Subject

Content Second in a roll

Subject

Content Peter Jackson rules

Subject

Content Can I?

Subject

Content hanging out to see how many you can get before anyone else is really stupid. Oh, and the Dude rules.

Subject

Content I kick ass for the Lord.

Subject

Content GAH! Yes, there IS a difference. My 4-year-old eBay bootleg VHS is starting to look the worse for wear. This, and only 2 or 3 other titles, are just about enough for me to shell out for another, region-free player. [This as frustrating as the bare-bones Frighteners, with all that Laserdisc material just DYING to be transferred to ta Special Edition set.] Peter, now that you've got some comparatively free time, could you look into these things for us? Pleeeeze?

Subject

Content I've seen the uncut version many times...my local video store for some reason had one. You know with the fingers and arms going into the lawnmower and shit. But is the ebay Braindead even MORE uncut?? Should i get it?

Subject

Content This film got the best film audience award at slamdance for more info on this amazing film check out... http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/10/film-foundas.php http://daily.greencine.com/ http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=8480&reviewer=128 You are forgiven Quint for your lack of imagination....see this film and get it back.

Subject

Content Yikes.

Subject

Content I've watched the unrated Dead Alive and Braindead back to back, just to see, and really the cuts are just baffling. They're mainly dialogue and transitions, and NZ references and jokes that Americans supposedly wouldn't get, but somehow Europeans would. Basically, it just flows better pacing- and editing-wise, the cuts make more sense, the characters are better characters, not just caricatures (or, heh, less so), and the higher satire hiding in the subtext (yeah, that's right, I said it!) hasn't been stripped away into just a zombie gore-fest (tho really it's a romantic comedy, with zombie complications). ...You know you have BRAINDEAD if before the opening shot there's stock footage of the young Queen Elizabeth on horseback, and "God Save the Queen" playing, exactly as there was in front of all films shown NZ back in the 50s (when Braindead is set), and that the audience was supposed to stand up for. So I've been told by a Kiwi.

Subject

Content Talk about damning with faint praise. I can just see the poster now. "Go see Seabiscuit! It's recent!" Wish I lived within a six hour flight of this thing. Sounds groovy.

Subject

Content anybody at the festival should check out DRACULA in the teen catagory. www.cranefilms.com

Subject

Content Can someone please explain to me the obsession with Braindead when Bad Taste is such a superior film in virtually every way. Half the time you see Jackson's history mentioned Bad Taste seems completely neglected, which is an utter shame given that it is easily his best work after the LotR trilogy. Regards, Eduin

Subject

Content is that if Peter Jackson takes a shit, i will hear about it before the bowl finishes flushing.

Subject

Content If you haven't seen this Diane Lane movie from 1981, try to rent it soon. Very funny, very cool movie about riot grrl band trying to make a name for themselves. It might be hitting DVD soon...

Subject

Content Thanks dood...gonna track down a copy.

Subject

Content Sixteen weeks until LotR:RotK-TE DVD day!!!!!!!!! ***Vanyar: Re the backwards Edoras shot (which I still haven't noticed after six viewings), if you watch/listen to the TTT-EE Director's commentary with P.J., Fran and Philippa, at the 76 minute mark you will hear P.J. discuss how, because it was too windy, that they never got a good overhead flyover of Edoras, and thus had to use a shot of it that they had filmed while it was still under construction and then later digitally removed all the construction cranes and equipment during post production. I think they probably just used this same footage, but altered so it wouldn't be too recognizable. OR maybe the wind was blowing so hard it played havoc with chimney smoke and banners. After all, it did blow the eyeglasses clear off P.J.'s face according to the same commentary. ***Pallando: A bunch of turkeys will be invading the Orange Bowl December 4th. Shall I get us some tickets?

Subject

Content I guess that makes you Peter Jackson's filmographer or something? And this Miami Mofo dork, WTF (replace what with who numbskulls), who in the name of Derek are you talking to there? This site gets weirder every time I visit it. Oh the hoot!

Subject

Content Tinfang

Subject

Content Why don't you and your boyfriend MisterGrimloch just go finish pumping each other off in private, okay? Let the grownups talk. Man, this is why I should never read the other talkbackers. Pissants like this. ...Heya, havfruen. A...fan? Isn't dat vierd? I'm positively blue with embarrassment...

Subject

Content Looks like the cretins are still picking fights with each other. Maybe in a day it'll be time to up stakes from the previous TE... *** As for attending the Great Gobbler Invasion, well now! There's an idear! What's my deadline for an answer?

Subject

Content My discussion with Vanyar is a continuation of one begun at an earlier talkback. FYI, there are a whole bunch of LotR fans called the tailenders, who, after an LotR related article has fallen off AICN's home page, continue discussions about the book and the movies in the talkback to that article. This all began way back when the Lord of the Rings project was first announced, long before anyone was cast in a role. Recently, Vanyar asked if anyone else noticed what seems to be a reversal of the film during the flyover of Edoras as Eowyn first appears in RotK. Apparently in that scene smoke is going down the chimneys and the banners are flapping backward, although I have yet to notice it. Hope that answers your question, and if you or anyone else has noticed that oddity, your input would be most welcome. ***Pallando: You don't have to let me know until Dec. 3rd. ;~) I never have problems getting 'Cane tickets (unless it's the FSU game).

Subject

Content Tinfang

Subject

Content You've all been had! Maybe a little paste to the noggin will give you a clue {[:^)

Subject

Content ... SO WHAT? seriously, don't you have anything better to do? 'First' posting is not "cool", just the opposite in fact. Get a clue man...

Subject

Content Mommy! This is gettin' TOOO creepy, I'm out! Oh... and um, Trubba Not(?)

Subject

Content 'cause, y'know, I've nothing better to do (!) and I think Eowyn's hands are clasped in the RotK one and at her sides in the TTT one. Of course, she could simply be digitally inserted. Considering how many Boromir's et al are wandering around when the actors weren't available, trying to judge that shot w/o being able to compare frame for frame is pretty futile.

Subject

Content Dammit, I'm really tired of people hijacking my handle...replete with e-mail addy! Look Dimfang, I don't know how you do that e-mail jacking but NOBODY steals my damned emoticon! Bastard...of course Robogeek won't do anything about it. **djinnj, everybody at Club Angband and workies loves your Nazg-rooster, One Ring Cake, marsmallow Balrogs (and smores!) but I must say I love your Fudge Doors of Moria the best. Homestly, that's some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen. I deem thee Baker of the Vala! A Grand and Sweeping Tip O' the Iron Crown to ya lass...a true artist of the Sweet World.

Subject

Content I don't know who is who anymore (yes I do) but that was really weird.***So, yes, the Merry Moot was superb. To my Moot-mates: I am going to have to ask your patience a bit longer on the mathom-mailings. I've had trouble finding the right recepticals. And Moaters, I forgot to give you proper credit for your beautifully printed ballad. Thanks for that.***And now, Orson, maybe it would work if you told me (us) what the other themes in Tolkien's books are that PJ "missed". I also agree with those who have said so already, that the theme of the loss of ancient and magical beauty (the elves) is present in all three films that I have seen, and although I can also imagine a dozen other ways to have included it, I am quite pleased with the ways he chose. ***And as for the PJ quotes, I have the ROTK Cinefex so I will check that myself, but on the surface, if I grant that you are quoting correctly, don't you consider the context? If he is being asked to label his films "arthouse" or "mainstream" it would make him look very silly if he chose "arthouse". And if, again, he has given up the more off-center impluses that complelled him to make movies like Heavenly Creatures and Braindead, then at least he still had the guts to stick to the basic story. No one who died in the books ended up alive in the films. No one who didn't die in the books was killed in the films (well, the only character whose end of the film fate differed from his end of the book fate is Celeborn and I'm not going to begrudge him that change.) Missing "main" characters are Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Imrahil, Ioreth and, of course, Ingold. I can deal with all that, although I do look for Ingold amongst the sad-faced Gondorians. The Fellowship was not shrunk to 4 or 5, Sam was not made a girl, Sauron did not assume a corporal form and come down to kick Aragorn's ass and NOT ONE PERSON raised their fist in the air and screamed YES! Now, THAT would be a mainstream-taste action-film to me.

Subject

Content Didn

Subject

Content Damnit, on both TBs!

Subject

Content I'm glad you like the pics! They are actually all at my website, but no one ever seems to find there way there except Runelord! Well, if you want to see Creampuff Shelob pics you _have_ to go there: <www.geocities.com/chattering_teeth>! I'm glad you liked the t-shirt. We were walking down St. Marks Place, which was rather subdued because of the cold weather, and saw it in the window of a t-shirt shop. We all laughed and then kept walking, only to turn around after a minute and crowd into the store. It was virtually instant consensus! ----- Pallando! I got so worked up talking about E2 to Rune and Jodie when picking them up from the airport that I missed my home exit by 4! And basically gave a very unreassuring sample of my driving skills as I nearly drove into the middle of a Y intersection. E2 is a must experience, people! Everyone needs to go there and read my LotR related posts if nothing else! <www.everything2.com> my username is "yclept" and I've written up instructions on how to make that fudge that morGy so admires, as well as the s'mores etc. Really! Look up "Lord of the Rings food" and there are links to some of my other stuff in that writeup. That's also the writeup with my RotK:EE party plans. *hint hint* ----- Lastly, to make this on topic, I figure I might as well share the theory I presented this weekend about why some folks hate the ending of RotK. I believe it has to do with narrative form. The majority of the three films has placed us contemporary to the action and as a silent participant. The end bit, after the 9 second long fade to black (which has music over about half of it), however, finds we the audience placed in the different relationship of fly on the wall spectator. Distance has been added and we are also no longer able to maintain the illusion of real time. We are basically forced to watch as the story events are pulled farther and farther away from us (the compression of time, snippets of events rather than full narratives, dialogue obscured by music or faded out, etc.). The only times this is halted briefly is during the interlude with Bilbo and Frodo in the wagon and the Grey Havens scene, although both have elements which prevent a full immersion back into the old participatory relationship. I call it "backing us out of the film" just as the prologue "eased us in" to it. Thing is, we've fallen in love with being _in_ the stories, participating in their immediacy. I think we all react strongly to the sensation of losing that closeness to the story and characters because we've spent so many hours acclimating to the other way. I also think some explain the sensation away as a result of faulty storytelling when it is really a rather brilliant narrative technique to _make_ us watch that section of the film differently. It places the events back into the context of a pre-history, with us peering in from a distance in time. Oh dear, it was much easier explaining this in person.

Subject

Content top (by my just hosed post) or bottom (where it should be) or middle (where it will be lost forever). Where will this one go?

Subject

Content Now just what and whom did you guys talk about at the moot?!?! *** djinnj

Subject

Content Glad I could amuse, Moaters. Somewhere between leaving my hotel and arriving in Amsterdam airport my accent started creeping back in, probably from talking to my friend Stephen, who has quite a strong Yorkshire accent. --------- Rune, I'm pleased you don't blame me too much, but that might be because you seem to have forgotten that as the scene was approaching, I leaned over and tapped your arm to get your attention, and gave you my best mischevious grin! :) -- And THATS where 'gamoot' came from! I can imagine the uncontrollable giggling fit djinnj no doubt had after that one! :D

Subject

Content Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please Please!

Subject

Content Here

Subject

Content Or until this damn TB unhoses! Barely got time to even read, anyway. Sigh. *** Sabster, that continuation of Denthor's scene almost, literally, killed me. Warn me better next time, so I can swallow my coffee first! :~D *** djinnj, excellent assessment of the final scenes. They really do work as an Epilogue to mirror the Prologue, and I'm glad they decided against a second Galadriel narration to make the connection overt. But on to more important matters: Stay away from that e2 site everybody! ;) It's a tarpit! It's quicksand! It's a bottomless pit of cherry jello with neither ladder nor spoon to aid your escape! (Not even a giant slice of banana to stand on!) Well *I* fear it, anyway. One online time-sucker's enough for me! :) It is a very, very cool concept of a site though. Oh, go ahead, take a look everybody. But don't say I didn't warn you! ;) *** Huh, looks like I posted after all. Imagine that! But where will it land, aye, we wonders..?

Subject

Content ...But really, I couldn't in right conscience let the hosing continue. Oh! There you all go, on your feet again. Please! That's far more standing ovations than necessary. I mean, all I did was un-hose the Tail-- Well! Another one! This is just silly, please, take your seats. Thank you. Now then, of course we all know by now that I didn't REALLY have anything to do with un-hosing the-- Oh, for heaven's sake! Thank you! Thank you, one and all!

Subject

Content Thought I felt a breeze...Here

Subject

Content Thanks for your comments, Pointsing, Wall Builder, Raw_Bean, Vanyar and Elanor and MUCH respect for being so good-humored about Orson's contrary opinions. Sorry if my stance is confusing, Elanor! The thought of you patiently trying to work out what I'm on about brings tears to this talkbacker's eyes! Orson tends to get a bit long-winded (and, bizarrely, is now talking about himself in the third person); in fact I'm amazed that anyone actually makes it through my posts (though I suspect that most people don't!). I don't think I'm saying anything BAD about PJ's movies - I'm setting out the context in which I can enjoy them, which is: to look on them as traditional crowd-pleasing event movies - that is, a big story told in big broad strokes, with big broad emotions and big battle scenes and big monsters and, well.... it's just BIG, really, isn't it? It's this shift in understanding which has allowed me to enjoy movies which, as a Tolkien fan, I would otherwise have problems with, I think. What started my recent bout of speculation was Elanor's excellent, detailed justification (or "rationalization", if you will) of the Warg attack in TTT. (Sadly, this defence was lost on ME as I love the Warg Attack!). But it led me to bring up other issues that people might be able to deal with - and they did. If Orson's opinions appear to change it's because we often go over the same material but with a different emphasis or from a different angle - which leads me to say new things about it. ****** Anyway, to reply to specific questions: Pointsing: did we see different movies, you and I? Yes. We saw them with different tastes and expectations so we essentially saw different movies. And yes, I've read the book tons of times and it's lying under my bed right now - I often read a chapter or two. No, I can't detect Tolkien

Subject

Content ... I'm not trying to be jerk by saying this but all your rebuttals sound like the old "Don't try to confuse me with the facts I've got my mind made up" routine. Since you assert that you have an intimate familiarity with the book, I can grasp no grounds for further discussion. I will however 'in closing' opine whole heartedly that you are grieviously mistaken. Tolkien's themes do ring out loud and clear in these films; to me and most all of the other tailenders, who are as a group: among the most literate, intelligent, insightful, perceptive, sensitive people I have ever met. "50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong", Orson my dear...

Subject

Content Like the "All you'll have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you"-type moments (many of them involving Gandalf - also the comforting Pippin in ROTK about death "Death is just another path, one that we all must take..."). Since you keep saying you actually LIKE the films, seeing them as big brainless action movies with little depth, it seems like maybe you just look for a different type of entertainment from the films than you do from the books? ----- As for Gollum, I don't feel up to detecting any difference since the change to sub-surface rendering of Gollum's model after TTT:TE, but what I DID notice is that the ANIMATION took a dip for the EE (priority and the best animators put on ROTK, or just adjusting to the new rendering technique?), but was the best it's ever been in ROTK. Although they tried their best to avoid it (mainly through Andy Serkis' groundbreaking acting involvement in the process) there was still too much of Gollum changing his look, expressions and mannersisms from one scene to another as different animators worked on him (particularly in the EE). In ROTK, whether through conscious effort or just more practise, Gollum looked freakishly like Andy Serkis as Smeagol ALL THE WAY THROUGH, both linking very well with the opening, and also making him much more consistent and believable. Whereas in TTT Gollum every now and then reminded me strongly of Andy Serkis, having seen him in interviews and such, in ROTK Gollum WAS Andy for me, as much as if he was just wearing makeup. I was astounded by how real Gollum looked in his split personality argument in TTT, but all I felt when seeing his pool-reflection dialogue in ROTK was how great Andy's performance was. Instead of thinking of him as a wonderful special effect, I ACTUALLY thought of him AS Andy Serkis playing Gollum (and playing it phenomenally well).

Subject

Content What themes do you peceive in the text that are not in the films? Please be specific so that I may cite specific examples in my presumed reply. Are you perhaps "Having us on"?

Subject

Content Since you prob'ly knows him bettur than ah do, just what was that there Moh-ters fella abaht, callin' me 'bean' or somesuch. Can the daft booger not read or someurt? Just you tell 'im not to imply thurs owt wrong with 'ow I talk, or thur'll be trouble ah tell yer!

Subject

Content I could be wrong, but Orson seems to be taking the films the way he wants to, and enjoying them that way. He seems to only pay attention to the 'BIG' moments/aspects in the same way all the unread teenagers that think the films are really 'cool'. At least he's read and enjoyed the books, maybe that's just a better medium for subtlety for him. Each to their own, you know I'M happy to pore over the subtleties with you Moaters. ------ That reminded me, (although it's not QUITE on the same subject) did you tell anyone yet that we were wondering if the Gondorian horseman carrying Aragorns banner to the Black Gate was Imrahil, and then spotted a swan banner in the crowd during Elessar's coronation? That one made me smile! :)

Subject

Content Now, must - make - corrective - post - without - commiting - more - erors!

Subject

Content That was deliberate, it was deliberate!

Subject

Content ... what he were moufing back there. Some times I pirntout his programs come unstuck or sumfing. I aint all that frendy with with him since he givit TATOW t'me for safe keaping tho. Its a terble hevvy burden t'carrit and its a col hard iron trak to road when you take on weelding the filfy thing.

Subject

Content Pontsing taffy head barset! Who givit you that name tho? I wud hafit to intro ducit that bloaks gulliver to my fisses if I was you.

Subject

Content I didn't want to steal your thunder on the 'Possible Imrahil sighting'. In retrospect, (now don't get mad; it's bad enough that cretinous PB calling me bad names and fisticuffs, the pugilistic BARSET!), I think it is probably the movie equivalent of Beregond or the actual Captain of the Tower Guard or some such person. What a great question for PJ though! Wouldn't it be cool if Imrahil WAS what they had in mind?!

Subject

Content I knew I was in trouble when the first shot of Theoden on his back already had me fighting down a smile. As for gamoot... at least I don

Subject

Content O yes Sabster, that were some funny stuff and my sides near split from the larf fit. You can have a chunk of English muffin along with Pallando

Subject

Content

Subject

Content That's it, I'm going to bed. Pallando, she's all yours.

Subject

Content MorG, I think

Subject

Content At the risk of getting yelled at as I have been before, I am going to repost a post I made recently but which was lost somewhere in the middle of the talkback. Somewhere around Jan. 25th, I think. It is a minor thing that I thought of that helped me enjoy Return of the King more, so I am posting it here on the off chance that it might add slightly to someone else's enjoyment of the film as well. Not that I expect it to, but I have myself benefitted from insights and rationalizations that others have made, so I thought I would at least put it out there. So go ahead and yell. I saw the movie again today and I thought of a way that Sam will get to live in Bag End, rather than the Sackville Bagginses or some other riff raff. In the red book, after the last page that he had written, Frodo enclosed a letter to Sam which contained the text spoken in Frodo's voice over at the end, about how Sam can't always be torn in two and must be whole for many years etc., and which tells Sam that Frodo has left him Bag End, along with all his possessions. So Sam will read that and he and Rosie will pack up all their stuff and move into the big house in the hill, much to the chagrin of the Sackvilles. A fitting home for the mayor of Hobbiton. And now of course this post will probably be lost in the mire as well.

Subject

Content Pallando, morG: swallow whatever is in your mouths NOW. I feel really stupid saying this, because you might not find the following litte lebowski funny at all, but still, you asked me to warn you better. Really guys, you surprise me, the very first rule I learned when I was still a lurker was to never ever eat and drink while reading a tailender talkback... Anyway, here it comes: Frodo:

Subject

Content makes all my posts float to the top. Verdorie! *** Wake up, Pallando! Unhose this mess!

Subject

Content gives a certain gravity to my posts.

Subject

Content Anyhoo, time for elevenses (Danes know about second breakfasts!), for which I will leave this computer, sensible little Sabster that I am. Und tsch

Subject

Content Don't ask me what he is (ask Sabster), but he's holding a scalpel and is wearing a very mischievious grin. Freak Out City!

Subject

Content Once again, I appreciate your comments and promise to address everything when the madness of my workplace has subsided. Just a quick one to Raw_Bean on the subject of Gollum: Yes, I agree with you that the quality of the animation suffered in the EE. But what I'm talking about is something a bit different - it's the physical rendering of Gollum as a 3-D "creature". In the theatrical TTT he had this kind of subtle translucency and a waxy sheen, which made him look like a real creature/puppet that had been filmed. He looked solid and sharply detailed. Reading in the TTT Cinefex, I learnt that they had studied a wax dummy to achieve this look - and that they had worked out how light behaves as it penetrates the layers of the skin. But in ROTK I noticed right away that they had gone for a different effect. The waxy sheen is gone; the translucency is less apparent; and there are none of the lighting highlights which really picked out the pores, wrinkles and texture of Gollum's skin in TTT. What you have in ROTK is what I'd call a more "painterly" rendering of Gollum. It's like they've put a stocking over the lense. Now this might be fine if Sam and Frodo were filmed in the same way - but they're not. And there are some strange discrepencies in the lighting of scenes shared by the hobbits and Gollum. The end result is that Gollum looks less photorealistic and less "solid". I note that his movements are now considerably more fluid - which actually makes him look MORE CGI. Gollum of TTT had a very slight stiffness to his limbs, which gave a nice impression of inertia and weight. And sure enough, the latest edition of Cinefex tells us that WETA completely revamped their rendering process for Gollum - from the EE onwards. Personally, I think they could've left well enough alone. On the positive side, Gollum's lip-synching is much better in ROTK. In TTT, his voice often seemed to be coming from somewhere else.

Subject

Content I thought he could keep Gregor company (who or what is he, by the way?)

Subject

Content They are quite friendly and harmless really. Just make sure there

Subject

Content raw_bean, I missed the swan banner at the coronation. I will definitely be on the lookout for it next go round. Very cool. However, the banner bearer at the Morannon would not be Imrahil methinks. As a lord in his own right, he would not be a herald or standardbearer. Beregond might though, as a Tower Guard. I wonder if there are any swanship banners at the Morannon scene in the movie. *** morGy, you are indeed correct regarding "ada." It is a term of familiarity...the equivalent of "daddy," "papa" and "abba." It is a diminutive of the word "adar" (father) which in turn, I believe, comes from "ataro" as is found in Atanatari (Fathers of Men) as you pointed out. Hope that was helpful.

Subject

Content Please look for my brief spiel on Imrahil and Ada at the top of this TB. Thanks

Subject

Content of this hosed up TB, See my Imrahil and Ada stuff there.

Subject

Content Tried to shoot you kudos from the hand-held last night morG, but that's always a crapshoot with AICN. It only works about 50% of the time with this 'amazingly technically advanced' web site. Shoot, between you and Sabster I ain't gonna have no arse left and I'm gunna be as dirty as "Pig-Pen" from Schulz's "Peanuts" from rolling around on this filfy floor what we gots in the computer cave back here. I need to come up with good riff on O-Brother meself!

Subject

Content ...which translate literally as "Father".

Subject

Content STUDMUFFIN!!!!!!!!! [I thought everyone knew that - afterall, the Elves were a mighty incestuous people.]

Subject

Content UN-HOSE, BY THUNDER! ...Well? Any luck? *** FRODO: "Where is Lembas Hause?" GOLLUM: "What?" FRODO: "We stop at Lembas Hause." GOLLUM: "What're you, nuts? We had lembas for breakfast. I gotta go somewhere I can get a shot and a beer -- maybe a fisheses. Not more fuckin' lembas. Come on." [Frodo gives him a sour look.] GOLLUM: "...Come on, man. Okay, here's an idea. We'll stop outside of Cirith Ungol. I know a place where we can get laid. Wuddya think?" FRODO: "I'm fuckin' hungry now, ya know." GOLLUM: "Yeah, yeah, Precious -- I'm sayin', we'll stop for lembas, then we'll get laid. Wuddya think?"

Subject

Content Check out the scene on the stairs where the little putz is telling Frodo that Sam will try to take the Ring. He's sweaty, grimy, and according to CineFX the animators were all about making the wrinkles and scars MORE realistic and consistent than in TTT and *I* can see what they're talking about. *** Sorry Orson, your impressions are SO different than mine, and most others that I know, that I can't honestly assign them much credibility.

Subject

Content Did my best folx, but sometimes it doesn't kick in right away... [Whistles nonchalantly, hands behind back, eyes skyward, rocks on heels... Then gesticulates wildly! Arms flapping about his head and body in strange, arcane maneuvers!] Homina homina HA! ["Nothing!?"] Gabba gabba HEY! ["Dammit!"] Hey! Ho! ...UN-HOSE! ["Grrrr..."]

Subject

Content *chhhhrrkkk* *click* *buzz*... Moaters to Wallbuilder, Moaters calling Wallbuilder, come in Wallbuilder... Better bring your trowel AND your sword ol' buddy, and some Athelas might not be a bad idea: This mother is one hosed-up biotch!

Subject

Content Why do you insist on calling me MorGy? I was actually talking TO MorGoth.

Subject

Content http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1737&p=4 Third picture down. Too perfect.

Subject

Content There's a 'Feebles' reference at the bottom of the same page.

Subject

Content ...it is indeed "ada" that Arwen is saying in TTT and ROTK. As one of my recent posts (which is somewhere at the top of the page in hoseland) hopefully explains, "ada" is the familar form of Father, "adar" which comes from Old Sindarin "ataro."

Subject

Content ...I am not offended by you in the least. I must have missed something. All I was doing is answering a tidbit I saw that morGy had thrown out in his post "O Atar, Where Art Thou? Evidently, they

Subject

Content This one, "MorG, I think

Subject

Content I mean it's your JOB around here dude. I did phrase it as "I think..." however - very dangerous phrase when muttered by moi. Now if I could just get this axe outta my forehead so my nervous system would stop twitching...

Subject

Content That were a hoot and a half thankee kindly...

Subject

Content Er, thanks for that, Moaters: I would say that you and your friends appear to know so little appreciation of CGI rendering, textures, lighting design and animation that it is hard to assign you any credibility at all! These things are my bread-and-butter however, and I have a rigorous and obsessive eye for fine detail, borne of twelve years' experience in a similar field. You are right about the quote from Cinefex - they did claim that they were trying to get more wrinkles on Gollum's face (why? - didn't he have enough?). Their intentions, however, have absolutely no bearing on the quality of the finished work. It's no use explaining what you intended when the results aren't there. They had the balance pretty well in TTT - and in trying to improve what was already perfectly acceptable, they have made it less effective, to my mind. Since you were so impressed by Gollum's sweaty face, you must also have noticed in the "crumbs on his jacketses" scene how inconsistent his lighting is compared to that of Sam and Frodo. And how his rendering has flattened him out so that he appears a lot less "rounded" - hence he has lost much of his solidity. Of course, all this does come down to a question of taste. But I prefer the "fleshier", solid Gollum of TTT to the slightly wishy-washy fellow of ROTK. And that's witout even getting into the issue of his "performance" - which is a whole other TB's worth!

Subject

Content You keep playing with the Gaping Hole, somebody's gonna get Hosed.

Subject

Content Musssttt...ressisssst...spookygirls.com...can't look...still at work...boss not at lunch yet... *** Still, that's some funny stuff. Sam rushes up the steps of Cirith Ungol, slaying orcs left and right. He runs into the watchtower, only to find Frodo's Mithril shirt lying in a heap. Frodo is nowhere to be found. Sam pokes the shirt with Sting, and a small frog hops out of the neck hole. Sam: "They done loved him up an' turned him into a horny toad!" *** Can someone be sucked into their own gaping hole?

Subject

Content Mortsleam bursts into the room and slams down a fiver on the table. Mortsleam: "I'm out!"

Subject

Content Hey, I like that and it DOES fit nicely in the scheme of things. Yep,

Subject

Content

Subject

Content

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Just what was the "related field" in which you had 12 years related experience? While I have not worked directly in film, nor been an FX person, I am a design nerd from way back (goin on 27 years now) and am a plain googley-eyed film nut to boot. And I'm sorry, but better is just plain better, and both the performance and the rendering of Gollum in ROTK is superior to that in TTT. Yet another area in which we'll just have to disagree. I do believe, that you are just having us on. Come now, fess up lad (lass?) Joking is joking, but this is unseemly.

Subject

Content "Both ...is" ? Awful. So much for my much vaunted editing abilities.

Subject

Content I'll watch TTTEE and ROTK again and pay attention ONLY to the way Gollum is rendered and then get back to you with either an apology or a refutation. Having said that however, you do realize that you basically said I must be blind, or ignorant about CGI, if I can't see the same things you do in the depiction of Gollum. How do you have any idea what I might know or not know? How is that you are right and everyone else is wrong? I don't know how it is for you but I think I would find it very tiresome, after a while, - being right all the time.

Subject

Content I asked him the same question (are you having us on?) earlier on this Tailend, but he never answered. If he is, he must be larfing himself silly over the amount of time we're wasting on him. *** Orson: Are you the same fellow that was originally Orson W. on the TBs? If so do remember that I used to call your posting handle, and by extension you yourself, pretentious? Your last post about CGI tends to bear out that opinion pretty convincingly - IMHO of course.

Subject

Content Alright, Sabs, I have corrected myself. **** That

Subject

Content Not only do I love hearing Liv use that term (Always brings the

Subject

Content Ol' 333 is frist AND last! Bow before me Eldar and Atani!

Subject

Content Ya

Subject

Content Provided the Friday traffic in Los Angeles is in our favor, I stand a good chance of making it to the FIDM costume exhibit again this year (it closes at 4 p.m.). The last two years have been stellar, permitting me to see - from inches away - Sauron's armor(much, much more awesome than it appears on screen), Galadriel's gown (complete with amazingly-laced belt in the back, where it would never be seen), Frodo's brocade party vest, Eowyn's funeral dress, Arwen's grieving-at-Aragorn's-tomb dress, Eomer and Theoden's armor, and many other pieces too numerous to mention. This year, the exhibit will include costumes from "Samurai," so Ngila will be well-represented. I haven't been able to jump into the fray, despite making no progress with - in fact barely sitting down to - my own writing, but will try to come back with a report on Monday. ***And Orson, after an admittedly quick skim, I'll note that I do understand some of the points you've been making. FOTR remains for me the only one of the three with no WTF moments that pull me right out of the world I want to be immersed in, the one that still puts a blissful smile on my face, and the only one I think was still more Tolkien than Jackson. Which is not to say that the other two aren't big, gorgeous, awesome spectacles. But even Viggo was quoted recently as saying (and I am paraphrasing) that he was not surprised none of the actors in ROTK were nominated for Oscars, as the second and third films did not contain the subtle characterizations of the first, and that the emphasis was on the spectacle and not on the acting. Lest anyone jump all over me, I DO think that there is acting in ROTK as worthy as anything else nominated, that Elijah should have been recognized, along with Sean Astin and Billy Boyd. (If Boyd's performance hadn't been surrounded by special effects, I think his subtle and touching work would surely have been noticed by the voters.) Interestingly enough, though - and if ONLY they could keep the original cast! - while I came away from FOTR thinking that no book-to-film translation could ever be bettered, TTT and ROTK both made me think there was room for one more version - the arthouse version, if you like, or the 24-episode Masterpiece Theatre version, where the battles would only be suggested, but the Stairs, the Tower and other more intimate scenes would be given full literary value. This does NOT mean I would do without Jackson's films. However, if I had to choose between never reading the book again or never seeing the film again (assuming that neither experience was wiped from my brain), I would choose FOTR the film, but TTT and ROTK the books - though with the pleasure of always imagining Elijah as Frodo, along with many other of Jackson's images.

Subject

Content Orson: Personally, I don't think Gollum looks less realistic under the newer rendering method, just slightly different. My point remains though, rendering aside, the ANIMATION is FAR better in ROTK. Even looking in the Theatrical TTT, go to his introduction, crawling down the cliff-face. Now, granted, they had no Andy Serkis reference for this, but look at the difference in movement and mannerism from the low angle, looking at his face shots and the looking at his back from above shots. They are glaringly different. Then go to the dead marshes. Watch him during the line-reading 'The Dead Marshes, yes, yes, that is their name.' He moves very unrealistically smoothly there, and very differently from how he moves in every other shot in thast sequence. In general, his facial expressions were often very different throughout the film, sometimes reminiscent of Andy Serkis, sometimes not. In ROTK however, he is much more consistent in look, expression and mannerism, and constantly looks like Andy Serkis. I find his movement and animation much more important to how convincing he is than purely the look of the model, and anyway I don't necessarily agree that the later rendering method makes the model look less realistic (maybe in some scenes, but in others ROTK seems better). Even if it does, I'd rather a Gollum with a poor makeup job than a badly acted one, to use an analogy. If you see things differently, that's fine. I read the same magazine article you did, BTW. ------------ Vanyar, it was just a passing fancy that made me think of the standard bearer as Imrahil, I merely brought it up 'cause without thinking about him there I might never have spotted the Swan Banner at the coronation! When you see the crowd over Aragorn's head, look in the right-hand half of it, about two thirds of the way up and a little back from the path that runs down the middle of the courtyard. ------------- Nice try, Pallando. :) --------------- MorG, sorry about not engaging in dialogue over Club Angband, but don't feel out of the loop or anything, I haven't done anything on or about it myself recently, I've been very busy. This weekend, I'll try and get the ball rolling, and I'll happily discuss that picture you sent me and how best to use it, as well as anything else you want to know/talk about. :) -- Personally, I like the odd bit of un-subtitled Elvish, it's much better than the other way 'round. The in-flight movies I saw on my way to and from NY had Dutch subtitles (I flew KLM, went via Amsteradm Schipol airport both ways), and it was just getting silly: they subtitled *brand names* written on products, and character's names (even when that was the only word spoken) word for word, and words like 'OK', which they dutifully subtitled 'OK'. --------------- Moaters, calm down fella! Orson's got a right to his opinion, no matter how wrong it is! ;) ------------ Everyone can use wichever domain they like, Rune, I'm registering both (assuming I can actually get the damn things BOUGHT). As for the site itself, I promise I'll get everyone involved just as soon as I START! ----------- morG, even if you were still both frist and last, this Hobbit bows to no man!

Subject

Content Oops! :)

Subject

Content My first post in ages, and it goes to the top! Anyway, I forgot to mention that my sister and I saw a preview of "Hidalgo" the other night, and we were not impressed - and the more so, now that I have learned that this "true story" hardly had a moment of truth in it. (The big whopper being that there is NO record anywhere of an Ocean of Fire horse race - funny, if it has a thousand-year history in a horse-centered culture - let along any of the hero's other victories, any connection with Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show, Wounded Knee, or, well, anything.... Basically, the guy existed, and told elaborate fabrications about his own life. He was never even PHOTOGRAPHED with a horse.) It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't hype the "true story" aspect so much. In fact, it would help if they didn't, because the story feels so false on every level - and gives one an even more enormous appreciation for what David Lean was able to do with the desert. My sister said she'd give the horse an A+ (and he truly is a wonder horse; you almost expect him to whip out a book and start reading - puts Brego to shame!) but the movie a C-. Viggo is... laconic. If you would love to see one more reworking of: white guy is bummed out by Indian massacre, takes to drink and humiliates himself at the only job he can get, gets an offer to go to a foreign country, and ends up coming to terms with himself after suffering in another culture... you might like it. Except that this one leaves out the crucial part about learning to appreciate the strengths in another culture, because the other contestants in the race are almost indistinguishable and nasty, and Arab culture is given short shrift, except for some gratuitous nastiness about... well, I will try not to spoil this further.

Subject

Content ...we haven't seen the RoTK Extended Edition yet. Let's not completely discount RoTK until we've seen that, yes?

Subject

Content raw_bean: Thanks for the info on where to locate the swan standard. BTW, I figgered you was just tinkerin with the Imrahil as Standardbearer idea. It does have a certain ring to it doesn't it? ***** morGy: You are most welcome, mellon. BTW, yes, the Two Trees tapestry at Rivendell in TTT is just too cool. Kinda gave me the same feeling I got when I first saw the Two Trees fireworks at Bilbo's birthday party ...Oooo! and the firework "spears" that shoot out over the lake (straight outta the book, no less! ...contented sigh) ***** Runelord: Egads, Runey! I've done it before? Now I AM flummoxed and at the end of my wits. When? How? I am VERY sorry if'n I did that. I shall be much more careful in the future when reading cross-referenced posts. ***** Skyway: Hmmm, so our esteemed Orson dinna respond to you either about whether he/she was bein serious or funny? Well then, I shall have to stop wasting time with the lad (or lass). After all, fair is fair.

Subject

Content Yeah, just like the books! Keep repeating Extended Edition...Extended Edition...Auntie Em! ** He-he, welcome back DoT from your Tailend hiatus {[:^)

Subject

Content ...you sooty-bottomed ol fiend. I has a feelin that ROTK EE will be verrry nice indeed. Oh, say, what is the current floor show at CA? I may have to swing by (in my wolfhame disguise, of course) and see how the ol club is lookin these days?

Subject

Content As I live and breathe, you're back on the ol TB. How are ye? Sorry to hear Hidalgo was a bust. I was really lookin forward to that. Rats.

Subject

Content "... they did claim that they were trying to get more wrinkles on Gollum's face (why? - didn't he have enough?" And the answer is no, he didn't have enough for the Gollum described by JRRT in ROTK. You, being intimately familiar with the book, surely remember Sam's description of Gollum when he finally catches up with the intrepid heroes on the slopes of Mt. Doom. Roughly paraphrased: "...his journey across Gorgoroth had taken a grievous toll on the creature. He was withered and emaciated... scrabbling in the dust, wholly ruined and wretched...". *** Now, Orson, I'll ask you again: What are the themes that were in the book but not the films?

Subject

Content "Just TO directly address one of your...etc."

Subject

Content but Gollum looks fantastic in both. Can I say that without a doctorate?

Subject

Content You bint from Inland or nuffing lyke that are you? Be cause you spellit jus the sames any 1 wud there. Wotcher an welcom to this here tailend talkback.

Subject

Content Actually, I was about to do a Daughter of Time and Alice in Wonderland on you and disappear until the "Return of the King" EE had been released, but now that even the determined Daughter of Time has come out of her self-imposed exile, I'm convinced it's no use to try and stay away from Tailends. It's just impossible. I might as well not even try. **** A few things for everyone now... well, for several people, anyway. **** BEAN: So you were in Holland and didn't let me know, eh? How very inconsiderate of you. And not only didn't you inform me that you were within half an hour's distance of my house, but you actually have the nerve to rag on my national airline's subtitling policy, too! The nerve! Just for the record: the reason why KLM subtitles even names and expressions you think need no subtitles is because they're aware that there are always a few people on board who either can't hear all that well or aren't wearing headphones, and who completely rely on subtitles to know what's going on on screen. It's a common policy in Holland; Dutch TV channels do it, too. And no one here ever complains about it. :-) **** Actually, whoever translated "OK" as "OK" should be fired, as the official Dutch spelling is "ok

Subject

Content ... and "not only DID you NOT inform me". Aaargh. Forget what I said about being a proof-reader; it's not true. Not true, we tells you.

Subject

Content Glad to know that my post was noticed in all this whacked out hodge podge. Now I don't have to post a third time...SARUMAN (looking out the window of Orthanc at the Ents trashing Isengard): Damn! We're in a tight spot!

Subject

Content It's one of the places where Jackson's top-heavy preference for the grotesque comes into play - and where the films lose me. For my money, the very fact that we have seen too much of the orcs actually LESSENS the sense of Frodo's horror and peril in the Tower. (Is there any sense here that being pawed and leered over by them could almost have driven him mad?) As Elaine says, where evil is concerned, less is more. I was far more unnerved by the Nazgul looming through the arches on Weathertop (or really, by almost anything they did in FOTR, from their screeching to the look of them in RingVision) than I was by ANYTHING they did in ROTK, in which they merely became a kind of powerful aerial weapon, with the supernatural element almost entirely removed. Also, I am hoping that in the EE there is better choreography of Eowyn and Merry's dispatch of the Witch King. Merry strikes a blow, yes, but then utterly disappears from the frame, physically and emotionally, when he should still be present. **Meanwhile, I am increasingly nervous about tomorrow, since my sister tells me there is some kind of drycleaning emergency, which necessitates a later start. Damn her hair and wardrobe issues....

Subject

Content I couldn't agree more on the scariness of the Orcs and the Nazgul. Less is more, indeed. **** Yes, the scariness factor has gone down since "The Fellowship of the Ring", in "The Two Towers" as much as in "The Return of the King". My main problem with the Nazgul is actually the close-up of the flying Nazgul in the Dead Marshes scene in "The Two Towers". Quite aside from the fact that we shouldn't be getting a close-up of the Nazgul here because we are watching that scene from Frodo, Sam and Gollum's perspective and they don't see the Nazgul from up that close, the close-up is so profoundly unscary that it really ruins the Dead Marshes scene for me. Honestly, I cringe every time I see that shot. Which is a pity, as up to that point, I love everything about the Dead Marshes. **** Speaking of wardrobe issues, I've got a huge one with the Eowyn/Witch King showdown. I finally realised last night what it is that has been bugging me about that scene from the start, and it's neither Merry disappearing from the frame (although I agree that that is bad) nor the fact that both Eowyn's dispatch of the Fell Beast and her dispatch of the Witch King seem too easy. It is - wait for it - the fact that Eowyn isn't wearing a dress. Yes, I know that sounds ridiculous (honestly, I do), but the trousers and mail just don't look good on her. Without a dress (particularly a white dress), she just isn't Eowyn! Which is probably the point, as she is supposed to be Dernhelm at this point (in the book anyway - I wish they had made a better effort to cover up her identity in the film!), but even so, she doesn't do anything for me in her mail. And while I admit it would be odd to see her fight in a dress ("odd" being an understatement here), last night, for the first time since I began viewing "The Return of the King" seven weeks ago, I realised that I wanted to see her in a dress in that scene. How's that for wardrobe issues? **** Incidentally, I watched the film with my newly-Read father last night (his first time), and he disliked the beacons scene because it features one or two beacons which are so high up on the mountain tops that they are above the clouds, and hence invisible to those at lower altitudes. This little fact disturbed him so much that he couldn't get into the beauty of the beacons scene at all. Men! (Although I probably shouldn't be complaining here, what with my ridiculous Eowyn-in-a-dress hang-ups.) **** Thank you, TV's Frank, for unhosing this talkback, and for the "O Brother" bit. Made me laugh, that did.

Subject

Content Now I'm top AND bottom of the talkback, with double posts in each case. I don't know which is scarier, that or having four articles on the front page.

Subject

Content Good to have you back. :) -- Sorry about not letting you know I was nearby, but I didn't even leave the airport, and both ways it was early in the morning after a long, sleepless night. When next I'm in Holland (my brother fancies a trip to Amsteradam some time), I'll be sure to let you know so maybe we can mini-moot! :) -- As for KLM, they didn't think to include English subtitles just in case *I* didn't have headphones! Having said that, it was bad enough trying to watch a heavily edited Master & Commander, on a small screen, with just ONE set of subtitles! (Still a wonderful film, though). -- I think I'm with you on Gollum, sometimes the look of his skin DID suffer a little from the change of rendering method, but overall he was much better. ------- Same goes to you D_o_T! (Good to see you, I mean.) :) -- Sauron's armour is indeed inposing from up close, as is his massive mace. I saw them at the LOTR exhibition while it was at the London Science museum. Very cool, all the costumes you mentioned, plus some truly beautiful weaponry, models, maquettes, and props, plus behind the scenes on the special effects (Gollum was great, but we've seen/heard a lot of it before, it was the Massive stuff that was really interesting, that we otherwise have to wait for the ROTK:EE to see, I'd guess). Also you could handle different versions of Elven swords to see the difference between the spring steel, aluminium and urethane versions, and there was a piece of chain mail you could handle, that was MUCH heavier than you'd think even though it was only plastic! The only disappointing thing was the Ring, ironically enough. It was set into a thick cylinder of perspex, that was not particularly clear, and thick and round so it distorted your view of the Ring anyway. They would have done better to use one of the dinner plate sized close-up Rings, and either way a glass cabinet (kept clean) would have given a much better view. Apart from that, it was spectacular (just remembered the groovy John Howe, Alan Lee pictures, as well as pictures by the rest of the design team), and I recommend the exhibition to everyone (it's going to the US, Boston I think?). -- Oh, as for Hidalgo, isn't the whole 'half-Indian' thing made up too? --------- Wynn, you're right of course, any complaints about Gollum are pure nitpicks. --------- As for both of you, the first film WAS scarier, but only in the same way the FOTR BOOK was the scariest. The way the Orcs and Nazgul were depicted in the films very closely matched the books, in my opinion. The shift in emphasis from creepy and sinister to dynamically dangerous and exciting was present in the book. And the Orcs totally suck me into the film, because the makeup is so good, I totally think of them as Orcs. They're really close to Tolkien, as well. I almost wish I hadn't found out which TTT Orcs were voiced by Andy Serkis, 'cause I'll actually be able to think of them as performances now! --- For me, scary was never a big deal with the books or films anyway. 'Scary' books or films very rarely effect me in the way they are supposed to (although I love them). Disturbing films get to me, if I watch them privately, on my own, in a darkened room, though it's only something I've ever experienced twice: The Blair Witch Project, and Ring (the original Japanese version, Ringu. I never bothered with the US remake). Apart from that, I haven't been scared by any film or book since I was a small child (when Dumbo's Pink Elephants sequence terrified me!), even though I lapped up horror novels and films as a teenager. ------------ Eowyn in a dress on the Pelennor? Ugh! A travesty! Personally, I think she looks goooooooood in the scene as it is, and I don't have a problem with the Witch King's end, just the killing of the Fell Beast. They made them too big! -- As for the beacons, I noticed some were above lower cloud levels as well, but it's just occurred to me that that explains why it takes all night for the message to get along the White Mountains, because the guys manning them had to wait for gaps in the mist to see them!

Subject

Content Elaine's devious plan for an AICN take-over? Ha. Let me tell you just how devious the plan really is. I just sent Harry, Moriarty and Father Geek three rings subjected to my own master ring. If they put them on, I'll know everything that goes on on this site, including dirty details which years from now will be worth tons of money. If all goes well, I'll even learn how to put false rumours on the front page without their knowing it. Don't you just love a bit of sabotage every now and then? **** Good explanation of the beacons scene. I'll submit it to my father next time I speak to him. See if that improves the scene in his eyes. **** I agree the description of the Nazgul and the Orcs changes in the book (they DO go from being scary creatures to being mere Sauron aides), but I still think Jackson could have done a better job at making them impressive. He should have kept them at a distance. He should have made them... subtler. Unfortunately, Jackson isn't into subtlety. He seems to adhere to the the-more-the-better principle, whereas I'm a staunch believer in less is more. **** Ah, you've had some experience with Japanese horror, then? Good. Good. I found "The Blair Witch" quite scary, too, but the scariest film I've seen was - wait for it - "Nightmare on Elm Street" part I. I taped it, sat down to watch it on my own, stopped the tape several times because I couldn't take it anymore, pulled myself together a few times and ended up having two sleepless nights because I honestly didn't dare close my eyes. Of course, all this happened when I was seventeen, so I have an excuse. :-) **** Did I ever tell you I fainted during a RIFF screening a few years ago? Nope, probably not. Anyway, I was watching Tom Tykwer's "The Warrior and the Princess" (a brilliant film, by the way), and when the tracheotomy scene came up, on a very large screen indeed, I went dizzy and fainted. I was unconscious for several minutes, and when I came to I had to leave the screening because I was violently sick. In my defence, I hadn't eaten for hours when it happened, and moreover I was totally exhausted (it was towards the end of the festival, when I'm always hugely sleep-deprived and confused by all the images, storylines, emotions and messages that have come at me), but still. I mean, fainting in a cinema...? Unpardonable. I can now watch the scene without flinching, though. **** Sorry to hear about the heavily edited in-flight "Master and Commander". Yeah, they do that, edit the films. Oh, well. They're a commercial enterprise. What do they know about good films? **** Now, what does it take to get you to spell "Amsterdam" correctly? So far, you haven't got it right a single time on this talkback. What's up with that? You anti-Dutch or something? :-)

Subject

Content Sorry, typing too fast. ----- I don't think it's fair to say PJ isn't into subtlety; he may not be subtle when it comes to scares, but surely everyone here except Orson agrees that he is good at subtle in other areas. ------------ I've just remembered something I brought up during the MerryMoot, and I'm wondering what the rest of you will make of it: The Eye of Sauron got less and less impressive in each film. In FOTR, it was ever-present even though it was rarely seen directly on top of Barad-dur. When it was seen, in visions or flashes, it filled the screen, the way a nearly-all-powerful evil force should. Through the next two films, we had much more opportunity to see the Eye in a context, and smaller on the screen, which for me made it lose it's impact, even on the big screen. PJ's people kept talking about it becoming more 'defined' through the films but, for me at least, that made it LESS impressive, not more.

Subject

Content The scariest 'book' for me the first time I read it was TTT, specifically Shelob. She scared the you know what out of me [in fact I distinctly remember laundering my own underwear that week (and what fourteen year old does that?)]. That is why one of my greatest satisfactions regarding P.J.'s adaptation of the book is Shelob. She was amazing. Plus, Elijah was great as was Sean in those scenes.

Subject

Content Yeah, I gotta agree with yer dad. The first time I saw the movie, I have to say that I was pulled out of the majesty of the "beacons" moment (incredible score notwithstanding) because I kept thinking the whole time, "Ok, ok, I KNOW PJ is just going for a beauty shot here, but DOGONNIT, the beacons were on a line of foothills on the northen spurs of the White Mountains, NOT on the bloody summits!!!" Can you imagine being the watch crews having to LIVE up there just waiting someday for the previous beacon to be lit. Having stood many a guard duty shift in the cold in the wee hours of the morning as a soldier in Uncle Sam's Green Machine, I can tell that would be a mind (and body) numbing experience. Not to mention the previously discussed visibility issues. Oh, and also not to mention the nitpicking fact that the beacons did NOT run all the way to Edoras. The last hill beacon fell way short of that mark. It was seen by the Mark's border riders and then relayed...but of course, that wouldn't have been near as exciting as the top of the mountain, Aragorn sees the last beacon scene. Now, in all fairness, I must say that I have been much more moved by the beacon scene in subsequent viewings. But I guess that is how these filsm have been for most of we books fans anyway, eh? Better on subsequent viewings, I mean. Ok, I'll be quiet now.

Subject

Content Come to Amsterdam one day, and I'll teach you how to spell it. :-) **** Ah, the old subtlety debate again! I believe I discussed the subtlety of PJ's vision with Elanor when I first de-lurked, and I remember having to admit in the end that Jackson was subtle in some regards. The more I think about it, though, the more I think it's not Jackson who has been responsible for the subtle little touches but others from his team. Admittedly, I've read very few interviews with Jackson, but from what little I've seen of him, I'd say that the subtlety in the films is his collaborators', not his. And although I hardly dare say it on this talkback (I'm whispering this, you guys), I actually agree with a good many of Orson's criticisms. So there. Am I banned now? **** As for the Great Eye, not only is it not impressive in "The Return of the King", but it's downright laughable! One British critic whose review I read referred to it as the Angry Lighthouse, and that's how I've thought of it ever since. Powerful evil force, my arse. **** MIAMI: No question about it, Shelob was magnificently realised in the film. I may have a lot of complaints about "The Return of the King", but Shelob is not one of them. She looks fabulous. Personally, I don't find her all that scary (despite the fact that I am an arachnophobiac), but the people with whom I watched the film last night (mostly un-Read first-timers) were squirming in their seats. And I do remember finding her quite scary when I first read the book, although not as much as you, it seems. :-) **** VANYAR: You too, eh? Yes, well, with your background, I can see why that would pull you out of the majesty of the scene, even if I don't share your concerns. I'll pass on the comment about the subsequent viewings to my dad. Perhaps he'll be convinced to see the film again, then. :-) **** Personally, I find the beacons scene more incredible every time I see it, even though I can now see what I didn't notice on my first viewing: that some of the fires look distinctly CGI-ish. But oh, those mountains, and the music, the music... Truly and honestly jaw-dropping and awe-inspiring.

Subject

Content T'is to laugh.

Subject

Content I figured that the lighting sequence would be different from the book, and thus I didn't mind the change Vanyar speaks of, including the first time I saw it. I just let the spectacle wash over me. [Also, I think elanor's review prepared me for the difference.] And what a spectacular sequence it is! Visually and aurally, it is breathtakingly stunning. [In fact, I can hear the soundtrack in my head as I type this.]

Subject

Content Ooh, Elaine, what a biting wit! Maybe YOU should come to Amsteradam, or Amsteradm, so I can teach you that it's MY job to be a nitpicky obsessive spellchecker on the Tailen TBs! ---- Elaine, we can all see some sense in Orson's individual criticisms, it's when he says things like 'there are only superficial similarities between the book and films', and 'PJ's films have NONE of the themes from Tolkien's books' that he loses us. ---- Also, I think you do PJ a disservice. It is neither fair nor logical to simply attribute all the 'unsubtle' aspects of the film to PJ and all the 'subtle' moments to others, anymore than that it was for crazy troll who was hanging around a while ago foaming at the mouth because he was convinced that Philippa Boyens was singularly responsible for every part of the films he disliked, and without her PJ would have made his perfect film. While Fran and Philippa are probably responsible for much of the subtle material in the script, I think PJ can take much credit (along with Andrew Lesnie and the actors) for any visual subtlety in the films. I think PJ is a consumate film-maker whose depth of skill and understanding belies his boyish demeanor and scruffy appearance. ------ In thinking about this, I remember two scene's I mentioned at the MerryMoot that I thought were wonderfully, subtly powerful: the end of Eowyn's funeral dirge int TTT:EE and Theoden's last words in ROTK. The thing I love about thise two scene's, is the way they perfectly capture the finality and discomfort of unexpected death. The heartwrenchly abrupt cut from Eowyn singing as Theodred is placed in his mound to the shot of the now sealed mound as Theoden looks at a simbelmyne flower, and the way Theoden dies in what seems to be mid-sentece: "Eowyn, -". Neither of those moments owe much to the script, they're all about the filming and the editing, where we know that there is no thought that does not have it's ultimate source in PJ, and everything done redounds ultimately to him. :)

Subject

Content Every time I see ROTK the first thing I do when I get home is put on my soundtrack and find the beacon scene music. :)

Subject

Content :(

Subject

Content Bean, I solemnly declare that after this post I will never utter the words "Jackson" and "unsubtle" in one sentence again, to avoid pissing you and a lot of others off. But for now... **** Look, I know Orson has a tendency to exaggerate, and I can see that this is a sore point with many of you. He does really go about it the wrong way sometimes. Even so, he has said a lot of things (more so in previous talkbacks than in the current one) with which I happen to agree, because I, like Orson, appear to be slightly more critical of certain things than most of you. Perhaps this is because my frame of reference is constituted of endlessly subtle Japanese and Korean films (I am the arthouse type, as I think I've conclusively proven over the past week); perhaps it's just because we Dutch people (GENERALISATION ALERT!) are not given to raving, and tend to excel at finding fault in others (meanwhile overlooking our own many faults). Whatever it is, I see LOTS of flaws in the films - pretty substantial ones, too - and they prevent me from agreeing that Jackson is a consummate film-maker. Consummate, to me, means near-perfect, and I'm sorry, but as much as I love both the "Lord of the Rings" films and "Heavenly Creatures", I can detect too many shortcomings in them to call them consummate film-making in any sense of the word. (To say nothing of Jackson's earlier work, which is heavily flawed.) As a matter of fact, I can think of at least fifteen films released in the past year and a half which I find better than "The Return of the King" - consummate films with at least as much emotional resonance as the LotR films and far fewer flaws. Admittedly, none of these films were anything near as vast and ambitious as "The Lord of the Rings", but they WERE near- flawless, which I honestly can't say of either of Jackson's last two films, despite the fact that I find a lot to admire and love in them and that I will probably end up seeing them more often than my "real" favourite movies of 2002 and 2003 combined. **** I'll give you your point about PJ being the driving force behind many of the visual and editing masterstrokes, and undoubtedly behind some of the subtle characterisation, too. However, I don't think I'm talking nonsense when I say that on the whole, Jackson's mind works mostly on a big, unsubtle, battle-related action plane, and that my favourite scenes were probably conceived by either Walsh or Boyens. I'm not saying that because of the way PJ dresses (give me some credit, eh, mate?), but because of things he has said in TV interviews and on the DVD commentaries. And while I have no problems with the way those big, battle-related scenes play, I do think subtlety is often given short shrift, and I think it is my right to believe so. No offence. :-)

Subject

Content I think you are spot on regarding LOTR the Film's many flaws, and that PJ is not a consummate filmmaker (which I also read as near-flawless). So, while I do not expect ROTK to win Best Picture, I still dearly love the fact that PJ had the guts, passion and love to tackle the monumental task of filming this icon of fantasy. Perfect? Nope, far from it. But still a wonderful work. I may get flamed for that opinion, but hey it's just another opinion. I just thought you might want to know that we Yanks can also be pretty critical, especially of things we hold dear.

Subject

Content And I can agree that there are flaws, large ones, in PJ's films, if I try to be objective. But there are so many scene's of (for me) perfect beauty, that I cannot think of PJ as anything other than a great filmmaker. While a anyone, even a master artist, can make mistakes, I find it much harder to believe that anyone less than a master filmmaker could create something as wonderful as Arwen's Fate, in TTT, accidentally, even with Tolkien's words to work with. As for interviews and DVD commentaries, PJ comes across differently depending on the context of the interview, as anyone would. No-one ever presents themself in exactly the same way in different circumstances, or presents the same side to their personality. For instance, I read on TORn a group interview of directors expected to be Best Director Oscar nominees, where PJ came acrossas much more intelligent and sophisticated than when he's interviewd for some random celebrity magazine. I think there's much going on under the surface with PJ. ---- As for why you (and Orson) tend towards being more critical, there's no need for generalisations - we're all individuals and it's just the way you are. There's also an element of choice in it: I could be (and have been on occasion) much more critical and analytical of PJ's films than I am acting at the moment, but I now consciously choose not to dissect them with any vigour, as I'd rather keep intact my innocent and child-like wonder at seeing my favourite book brought to life so wonderfully. -------- Just a last comment, you said 'my favourite scenes were probably conceived by either Walsh or Boyens'. Well mine were mostly conceived by Tolkien! :P

Subject

Content I absolutely agree. But unfortunately, no time to elaborate, as I must finish packing and pray that we make it to L.A. before 3 p.m. (the exhibit closes at 4). I could do it tomorrow, when my sister is occupied elsewhere, but I have not yet braved L.A.'s public transportation system and would rather not have to. Besides, I wanted to go to the Armand Hammer museum tomorrow. The love of my life recommends it highly.

Subject

Content I was glad to read your reaction, with which, needless to say, I agree whole-heartedly. Even with their many flaws, the three "Lord of the Rings" films are great, and I'm glad I have them on DVD so that I can watch the good scenes again and again. So please forgive me my harsh words, Bean and everyone else I may have offended, for you know I love the films, despite everything. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. :-) **** As for Americans being critical even of things they hold dear, I'll take your word for it, Vanyar. Trust me, at some point I WILL learn better than to come up with all sorts of nationalistic generalisations. I promise. :-)

Subject

Content MCC TO INVESTIGATE EOWYN HEAD EXPOSURE INCIDENT * "Rohan, Brandybuck, Gondor Apologize for the Incident" *** Both Rohan and Esquire Meriadoc Brandybuck are apologizing for a "wardrobe malfunction" during the Battle of Pelennor Fields Sunday night that left warrior Dernhelm's female head exposed for viewers of the battle's halftime show -- but the Mordor Communications Commission is calling it a "deplorable stunt." * At the end of a climactic duel between Brandybuck, Dernhelm/Eowyn and the Witch-king of Angmar to end the halftime performance, Brandybuck reached across Dernhelm's leather gladiator outfit and pulled off part of her top, leaving Dernhelm's head -- which was partially covered by flowing blond hair -- exposed, revealing her as Eowyn, sister-daughter to King Theoden of Rohan, and "no man." * "The removing of Eowyn's helmet was unrehearsed, unplanned, completely unintentional and was inconsistent with assurances we had about the content of the performance," Eomer said in a statement. "Rohan regrets this incident occurred and we apologize to anyone who was offended by it." * The apology isn't going to settle the matter, as far as MCC chairman Saruman is concerned. * "I have instructed the commission to open an immediate investigation into last night's broadcast," Saruman said in a statement issued from his Orthanc imprisonment. * Saruman said the investigation would be "thorough and swift." He wasn't hiding his anger in the statement. * "I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show of the Pelennor Battle," Saruman said. "Like millions of Sauron's minions, my orcs and I gathered around the palantir for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Middle-earth's orcs, trolls and children deserve better." * Brandybuck had been singing the line, "Better have her naked by the end of this song" before the incident took place. * When it happened, Eowyn appeared to have a hairpin half-on; but by her and the Witch-king's reaction, it appeared something did not go as planned. An allegedy stunned Eowyn then stabbed the Witch-king in the face. * "I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Pelennor Battle," Brandybuck said in a statement. "It was not intentional and is regrettable." * In a statement released Monday night, Eowyn said it was a last-minute stunt that went awry. * "The decision to have a gender reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final battle preparations. Theoden was completely unaware of it," Eowyn said. "It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended -- including the audience, Rohan, Minas Tirith and the Witch-king." * Battle announcer Peregrin Took quipped that her performance was a sign the battle's second half would feature -- as he put it -- "raw, naked fighting." * Minas Tirith, however, did not react to the incident as lightly. * "Gondor deeply regrets the incident," said the city's spokeswoman Ioreth in a statement. She said Gondorian officials attended rehearsals of the battle all week and that there were no indications that "any such thing would happen." * "The moment did not conform to Gondor's male-centric war standards and we would like to apologize to anyone who was offended," Ioreth said. * Mordor has thrown a penalty flag at Eowyn -- and Rohan. * "We were extremely disappointed by elements of the Rohan-produced halftime show," said Mordor executive vice president Mouth of Sauron in a statement. "They were totally inconsistent with assurances our office was given about the content of the show." * The Mouth's statement left little hope for another Rohan-Mordor collaboration. * "It's unlikely that Rohan will produce another Sauron Battle of Genocidal Aggression halftime," the Mouth said in the statement. * Mordor said it was led to believe the show produced by Rohan -- known for such controversial incidents as the Helm's Deep-Isengard fiasco last year -- would be clean. * The Witch-king of Angmar is survived by his life-partner "Lumpy" Gothmog and eight Nazgul.

Subject

Content Back to my old typo habits. :( ----- I'm not a big fan of objective criticism of art anyway Elaine. As far as I'm concerned, PJ made MY favourite films, therefore he's a master filmmaker, to ME. Notice, even there I said 'favourite', not 'best'. It's all subjective for me. Under which thinking, you're welcome to your own opinion and I've no grounds to disagree with it. --- Anyway, how can you say that 'Bad Taste' is flawed?! :)

Subject

Content Especially the one about the best scenes having been conceived by Tolkien. Er, yeeeeees. :-) **** Just for the record, I love the Arwen's Fate scene. Adore it. You're right - that's genius and no mistake. Too bad there aren't many more scenes like that. [Aw come on now, Elaine, give it a rest! Really, can't you just enjoy the films for what they are? Yeah, yeah, I'll shut up now.] **** Have fun, Daughter of Time, and let me hear if you spot any great embroidery I might have missed when watching the films, will you?

Subject

Content ...as my Bosnian friends would say. And not to worry, "nationalistic generalizations" come from somewhere, eh? Just like stereotypes. That is why they are generalizations. We should never take them personally. Besides, generalizations tend to have a pretty high truth factors when held as what they are...generalities. Did that make sense. I hope so. Man, it's 11 am and I am hungry. That's me problem...brain is running low on glucose. Anyway, fear not, just keep postin. We're all big boys and girls and we can deal with a little generalizing. Um, hope I didn't offend anyone by speaking for the group.

Subject

Content And to think I made such an enormous effort to resist that particular connection, only to find that you'd gone ahead and done it anyway. ----------- Harsh words Elaine? Worry ye not. Just as your welcome to voice your opinion, I'm perfectly happy to ignore it when it differs from my own! :) -- The difference is, at least you're civil about it (same goes for Orson). It's impolite, inconsiderate trolls that get my dander up. Glad we haven't been bothered by any for a while.

Subject

Content Tears of laughter, Mr Blue. Honestly, big, fat, hobbits-outside-Moria-after-Gandalf-fell-sized tears streaming down my face. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Who could have thought we'd be treated to something like this when I made my admittedly very bizarre remarks this morning? I'll have to come up with a few more of them...

Subject

Content Good. On that note, I'll go and have me some dinner, for like Vanyar, I'm in need of some filling. Have a nice evening, boys and girls.

Subject

Content it's quite amusing to hear you state your credentials for your ability to intelligently critique LOTR in the same TB where you earlier insisted the Witch-King/Eowyn scene would have been better with her in a dress! :D (I'm just joking with ya)

Subject

Content your post would have killed me. Killed dead! *** Hi to everybody else (especially Elaine, welcome back!) Am in a hurry now, will maybe post more tomorrow.

Subject

Content

Subject

Content ... I suppose. I think JRRT himself my have said it best, (copied and pasted from an earlier elanor post, so props' to ol' Sammy's Fristborn for doing the data entry bit). In his Foreword to LOTR JRRT says that as a writer he hopes to: "hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times excite them, or deeply move them. As a guide, I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving. Even from the point of view of many who have enjoyed my story, there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps impossible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor even to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received, that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are to others specially approved." *** I think the same can be said of PJ's adaptation, and is about the harshest criticism I can personally make. These films COULD have been utter Tevildo Crap, instead, IMHO Orson and Co., we got what I predict will increasingly as time passes be considered a (you ain't)

Subject

Content Busily wipes Diet-Coke from monitor...You owe me a soda spew ya Blue Ninny Varmint!

Subject

Content LAWKS!? Halve Ir juste donne ite?... But it is not this day! This I fi.. FAT FINGER!

Subject

Content Of course, the Gaffer wouldn't be caught dead anywhere out of Bag End (unless it's Gamwich...but folk have become queer there too, or so it is said) and the Green Dragon but he has been known to make clandestine trips to the Forsaken Inn when none of the Sacksville-Bagginses are around. Thanks...I wrote my doctoral thesis on the subject.

Subject

Content Sorry if it was ever in doubt. :)

Subject

Content I'm ashamed to admit I was about to go a more "Adult" route and re-write the scene with Eowyn ripping open her leather armor and saying "I am no man!" You have bested me. *** Elaine: Put your money where your Mouth of Sauron is. Give us the list of the fifteen recent movies that you think are better or more nearly flawless than ROTK. In the spirit of full disclosure, mine would include American Splendor, Lost In Translation and Whale Rider. And from last year, Adaptation, The Cat's Meow, Far From Heaven and Y Tu Mama Tambien. All certainly better and far less flawed than TTT. But you can't really compare, can you? The aims and percieved successes of the individual films simply differ on too many levels. Of course "Arthouse" films are going to have a substantially greater amount of subtlety than an epic historical fantasy. And being highly personal creations, often written, produced, directed and financed by a single artistic vision, of course they will more perfectly capture the essence of that vision than a gigantic production costing several hundreds of millions of dollars and employing nearly that many people, all ultimately answerable to the whims and notions of the studio that's forking up the money. But what other epic historical fantasy has EVER had the amount of subtlety and characterization shown in the Lord of the Rings? What other big-budget blockbuster has ever shown the consistency of vision and veneration of text that PJ's work of art has? Of course, there's plenty I would change. I firmly agree with D.O.T.'s assessment that a better movie could be made of both TTT and ROTK, just as long as they use the same actors, sets, costumes and about 95% of the dialog. That, to me, is so nearly perfect as to assuage all doubt. After all, no film is absolutely perfect. No filmmaker has ever had an oeuvre of completely satisfying films. Citizen Kane is marred by two very bad editing choices. In Godfather, you can plainly see Sonny miss when he punches Carlo. Pulp Fiction

Subject

Content I just spewed a delicious mouthful of chicken quesadilla all over me new flat-panel monitor!!! What an absolute hoot!!! I doff the cap from me pinty little geek noggin to thee, O word wizard.

Subject

Content Hoo MAN! Pallando my sides are STILL aching! The other guys back here in the LAN cave thought I'd blown my head gasket! Whoo, a little warning next time please? Something along the lines of: "*WARNING* The following post may be hazardous to human respiration", perhaps? *** Just in case Rune is out there, or on the off chance that someone might be interested in anything Moaters has to say: I participated in SA4QE for the first time this past Feb 4, and I think it went off quite well. I was able to actually locate a small supply of the fabled A4 yellow paper so favored by dear Mr. Hoban, and did two quotes: One fro Riddley and another from "Pilgermann". Left the Riddley quote in a scanner here at workies, and the Pilgermann one on a booth railing at the local Outback Steakhouse Wednesday night. The one at Outback turned out to be especially cool as I was able to sit at the bar following my clandestine deposit and watch a young lady pick it up, READ it, and stick it in her purse! Woo Hoo! Another convert? We'll see. *** Not a clue what I'm talking about? Check out: http://www.thoughtcat.com/sa4qe/ er, on the off chance that your intrigued that is. Namarie Mellyn, Trubba Not - Lissenen ar' maska'lalaith tenna' lye omentuva

Subject

Content I was driving home on the highway last night, when in front of me I saw a car with a license plate that read "4GONDOR." I thought perhaps my eyes decieved me, but then I saw a bumper sticker which read: "Not all that wander are lost." In my surprise and delight at finding such a vocal Tolkien fan in my midst, I have to admit I got rather carried away. I proceeded to honk my horn and flash my brights, then swerve over into the next lane and wave my copy of the ROTK soundtrack (which I was also blasting at full volume from my stereo) at the startled driver. Needless to say she sped off, terrified. Probably thought I was going to run her off the road and bash her head in with a tire-iron or something. Silly. I only do that to Buffy fans...

Subject

Content Don

Subject

Content Not everyone understands full-blown Riddleyspeak right away. **** Hi Wynn! Stick around, you ain

Subject

Content As many as we can get, eh? At least you didn

Subject

Content Just a LITTLE self indulgent. Check out Moaters' last post about SA4QE if you'd like to find out what it's all about. BTW Pontsing Barset = Poncing Bastard in "RiddleySpeak".

Subject

Content Although, I have to say, back when I started posting in the Tailends, there wasn't a Welcoming Committee to say hello to every new interloper that dropped by. Hell, it took me four or five articles and two dozen gggj

Subject

Content You will find we are a quite affable bunch, though a tad obsessed about a certain late great Oxford don and his mythologicus supremum. Oh, btw, be careful about calling morGoth "Morgoth." He's summat touchy about that. morGoth or morGy is what he prefers. Although we do tease him with "Sooty Bottom" and "Stumpy" occasionally...hehheh.

Subject

Content I'll do my very best not to accidentally refer to you as morGy any more. I wouldn't want to be associated with that Sooty Bottomed ol half-evil (read 333) FORMER Vala either. hehheh

Subject

Content Either I'm too good for you and you all missed it, or I'm a pathetic and stupid man and you all ignored it....no-one say a thing. ------ mortsleam, that's very cool. However, your tactic for getting her atteentiob was perhaps a bit - scary. ----- Wynn, you may well be puzzled at morGoth's choice of posting handle, meaning 'Black Foe of the World' an' all, but it's not like he picked the name himself. He was nicknamed that by a certain elf called Curufinwe, who generally went by the name of Feanor. :)

Subject

Content atteentiob IS a word, meaning something LIKE attention, so I didn't ACTUALLY make a spelling mistake, there. Honest. :(

Subject

Content ...bean because I cernly missit it. I never bint verre clevver but I did readit your posts. *** What wer it then? SPILL IT!

Subject

Content Sorry for the lack of response: Savage deadlines and talkback chat don't mix very well - as I'm sure many of you understand. Today I spent thirteen hours at my workplace, and have been getting up at 5 AM every day for the last two weeks. I realise it looks like very bad manners to raise issues and then not deal with the feedback. I'm NOT making fun of anyone and promise to address all points (belatedly, I'm afraid) over the week-end. Fair enough? Skyway - I always appreciate civility and will certainly consider your (highly pertinent) question. For my part, I apologise for typing and spelling errors due to lack of time.

Subject

Content CLOSE TO PERFECT: Whale Rider, Heaven, Lilya 4-ever, Dolls, Morvern Callar, Sex & Lucia, Aro Tolbukhin: In the Mind of a Serial Killer, Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself, Goodbye Lenin, Adaptation, American Splendor, Hukkle, The Return, Memories of Murder, Save the Green Planet, and of course my favourite film of the year 2004, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring Again. BY NO MEANS PERFECT BUT PRETTY DAMNED GOOD FOR WHAT THEY ARE: Y tu mama tambien, 25th Hour, Intacto, The Hours, Swimming Pool, Kopps, 24-Hour Party People, Spirited Away and My Life Without Me. **** I'm probably forgetting half a dozen masterpieces, and I'm pretty sure both "Lost in Translation" and "Dogville" will feature on my list by the end of this month, but there you have it - this is the list as it stands right now. **** You're absolutely right that it is unfair to compare "The Lord of the Rings" with arthouse films, for all the reasons you mentioned. And Moaters is absolutely right when he says that "The Lord of the Rings" is a watershed and that the films will continue to live and be regarded as classics for a long, long time. I'm not denying any of that. The fact is, though, that I watch about a hundred arthouse movies (mostly world cinema, really) every year, and that this seriously affects the way I watch films. And nope, Bean, that does not mean that I consider myself a film critic extraordinaire (quite the contrary; I regularly feel that I'm the worst analyst on these Tailends, despite the fact that I've probably had more reviews published in the past few years than the rest of you combined!); it just means I have a different perspective than most of you, that's all. But if there are other arthouse or world-cinema fans amongst you (I like your taste in films, Mort!), then let's have a great "Lord of the Rings: The Arthouse Version" debate by all means! I'm all for it! **** By the way, I loved your car story, Mort. Heh.

Subject

Content They're all about gay Rangers eating pudding. ;)

Subject

Content The thing is, I don

Subject

Content I'd like to commend you on the staggering amount of movies you came up with there, Elaine. Fine choices, many of them. I only wish I'd gotten to see half of them when they were in the theaters, instead of playing catch up on video now that I can walk again. Stupid rassum frassum freak accident karmic retribution leg fracturing self boiling movie missing nincompoop walrus...

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Actually, I never seriously considered the possibility of a real arthouse "Lord of the Rings" - at least, not the kind of low-budget movie you describe. What I meant was, how could we turn the existing films into an arthouse version? Suppose we had an unlimited budget, and the same crack team at our disposal as Jackson et al., what changes would we make to the films as they exist now? Which scenes (or parts of scenes), specifically, would we replace by what, and how exactly would we change the tone of the films, where it needs changing? I'm too tired to think of any suggestions of my own right now (in fact, I'm going to bed when I finish this post), but that is the question I really had in mind when I said, "Let's have a debate on on arthouse version." **** As for a genuine low-budget "Lord of the Rings", I agree it probably wouldn't work. Even if the lack of funds were to force the film-makers to be REALLY creative (and honestly, you should see what some Asian directors working on low budgets come up with - we're talking about unlimited supplies of the good old imagination here!), there are things they simply couldn't do. You already pointed out Gollum, the Balrog, Treebeard and the battles (some of which would indeed have to be kept), but how about the sight of three thousand horses leaving Edoras? To me, that is one of the most impressive things about the current version of "The Return of the King" - the sight of that endless line of horses that goes off to war. Never fails to blow me away. And yeah, you'd need that kind of stuff to create an impression of how huge the war at the Pelennor Fields is going to be. **** Frankly, the only people I can imagine doing any justice whatsoever to a low-budget version of "The Lord of the Rings" (featuring real animals and extras rather than computer-generated masses) are the Chinese, who seem to be really good at staging big, lavish dos at relatively little expense. Of course, that would mean that most of the characters would look Chinese, too, but then the thought of Chinese Elves and Hobbits doesn't strike me as too awful. In fact, back when the films hadn't been cast yet, I was actually hoping they would cast some elegant Asians as Elves, as I felt they might add a touch of otherworldliness to the setting - something that would immediately distinguish the Elves from the Men and Hobbits of Middle-Earth. As it happened, the costumes and the lighting (candle shop indeed!) did an adequate job of that, but I still maintain that Asian Elves might have worked. So yeah, I could see a Chinese-made, relatively-low-budget adaptation work - provided there would be western supervisors to prevent the film-makers from giving Arwen and Galadriel those God-awful high-pitched girlie voices that many East Asians seem to find attractive. (No offence, Djinnj. Truly, no offence intended whatsoever.) **** But yeah, to re-iterate my original question: what would you do if you could make an arthouse version of the existing films, with the existing budget and the same immensely talented cast and crew? **** As you probably surmised from one of my posts addressed to Bean, I also make a distinction between appreciation and liking. I may appreciate the films I listed more on an artistic level, but as I told Bean, I KNOW I will end up watching "The Return of the King" (the EE!) more times than all of my other favourites combined. Weird, but true. **** Incidentally, if you're such a "Pulp Fiction" nut, how come you've never asked me if the Dutch REALLY eat their chips with mayonnaise? Usually that is the first question American film fans ask me when they hear I'm from Holland. And no, I'm not generalising now; just speaking from experience. :-) **** And finally, great to hear I'm not the only arthouse addict here. I didn't think many of you shared my arthouse obsession (not after the lists of favourite films many of you compiled a while ago - I think there was one foreign film in the mix, namely Daughter of Time's "Das Boot"!), but knowing that I have at least one kindred spirit (on a non-Tolkien-related level) on these talkbacks warms my heart. And you're a writer, too, eh? Go figure. **** Gay rangers eating pudding? You crack me up, Pallando. Hee. **** Hi to you, too, Sabster! **** Thanks for the morGoth history, morG. Very entertaining, and news to me as well as Wynn, even though I've been lurking for a loooong time. **** Right, off to bed now...

Subject

Content Someone actually agreed with something I posted?! Whoo Hoo! er, *THUNK*

Subject

Content ... not only did I agree with something you said (yes! I did!), but I actually checked the Thoughtcat site for which you posted the URL! Intriguing stuff, that. So just out of curiosity, what were your quotes? **** And something else altogether: my apologies for the pretentious arthouse love, people. I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to films, but I hope you won't hold it against me. **** And with that, I'm REALLY off to bed...

Subject

Content It seems you may have underestimated your Tailend playmates hmmm? Why in the world would you assume, if you did assume, that (other than the evidence of the occasional list of favorite 2003 films) [none] of us were into "Art House" Cinema? If there's one thing I've learned from years of correspondence with these folks, and couple of in person Moots, it's to NEVER underestimate a tailender. What few preconceived notions I had about these people were typically entirely off base, if not entirely wrong. I would say that you are among peers here, equals in many cases, when it comes to knowledge of the art of cinema; not: less sophisticated than yourself, albeit passionate, movie nuts. Some of our personal tastes may be a bit broader than yours appear to be judging (sorry to judge; can't be avoided sometimes) from your posts and reviews. I happen to be a 'Noir' fanatic myself, just to throw out one example. And I think the broad range of genres and styles embraced by others here might surprise you as well.

Subject

Content While I like the departure from Edoras, it's the ride-out from the Dunharrow encampment that gets me everytime. In fact, it would probably be on my 'Top five favorite scenes in RotK' list if I had one, but I don't feel like concentrating right now to figure out a top five list. Blame it on some pipeweed. :~) ***Pallando: Are dem gay rangers eating 'hasty' pudding, and is there an award for doing so? Don't be hasty with your answer!

Subject

Content Here's my two, (actually three, the two shorter ones went on the same sheet of yellow A4 paper) SA4QE 2004 quotes for Elaine: From "Pilgermann" (p. 38): "Sometimes I don't know anything at all for large spaces; sometimes I know many things all in the same place. My perceptions are uneven, my understanding patchy but I have action; I go. I can't tell this as a story because it isn't a story; a story is what remains when you leave out most of the action; a story is a coherent series of picture cards: One: Sampson in the vineyards of Timnah; Two: the lion comes roaring at Sampson; Three: Sampson tears the lion apart. That's a story but actually the main part of the action may have been that there was a butterfly in Sampson's field of vision the whole time. The picture cards don't show the butterfly because if they did they would have to explain it. But you can't explain the butterfly." From "Riddley Walker", (not sure about the page number as I have committed this one to memory): "There aint that many sir prizes in life if you take noatis of every thing. Every time wil have its happenings out and every place the same. What ever eats mus shit". And finally from "Pilgermann" again (p. 117):"'Why are you weeping?' said Bembel Rudzuk. 'I am suffering from an attack of history,' I said. 'It will pass,' said Bembel Rudzuk." *** Sorry to up set any 1 what dont likit this kynd of off topic cow shit. *** "Topic getting back 'onner'": LOTR RULZE! JRRT WAS DA MAN!

Subject

Content I just love this stuff. Here's one I think might use next year, also from "Pilgermann": "When one is a child, when one is young, when one has not yet reached the age of recognition, one thinks that the world is strong, that the strength of God is endless and unchanging. But after the thing has happened - whatever that thing might be - that brings recognition, then one knows irrevocably how very fragile is the world, how very, very fragile; it is like one of those ideas that one has in dreams: so clear and so self-explaining are they that we make no special effort to remember. Then of course they vanish as we wake and there is nothing there but the awareness that something very clear has altogether vanished." *** "Back on topicker": LOTR RULZ STAR WARS SUCKS PJ IS DA MAN.

Subject

Content I'm gonna get banned I just know it. From Riddley:

Subject

Content

Subject

Content You can confuse me instead.

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Zero-budget (thus highly nuanced, Arthouse, version of LotR) can be found at http://www.ozbricks. com/bricktales/lotr/lotrmain.html (omit space before

Subject

Content irritable: The Apostrophe Abuse Police, that was funny ;~) *** Cutest, I completely agree with you on your Best Director/Best Film hopes. *** Elaine, as I said before, welcome back, both from Rotterdam and from the Eastern Shore. Now I don

Subject

Content I am dashing away for the weekend but want to get off a quick post before I go.***Bean, I also noticed (and appreciated) your lovely Silmarillion PJ-as-Iluvatar quote, and enjoyed its brilliant timing, as well.***I am beginning to feel that the three films quite interestingly mirror the three books in their overall effect on me. Just as I "like" FOTR "the best" (because it is the beginning of the tale and I know where it leads I find everything all the more poignant). I also find T2T the most "exciting", which mirrors how I always speed through the second book because there is SO MUCH going on and everything builds to that fantastic cliffhanger ending, (it plays quite differently in the movie, of course, but still ends on Frodo-story tension) and I find ROTK the most cathartic (lord knows I cry the most in it!) and just like I do with the book, I slow down to savor all the endings. Djinnj, although I agree with you about the "rushing of the film", I must say that it has begun to feel less rushed with each viewing. ***I am a sucker for scary I guess, as I still find it unsettling to see the nothingness in the flying Nazgul's black hood. Plus, the un-read audience needs to be shown just who it is riding that fell beast.

Subject

Content ... is a stitch! And a half! *** Don't know about DWW over Goodfellas cutest, I like 'em both a great deal. Does anyone remember what the other best picture noms were that year? Got to agree with you about "Beautiful Mind" though; Interesting story, great performance(s) well executed, but not best picture, especially not over "In the Bedroom", OR FOTR. Of course I would love to ROTK take it, and I do believe it's worthy, but I have a pretty good hunch the Oscar wil go to "Mystic River" (knock on wood). I think PJ's got best director sewn up. *** Aint this talkback thingy a gas y'all? (a little Verginney Speak for that comely Borg feller...) Now where's that 'thick accented' (heh) Yorkshire bloke?! Namarie, Trubba Not.

Subject

Content ... or even HEAR it take it, if you prefer. Moaters=FATTEST FINGERS IN VERGINNY!

Subject

Content 'Cause that shoulda been obvious. **Howe Fents hevvy bows head blushing fiercly, mumbling something about precious sod and "fisses being harder nor joars"**

Subject

Content ... "prescription" in Riddley/Inland speak. Guess I'd best leave the invented languages to Rune Moaters and morG. *sigh*

Subject

Content For one thing, I have been totally unable to find the word 'redounds' in the text of the Ainulindale, which baffles me as I've surely not read or heard the word anywhere else. I wonder if I'm remembering something from an early version in one of the History of Middle Earth books? ------------- You seem like a film critic extraordinaire from my perspective, Elaine. :) ---------------- mortsleam, with you on the Pulp Fiction love. --- Sabster, you've not seen it!?! A situation that needs rectifying! ------------- Righto morG, I'll be sure to save your post and archive it! :) -- Bit of a Quake player eh? Do you still play FPS games on the net at all? ----------------- I'm not sure about your 'Asian Elves' idea Elaine. I can see how it might be effective, but I couldn't reconcile it with Tolkien's elves; it's definitely not what he had in mind. I reckon even your arthouse version would have many serious book fans up in arms over sacriligeous departures from the text in the npurpose of more effective cinema! ---------------- Moaters, Elaine was right in my case. I've only really been into films for the past few years (in fact, LOTR was probably largely responsible for any appreciation for quality filmmaking that I've developed!), and I've seen very few films that could be described as 'arthouse' (does 'Walkabout' count? :) -- In fact in answer to something I think Elaine said earlier, 'Ringu' is actually the only Asian film I've seen, off the top of my head. ------ That last sentence felt strange to write, in the UK we have a relatively small 'Asian' ethnic presence, as you yanks use the term. We have many more people of Pakistani or Indian descent, so we tend to use the term 'Asian' to refer to people of Indian sub-continental heritage. In England, 'Asian cinema' would conjure up images of Bollywood films (*shudder*). Speaking of which, if people are going to speculate on an 'arthouse LOTR', try imagining a 'bollywood LOTR', if you feel like having nightmares! (Hope there's no Bollywood fans around!) ------------- Moaters, 'girt big thing'? Very Yorkshire sounding, you might be interested to know. 'Girt' is definitely used in very broad Yorkshire. ----------- Hullo there, Pip! Moaters is reading the prequels too, if you want to chat about them when you're reading them (should have my Wolves of the Calla this week, btw). There were indeed six original Dune novels, and I think you can easily leave five and six for later; they'll make much more sense when Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson finish the prequels and write Frank Herbert's intended seventh and final Dune novel, because apparently five and six were building up to something big in the never written last book. ------------- irritable, you shame me sir. Whilst your use of my word 'atteentiob' was truly hilarious, my honour cannot allow me to continue living having mis-used an apostrophe in "its", having just been speaking about the decline of good English writing skills with my family today, and citing that very error as an example. Therefore, I must now commit ritual suicide with my keyboard. Goodbye Tailenders, it's been wonderful knowing you all! ---

Subject

Content Dont bow loan jus yet uppit per skip ton and stiffit joars you ol conexxions bloke. I tel theres sum kina manying and 1ness lef in your boans what myt be hap e what myt not if it fynds you droapit its shape. O pen your eye hoals and dont hyd the arm hoals.

Subject

Content Good luck deciphering it. ;^)

Subject

Content I didn

Subject

Content An arthouse Lord of the Rings would be amazing. I would like to see a Lord of the Rings movie that was as big a failure as possible at the box office. A ridiculously long trilogy of films or a miniseries almost completely devoid of sensationalism and not adhereing to the confines of traditional hollywood storytelling (we need an emotional climax here and... here, and someone needs to die here etc.)It would retain all the subtlety of the book but would also have large battle sequences (though not so large as in Peter Jackson's movies). I would like there to be a good deal less humor than in the Jackson movies, with lots of shakespearean style dialogue laden with many obscure historical references, and with long, long travel sequences to better admire the beauty of middle earth. The characters should sing all the lengthy songs from the books with beautiful invented tunes. As brilliant as his music was for the Jackson films was, Howard Shore should not compose the music for these movies. His score was too modern sounding for this art version. It's music should be more like authentic, medieval/renaissance type music to give the film a more realistic and historical feel. The cast could be the same as in the Jackson movies. Weta could still do the effects also, but the focus wouldn't be on dazzling the audience so much as simply making the world of the film seem more real. Yes, the enemy should definitely be seen less, and only from the point of view of the good guys. Much scarier that way. The Army of the Dead should be seen less too. And no electrical eyes on towers. What else? Bombadil, Pukel Men, Scouring etc. should all, of course, be included. Wow. This would be my favorite movie of all time. If there are any billionaires reading this, please make this film. You will lose almost all of the money that you put into it of course, but it will be well worth it.

Subject

Content Well, here I am, the infamous "sister of Rune". I apologize for not having written sooner, however I have been quite busy for the past week since I had to cram my schedule absolutely full to accomodate for the great NY moot. I'd just like to say thanks Elanor, Moaters, Dale (and parents), and Bean for just being so wonderful! A person could meet a thousand individuals from everday life before finding one even half as kind, interesting, and intelligent as the tailenders I have met seem to be. I will fondly recall events from the merry moot for years to come, and perhaps I will be lucky enough to encounter you all again someday. As to LOTR I am one of those strange people who watched the movies prior to finishing the books. (Yes, I know it is odd, especially since fantasy is my favorite genre.) I'll never be able to think of Frodo without seeing Elijah Woods face I'm afraid. Not that that bothers me in any way, ;).... I know what you mean about English skills Bean, I'm sure you'll be able to locate a few errors in this note! I'm almost afraid to post it. That must be why Rune and Moaters insist on writing in the poor tortured English that they like to call Riddleyspeak... you won't be able to find the errors in something you can't decipher. :p Well, I've rambled on enough, good night all!

Subject

Content A literal translation from book to film, would be amazing and "sings" to the purist in me. Can't see it happening though... Cheers.

Subject

Content Skyway Moaters, I've finally had a chance to read through your posts - and it will be the very last time. There are people on this talkback who are thoughtful, articulate and passionate when discussing LOTR. They make valuable contributions and conduct themselves with dignity. I have a lot of time for those people. I have no time for you. ***** Now, to devote my energy to the talkbackers who are able to control themselves: I have a HUGE amount to say, but will only touch on a few points here. I imagine no-one wants to read a 10,000-word post right now. So I will not have addressed all points. YET. Hopefully I'll get aruond to it - depending on the reponse (if any) to this post. ***** A lot of people have taken issue with the fact that I enjoy PJ's movies as pure spectacle and entertainment. I am a little puzzled that some people insist that I MUST enjoy the movies THEIR way and not my own way! There are as many shades of opinion of these movies as you can imagine. There are others here, like DoT and TV's Frank, who have echoed my sentiments. I regard ROTK as a movie made for the biggest cinema-going demographic: teenagers. And to enjoy this movie I have let myself become a teenager again and have decided that these movies ROCK! I am not alone. Go over to TORN and you will find thousands of reviews written by teenagers. Thousands of them. Their verdicts range from "AMESOME!" to "GO USA!" They almost never mention Tolkien or his themes. That is because Tolkien did NOT make these movies. He had no part in them - though some people seem to cling on to the idea that he did. I'm sorry if this is hard news to take, but it's the simple truth! It is very likely that Tolkien would have been unhappy with the way these movies turned out. So far, the response to the movies from Tolkien's family comes from his grandson, Simon - the only Tolkien family member to have taken an active interest in PJ's enterprise. Here is his reaction to ROTK: "I think it's an amazing spectacle," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It's amazing to watch - some of the architecture and the landscapes are quite staggering. But I actually thought it was was the weaker of the three. I think there's wonderful things in it but I would have liked to have cut much more of the battle scene and special effects in this one, and had more development of the characters." You can read about his other problems with the movie here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/films/2003/12/simon_tolkien.shtml ******** Which brings me on to the issue of Tolkien's themes and how they have translated - or not - to PJ's movies. I firmly believe that in PJ's trilogy we see the progressive "de-Tolkienisation" of the story - the successive shedding of Tolkien's concerns and their replacement by the interests of PJ and his writers. One of the most striking differences is that PJ has introduced the notion of a "message" in his movies. Tolkien, on the other hand, consistently and vehemently insisted that his version did not contain any allegory or "message". And not only has PJ introduced "messages" into his story, he has spelled them out and hammered them home so that even the dimmest twelve-year-old will get it. There's nothing wrong with this at all. But these messages have little or nothing to do with Tolkien. Example: "There's some good in this world, Mr Frodo - and it's worth fighting for!" This statement is placed at the emotional climax of TTT and is framed and emphasised in such a way as to seem to be a cathartic "message". It's a perfectly fine sentiment (although it sounds quite cheesy - but that's an entirely different issue!) but it is a mistake to think that the theme of PJ's TTT and the theme of Tolkien's TTT are one and the same. For one thing, Tolkien shied away from any such bald (and frankly, clumsy) declarations. **** The other example cited by some talkbackers is Gandalf's "Many that die deserve life....all you have to decide is what to do with the time you're given" lines. This passage occurs at the start of Tolkien's book as part of a much bigger expositionary conversation. Essentially, it is a characteristically grumpy Gandalf instructing Frodo to mind his own business and to attend to the task at hand! But PJ takes this line and places it at not one, but TWO pivotal moments of the movie. It is framed and repeated in order to become a "message". (In fact Newline took this particular message and used it on their promotional material for LOTR just after the September 11 bombing!). Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with PJ making this into The Message of his movie. It's works perfectly as Hollywood-style, Oscar-winning sentimentality. But Tolkien had no interest in Messages or Oscar speeches. He created an enchanting, mythological world which is so immersive that we mourn its passing. A single close-up of Sean Astin telling us we should "feel sad" for the passing of the Elves does not convey the lingering melancholy that is on every page of Tolkien's book. Tolkien didn't need to spell things out for us. He didn't need to TELL us to mourn. He let us feel it for ourselves.

Subject

Content I'll cop to being an opinionated prick. What's your excuse? You've written reams and still haven't supported your assertion that the thematic elements of JRRT's LOTR are absent from PJ's films. Your 'argument' amounts to little more than: "It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it; I'm smarter and oh so much more sophisticated than you that you really aren't capable of engaging me in debate". And just what the hell makes you so sure that you understand "what was important to JRRT" and what wasn't, and that the rest of us do not? All *I* have is my personal interpretation. I may be an opinionated prick but you've got me beat seven ways to sundown in the arrogance department. *** Have no fear; I'll not 'assault' you again. From now on a post from Orson = skip to the next one - exactly the same way I ignore Grimloch and his ilk. Which brings me to my

Subject

Content I seem to have posted both the draft and the revision of my heartfelt little goodbye to Orson. Sorry about that. I really must pay more attention...

Subject

Content Cutest, with all respect - I realise I just wrote a ridiculously long post - but did you actually read it? You wonder if I actually enjoy these movies? I have stated again and again until I am blue in the face that these movies ROCK! They are AWESOME! They OWN MY ASS! Enjoy them? I have regressed to being a twelve-year-old: the same age I was when I saw Return Of The Jedi. That movie owned my ass too! ROTK has everything you could look for in an action-packed multiplex blockbuster. It delivers thrills, spills, heroic hunks, lovely ladies and MIND-BLOWING special effects. I mean, the dude takes out an ELEPHANT, for Chissakes! I really don't know what else I can say. If you think this is being elitest, then there are several thousand kids on TORN who you must also brand "elitest". Are we all wrong?

Subject

Content No offence taken, by the way! But I do get a bit exasperated when I can't seem to make myself understood.

Subject

Content We DO understand you, all too well in fact. You "can't see the forest for the trees" because your enormous ego has blotted out the sun.

Subject

Content Well, thanks again, Cutest. I'm afraid you've arrived at my long post without seeing the lead-up to it which has gone on over several TBs. I was called on to explain why I refuse to cross-reference between the book and the movies. My argument was that they are two different works by two different authors and that it makes little sense to compare them to each other. I was (repeatedly!) asked to expand on this so that's why the argument has become nit-picking. I am NOT criticising EITHER Tolkien or Jackson by the way. They each achieved what they set out to do. But they didn't set out to do the same thing! ******* Thrilled that your daughter has enjoyed the movies and has decided to read the book. Good luck with that! ***** Sorry, Cutest: I just don't have time to entertain abusive posters - and I won't even bother reading their posts. There are plenty of people here who are able to engage in good-natured and enjoyable discussions. I prefer to use my (limited) time to talk to them.***** BTW, if my (or others') posts get long-winded or just plain annoying, the simplest solution is just to skip them.

Subject

Content I see your point, and actually I agree that the film(s) and book have to stand on their own and are very different (although I don't think the film is unsubtle). Overmuch “well, it’s in the book

Subject

Content She of seemingly endless good will and patience. {:o)

Subject

Content I was looking through "The Art of ROTK" at a book store last night and noticed that in this book the prouction artists refer to the ending(s) as: THE EPILOGUE. Which is exactly how you described it during "Merry Moot", and in a subsequent post. You saw what was intended where MANY others did not and were the first tailender to articulate it, as far as I'm aware. Good call.

Subject

Content Never thought I

Subject

Content Wasn

Subject

Content and I don

Subject

Content for not responding! I'm spending most of my time over at E2 (thus the infrequency of posts, Moaters!), so it takes quite a bit of prodding to get me to post right now. Glad to see you on the tailend, and hope to see more of you! And Rune, double blast you for showing me Bagenders! I stayed up to all hours the other night reading it. ---- Oh, and bean! of course you're invited! Although I warn everyone now, I'm only going to post party info on E2. That way you all HAVE to visit it!

Subject

Content It's like this: I realised that killing myself would be the cowardly way out. The harder, more responsible thing to do would be to bear the shame, and let it make me stronger, and ever more determined to fight incipient bad spelling wherever I may find it! So I have sent myself back, until my task is completed. Not a moment too soon, from the looks of it! Orson and Moaters in particular have let their spelling standards slip dreadfully low in theirmutual anger! ----- On which note, Orson: I totally disagree with you. I take many messages from Tokien's LOTR, and many of the same ones as are in PJ's films. I found one statement of yours particularly nonsensical: "A single close-up of Sean Astin telling us we should "feel sad" for the passing of the Elves does not convey the lingering melancholy that is on every page of Tolkien's book. Tolkien didn't need to spell things out for us. He didn't need to TELL us to mourn. He let us feel it for ourselves". It shouldn't surprise me that you only pick on the melancholy feeling that I feel pervades much of the films from that one line, given that you've already stated that you watch the films with the depth of perception of a teenager. Also, you seem to be implying that Tolkien somehow subliminally imparts his themes to us, when I find that very often he writes dialogue that is meant to speak to us in order to impart his ideas, like the examples cited by djinnj, or not wholly unlike the line from FOTR you were referring to. ---- Whilst I'm not going to take sides in the spat between you and Moaters (seems to be some element of 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' in regards to who was rude to who), my own opinion aligns with his and I feel you to be hopelessly wrong in many of your views. However, I don't think we'll ever convince each other to think differently, so this is likely to be the last time I speak with you. Goodbye, and I hope you continue to enjoy the book and films in your own, baffling way. ----------- Glad I could help on the Dune books, Pippin. Don't worry, I'm no longer inclined to bite the dust, not even for tax reasons. I think I'll enjoy my meal at Milliways come the end of the universe in a slightly more living state than ol' Hotblack. Wouldn't want to miss the second coming of Zarquon, anyway. :) ------------- Runelord, ah, the Spanish Infanta! (Translators voice: 'Oh Edmund my love!') Just you wait, the second series (Blackadder II, as opposed to The Black Adder) is even funnier, I just hope they'll show that afterwards. --- BTW, I think I've cracked your 'three Masters' cryptic puzzle on my drawing, check your email. :) ---------- TV's Frank, I'm afraid, unlike Conan, I think your arthouse LOTR would be unwatchable. Nothing against you, I just don't think Tolkien's wonderful BOOK can be made into a decent FILM without a fair degree of transformation. The songs and poems in particular I think wouldn't work. Most frightening of all though, would be the sequence where Tom Bombadil rescues the Hobbits from the Barrow Wight, and then at his suggestion they strip naked and run around on the grass. At best, that scene would be unintentionally hilarious. At best. ------------------- Natmeyen! Welcome! It was lovely to meet you too, and I hope you'll feel free to pop in more often when you're less busy! :) ----------- Cutest, don't let anyone ruin your LOTR experience; the films ARE perfect, never doubt it for a second!

Subject

Content You've successfully black-mailed/bribed me into visiting E2 now. :) I don't know WHERE I'll find time to make ClubAngband, but I'm intent on at least making a start soon, you (all) may be pleased to hear. -------- Moaters, when I get CA up and running, you need never skip over unpleasant posts again - I'll abitrarily delete them! :) -- Incidentally, is there any Ray Bradbury you'd particularly recommend I look up?

Subject

Content Check your e-mail for another clue.

Subject

Content First things first. Welcome Natmeyen! (are you sure that's a "y" in there and not an "ie"?(giggle giggle). Bean, you are quite hilarious. Shall we call you Merry the White?***Oh those naked hobbits running free on the grass! (uh, not that there's anything wrong with that!) Oh the horror! Can you imagine what Pud! would say?***Alright, on to Orson, although djinnj, Rune, Cutest, Moaters and Bean have already made excellent points with which I agree. But I do have a history with Orson which at least tonight I feel I must honor: Orson, suit yourself, but in skipping Moaters

Subject

Content On the subject of

Subject

Content You say

Subject

Content The Merry Moot will live on in legend, preserved in the memory of a dingy New York Starbucks. Elanor, how do you come up with these posts? I

Subject

Content Long may you fight the dark of Errar! There may come a day when the strength of Bean fails; when we forsake our grammar and break all bonds of English...but that is not this day... And another reference: That Mr. Bean, what a funny fellow. <rimshot> Somehow I wasn

Subject

Content Natmeyen, welcome to the tailend of the talkbacks. The movies inspired you to read the books eh?What are your thoughts on the differences between page and film if you feel inclined to answer? Guys, I stopped reading Orson's posts along time ago after we had something of a "war of words". I think he just delights in creating dissention within the ranks... The literal translation would work in my opinion, but probably only for purists such as myself, whilst the visual sight of naked hobbits running around the barrowdowns, doesn't do much for me, Tom Bombadil would be fine on screen. Why do people have to "get" everything in a movie? Doesn't something that is unexplained add to the interest? Certainly Tolkien thought so... Cheers.

Subject

Content Can I just say that while I appreciate your typing out your favourite quotes for me (thanks!), I somewhat resent the triumphant tone of your

Subject

Content MIAMI: Yes, you

Subject

Content Thanks for the warning concerning the Eastern Shore. I hadn

Subject

Content I don't really want to get involved in this one, but on the whole, I think Elanor has summed up my feelings regarding Gandalf's words, Sam's "That there's some good in the world!", the melancholy of both the book and the films, etc. I freely admit that when the theatrical version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" first came out, I wanted more melancholy, particularly in the Lorien segment. I really missed the sense of things ending there. Fortunately, both the "Fellowship" EE and the other two films gave me some. Hell, the Arwen's Fate scene alone gave me more than I ever dared hope for after the release of the "Fellowship" EE. I still think there could have been more of a SUBTLE sense of things passing (an all-pervasive, haunting quality to the films, rather than a few unsubtle but effective reminders in the two latter films, but to say the melancholy quality isn't there at all is ludicrous. Honestly, Orson, it is. **** As for the "That-there's-some-good-in-the-world!" scene, I agree with Orson that it's cheesy, and I agree with Elanor that it is not entirely un-Tolkienesque. Tolkien was not above a bit of cheese at times. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter, I think.

Subject

Content elanor, thank you for the compliment first of all, and well done on your trilogy of posts. They were well written, insightful, and perfectly expressed what I've been thinking since reading Orson's posts, but have been unable to put into words myself. ---------- cutest, I have indeed seen the hilarious Blackadder Christmas Carol, I was just telling Moaters, elanor, djinnj, Rune and Natmeyen about it at the merrymoot! And yes indeed, Blackadder II (Elizabethan era) was the funniest series. One hilarious special I'd bet you've not seen though is Blackadder: The Cavalier Years, set during the English Civil War, and features Stephen Fry (Lord Melchett from Blackadder II) playing the overthrown King Charles as our present day Prince Charles! -- As for the hair and manicure, sadly not. I'm still hoping for the ability to shine light from my face and pretend to be other people though. ---------------- Rune, 'An hour of typos, and mangled words when the age of Bean comes crashing down around us, but IT IS NOT THIS DAY! --- God I love that speech - the LOTR version I mean! --- As for your Dark Tower guess, I'll say that it is a *good* guess, but is it right? Well, I say "Do not go to Bean for DT spoilers, for he will say both 'yes' and 'no'!" :) -- You're not the only one who can be cryptic! ----------------- Conan, any problem I'd have with Tom Bombadil on screen would have nothing to do with him being unexplained, but to do with him being ludicrously silly. "Come Merry-dol, Derry-dol my darling!" indeed. Just who on Earth would play him? ----------- Elaine, you silly sausage! Inferiority? I'm pretty sure I pull the average IQ of any Tailender Talkback down by a good 20 points by showing my face, but that doesn't stop me bumbling onto the TBs to spew some inane babble (and the occasional "Shire! Baggins!") every now and then! For what it's worth, I think you're an intelligent, pleasant lass with a much greater knowledge and appreciation of cinema than I'm ever likely to have, who shares my love for LOTR, and with whom I can have a good giggle at the horrifying prospect of a Bollywood LOTR. :) -- Arwen and Aragorn come together as if about to kiss, then break away at the last minute and dance at each other. ---------- Sorry for the long post, guys. :)

Subject

Content 'TV's FRANK: I'm with Bean on the literal adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings". As much as I want to see an arthouse adaptation of the book, I would hate to see everything on the pages brought to the screen. Really, I shudder at the thought of seeing Tom Bombadil and the often awful songs brought to life. An endless Scouring of the Shire would be pretty anti-climactic, too, and a story pretty much without Arwen? Nope, that would be useless. I have my complaints about Jackson, but as far as picking which scenes to use and which scenes to discard is concerned, I think he did a near-perfect job. **** DJINNJ: Good to have you back! Don't spend too much over on E2, will you? Your presence is needed here! Only, if I may make one small request, please type your texts in such a format that the apostrophes etc. don't come out all distorted. It makes your normally eminently readable texts rather hard to, well, read. Please...?

Subject

Content And backatcha! What do you mean, bringing the IQ down by twenty points? You may be the youngest on these talkbacks (or is Natmeyen?), but you've as sharp and insightful a brain as I've ever seen, not to mention a great sense of humour and some of the best manners I've seen on this site. Really, it's a joy to talk to you. **** As for the Bollywood version of "The Lord of the Rings", the more I think about it, the more I think it can be done. You see, one of the main characteristics of a Bollywood film is that the hero is torn between two women, one nice and traditional and the other thoroughly modern. Can you see how that would play in "The Lord of the Rings"? Aragorn dancing first with the good, old-fashioned Arwen, then with the modern Eowyn, ultimately choosing the traditional girl, leaving the feminist Eowyn to be tamed by Faramir? I can TOTALLY see that working. Really, I think somebody should make a Bollywood version of the film! What about the guy who made "Elizabeth"?

Subject

Content the whole TB descends into a horrified silence when the tactless Elaine walks straight up to djinnj and says "So, what's up with the weird looking text?" ---- :) ----- She has a point though, djinnj. Much as I enjoy taking in what you have to say, your posts do sometimes approach illegibility, with a variety of bizarre characters in place of normal punctuation.

Subject

Content Yes, after I stole Rune's coveted position as youngest Tailender, the Rune family struck back with a devious drafting of Natmeyen, 19 years to my 20! --- Stop it with the Bollywood LOTR, you'll give me nightmares!

Subject

Content Sorry, Djinnj, for my usual lack of tact. Honestly, I'm sorry for bringing it up in such a horribly tactless way! If I could take it back, I would. However, I do stand by the essential message of what I said. **** As for the "Sam's speech isn't all that un-Tolkienesque" in one of my previous posts, upon re-reading Elanor's trilogy it strikes me that she said no such thing. Sorry, Elanor, for mis-reading/mis-quoting your posts. And what beautiful posts they were!

Subject

Content It just struck me as odd that everyone's seemingly avoided mentioning djinnj's funny text, as though it's an embarrassing subject or something! I don't think you were tactless - it's not as though it's a speech impediment or anything. :)

Subject

Content If memory serves, Moaters typed a moot report on Djinnj's computer the day you left New York, and checked in the next day with a horrified, "What kind of computer was I typing that on, Djinnj?", which you have to admit was a great deal more tactless than my own straight-forward but fairly kindly formulated request. :-) Anyway, my own impression was that some other Tailenders might have computers (Apples?) on which the strange punctuation wasn't noticeable. That it was just my own and Moaters' computers on which the texts appeared funny. As you can probably tell, I don't know all that much about computers! :-)

Subject

Content Well, I've just checked on an Apple Mac here at work, and can report that's djinnj's punctuation looks just as odd there, which is what I expected, as what we're reading will be standard ASCII or Unicode, which Macs and PCs (and most computers) use. The problem must lie at djinnj's end, perhaps with an unusual keyboard?

Subject

Content Home Depot indeed! I have just begun the complete remodeling of two of the three bathrooms in this house (gonna strip everything down right to the studs), plus the replacement of the toilet in the third (no more 5 gallon flushes here! thank you very much). Spent the entire weekend looking at bathroom fixtures, tile, vanities, countertops, sinks, pedestal sinks and frameless glass shower enclosures, including several hours at the aforementioned Home Depot. I think that somehow I will not feel sad to see those old bathrooms go. ;~) ***elanor, oh so you're asking me cause you think I'm the oldest one here? Well let me tell you something young lady: as far as I know that statement was included in the 1965 and later editions because back then (as most of you know because you now have my Gregor/Three Covers bookmark) it was still a *TRILOGY*!!! :~) [Sorry Skyway Fister Pontsing Barset Crunchman Moaters, I just couldn't resist!] Plus, Tolkien got tired of everyone asking him the same stupid question over and over and over. ***Hello Rune's sister, whose name I cannot spell.

Subject

Content Congratulations P.J. on your most deserving Director's Guild Award!!!!!!!!! [See ya back on stage in three weeks!]

Subject

Content Congratulations to Howard Shore and his LotR:TTT soundtrack Grammy!!!!!!!!!

Subject

Content PJ WON THE DGA! WOO HOO! GO ROTK BEST PICTURE OSCAR!

Subject

Content I, uh, was uh, 'preoccupied' you might say, heat of battle and what-not - no excuse for rudeness however. WELCOME!, yes, welcome indeed! Your contributions are eagerly anticipated by this "out of control" connexions bloak...

Subject

Content I think Frank was being sarcastic(?), even facetious...

Subject

Content "Any Bradbury I can recommend"?! Good God man! How about: every short story the man ever wrote! Seriously though, if I were in your shoes I would seek out an anthology called "The Stories of Ray Bradbury" - about 200 of his best; if I remember correctly. The following is a short list of tales contained therein that, in my estimation will give you a quick grounding in the myriad themes and ideas that permeate his work: "The Veldt" (seminal Bradbury one of his very earliest SF ideas) "The Foghorn", (melancholy and creepy). "Power Station", "A Sound of Thunder", "Calling Mexico", "Dark They Were and Golden Eyed" (one of his cycle of "Martian Stories"), "Jack-in-the-Box", "The Happiness Machine", "The Fire Balloons", "Homecoming", (one of the "Greentown Il stories") "The April Witch" (another), "A Scent of Sarsaparilla", "I Sing the Body Electric!" "The Million Year Picnic" (another Martian story), "Golden Apples of the Sun", "The City"... erm, is that enough to start on beansy? *** Uh, hows mie speeling cumming aloong oldn chaps? (Har!)

Subject

Content La da da dada dum dum da. La da da dada dum dum da. If there's anything that you want, if there's anything I can do, just call on me and I'll send it along, with love, from me to you...

Subject

Content ... when she gets rilet up!. ** Connexions bloak has good mean-spirited larf imagining Orson trying to get comfortable sitting on what used to be his arse before Sam's little girl chewit rite off!**

Subject

Content into foreign arthouse films (she being the sort of internationally oriented person who would be into that kind of thing) ...

Subject

Content (and highly off-topic)

Subject

Content I was just playing along! Yeah... ----- I don't know TV's Frank enough to be able to tell. Doubtless there are people who WOULD want to see a version of LOTR like that he describes. --------- I think that list will do for starters, Moaters. Thank you! :) ------ As for spelling, don't tempt me Moaters! Understand Moaters, I would use my spellchecker to do good, but through me it would wield a power too anal and annoying to imagine! -- Just you try and get yourself under control, you raving Tailender maniac you! ;) Pontsing, can you restrain him?

Subject

Content What was I going to say anyway? Er, yes, hi everybody!!! *** Rune:

Subject

Content was how no matter how differently things turned out for everyone else in the film when they rewound, the guy in the car ALWAYS ran into the car of those (rather camp looking) heavies who looked ready to commit murder over it. That guy was just doomed! --- As for the translation Sabster, I'll have to check my brother's DVD, because I can't remember how the English translation went, but it's perfectly normal here to use 'the sh*ts' (diarrhoea) for 'scared', i.e. 'You're giving me the sh*ts!', and my memory is that that was how the line was translated in the English version, where it sounded (or read, subtitles were less off-putting than the horrible dubbing) perfectly appropriate.

Subject

Content ... upon re-reading that post does come across as rather more caustic than was my intent. Your contributions are appreciated, even eagerly anticipated by myself, and from what I've seen, others here in this little enclave we've dubbed TETBers. If you hang out a little longer you'll discover that I often put my foot in my mouth and it is only by the grace and good will of the other TErs that this regrettable tendency gets over looked and forgiven. *** Best Regards Elaine -SM.

Subject

Content As I seem to be perpetually 2 or 3 days behind or more with every post--am I right in remembering form a past TB that you and your sis have funny accents? :) Shall I ramp up the Fargo references..? Hee hee. When a summer DC moot starts falling into place, I hope you 2 can both make the Eastern Journey one more time! I STILL feel bummed about missing theNY moot. (You too, bean! Get over the water again, eh?) *** Okay, it took a little bit but glad to see the hootin' an' hollerin' for PJ's takeover of the DGA's! Hot DAMN! It's a runaway steamroller! What's left before the Oscars... Writers' Guild and BAFTAs right? SAG Ensemble nom, too, right? Or is that last one done... Anyway, GOOD JOB, DIRECTORS' GUILD! *** This is terribly, terribly embarrassing, but only just this morning has the penny dropped, from 120 stories up and directly onto my pointy noggin. Elaine--you're THE Elaine who's been doing the brilliant Rotterdam Festival write-ups. Gah! Such a doofus am I! I feel compelled to go to every single one and say so! And lather you up with happy compliments, as well. Impressed I am, and glad you're giving a voice (and a delightful one at that) to all these films! ...Now, on the art-house front, I must confess I have a film-nut's draw to them as well. But this may not have been very apparent in the Tailends because, well, I'm also terribly lazy, and only make it to a handful of arthouse showings a year. The smaller DC theaters are just a pain for me to get to--weak excuse, over which I flog myself regularly. I usually categorize theaters into 3 types: Hollywood, Independent, Arthouse, in their scales of fare. Obviously tons of H-wood gigaplexes about, but also a couple of very good Indy-level theaters (think City of God, American Splendor, Whale Rider, Lost in Translation, Monster before their later wider releases--we also call em "Hollywood's test theaters"). But the arthouse theaters--which will show documentaries as well as the "now showing in 3 cities" miniscule releases and foreign films--until recently there had been only 2, then lately (sigh) one, and with no convenient Metro access and impossible parking. So, I would easily talk myself out of making the effort to get to it. (Then the shame spiral begins!) The ones I can think of that I actually got myself out to the dinky little Vision theater over the past few years were Legend of Suryothai (hugely disappointing) The Buena Vista Social Club (transcendent for a music geek), I am Trying to Break Your Heart (ditto!), and Melvin Goes to Dinner (being a Bob Odenkirk fan). But! Now! Just this winter! A BEAUTIFUL new arthouse theater, with an unbelievable 7 screens of respectable quality and SIZE (!), has JUST opened up literally three blocks from my office! It has been SUCH a delight, and consequently I'm seeing MORE movies regularly than I had when the choices were a trek to the Mall-ywood screens. Without that recent opening I'm sure I'd never have seen (at least in a theater) The Fog Of War, Triplets of Belleville, My Architect, Bubba Ho-Tep (and if there were any justice in the world, Campbell would be getting nominations out the wazoo for his performace! Forget that it's stuck in a silly, uncategorizable little film! BRILLIANCE), The Company, Touching the Void, or Tokyo Godfathers. Tonight I'm going there to see the rerelease of the 1965 film "The Battle of Algiers" and I can hardly wait. Maybe I should share more on these..? Always thought it might be off-topic grandstanding, but if there's others who wanna talk it... Anyway, back on topic, I'm gonna go REread your great write-ups, Elaine! And start making a list of which ones to look for (or, hope to look for). *** HA! As for "inferiority complexes" puh-leeeze! I've been saying this for YEARS: I am one hundred percent FAKIN' it ninety percent of the time--I deflect attention from my deficiencies with rampant smartassery. :) It's the same secret as all illusions--misdirection! *** Now, am I wrong or did everyone actually get the South Park reference? Always happy to lower the tone, am I. :) *** See? That cursed e2 has stolen djinnj away completely! She's now laying traps in the guise of "party info" to lure us ito its maws as well! It's a candy-coated sinkhole, people! BEWARE! *** Okay, gotta wrap this up, and disappear once again for untold days on end. But did want to throw in quickly that by the end of reading LOTR, I mourned the passing of Gandalf, and Bilbo, and most wrenchingly the too-young but too-destroyed Frodo. But not in the least did I mourn the Elves, beyond a passing curiosity. (A curiosity borne of Tolkien TELLING me, repeatedly, their leaving was a sad event, and that leaving with them was much of the magic of this world.) Not until I read the Silmarillion. Not until after reading the Sil did I mourn the Elves, feeling at last the significance of the end of their long, tragic history. In LOTR, these things were evident to me, but not emphasised, and so to me far more marginal than the greater themes present in the central characters' tales. However, I LOVE the Silmarillion and have read it multiple times (in multiple forms!)and now cannot help but consider it when I read LOTR. But LOTR on its own does not rely on the Sil. LOTR is built on its history, but it's very much about its present. Yes it's the tip of a phenomenal iceberg, but as a singular literary entity LOTR is about the tip, not the iceberg. ...Of course, this is a debate without end. Just tossing in my two cents (and I expect change back!). *** Natmeyen, don't worry about PJ's films being your gateway into reading the book! Mine was Rankin/Bass and Bakshi! :) See? TOLD you all I just fake it. ;)

Subject

Content Saw this thread o' convo and just had to throw in! As for short stories, one of my favorites of his (which, like hobbits, seems to get left off all the old lists) is "Pillar of Fire"--a crazy yet beautiful treatise on the necessity of the fantastic and the horrifying. Both an elegy and a love letter to Poe, Lovecraft, et al. ** Bradbury has one of my favorite quotes of an author's. In some interview or other he was asked, being a "science fiction writer" (a label he rejects) with uncanny prescience, how he goes about trying to predict what the future is like. Aghast at the thought, Bradbury replied, "My God, I'm not trying to PREDICT the future, I'm trying to PREVENT it!" ** As for his novels, "Dandelion Wine" has, I believe, some of the most beautiful writing of the 20th century. And it's no more fantastical than a young boy's imagination. An astounding work.

Subject

Content Everyone puts their foot in it on occasion, but I for one think of you as a wonderfully genial, friendly and funny guy, who I consider it a pleasure and a privilege to know. :) --------- Ah Pallando, you provide me with an excuse! It's not that I have uncultured, unrefined, fairly shallow taste in films, it's that there isn't an arthouse cinema anywhere near me! In my town we've got one multiplex, a couple of small independant cinemas in nearby towns/villages, and a XXX theater tucked away at one end of town. -- I'm with you on LOTR Pallando, but I think it may have something to do with my growing up as well. I read the Hobbit as a child, the Hobbit and LOTR a couple of times as a young teenager, and the Silmarillion, Hobbit and LOTR a few years ago when I was about 16/17, so I my appreciation of LOTR on mnay levels deepened when I red the Sil, but not necesarily for just that reason. Having made it most of the way through HoME, read Unfinished Tales, and re-read the Sil and the Hobbit, (no to mention Roverandom, Tales from the Perilous Realm and the adventures of Tom Bombadil,) I'm now starting LOTR again so I can let Miami know what my favourite chapter is, and I'm sure things will resonate differently again. Not to mention the effect of PJ's films, which will really help me imagine things the things I'm reading (something I'm pretty poor at otherwise). I can understand why Tolkien wanted the Sil and LOTR 'published in conjuntion or connexion as one great saga of the Ring and the Jewels'. I'm sure it'll be an even deeper experience in a couple of years when I've finished HoME, and hopefully found Letters by JRRR Tolkien and maybe The Monsters and the Critics, or On Fairy Stories. Oh, and Bakshi was my first introduction to LOTR as well. ------- cutest, Rune asked me if she was right in thinking we hadn't seen the last of Jake after 'Go now, there are other worlds than these.', whereupon I congratulated her on predicting correctly. Now she's trying to get clever. She's reading The Drawing of the Three, and guessed that Jake would be one of Roland's three, to which I told her she's neither quite right nor quite wrong, and we should say no more on the subject. :) -- As for Wolves, Amazon haven't dispatched it yet, but should do soon. :( --------------- Pallando, I've only read Farenheit 451 so far, but that's enough to make me hope that he wasn't trying to predict the future!

Subject

Content I'm in the same boat in that the melancholy of the passing of the elves didn't really sink in with me until I read the Sil as well, in case it wasn't clear that that was what I meant. :)

Subject

Content And so it begins....

Subject

Content Welcome Natmeyen, O Sister of the Runelord! Welcome, welcome (we

Subject

Content Gotta get my home PC working again. *** First, let me welcome Natmeyen aboard! Don

Subject

Content Elaine, I must commend you on your ability to disagree with someone

Subject

Content

Subject

Content Yes, it is true. morGoth is far more stupider than me. Happy now, briquette-butt? :) *** This talk of how to put on an art-house LOTR... How about a more specific take within that low-budget realm? How about a pseudo-documentary improvisational version, a la the films of Christopher Guest? With sidebar "interviews" with the characters, etc. THAT could be something! Now as for casting... Eugene Levy's hairy enough for Gimli. Catherine O'Hara, tough call but I'd have to say Eowyn. Parker Posey as Legolas, of course, and Fred Willard IS Aragorn. Hmmm, this could be something...

Subject

Content Sam: "Three tomatoes are walking down the street. Poppa Tomato, Momma Tomato, and Baby Tomato. Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, so Poppa Tomato goes over to him and squashes him, and says, 'Ketchup.'" Gollum: "What's ketchup, precious, eh?" Sam: "You're hopeless." Mortsleam: "Sabster, get yourself to a video store and rent Pulp Fiction immediately, or I will be forced to stop talking to you. Sorry." *** Bean, with you on the Blackadder love. Yeah! Also, Cutest, good call on the Oscar misfires. And I'd have to put Goodfellas over Dances With Wolves. Costner did a great job, particularly for a first-time director, but I always look to the one film in any given year that's done the most to advance the art of filmmaking. And that's something that Scorsese does pretty much every time he steps up. And sorry, but Annie Hall is just the better movie. Again, do I enjoy it more than Star Wars? No. But I recognize its quality. *** Rune: Break all bonds of English! Funny! *** Conan: I too think Bombadil could've worked, in part to see the Barrow-Wights, one of my favorite missing scenes. But he would've have to have been scaled down and pared back quite a bit, and Eru knows who would've played him. As is, I really enjoy Treebeard's homage. *** Hey ya, elanor, as always you bring class and wicked wit to the premises. *** Miami, what up? *** Uhm...anyone else I haven't mentioned? No? Good, time to eat..

Subject

Content As a meager and altogether inadequate defense Elaine, I will point out that, that rather ill advised list was off the top of my head, was not a top 10, nor was it in any particular order. And anyway, **telegraphing the joke as if I were a palooka boxer**, wouldn't you consider "A Clockwork Orange" IE - NADSAT a foreign language film?(!) (Haw! er, ok whatever...) Hmmm, films with subtitles/'foreign' films, again off the top of my head in no particular order, that I admire... "The 400 Blows" "My Life as a Dog" "Alphaville" "Spirited Away" (Love pretty much ALL of Miyazaki's stuff), "Wings of Desire" (SOOO much better than the Hollywood re-make - "City of Angels". Wim Wenders is a genius IMHO) "Small Change" (I like a lot of Truffauts work - "Breathless" - "Le Chambre Verte" AKA "The Green Room" - Just to name a couple of 'more recent' ones). "The Bicycle Thief", (Lasse Hallstr

Subject

Content EXCEPT??? my apology?! Riddley Speak has ruined me I tell ya! (Or at least: that's my story and I'm sticking to it!)

Subject

Content And it was suspenseful, arriving as we did 25 minutes before the FIDM closed.... Fortunately, the ROTK exhibit was right inside the door, and the others - while interesting - merited only a quick breeze-through, with the exception of Ngila's work for "Samurai." (True geeks would perhaps differ, as there were costume from "X-Men," "Matrix," "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and the like, as well as "Cold Mountain," "Big Fish" and - for some obscure reason - a repeat of last year's "Chicago.") But on the ROTK costumes: I was thrilled to discovered that this year they did NOT concentrate on orcs and grunge (one orc and the Witch King) but instead of the finery: Pip and Merry's elegant warrior togs, Eowyn and Faramir's coronation wardrobes, Arwen's green "wedding" dress (except that in the theatrical version, there's no wedding), and a repeat of Galadriel's gown, only this time with white cloak. We also had Aragorn's final kingly ensemble. The only thing that disappointed me was the complete absence of Frodo's costumes. I'd have loved his re-entering the Shire elegance (of which we get only the most fleeting glimpse in the film) or his Grey Havens costume, or barring that, the Mt. Doom rags. Alas, no. I hope someday there will be a traveling exhibit that will truly represent the film and fill up many rooms, but until then.... Merry and Pippin's costumes (or, in this case, their size doubles') were of course wonderful, and it was interesting to note that they had identical quilted sleeves, respectively Rohirrim green and (which I wouldn't have noticed) Gondorian burgundy (an echo of Boromir's gorgeous sleeves?). I had certainly noticed Faramir's gorgeous final cloak in the film, which was a midnight blue embroidered in silver. However, the piece de resistance had to be Eowyn's gown, which I went back to circle around until they began to dim the lights. It was a gold silk brocade with a very intricate and subtle pattern, with a gold satin sleeve lining, and - this is the dazzling part - with an embroidered banding around the neck, sleeves and down the front of the skirt in TWO shades of gold thread, one a true gold and the other more of a brass gold (more orange), intertwining like vines, and studded with tiny red glass beads, so small as almost to be noticed subliminally (until you had studied the embroidery) - but only on the sleeves. The embroidery on the front had the gold thread but not the beads. In addition, she was wearing the tiara and necklace with sapphire-petaled flowers that were in the show last year (from TTT), but this year's dress had a matching belt. It was truly worth the trip. (And I did make it to the Armand Hammer museum next day, a small but exquisite collection that included a Rembrandt, a Chagal, a Titian, several Van Goghs, a spectacular portrait by Sargent, and four of my favorites, which were French, part of the oriental-inspired fashion of the 19th century, including a man at prayer in a mosque and the more famous "Salome Dancing Before Herod".) ***After an absence of three days, and coming back to what looks like about a mile of text, I confess that once again I have merely skimmed the weekend's posts. I would like to note, however (because it does come up from time to time), that hurling the word "elitist" at someone - intended, apparently, as a pejorative - is not useful to the discussion. What is an "elitist"? The opposite of a "populist"? Must people dumb themselves down to avoid being thought a "snob" or "too critical" or somehow not in tune with the popular average? Why is it all right to have more strength or speed or vocal talent than the average, but not (God forbid) critical faculties that you can't - and don't particularly want to - turn off at will? ***And yes, Elaine, I go to arthouse movies - not as many as you, for which I don't have the time, money, or access - we have two or three arthouses in a metropolitan area of 6 million, but I do what I can. And of course, it depends on what you call arthouse. Of the films in the last year, that have played in small theatres, I've seen and loved "Whalerider," "The Station Agent," "Triplets of Belleville," "American Splendor" and "Girl With the Pearl Earring." (Mixed reaction to "Tokyo Godfathers," but I was crazy about "Millenium Actress" on DVD.) ***By saying I would like to see the arthouse version of LOTR, that doesn't mean I would like to see the battles removed, just not given the prominence that Jackson has given them. Sure, the mumakil are "cool," but do they further the story (as the wargs and cliff-diving certainly did not)? I think, in fact, that all that over-the-top action actually detracts from Eowyn and the Witch King. In the final analysis, though (and my sister and I were discussing this on the long drive back from L.A.), FOTR left us with a glow that lasted for months and still persists, while ROTK is exciting and artistically stunning and has many individually wonderful scenes, but... it honestly doesn't linger in our minds, because it just feels like more of a "ride" than anything that touches the soul. Part of this is that the scenes that in Tolkien that to me were most "iconic"(and I've grown to dislike that over-used word) are the very scenes that Jackson omitted or altered beyond recognition in the last film - and we didn't see this coming after FOTR. You may or may not love the way Shelob was handled in the movie, but how many of us, when we first saw that now-famous photo of Sam cradling Frodo, assumed - and fervently hoped - that this was post-Shelob, not Mt. Doom? (How many of us expressed the opinion that it looked as if Jackson had gotten THAT moment absolutely right?) Yes, it was a great scene on Mt. Doom, but the scene where Sam leaves Frodo (and if he can leave Frodo on the Stairs just because Frodo orders him home, does that not undercut Sam's terrible decision in the Pass?) was not the one that I wanted to see, or anywhere near it. It was speeded up, and the sentiment toned down, for modern mass-market sensibilities and the demands of an "action" film. Never mind the loss of what Tolkien himself said was the most tragic moment in the book, which appears nowhere in Jackson, and that was the precise moment of Gollum's loss of redemption. Orson left out one theme that was strongly Tolkien's and almost nowhere evident in Jackson, and that is the idea of redemption/salvation in a pre-Christian world. Jackson, instead, turns this into the idea that Frodo is trying to save Gollum to save himself, which is nowhere to be found in Tolkien. In Tolkien, Frodo's compassion and mercy toward Gollum are shown because they are virtues IN THEMSELVES, because gentleness and mercy are part of Frodo's nature, encouraged by Gandalf (who is, we should not forget, a higher order of being), not because Frodo is on any level trying to save himself. Isn't the point, truly, that Frodo - following the Christlike model of suffering servant - is willing to lose himself, to go to his own death (another point undercut by Jackson, in whose version it is Sam who has to explain to Frodo that they are not likely coming back - the opposite of the book), and finally, to lose the Shire that he has saved for others? If his goal was to redeem Gollum to save himself, then he truly has failed. If he was willing to spend himself to save the world, then he succeeded. ***And now, I am sorry, but I must cut and run, and leave the discussion to others.

Subject

Content "Here comes the oliphaunts."

Subject

Content Nothing, he didn't recognize them.

Subject

Content That Lasse Hallstr

Subject

Content Walk him and pitch to the Balrog.

Subject

Content An oliphaunt is grey.

Subject

Content "Here come the plums." (Gollum is color-blind.)

Subject

Content ... before I consistently edit and use spell check? The world may never know: "Critical faculties" is of course how it should have read. Truth be told, I'm simply a LOUSY typist. *** How many oliphaunts can you fit in a VW Bug? Why two in the front and two in the back silly!

Subject

Content So he could hide in the strawberry patch. Man, these are OLD...therefore, by MY critical thinking, just right for oliphaunts!

Subject

Content Blame Miami! BLAME MIAMI MOFO!

Subject

Content Squash.

Subject

Content (1) Open door. (2) Insert Oliphaunt. (3) Close door.

Subject

Content (1) Open Door. (2) Remove Oliphaunt. (3) Insert Troll. (4) Close Door.

Subject

Content The door won't close.

Subject

Content There'll be one waiting outside in the VW Bug.

Subject

Content By the footprints in the butter.

Subject

Content ...and google only kicks up maybe 6,000 pages of elephant jokes...

Subject

Content So you don't see them when they float upside down in a bowl of custard. ("Have you ever seen an oliphaunt floating upside down in a pool of custard?" No, of course not.)

Subject

Content DoT's wrong wrong WRONG! And now, I'll leave the oliphaunt jokes to others...

Subject

Content Take away his credit card.

Subject

Content Because they would look silly with glove compartments.

Subject

Content It would seem your friends liked it as well, morGoth. I do apologize for misspelling your name earlier. Thank y

Subject

Content Well, you take 10 dead oliphaunts, 10 tons of chocolate ice cream, 5 tons of bananas... *** Okay, I quit. I promise. No, really. And a quick disclaimer, that first one, the oliphaunt with three balls, is from "Hot Shots!" and no my niece doesn't know it. But it's one of my favorites. :)

Subject

Content Wowza! and gadzooks! An overwhelming response to poor little Orson's musings! POINT TAKEN! I am of course fully aware that in the current climate, any opinion that goes even slightly astray from the main current is regarded as the most outrageous TREASON. However it feels only fair to point out that Orson has a nostalgic fondness for that old-fashioned notion called "freedom of speech". In a forgotten era it was considered fair to allow some-one to express their opinon no matter how irritating or inconvenient it sounded. Nowadays, you are free to say whatever you like - as long as it is exactly the same as what everyone else is saying. On this TB, we are now seeing people who were inclined to agree with all or part of what I say who are now afraid to open their mouths for fear of retribution! Oh well, Orson's popularity goes up and down but he remains unchanged. Perhaps I should re-name myself Orson Bin Laden. My bearded namesake was also popular once with the powers-that-be but has since fallen from grace. ****** Hmmmm, I notice that people still seem to think I am saying negative things about PJ's movies and really, I'm not sure how many more positive things I can say about before I run out of superlatives. Oh well, I'll give it one more try; at least people can't say I didn't try: These movies KICK ALL KINDS OF ASS! They OWN ALL OUR ASSES! They are the ROOTIN-EST, TOOTIN-EST, PICK-MY-JAW-UP-FROM-THE-FLOOR-AND-FETCH-MY-BRAINS-WHILE-YOU'RE-AT-IT spectaclular pieces of motion-picture entertainment to have appeared since, oh Star Wars and Raiders Of The Lost Arc. And if you still find that too downbeat,just head over to Theonering.com and listen to the Tolkien purists bitch, whine, gnash their teeth and swear death to Peter Jackson! I mean, let's get some perspective! At least I actually LIKE the movies. Not LIKE - I LOVE them! God, I wonder what treatment you'd dish out to some-one who DIDN'T like them. Roast them over a spit, no doubt. Or sit on them one by one and squash them into jelly. Boil 'em, mash 'em, put 'em in a stew - I wouldn't be in the least surprised. ******** Elanor! I'm speechless that you have devoted the best part of three posts to my efforts. And we're still friends! Well, now - that's the kind of refreshing bonhomie that makes my typing worthwhile. I shall, with pleasure, take the time to honour your own efforts, knowing that you won't take any of it personally. And I'll gladly meet you for a drink! Let me see: what are you doing Friday? Can you fly to Europe at the drop of a hat? I can promise you a whale of a time - and don't for a second worry about that age difference! It's the spirit within that counts and yours has been singing from your keyboard ever since you first graced these pages. But all that is ahead of us! First let me give your posts the response they deserve! ******* Never understood what TATOW meant. To me it's a Russian teenage pop duet. Don't know Moaters either - but "by his posts ye shall know him" and he seems like a nasty piece of work. Life's too short. ******* Well, I have no problem with teenagers and have fond memories of being one myself you know! I strongly object to the idea that they are somehow inferior in their enjoyment. (I certainly didn't regard myself as inferior or "reduced" - as Runelord puts it - when I was a teenager. I felt smart, sharp and knew what I liked.) They are also a market force to be reckoned with. By allying myself with them and their culture I have an army of MILLIONS standing right behind me and cheering when I shout that LOTR RULEZ!! ******* Regarding Tolkien not making these movies. Yes, it sounds a bit condescending - but then again I try my best not to mention people specifically, and always seek to be courteous and respectful, whether people agree with me or not - and that's something one can hardly say about others! (again - naming no names!) However, there has been so much cross-referencing between the book and movies on these TBs that it really starts to look as if Tolkien participated in the movies! He didn't! He didn't! ****** Oh Elanor, come now! Call me crazy - but I think Simon Tolkien has a MUCH better idea that any one of us here what his grandfather's intentions, likes and dislikes were. That's why I quoted him directly. He's as close as we can get to THE SOURCE. ******** Okay, this post's getting a bit LONG, so I'll follow your example and split it over a few, okay?

Subject

Content

Subject

Content I hit enter and my brilliant response to Orson was lost in the ether. I swear it was there. It went something like this: we're not treading on your freedom of speech, but we'd be more likely to refrain from ripping on it if you backed it up. Or something. "The peculiar thing is this my friends, the post I posted two seconds ago didn't actually sound anything like this post! This is just a tribute to the greatest post in the world."

Subject

Content When Tolkien said he intended no meaning or message, I think he meant exactly what he said - no more nor less. I am in too much awe of his linguistic ability to think that there was any hidden meaning or qualification in that statement. Tolkien was one of the greatest masters of language that ever lived. I believe that when he used words, he used the right words. He didn't mince them. When he uses the word "none" - it means "none". ****** Similarly, Sam's speech stands as it stands. If PJ wasn't happy with its effect on the movie I doubt if he would have left it in. It's there for eternity and it makes the movie what it is, However, this is getting off the point a bit. ****** Gandalf's lines about Death and responsibility. Well, I don't insist on my interpretation, Elanor. As I have said, each movie has seen a progressive "de-Tolkienisation" of the story. In PJ's FOTR the story was still reminiscent of Tolkien's version. Yup, I'll give you that. ****** Newline and Sep 11. Well, no - I remember reading that one somewhere - it might have been here, but I really don't remember. The writer seemed quite upset by it at the time. ***** Whoa! Who said anything about Hollywood-style sentimentality being bullshit? I ENJOY Hollywood-style sentimentality! What's wrong with it? It has helped catapult the LOTR movies to the top of the all-time world box-office where they keep company with the likes of Titanic, Jurassic Park and The Phantom Menace. And THEY got there on the same combination of Special Effects and sentimentality. What's wrong with that? These are great popcorn movies! ******* No, I don't get the bittersweet, mourning for the passing of a lost age at all from PJ's movies. Though I don't say that PJ didn't try to put in something like that. But he's saying it in a language I don't understand. Sam's line about "feeling sad" goes right over my head. It is clumsily designed to explain to the audience that what we are seeing should make us sad. No deal. SHOW it, don't TELL it! If that scene had been played without dialogue, I WOULD have felt a sense of sadness and longing - which I would have got from the beauty of the images and the music. But I won't feel what I'm TOLD to feel. ******** Gotta leave it there, I'm afraid as I'm out of time. Will get back to you soon, I promise!

Subject

Content I don

Subject

Content Do not use my post as an example of couched terms, only one of snapped tensions.

Subject

Content Miami, thanks for your response about your 1965 version. For you other old geezers (hee hee) regarding Tolkien's Foreward and its "no inner meaning or 'message' line, I just want to check my impression with you because you guys remember the time before there were Beatles. It has always been my belief (based on what, I'm not sure) that these lines were NOT written for the original publication but added later, in the sixties. I think it goes something like this: the book was successful in England right away, but word of it spread slowly in America. But people were talking about it so much that an un-authorized paperback was published and sold in America. (I think Tolkien's publishers had not thought to extend their "rights" to the American audience. Tolkien was quite irritated about it and his publishers were finally able to halt those sales. Then Tolkien had them publish an authorized paperback for America and the forward was added (or additions to it were made), making it the Foreward that now appears in all copies of LOTR. My point is that the lines I am referring to have always struck me as a DIRECT RESPONSE from Tolkien (who was living then) to the type of "deplorable cultis" claims of the early sixties which insisted LOTR was a parable for or against the controversial topics of the day, The Bomb, the Vietnam War, an allegory for WWII or a "back to nature" kind of treatise popular among folk singers of the day ("they paved Paradise, put up a parking lot"). m I making this up or is there something in "Letters" that I'm thinking of? The word "message" is in quotes and I can attest that "message" was a cool word in those days; there were "message" movies, "message" plays, "message" songs. Lots of hippies wanted LOTR to be a "message" book but it wasn't and Tolkien felt compelled to say so. I think Tolkien put the word in quotes out of disdain for the term. Comments?

Subject

Content My message to you was a response to your post way up there. Did I ever tell you I saw the Beatles in concert? August 27th 1964. Cincinnati Ohio. Yep. Screamed my head off. Ah me. Those were the days indeed.

Subject

Content He's playing all of us like a bunch of RUBES. Play-acting at polite discourse so that he has a convenient fall back position when someone sees through his ruse and takes him to task on it. All of his posts are superficially polite sneers at the rest of us because we don't see what is so painfully obvious to him: That PJ's films are hopelessly amateurish, shallow, juvenile etc. etc. blah blah. I'll wager that he doesn

Subject

Content Yeah! Let's hear one for Old Codgers firing synapses...I REMEMBERED mine! Oops, spilled another beer! Tell your niece thankee kindly for resurrecting those in the oliphaunt mode {[:^) ** Hey, don't blame me...I got dismissed last Talkback ** Wynn...I take your meanin' an' that's why more rope is bein' offered up. ** Aiya! Is that a question from Gamgee's lass?

Subject

Content Since I was there over the weekend, I was able to enjoy the full-page ROTK ad in the L.A. Times that also ran in the New York Times - the one of Frodo hugging Sam. And a heart-stopper it was. However, I coughed up the page to my sister, who coveted the full-page ad on the back - "Cold Mountain" advertised with a picture of Jude Law, standing holding a gun with his back to the camera, in dark flowing sleeves (somewhere between white-shirtedness and black pantherishness), like a rather romantic assassin or master spy, but certainly not the grubby and desperate Civil War deserter of the film. Very cool of Jude Law - rather silly as a take on "Cold Mountain." ***If we are discussing great films, may I express my enormous love for "The Bicycle Thief" and for that matter, Italian Neo-Realism. ***I've also found time to catch up with my TORN reading, including the really excellent article (whether or not you are a Christian) on how apparently everyone involved in the making of LOTR (the films) literally failed to comprehend (and thus to translate to the screen) Tolkien's most cherished themes, precisely because his faith is so alien to their own worldview. Now, just as I can love "Spirited Away" without knowing much of Japanese culture (but find it richer when even a few facts about Japanese customs and gestures are explained to me - enough to know how much I am missing), the filmmakers can love and translate the plot and characters of "Lord of the Rings" without any intrinsic understanding of Tolkien's faith. However, when a group of people for whom faith is utterly foreign - so foreign that they are either indifferent or hostile to it - approach the work of a writer for whom faith is central, they may "translate" the camera angles but will never fully capture its heart (and Tolkien DID say that LOTR is a "fundamentally religious work"). You cannot translate a work whose most subtle language comes from a world you have never inhabited. Before you attack this, at least read the thread: http://boundless.org/features/a0000860.html

Subject

Content Tolkien mainly talked about the

Subject

Content What Pallando said about "Dandelion Wine" in SPADES. It's a perfect example of what I was explaining to you at MerryMoot about Bradbury "cobbling together" several of his short stories with a narrative thread at sometime after their original publication as short stories. He used the same group of tales including "The Happiness Machine", "The Ravine" (a MUST read that will scare the pant's off you and then give you the biggest warm fuzzy ever delivered in an 8-or-so page story) and "The Theater" (I THINK it's called), to construct both "Dandelion Wine" and "Something Wicked This Way Comes" - which ends with the terrifying "The Black Ferris". I lent the most recent of these 'constructed' novels/novellas - "From the Dust Returned", built on "Greentown IL. stories" that center on an "eternal family" of supernaturals, to djinnj before I took of to come home after Merry Moot. Had a chance to crack it yet djinnj? Probably not with YOUR workload; don

Subject

Content

Subject

Content <NT>

Subject

Content And when we disagree with him we're infringing his right to freedom of speech. Ooohhhhh-Kaaayyyy......

Subject

Content On Eowyn's gold dress, the embroidered edging is itself edged in hundreds of tiny seed pearls. I know Ngila and crew were most proud of Arwen's pale green wedding dress, but if I were marrying royalty and had the funds for it, I'd go for an exact copy of Eowyn's dress. Wonder how much time was supposed to pass before the coronation, that the royal seamstresses had time to create this? She and Faramir certainly make a gorgeous couple, with her gold-on-gold and his blue and silver.

Subject

Content Calm down Miami and Pallando, there

Subject

Content On a lighter note, what's big and grey and comes in pints? An Oliphaunt!....And what are *those* distasteful looks for?....

Subject

Content But it's getting very late now, so I'm off to bed. Expect mammoth replies from me tomorrow! (Sorry)

Subject

Content Scariest thing I have EVER heard on radio.... Literally made my hair stand on end. Later I did read its incorporation into "Dandelion Wine," but think of it with only your imagination, and the footsteps....

Subject

Content Orson: You really are wrong about Moaters. I have had the honor of meeting him and have spent several days in his company and he is a brilliant, funny, warm and excellent human being. He DOES fly off the handle or shoot himself in the foot at times on these tb

Subject

Content MorG, thanks very much for those two revealing tips. I appreciate the help. At least some of my memory is still working! Does the

Subject

Content Man, I have almost an entirely opposite take on that "who

Subject

Content Man, I have almost an entirely opposite take on that "who

Subject

Content Sorry. Screen froze and I lost patience.***Moaters and bean, my dear champions, never fear. Orson doesn't bug me. He and I go back a ways and he has said some very nice things in the past, which I do my best to remember at times like these! But thank you anyway. (curtseys and blushes)***DoT, as long as I am here apologizing for my double post, I should also say thanks for your detailed report on the costume exhibit. I can't believe it hasn't been in the Greatest City in the World yet (meaning here, of course) but I will drop everything and go if it gets near enough. Faramir's Cloak! Swoon....Oh! I just remembered, Elijah fans - check out how great he looks in the long jacket he wore to the DGA awards (he was a presenter). Photos up on TORN. Man I have really devolved into a pervy hobbit fancier haven't I? Heh heh.

Subject

Content Not only do I only now discover that my posts have been oddly punctuated, but I write a long post directed towards that and also Orson, and an error wipes it out! And I didn't save it because, in an attempt to avoid odd punctuation I didn't draft it in Word first! Anyway, I think it's that stupid thing that Word does, which is change the double apostrophe into curly apostrophes which isn't proper ascii. Although, it's interesting because I see a number of your posts (elanor and morGy's come to mind) with question marks where quotes should be, and also many many of the actual aicn's articles have the same problem. Gad, I hate that! Well, I will eschew the '' from now on! But tell me, what does this: " look like? That's the double quotation mark directly entered. Is it also bolluxed up? ---- Orson, I find semantic fights terribly boring and frustrating (as Moaters can tell you!), so if we take this any farther we must define our terms. I use 'message' to mean a theme or philosophical stance which Tolkien presents in his text, and which is compatible to the idea that the text is 'about something.' Tolkien himself mentioned at one point that if he had to distill it to one thing, that the book would be about death. Anyway, using this definition, your statement that there is none in the text is clearly absurd. So you need to clue me into what you think Tolkien meant by that statement (as I already know what I think he meant, and you claim to disagree with it, although I'm not sure exactly in what way). ---- Let me also say that while I believe Tolkien possessed genius, I don't think he was that terrific a writer. Before everyone jumps on me, let me explain what I mean. Basically, I think he was a good writer with flashes (sometimes long) of brilliance. But I really believe that his ideas outstripped his ability to convey them in the most effective way (in his prefered style). Because, after all, writing is as much craft as it is art. Had he had more time to devote to the craft, and been more skilled at the nuts and bolts of his writing, I believe it would have been more uniformly brilliant. He has famously claimed to disdain literary analysis. I think he was exaggerating for effect. At the same time, I think he saw what theorists were doing to Modern novels and hated it. I have a feeling he didn't like self-concious Modern lit either, and absolutely hated the way methods like deconstruction would rip a text apart until it was anonymous and bleeding in the dust. The irony of course is that the hobbits' stories are Modern (but that's another discussion). Had lit crit been more like what current trends are, a feast of different techniques all used to help gain insight without destroying a text, I think he could have found people to help him understand his use of form and improve his facility with it. I also think he would have learned better how to effectively assess his writing, and facilitate editing. Ah well, that's all idle speculation. ---- If anyone wants to get into a deep discussion of the text itself, I'm up for it. I warn you, though, I don't have a lot of time for posting right now so there may be a delay between replies (sorry Moaters, I haven't cracked that book yet. I've got 900+ pages of reading a week, aside from assorted other research).

Subject

Content I want the art version of Lord of the Rings to be difficult to watch. It should be like an unaccessible rock album that you hate at first but grow to love after listening to it for a week straight, when the music comes out of what seemed to be just boring noise. But I could be flexible on some points. I guess Bombadil could maybe go, though I like him a lot more than I used to. I'm quite glad that he wasn't in Jackson's movie. I definitely want the medieval music and shakespearian speech though. I love the way the book is written, how it takes a while to get used to the sentence structure and sort of poetic dialogue (at least for me it does) and how it is boring at times (particularly in the songs). It just makes it seem more real, like an actual history, which isn't always going to be action packed and isn't going to have the Razz-a-ma-tazz of a hollywood script, so you can really become immersed in it. It never feels contrived. Thanks for backing me up Conan the Humble. Alas, the art version still needs excellent special effects and large battle scenes, so it could of course never be made except by a crazy eccentric billionaire (fingers crossed). Short of that, I think Jackson's movies are close to the best adaptations that could possibly be made since any adaptation would have to make a lot of money in order to have the kind of budget required. And I think they have retained a remarkable amount of the essence of the book while still being accessible enough to be massive blockbusters. Or something. In summary: the films really could use a lot more hobbit nudity.

Subject

Content ... which in all likelihood will create a wall of posts of which Ingold himself would be proud. Bear with me, please. **** First things first, though. Elanor, morGoth, Djinnj and Daughter of Time, I've been reading your posts on Tolkien's themes and messages with great interest. I won't comment on them because you all know what you're talking about much better than I do, but be assured I'm following the whole debate with great interest. Thanks for keeping things so interesting around here! **** Djinnj, some day you and I must have a serious discussion on literary criticism and Deconstruction, but it is not this day. This day... no, let's save the fight for another day. :-)

Subject

Content ... how could I say anything but that we

Subject

Content So, are you an arthouse fan or not? You can

Subject

Content Re-reading my reviews? Haven

Subject

Content what they said... I just wish I was so erudite, sigh... Cheers.

Subject

Content MORT: You're right, I shouldn't automatically equate arthouse with non-American. America has produced some fantastic indies, and some European flicks are as popcorny (is that a word?) as your average Hollywood blockbuster. See my post to Sabster. **** Loved your Tenacious D reference. God, I love that song! **** Oh, and another film for on the list: Aki Kaurismaki

Subject

Content What are you doing, interrupting my flow? Here I am apologising beforehand for a tremendous wall of posts, and now I have nothing to apologise about anymore. Really, can't you see how hard that is on a woman? You bastard! :-)

Subject

Content DAUGHTER OF TIME: Alas, I have to admit that I don

Subject

Content What do you all mean, you don

Subject

Content Was anyone else disappointed to read the TORN rumour that the "Return of the King" EE is "only" going to be four hours and ten minutes? I was so looking forward to a near-five-hour version. And honestly, fifty minutes' worth of extra scenes doesn't seem too much given the number of scenes that have to be inserted. Colour me slightly disappointed...

Subject

Content "e

Subject

Content It's been repeated many times over the past few months, that PJ's first cut of ROTK, with all the worthy footage in it, was 4 hours 15 mins, before he cut just about an hour to get it down for the theatrical release. As far as I'm concerned, 4 hours 10 is exactly what I've been expecting (and very happy with), and what I've been telling my friends and family who DON'T live on the internet it will be. Interestingly, it fits the trend of how much has been added to each film very well. FOTR gained 34 mins, TTT gained 43, and ROTK's getting about 52. bringing us up to an Extended Edition uber-film of around ELEVEN AND A HALF HOURS! Woohoo! When ROTK EE comes out, I'm going to lock myself in my room for a whole day!

Subject

Content Other than I certainly wasn't born out of wedlock... Cheers.