of Mark and some independant "Lukan" material from an unknown source. John is the last written and is independent of the synoptics. That's the consensus rundown by most scholars today.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 5:21 a.m. CST

    Sorry J_D,

    by raw_bean

    but to me those examples of 'missing links' I gave refuse any interpretation other than some form of evolution. On the fossil record, let me reiterate how extraordinarily improbable it is that an animal or plant that dies will be preserved through an unimaginably vast count of years, AND then be discovered by anyone today. As for this population calculation, I would be incredibly curious to see on what basis they made their assumptions of birth and death rates for humans living millions of years ago. Though it is only a belief of mine, :) , I would say that the mathematicians working on it could have no idea what impact diseases, inter-species competition, possible starvation, the ice age, or many other important factors would have on death rates millions of years ago (and birth rates, for that matter). I do not believe we have sufficient data to make such a calculation. At the end of the day though, whatever flaws may exist in the evolution theory, I have yet to hear anything better, or anything even remotely close in terms of credibility. ---- "since evolution passes on the heriditary traits through reproductioin then you should be able to produce a large sum of fossils, because there'd have been more species", I really don't undserstand what you mean here. 'More species'? Than what? It will never be possible to produce a 'large number' of fossils, the Earth's geological processes do not allow it. I really hope you didn't mean it when you said you wouldn't be coming back, I would hate to drop this discussion.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 5:33 a.m. CST

    You do know that bones decay, don't you?

    by AliceInWonderlnd

    Don't you? They crumble into dust. They are only preserved in very exceptional circumstances over long periods of time, hence the gaps in the fossil record. There are whole graveyards only a couple of thousand years old where there is NOTHING left but marks in the ground, if that. In some environmental conditions, the entire body can be gone in 20 years. I did a research piece on a graveyard that was supposedly about 900 years old and had the potential be much older, and by your calculations, based on the historical records of who was buried there, there should have been tens of thousands of graves. It should have been a hill of bones. But the oldest I found was 1642 and at 90% of *recorded burials* were gone - the bodies decayed, the markers got lost or recycled. If bones never decayed, we would be buried in the dead even if the world really was only 5000 years old. This is your argument against evolution?

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Information...

    by PAV

    Not gonna stay long, prolly never come back to this thread to see the results, so please feel free to ignore me...but I wonder how science has dealt with the curious problem of information in DNA. Can it be a *code*, a language, by random chance? One would assume that the first DNA did have information in it, otherwise it would be useless. Now what that has to do with RotK, I know not, but ah well. Looking forward to the flick...

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Nice Review.... Wanker.

    by MaulRat

    I think that says it all. I am going to open a fast food resaurant for content creating Hindu vegans and call it AINT IT COW. (cue the gratutious Star Wars and Matrix refs.. its time for me to lose favour with a few talkbackers) for the record, I LIKED Revolutions AND Kill Bill I know its not popular opinion, but dammit its mine.. And I am going to look forward to Return of the King and Kill Bill Vol 2, Episode 3 and every other big geek material film with that same youthful excitement that took me when I waited in line for 4 hours as a kid with my Older Brother to see JEDI.. oooh green lightsabers... cool stuff... Before I forget... "YOU CYNICAL BASTARD!!! :) (you know who you are) *BAMF*

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Evolution Debate.

    by MaulRat

    MOTHERS ASS! you guys have alot of free time. You guys wanna take it outside? some of us in here are still talking about movies and ragging on the guy who wrote the nada-review..

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Disturbing little 'fact' for you J_D...

    by Pontsing Barset

    In regards to Homo Sapiens: The living outnumber the dead. Think about it.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 11:53 a.m. CST

    PAV

    by raw_bean

    Calling DNA a 'code' or 'language' is misleading in that it suggests it was written by someone. Please read previous posts regarding self-replicating RNA molecules, and ordered systems and patterns developing at what seem like impossible speed out of random chaos. --- Pontsing-barset, what do you mean, fella? The dead definately outnumber the living, you only need to go a few generations back to get many billions of lives.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Just a "goad" to spark further discussion bean; you're right, i

    by Pontsing Barset

    The living dead Question On her latest CD, the American artist Laurie Anderson uses the refrain "Now that the living outnumber the dead . . ." Is this true? If so, when did it happen? If not, when might it happen, if ever? Do we have good estimates of population numbers before recorded history? JOHN WOODLEY , Toulouse France Answers The answer below is based on some calculations which were published by the International Statistical Institute. If the world population had always been increasing at its present rate, doubling within an average human lifespan, then the living would indeed outnumber the dead. However, this is not what has happened. There have been very long periods in the past when the population hardly grew at all, but when deaths continued to accumulate. For historical periods, there is a surprising amount of information on population figures, including censuses conducted by both the Romans and the Chinese. Before then, there are estimates based on the area of the world which was under cultivation or used for hunting, and of the numbers of people who could be supported per acre using these methods of food production. According to estimates assembled by J-N. Biraben, the world population was about 500 000 in 40 000 BC. It grew--but not at a steady rate--to between 200 and 300 million in the first millennium AD, and reached 1 billion early in the 19th century. On multiplying the population numbers by the estimated death rates, you discover that the total number of deaths between 40 000 BC and the present comes to something in the order of 60 billion. The present world population is still less than 6 billion. Although no great claim can be made for the accuracy of the historical estimates, the errors can hardly be so large as to effect the conclusion that the living are far outnumbered by the dead. This has always been the case, and will continue to be so into the indefinite future. Roger Thatcher , New Malden Surrey

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 2:06 p.m. CST

    the Living and the Dead

    by Drath

    Isn't it true that the number of people who ever lived is larger than the number of people who ever died since you can't die without living first and a lot of us who are alive have yet to die? And a few of us have yet to really live! Yes, I am stoned. But this talkback has been a blast to read. Thanks all!

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 2:46 p.m. CST

    How can someone with tits as their user ID possibly be arguing f

    by mortsleam

    Fucking hypocrite. By the way, it's ( @ Y @ ) Learn to spell.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 4:55 p.m. CST

    The Anthropic Principle

    by empyreal0

    I did a little poking around for curious creationists who'd like to know why their 'fine-tuned universe' arguments doesn't sway perfectly rational evolutionists into joining them in the pews. http://www.anthropic-principle.com/primer.html will explain what the Anthropic Principle is, and why it's a worthy contender for intelligent design. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/barrow.html is for the creationists, to see a recent example of a rather intelligent individual attempting to debunk what he calls The Anthropic Philosophy - (the idea that a seemingly fine-tuned universe doesn't demand explanation). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_kelly/wap.html is a response to that very article pointing out its faults. While Kelly does a good job of dissecting Craig's argument, I believe his rather bluntly atheist conclusion is a bit premature. Nevertheless, some food for thought.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 9:12 p.m. CST

    For the record...

    by CaptainHendry

    I have a minor in biology and believe evolution is probably true though it fails to explain some elements of the historical record. The theory is strong but not complete. And yes, the universe is 15 billion years old. My question for all those trashing creationists is "Where is the clock?" As Einstein showed, the passage of time is a local/relative phenomenon. In the beginning, there is only one place for the theoretical clock to be. But the tremendous density of the expanding universe means that "the clock" would have been moving very, very slowly relative to our current earth-bound variety. Though it could not be done physically, as a though experiment you can work out the relative passage of time between current local standards and the theoretical clock at the center of the universe. So what would be 15 billion years by the space clock would, in earth-bound time be...seven days.

  • Dec. 3, 2003, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Pink

    by silentdrowning

    Pink, I'm sorry but I must insist that your claims are untrue, and have been increasingly discarded in the last twenty years. I have an extensive bibliography of scholars who realize that the postulation of the quelle, 'Q' documents is problematic and have abandoned the literary dependence theory based on 'Q.' In fact, many scholars in the literary dependence camp consider Matthew's work as the prior source. Some scholars are even abandoning the literary dependence theory across the board in favor of an even vaguer oral tradition! From a book in front of me, "The only safe criterion of literary dependence is the plain man's test: IS there consistent evidence of either copying of order or copying of the actual wording." In short, the Neo-Greisbachian position is the stronger of the literary dependence theories. BTW, could you please cut the marginalizing crap concerning 'apologetic' scholars. If you have a grudge against scientists who have religous beliefs that are connected to their work, just come out and say it. EVERY hard working scientist approaches his/her work with certain metaphysical assumptions, and furthermore, although this may offend your ideal view of things, most scientists have well-rounded and visceral religious views which are connected to their work. They're humans too. Don't slight someone because you feel the need to turn every scholar into a coverup artist whenever your conspiracyometer goes on empty. Mayber I'm sensing the wrong attitude from you but that's what I'm getting. Happy Holidays. :) Here are a few references off of my shelf, there are many more: The Gospel and the Gospels, Peter Stuhlmacher, ed. Eerdmans Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke by John Wenham Arguments from Order in Synoptic Source Criticism: A History and Critique, David Neville

  • Dec. 4, 2003, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Facinating CaptainHendry...

    by Pontsing Barset

    ...didn't comprehend a word you said, but I'm fascinated none-the-less. Could you possibly re-iterate/expound, so that an apparent simpleton such as myself could get a little better grasp on the relativity principle that you've touched on here?

  • Dec. 4, 2003, 3:40 p.m. CST

    silentd:

    by ENRob

    I have some problems with your disregard for Q, though the fact remains that there are no surviving copies (but there is quite a bit of scholarly support for it). But SD (sorry, I know my name isn't very good, but that one is just a little too melodramatic to type seriously) writes, "BTW, 'supposing' if the earliest extant copy of a NT book dates to after the life of Jesus, it does not logically hold that the claims of Jesus were invented by a believer with an agenda." If I am reading the statement correctly, it seems to infer that there was no reason for early Christians to make up the stories of Jesus. As SD says himself, "Every scientist and scholar has an agenda of some sort." The same holds true of religious writers. After the death of Jesus, his followers had to prove that he was the Messiah. There were a number of problems with proving this, one of the most interesting being that John the Baptist was a much more popular figure. Many people in the mid-first century contended that John was the Messiah. In order to counter this, early Christians made John the cousin of Jesus and made him quite an important character in the Gospels, paralleling Jesus in many ways. I would say that this qualifies as an aganda. Futhermore, the claim of Matthean priority doesn't hold up. Indeed, there is a natural evolution of Jesus from Mark to Matthew. In Mark 6:6, the author writes that, "he could do not mighty works there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief." The same story in Matthew ends with, "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief" (13:58). In Mark, Jesus is unable to perform any significant miracles (and he is taken by surprise at their disbelief) If Matthew came first, why would the author diminish the power of Jesus? Why make him completely dependent on faith for his power? Matthew's Jesus is a step closer to divinity than the Jesus of Mark, showing us that some theological evolution has taken place between the publication of Mark and the later publication of Matthew. Personally, I've never heard a convincing argument for Matthean priority. Thanks.

  • Dec. 5, 2003, 2:08 a.m. CST

    EnRob

    by silentdrowning

    First of all, Anyone else get the impending feeling that we're about to get booted for all this 'God talk'; considering the venue we're on right? I myself like to think that good cinema had better be a catalyst for this type of conversation (not strictly issues of religion or Truth) and not just full of eye candy. I'm impressed that (perhaps) the moderators realize that saying of something 'ain't it cool' means one thing but really trying to get at what IS cool only comes about through great open dialogue/debate. Ok enough about that, I just thought it wise to throw in some flag words before we get shut down. Yeah SD's cool. Ha, melodramatic, I prefer romantic or gothic. whatever. My younger brother's college band name. You know that story. >Why make him completely >dependent on faith for his power? This is straight out textual criticism of course, which should be checked with a theologian, but I pretty sure the "because of their lack of faith" in the two accounts doesn't refer to a casual or effective relationship bewteen 'their faith' and 'Jesus' miracles' but only that Jesus refrained from performing miracles because such acts would have been dismissed as insignificant; perhaps 'wowed' but maybe even taken as dangerous. The faith of the people wasn't an effectual cause for the miracles but the whole point for Jesus performing them, the teleological cause if you will. As for the agenda of the writers of the gospels. Absolutely they must of had an agenda. It sounds as though you make the case that the sum effect of clearing up data inaccuracies for the early writers is something to raise an eyebrow over. I can imagine the difficulting; and consequent confusion, in telling someone of a man that had been crucified whom you also believed to be God if they think the referent of the name you speak was a man who was supposed to have been beheaded. The relative popularity of John doesn't seem to be important conerning the facts although I think the popularity claim is probably raised when putting the events in a mythological framework. Sorry about the length. Hope I'm not being a 'jerkwad.'

  • Dec. 5, 2003, 2:15 a.m. CST

    give me a break.

    by kalimera

    this moral clarity bullshit runs thin pretty goddamn quick.

  • Dec. 5, 2003, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Pontsing Barset

    by empyreal0

    Hendry is trying to explain gravitational time dilation, something of a buzz word is creationist circles these days, and an interesting amendment to traditional creationism made known through a little book called "Starlight and Time". Please also see my above post about "playing devil's (err, christ's) advocate". This has become a popular rebuttal of late to the naturalist quantum-fluctuation-motivated big bang theory. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-338.htm does a good job explaining it in a bit more detail than my above post. http://askprofscience.psu.edu/physics/_disc3/000000f4.htm may help as well. For creationists, it shows promise, and a sophisticated foray into "real" science. However, as raw_bean pointed out above, all evidence on earth still points to a 4.5 billion year old planet. We could say that the earth and heavens were created to have the false appearance of 4.5 billion years, but then that still leaves us with another version of the starlight and time problem, only located exclusively on earth. To say this age is only apparent would make about as much sense as stipulating that time began only 10 minutes ago, and all your memories, all the processes you believe led up to this moment are all simply apparent. Possible, yes, but it flies in the face of logical simplicity.

  • Dec. 5, 2003, 11:34 a.m. CST

    harry, this list is all messed up again! I just posted a new me

    by empyreal0

    this place needs a fixin'

  • Dec. 5, 2003, 1:27 p.m. CST

    At the tail end of the debate, SD:

    by ENRob

    Thanks for the reply. Don't usually get replies that are... well, articulate and friendly. I don't think anybody is going to get booted on the civil end of the debate. Antway, just to shoot this off real quick before i run to class- notice the word choice in Mark, "he COULD do not mighty work there" versus Matthew's, "he DID NOT DO mighty works there." "Could not" conveys powerlessness, while "did not" still has Jesus firmly in control. I see where you're coming from, but the word choice is deliberate and translated accurately. Ok. Wow. I think I just got in a friendly debate. Thanks, SD. Wow.

  • Dec. 5, 2003, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Thanks Empy {:o)

    by Pontsing Barset

    ... not that you'll ever see this on this HOSED UP TB!

  • Dec. 6, 2003, 5:05 a.m. CST

    um...

    by Bourne GreyElf

    ok..everyones postings here have been pretty interesting, and a rather touchy subject for me. I'm not gonna ruin it by saying something stupid. have fun guys.

  • This was a great review other then some small mistakes that i just see differently by my own opinion. All you faggots who are dissapointed can go bite my ass.