Yea Gratitious Sex and Voilence!
Rob
didn't anyone tell me about this. This great wonderful thing.
Like I said I was watching, and I saw a commercial. Not just any
commercial. It was the commercial I've been waiting for ever since Scream
and I Know What You Did Last Summer. I've been wanting this so badly. I'm
tired of that Hollywood teen suspense crap they've been pushing. I want
the crap I grew up on.
If you don't know what I'm talking about yet... The Voorhees Kid is
Back! The Voorhees Kid is Back! The Voorhees Kid is Back!
And get this. The new one takes place in outer space! That the most
contrived and unoriginal idea for where to take the series. Every series
once it makes one to many sequals ends up in outer space. It's looking
like they aren't going to try to 'fix' or 'change' a damn thing. They're
going to give us the same thrills of our youth, where everyone gets cut
apart piece by piece either while or right after having sex.
All you geeks out there go wait for your 'two towers' and 'attack of
the clones', and try to justify your tastes by fixed oscar nominations.
And those 'nice girls' can all go watch their romantic comedies, where no
one ever gets decapitated. And the snobs can watch their intellectual art
films that no one can comprehend, and never know the simple pleasure of
seeing a naked girl's heart pulled from her chest while she's still alive.
And the truley brain dead can watch the newest Swartzanager flick, and
argue that it isn't the exact same movie they saw twenty years ago. And
those that say they've grown past this sort of thing can hope of Shrek 2,
while those those with no identity or self-esteem or sense of humor buy
tickets to the newest comedy.
But me, I'm going to be snuggled up close to a ten decible screamer
(There's hardly a point in going if you don't take a screamer) as she
drowns out the rest of the movie theater and clutches closer to me, who
mesmorized by the latest decapitation will just be saying, 'cool' in awe.
Slasher flicks rock!
£ørd £andøn
> If you don't know what I'm talking about yet... The Voorhees Kid is
>Back! The Voorhees Kid is Back! The Voorhees Kid is Back!
Yawn. Let me guess the basic of the plot. He awakes, kills person #1 while
they're unsuspecting, kills person #2 while they're unsuspecting, kills person
#3 while they're running away, kills both lovers (#4 & #5) as they're about to
orgasm (best of their lives), kills person #6 leaving only #7 & #8. They find a
way to kill him (prolly flush him out of the airlock) but he comes back. They
find some stupid myth/weaopon that kills him. End of movie. 5 years later,
he's back again, come on, get a clue movie makers, how many times and ways can
you kill somebody before they're dead for good. I stopped watching new repeats
after the second or third one and I NEVER paid movie prices to see it.
Spoiler: jason dies in this one too
--
Łřrd Łandřn
50% Realist 30% Analyst 20% Pessimist
Have you spanked your inner bitch today?
Rob
news:bto3cucdkhalhavra...@4ax.com...
> Squire "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> came out of their castle & wrote:
>
> > If you don't know what I'm talking about yet... The Voorhees Kid is
> >Back! The Voorhees Kid is Back! The Voorhees Kid is Back!
>
> Yawn. Let me guess the basic of the plot. He awakes, kills person #1
while
> they're unsuspecting, kills person #2 while they're unsuspecting, kills
person
> #3 while they're running away, kills both lovers (#4 & #5) as they're
about to
> orgasm (best of their lives), kills person #6 leaving only #7 & #8.
They find a
> way to kill him (prolly flush him out of the airlock) but he comes
back. They
> find some stupid myth/weaopon that kills him. End of movie. 5 years
later,
> he's back again, come on, get a clue movie makers, how many times and
ways can
> you kill somebody before they're dead for good. I stopped watching new
repeats
> after the second or third one and I NEVER paid movie prices to see it.
First off Friday the 13th deaths are almost always double digit.
Second off, 13th does add some new plot points. Jason takes New York was
just cool as hell. And the deaths are always different. Didn't you see
where he shattered the girl in Final Friday? And need I remind you that
this one takes place in Outer Space?
BTW, I'm not going to see this film to enjoy the artistic merits of
it. I'm going for the atmosphere. All I ask for is topless girls in
panties getting brutally slaughtered, and I'm a happy movie goer.
£ørd £andøn
> First off Friday the 13th deaths are almost always double digit.
<sarcasm>ooooooo double digit murders</sarcasm>
>Second off, 13th does add some new plot points. Jason takes New York was
>just cool as hell. And the deaths are always different. Didn't you see
If you think so; I sure as hell dont
>where he shattered the girl in Final Friday? And need I remind you that
wow, some neat new computer graphic - yawn. What a waste of special affects
>this one takes place in Outer Space?
so did the final hellraser, big deal
> BTW, I'm not going to see this film to enjoy the artistic merits of
Im not going to see massmurder cookie cutter "B" film #1,000 either
>it. I'm going for the atmosphere. All I ask for is topless girls in
>panties getting brutally slaughtered, and I'm a happy movie goer.
LOL
£ørd £andøn
Let me guess, the next one he'll fight south park's satan, and then xena, then
god, then hercules, and then freddie, then pinhead, then alien, then predator.
YAWN
Bulldog
wrote:
> sense of humor buy tickets to the newest comedy.
> But me, I'm going to be snuggled up close to a ten decible
Dude, ten decibles is nothing, 1 dB is the stlightest thing a person can
hear.. I know guys that got upto 130dB while screaming, and 120 dB is
when you start feeling pain in your ears
--
One of these day's i'm going to have to goto google and find my sig
again...
Bulldog....
Charlie
"Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:uc3pmks...@corp.supernews.com...
> BTW, I'm not going to see this film to enjoy the artistic merits of
> it. I'm going for the atmosphere. All I ask for is topless girls in
> panties getting brutally slaughtered, and I'm a happy movie goer.
* SPOILER *
* SCROLL DOWN *
There are topless girls in this installment. While the crew is trying to
escape to a section of the ship that will blow off from the main ship, the
tech geek and his android chick recreate Camp Crystal Lake circa 1960. Two
girls are there to distract Jason, exposing their bosom. You don't see them
getting slaughtered at all. They're wrapped up in their sleeping bags while
Jason slams one of them on the other repeatedly, finishing the bludgeon girl
off by whacking her into a tree. No blood.
But it was pretty cool seeing Jason's head getting blown off (before his
upgrade)
Nicholas Knight
> All you geeks out there go wait for your 'two towers' and 'attack of
> the clones', and try to justify your tastes by fixed oscar nominations.
After seeing what they did to FOTR, I'm not waiting for Two Towers. Nor am I
waiting for AOTC.
The LOTR movie series was doomed from the get-go.
StarWars Episodes 1-3 were doomed 5 minutes after they were concieved.
I'm waiting for MIB2, ST: Nemesis, and the next Bon Jovi album. That's it.
Not all geeks are created equal.
--
Nicholas Knight, Maniac, ICQ 608056
http://www.geocities.com/nicholask2002/
You know it's now or never, take a chance on rock'n'roll.
tar --directory=/mnt/brain/ -xpvf insanity.tar
£ørd £andøn
wrote:
>After seeing what they did to FOTR, I'm not waiting for Two Towers. Nor am I
>waiting for AOTC. The LOTR movie series was doomed from the get-go.
In what way?
>StarWars Episodes 1-3 were doomed 5 minutes after they were concieved.
Again, in what way?
>I'm waiting for MIB2, ST: Nemesis, and the next Bon Jovi album. That's it.
Um, excuse me? MIB2 will probably be stupid, ST: Nemesis COULD be interesting if
they do it right
Nicholas Knight
> Squire Nicholas Knight <nkn...@pocketinet.com> came out of their castle &
> wrote:
>
>>After seeing what they did to FOTR, I'm not waiting for Two Towers. Nor am
>>I
>>waiting for AOTC. The LOTR movie series was doomed from the get-go.
>
> In what way?
How do you capture an epic three-volume novel of exquisite detail in three
movies designed for someone to sit through? The answer is you don't. You
butcher it to peices, as they have.
>
>>StarWars Episodes 1-3 were doomed 5 minutes after they were concieved.
>
> Again, in what way?
Lucas has gone wayyyy off the deep end. Episode 1 was pure crap (if I had to
choose just two words to describe how, I'd have to go with "Jar Jar"). I
see no evidence to suggest Episode 2 is going to be any better. Nor 3.
>
>>I'm waiting for MIB2, ST: Nemesis, and the next Bon Jovi album. That's it.
>
> Um, excuse me? MIB2 will probably be stupid, ST: Nemesis COULD be
> interesting if they do it right
MIB2 is a sequal to a movie I liked, with two talented actors that I like.
I'm going on the assumption that at the very least, I won't hate it.
With the exception of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I've liked every single
ST movie. And TMP wasn't that bad. Thus, I'm assuming I'll like Nemesis. (I
also liked the Voyager series. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate
Paramount can go wrong in my book.)
£ørd £andøn
wrote:
>How do you capture an epic three-volume novel of exquisite detail in three
>movies designed for someone to sit through? The answer is you don't. You
>butcher it to peices, as they have.
I dont think they butchered it, I think if anything, they shortened it. Going
by your theroy, kevin costner movies would have to be a day long in order to
"capture everything". I think they did a fine job in LOTR. If you go in
expecting a 5 hour movie (is that enough time to capture everything?) for each
LOTR book, you're gonna be upset when it's over 2 hours. The problem with LOTR
movies is that it pisses of those who feel "blade of grass" syndrome MUST be
intact in order for the movie to be any good. For those that feel that way, I
pity you as you're robbing yourself of a good movie. Let me ask you this, does
every stephen king movie follow the books exactly like you want LOTR to do? I
can sum it up in one word: NO. Would you then complain that the movie's not
good enough because "blade of grass" syndrome was not followed?
>Lucas has gone wayyyy off the deep end. Episode 1 was pure crap (if I had to
>choose just two words to describe how, I'd have to go with "Jar Jar"). I
>see no evidence to suggest Episode 2 is going to be any better. Nor 3.
Jar Jar I agree with 100% and thank god they're getting rid of him in Ep2. How
CAN you see evidence, the movie's not out yet. Sure there's the trailers but
they dont show all THAT much. Also, keep in mind that you were a LOT younger
when the first 3 came out so you (like most poepl) are biased in your opinions
over these movies
>> Um, excuse me? MIB2 will probably be stupid, ST: Nemesis COULD be
>> interesting if they do it right
>
>MIB2 is a sequal to a movie I liked, with two talented actors that I like.
>I'm going on the assumption that at the very least, I won't hate it.
It sounds like you're saying that LOTR/PM did lousy cause you didnt like the
actors and that's your sole basis (minus shithead binks) for judging a movie
>With the exception of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I've liked every single
>ST movie. And TMP wasn't that bad. Thus, I'm assuming I'll like Nemesis. (I
>also liked the Voyager series. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate
>Paramount can go wrong in my book.)
If they did go wrong would you admit it? I doubt it. MOST people who stick to
a movie company (better yet a producer/writer/etc) dont say that the movie
sucked
Nicholas Knight
> Squire Nicholas Knight <nkn...@pocketinet.com> came out of their castle &
> wrote:
>
>>How do you capture an epic three-volume novel of exquisite detail in three
>>movies designed for someone to sit through? The answer is you don't. You
>>butcher it to peices, as they have.
>
> I dont think they butchered it, I think if anything, they shortened it.
> Going by your theroy, kevin costner movies would have to be a day long in
> order to
> "capture everything". I think they did a fine job in LOTR. If you go in
> expecting a 5 hour movie (is that enough time to capture everything?) for
> each
> LOTR book, you're gonna be upset when it's over 2 hours. The problem with
> LOTR movies is that it pisses of those who feel "blade of grass" syndrome
> MUST be
> intact in order for the movie to be any good. For those that feel that
> way, I
> pity you as you're robbing yourself of a good movie. Let me ask you this,
> does
> every stephen king movie follow the books exactly like you want LOTR to
> do? I
> can sum it up in one word: NO. Would you then complain that the movie's
> not good enough because "blade of grass" syndrome was not followed?
First, I don't read Stephen King books and I've never seen a movie that was
based on one of this books. So the comparison means nothing to me.
Second, you misunderstood me, and I didn't choose my words as carefully as I
should have.
I'm not blaming *anyone* for FOTR sucking. I'm saying it should never have
been made into a movie in the first place.
A movie is generaly no more than three or so hours long. Usualy more like
two hours. This is *not* sufficient to capture most books in the first
place, and is EXTREMELY insufficient for FOTR, TT, and ROTK.
FOTR sucked, IMO, and the two to follow will as well. There's no way around
it.
>
>>Lucas has gone wayyyy off the deep end. Episode 1 was pure crap (if I had
>>to choose just two words to describe how, I'd have to go with "Jar Jar").
>>I see no evidence to suggest Episode 2 is going to be any better. Nor 3.
>
> Jar Jar I agree with 100% and thank god they're getting rid of him in Ep2.
> How
> CAN you see evidence, the movie's not out yet. Sure there's the trailers
> but
> they dont show all THAT much. Also, keep in mind that you were a LOT
> younger when the first 3 came out so you (like most poepl) are biased in
> your opinions over these movies
I wasn't *ALIVE* when the first three movies came out (I was born in 86,
Return of the Jedi was released in 83). I don't think I even SAW them until
just before EP1 was released (at least, saw them and actually *watched*
them... I'd seen them before, but didn't really pay any attention). How
this renders me biased against Ep1 I don't understand.
>
>>> Um, excuse me? MIB2 will probably be stupid, ST: Nemesis COULD be
>>> interesting if they do it right
>>
>>MIB2 is a sequal to a movie I liked, with two talented actors that I like.
>>I'm going on the assumption that at the very least, I won't hate it.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that LOTR/PM did lousy cause you didnt like
> the actors and that's your sole basis (minus shithead binks) for judging a
> movie
Hardly. I generaly pay little or no attention to who the actors are in a
movie.
Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are generaly the two exceptions, thus worth
noting in this case.
Hell, I couldn't put a name to a face of most "big" actors.
>
>>With the exception of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I've liked every
>>single ST movie. And TMP wasn't that bad. Thus, I'm assuming I'll like
>>Nemesis. (I also liked the Voyager series. So far, I've seen nothing to
>>indicate Paramount can go wrong in my book.)
>
> If they did go wrong would you admit it? I doubt it. MOST people who
> stick to a movie company (better yet a producer/writer/etc) dont say that
> the movie sucked
>
There are a number of episodes in each ST series that I can safely say
sucked. And I'm not too big on the original series (aside from the
movies... and the Tribble episode...:)
I've already stated I'm not too fond of the first ST movie.
To use another example:
I thought it was impossible for Blizzard to screw up.
I loved Warcraft 1&2, Starcraft, and Diablo.
Then Diablo2 was released. Blizzard fucked it up. Badly.
Then they decide to file a lawsuit against bnetd. Blizzard has fucked up
worse.
When somebody gets it wrong, I not only admit it, I bitch about it.
Cursim
--
Cursim
"Hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn for sega"
-Brodie, "Mall Rats"
"Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:uc3ji69...@corp.supernews.com...
Cursim
"Charlie" <aredm...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uc4d5pn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
> news:uc3pmks...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > BTW, I'm not going to see this film to enjoy the artistic merits of
> > it. I'm going for the atmosphere. All I ask for is topless girls in
> > panties getting brutally slaughtered, and I'm a happy movie goer.
>
> * SPOILER *
> * SCROLL DOWN *
>
>
How'd you see it? Its not out yet.
Charlie
"Cursim" <cur...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:a9v1rd$6c3hd$1...@ID-33640.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Charlie" <aredm...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:uc4d5pn...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
> > news:uc3pmks...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > BTW, I'm not going to see this film to enjoy the artistic merits
of
> > > it. I'm going for the atmosphere. All I ask for is topless girls in
> > > panties getting brutally slaughtered, and I'm a happy movie goer.
> >
> > * SPOILER *
> > * SCROLL DOWN *
> >
> >
> > <SNip>
>
> How'd you see it? Its not out yet.
Not out at theaters yet, but it's available for download with your local
file sharing program.
Christopher Childs
> news:uc4d5pn...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
> > news:uc3pmks...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > BTW, I'm not going to see this film to enjoy the artistic merits
of
> > > it. I'm going for the atmosphere. All I ask for is topless girls in
> > > panties getting brutally slaughtered, and I'm a happy movie goer.
> >
> > * SPOILER *
> > * SCROLL DOWN *
> >
> >
> > <SNip>
>
> How'd you see it? Its not out yet.
The film is from last year. This is just its major theatre showing.
Rob
Kevin Kostner, at best, is an okay actor who's had a few lucky roles
thrown his way. The guy can barely act, and more often than not his movies
are not very good.
LOTR wasn't much more than a special effects fight scene. The real
enjoyment of the movie, for me, was being able to see places like the
Shire, Moria, and Rivendale on screen. Hardly enough for a best picture
award.
They cut out just enough to piss off the hardcore fans, but not enough
to make it a well done movie. I doubt I would even have been able to
follow it all that well if I hadn't already read the books. And we're
talking nine major characters. Even for a three hour movie, that's a lot
of characters to work with. It would've been possible to do right if
Jackson would've spent a little less time on the next big fight and a
little more time working his characters.
Honestly, there isn't much to the film except the fight scenes. If you
want to talk about the scope, the characters, the battle of good against
evil, ect, you're taking all that from the book. Having never read the
book, none of that would've come out. It's not really best picture
material.
If you really want a high fantasy treat, watch Willow. The movie
surpasses Lord of the Rings in every way except for the special effects
and fight coragraphy, not the Willow is poor in either area.
> >Lucas has gone wayyyy off the deep end. Episode 1 was pure crap (if I
had to
> >choose just two words to describe how, I'd have to go with "Jar Jar").
I
> >see no evidence to suggest Episode 2 is going to be any better. Nor 3.
>
> Jar Jar I agree with 100% and thank god they're getting rid of him in
Ep2. How
> CAN you see evidence, the movie's not out yet. Sure there's the
trailers but
> they dont show all THAT much. Also, keep in mind that you were a LOT
younger
> when the first 3 came out so you (like most poepl) are biased in your
opinions
> over these movies
As for evidence, I saw treatments and pitches for episodes 2 and 3
done by Lucas the same week Episode 1 came out. Although there may be some
huge changes coming around, with what I saw then it's pretty safe to say
that the genius portion of Lucas's career is gone. Much like the first
episode, they didn't seem like anything better than a Power Ranger episode
with a bigger budget. For instance, Vader joins the dark side after
touching a crystal that makes him evil.
As for bais, no. Star Wars has been praised, it had lines that were
several blocks long at some theaters, AFI has it listed in the top twenty
films of the last century, along with the rest of the trilogy and Indiana
Jones, and the work done by Spielburg, it completely changed the movie
industry, and it's considered by many film historians to have saved the
film industry in the late seventies.
As a kid, I also like the He-Man movie. I saw it again recentally. My
nostalgia didn't stop me from realizing it was pure crap. I've seen Star
Wars, and it's still a good movie to me as an adult, same goes for Empire.
Jedi starts to fall apart a bit.
> >> Um, excuse me? MIB2 will probably be stupid, ST: Nemesis COULD be
> >> interesting if they do it right
> >
> >MIB2 is a sequal to a movie I liked, with two talented actors that I
like.
> >I'm going on the assumption that at the very least, I won't hate it.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that LOTR/PM did lousy cause you didnt like
the
> actors and that's your sole basis (minus shithead binks) for judging a
movie
I didn't get that at all. In fact, LOTR had a few really good actors.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure MiB2 will be crap.
> >With the exception of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, I've liked every
single
> >ST movie. And TMP wasn't that bad. Thus, I'm assuming I'll like
Nemesis. (I
> >also liked the Voyager series. So far, I've seen nothing to indicate
> >Paramount can go wrong in my book.)
>
> If they did go wrong would you admit it? I doubt it. MOST people who
stick to
> a movie company (better yet a producer/writer/etc) dont say that the
movie
> sucked
Really? Star Wars fans came out in unison that Episode 1 sucked. Most
Burton fans I've talked to admit that Planet of the Apes wasn't up to his
usual caliber. Most Disney fans admit the quality of their movies has been
in decline for several years now.
When a director/producer/writer does something that is below his usual
standards, his fan base is usually the people who end up furious over it.
In fact several of those people have trouble expanding what they do,
because their fan base expects something in a style similar to what
they've been doing. Imagine Tarrentino directing a Disney cartoon, Craven
directing a romantic comedy, or Redford directing a Leslie Nielson parody.
Their fans would be outraged. Although I would like to see Craven do a
romantic comedy, personally.
Most of the times fans like the continued work of a person because
they are fans. They really enjoyed a previous piece done by them, and most
artist tend to work with a style similar to their previous works. A lot of
what they originally liked from the artist is probably present in their
new work.
£ørd £andøn
wrote:
>Second, you misunderstood me, and I didn't choose my words as carefully as I
>should have.
>I'm not blaming *anyone* for FOTR sucking. I'm saying it should never have
>been made into a movie in the first place.
>A movie is generaly no more than three or so hours long. Usualy more like
>two hours. This is *not* sufficient to capture most books in the first
>place, and is EXTREMELY insufficient for FOTR, TT, and ROTK.
>FOTR sucked, IMO, and the two to follow will as well. There's no way around
>it.
Ok, I understand now and with this newly typed theory, I agree. However, the
movie own its own was done very well and when I watched it I separated book from
movie. You're right, they CAN'T be as good as the books in two hours (or even
three), but own their own they were great.
>I wasn't *ALIVE* when the first three movies came out (I was born in 86,
>Return of the Jedi was released in 83). I don't think I even SAW them until
>just before EP1 was released (at least, saw them and actually *watched*
>them... I'd seen them before, but didn't really pay any attention). How
>this renders me biased against Ep1 I don't understand.
Ok, the problem with the new series (1, 2, & 3) vs the old (4, 5, 6) is this:
Most people like the originals because it seemed less commercialized. While I
tend to agree, I took each movie own their own. Each movie for me has things I
just can't stand. One word: Ewoks. They were cute when they came out (I was 11
or so), they're friggen annoying as hell now.
>There are a number of episodes in each ST series that I can safely say
>sucked. And I'm not too big on the original series (aside from the
>movies... and the Tribble episode...:) I've already stated I'm not too fond of the
>first ST movie.
I didnt like the Tribbles, but I saw the appeal. Yes, there are plenty of
episodes on every series that just suck ass, but in general each series was good
(altho as ive said, never got into the original and the cartoon were just a joke
during the 70's)
Nicholas Knight
> aside from those of us who spend our weekends
> playing fantasy games and who reread LotR once a year...
once every 6 months...
Time Goddess
"LadyJack V." <lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com> wrote in message
news:3cca19eb...@news.infoave.net...
> I know several people who saw it and hadn't read the books, or hadn't
> read them in over thirty years and didn't remember anything about
> them. None of them had trouble following the plot or the characters,
> or picking up on the themes. <snip>
Yo.
Speaking as someone who spent the first book and the first half of the
second thinking, "Boring. Boring boring boring. Boooooooring. BOR-ING!
BOR-ING! BOR-ING! Screw this, I'm gonna get me something worth reading,"
FotR was great precisely because whoever made it *couldn't* cram the entire
book into one movie. The first book-- I can't speak for the second two, but
I'm sure they were worse --was too long by half. Actually, by a hell of a
lot more than half. Too many details, too many superfluous scenes, too many
freaking words to say too many things at once, too much crap between the
good bits (i.e., the killin' and the actual PLOT). Was the bit with Tom
Bombadil in any way needed? Hell no! All it realy did was increase the line
count and show us that yes, Tolkien *could* write in a deus ex machina. And
did Tolkien really expect me to believe that every single person in Middle
Earthy needs about seventy-two words to say what would only take a normal
person fourteen words? I hope not, but that's how he wrote anyway. There was
just too much.
The movie fixed all that. It is the book boiled down to its basic parts.
It ripped out the parts that are integral to the storyline, added a bit of
extra to pretty it all up, and put out something that was very
lay-man-understandable but still surprisingly complex and very enjoyable. It
did an excellent job of developing the story and characters, and, by
extension, the theme, and it did it without all the extraneous fluff that
the purists love so much. Standing on its own, it is a great movie. This
coming from a person who isn't terribly fond of movies in general and
loathes Tolkien in particular. It's good that it was made, if only because
people like me now hate Tolkien less than we used to. As I said earlier, I'm
glad that the writer couldn't make the entire book into a movie. It's better
this way.
Nicholas Knight
>
> "LadyJack V." <lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com> wrote in message
> news:3cca19eb...@news.infoave.net...
>> I know several people who saw it and hadn't read the books, or hadn't
>> read them in over thirty years and didn't remember anything about
>> them. None of them had trouble following the plot or the characters,
>> or picking up on the themes. <snip>
>
> Yo.
>
> Speaking as someone who spent the first book and the first half of the
> second thinking, "Boring. Boring boring boring. Boooooooring. BOR-ING!
> BOR-ING! BOR-ING! Screw this, I'm gonna get me something worth reading,"
> FotR was great precisely because whoever made it *couldn't* cram the
> entire book into one movie. The first book-- I can't speak for the second
> two, but I'm sure they were worse --was too long by half. Actually, by a
> hell of a lot more than half. Too many details, too many superfluous
> scenes, too many freaking words to say too many things at once, too much
> crap between the good bits (i.e., the killin' and the actual PLOT). Was
> the bit with Tom Bombadil in any way needed?
I think the following sums this attitude up quite nicely:
It was a beutiful song, but it ran too long, so they cut it down to
three-oh-five.
That will be all.
(Apologies to Billy Joel.)
Nicholas Knight
> "Time Goddess" <maje...@swbell.net> writes:
>
>> Was the bit with Tom Bombadil in any way needed? Hell no! All it
>> realy did was increase the line count and show us that yes, Tolkien
>> *could* write in a deus ex machina. And
>
> Many of my friends would kill you for saying this :) Tom is
> probably one of the best characters that Tolkien created...and his
> appearance in FotR is very significative and necessary...hell,
> yanking him out is one of the two things I wanted to kill Jackson
> about...until I realized that there'd be more people with your
> opinion about Tom than with mine, mostly because Tom isn't easy to
> understand or like <shrug>
I love Tom. I've literally re-read JUST that portion of FOTR several times,
seperate from re-reading the rest of the series.
I just wish I could figure out a tune to put the songs to.
Nicholas Knight
Actually, one more addition:
*goes off to listen to the nearly 10 minute Bat Out of Hell, followed
closely by Dry County, of similar length*
OK, now, That will be all.
Time Goddess
"Vox" <v...@gnulinux.org.mx> wrote in message
news:85d6wr2...@crysalis.the-vox.com...
> Never read anything older than yourself, uh? :)
Not unless it's at least 1,500 years old.
> Read Shakespeare in
> the original (not in the fixed-for-today printings), read Cervantes'
> Quixote, or El Mio Cid in the original spanish...that's exactly the
> way people used to talk back then :P
I'm not a fan of Shakespeare, for many reasons, but I dig the Quixote.
That I can get through. There is a vast difference between 16th century
Spanish prose, which I appreciate to the extent of not-dislike, and
early-mid 20th century British, which I despise completely and utterly .
Tolkien was not a 16th century Spanish satirist, or even a 16th century
English satirist. Tolkien was an early-mid 20th century British professor
and linguist and his writing style epitomizes that.
> Modern society has a
> need-for-speed that goes destroys people's taste for flourish and
> elegance, unfortunately...
I wouldn't say that, even if the statement was restricted to speech and
literature. I *would* say that, in general, the American youth currently
prefers their prose to be more condensed and succint, but that preference
seems to diminish with age. People can still appreciate embellishment and
plenty of it. Heck, I can if there's an occasional smattering of
graphicly-described violence (see "Blade of Tyshalle" by Matthew Woodring
Stover for a perfect example. Very in-depth, very themey and complex and
full of surprisingly ornate language, considering the story and the age of
the author, yet the plot moves quickly enough to keep my interest and the
fight scenes are *great*).
>and the Net, specially the web,
The Web? Isn't that the bit that lets one Internet page link to another?
I don't understand how that would cause society to develop a
"need-for-speed", unless you mean that lets people click a link instead of
pasting it into the word box where things get pasted.
>has pushed this beyond the point that most people thought ever possible.
I think you're laying the blame unfairly. The 'Net has certainly
*contributed* to the phenomena, for lack of a better word, but I don't think
that it's had as great of an impact as you seem to think. The cultural
trends toward concise speech have been working for the better part of a
century, and have gained a powerful momentum; while the Internet and its
inherent propensity for speed and simplicity may have sped things up a tad,
it is in every way eclipsed by the pure change of societal thought.
> As a person interested in linguistic development I can tell you that
> today's spoken and written word lack a whole lot of subtlety and
> style that humanity used to have.
No argument there. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I've digressed
enough for one post.
Nicholas Knight
>
> "Vox" <v...@gnulinux.org.mx> wrote in message
> news:85d6wr2...@crysalis.the-vox.com...
>> Never read anything older than yourself, uh? :)
>
> Not unless it's at least 1,500 years old.
>
Does this apply to music as well?
On second thought, maybe you'd prefer not to get me started there.
>>and the Net, specially the web,
>
> The Web? Isn't that the bit that lets one Internet page link to
> another?
> I don't understand how that would cause society to develop a
> "need-for-speed", unless you mean that lets people click a link instead of
> pasting it into the word box where things get pasted.
The "need-for-speed" mentality is influenced not by method of information
gathering, but rather, style of presentation.
I, myself, am a victim of this in some ways. I get seriously annoyed if I'm
talking to someone and they use more words than neccisary to describe
something. But then, I don't have the same problem in written
communication, at least not to the same extent. Probably influenced heavily
by antisocial tendancies.
My attempts at writing tend to "get to the point" far too quickly as well. I
wind up putting more raw "information" in one chapter than you're likely to
see in any novel from, say, John Grisham.
Consider this. I have a 9th grade history book around here somewhere.
I have been able to glean the same amount of information (with far more
accuracy and less bias, no less) and more, from websites that I just
happened to run across, not actually looking to research anything. If you
printed out those sites, it would fit in a book less than HALF the size of
the textbook I have.
For certain subjects, such as history, many people, including myself, would
argue that this is probably a Good Thing(tm), as it allows easier disection
of the information, and it's easier to tell when someone's been smoking too
much pot while preparing it. But, at the same time, it has the downside of
training people to expect more in less space. Thus tending to kill any
remnants of patience, and disrupt enjoyment of long stories, esspecialy
LOTR-type novels.
Spectre
<nkn...@pocketinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the following sums this attitude up quite nicely:
>>
>> It was a beutiful song, but it ran too long, so they cut it down to
>> three-oh-five.
>>
>> That will be all.
>>
>> (Apologies to Billy Joel.)
>>
>
>Actually, one more addition:
>*goes off to listen to the nearly 10 minute Bat Out of Hell, followed
>closely by Dry County, of similar length*
Pffft.
*listens to 20 minute 2112(Rush), then 18 minute Cygnus X-1 Book II
Hemispheres(Rush), then 14 minute And Then There was Silence(Blind
Guardian), then 16 minute Dante's Inferno(Iced Earth), 10 minute
Seventh Son of a Seventh Son(shouldn't even have to say it's Iron
Maiden), 16 minute Echoes(Pink Floyd), 17 minute Shine on you Crazy
Diamond(parts 1-7, Pink Floyd), 10 minute Achilles Last
Stand(Zeppelin)*
*has several 8-10 minute songs that are not listed*
I could have listed In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, but it's one of the best known
really long songs.
Damn, I have a lot of long songs.
--
Josh
~"The problem with defending the purity of the English
language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse
whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English
has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new
vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll~
~Cot0Sig#18~CotSRSig#39~CotBSig#80~CotCSig#200~CotSSS#7~
~ICQ # 36one2one84~AIM: Spectre45~
Spam blocking in place
Nicholas Knight
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:46:12 -0700, Nicholas Knight
> <nkn...@pocketinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> I think the following sums this attitude up quite nicely:
>>>
>>> It was a beutiful song, but it ran too long, so they cut it down to
>>> three-oh-five.
>>>
>>> That will be all.
>>>
>>> (Apologies to Billy Joel.)
>>>
>>
>>Actually, one more addition:
>>*goes off to listen to the nearly 10 minute Bat Out of Hell, followed
>>closely by Dry County, of similar length*
>
> Pffft.
>
> *listens to 20 minute 2112(Rush), then 18 minute Cygnus X-1 Book II
> Hemispheres(Rush), then 14 minute And Then There was Silence(Blind
> Guardian), then 16 minute Dante's Inferno(Iced Earth), 10 minute
> Seventh Son of a Seventh Son(shouldn't even have to say it's Iron
> Maiden), 16 minute Echoes(Pink Floyd), 17 minute Shine on you Crazy
> Diamond(parts 1-7, Pink Floyd), 10 minute Achilles Last
> Stand(Zeppelin)*
>
There are two bands on there I don't dispise. Floyd and Zeppelin. And I'm
not exactly a big fan of them either :P
> *has several 8-10 minute songs that are not listed*
>
> I could have listed In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, but it's one of the best known
> really long songs.
>
> Damn, I have a lot of long songs.
no shit
Rob
news:aa18b6$715ll$1...@ID-64699.news.dfncis.de...
>
> The movie fixed all that. It is the book boiled down to its basic
parts.
> It ripped out the parts that are integral to the storyline, added a bit
of
> extra to pretty it all up, and put out something that was very
> lay-man-understandable but still surprisingly complex and very
enjoyable. It
> did an excellent job of developing the story and characters, and, by
> extension, the theme, and it did it without all the extraneous fluff
that
> the purists love so much. Standing on its own, it is a great movie. This
> coming from a person who isn't terribly fond of movies in general and
> loathes Tolkien in particular. It's good that it was made, if only
because
> people like me now hate Tolkien less than we used to. As I said earlier,
I'm
> glad that the writer couldn't make the entire book into a movie. It's
better
> this way.
I'll agree with you on a lot of things. The book is just too
description heavy. Every frickin' blade of grass has to be described by
Tolkien in detail. Meanwhile, I have a pretty damn good idea what grass
looks like.
Tom was a good, and necessary, part of the trilogy though. In the end
Gandalf pretty much just comes out and says Tom is a parallel to him.
Gandalf's at the end of his prime, and his time on Middle Earth, being a
major figure in its events, is coming to an end. And this is a big point,
since Middle Earth has become so dependent that it's pretty much dying,
and it has to find some sort of independence to survive. Nothing great has
come from the third age, it's surviving on what was done in the second
age, and losing most of it, case in point the Mythril.
Gandalf, however, isn't about to lay down and accept his fate. He's
fighting it all the way, and working a plot to destroy the great evil
forever and restore the rulership of Gonder and the west to its proper
place, and he's not so keen on the idea that there won't be anything left
for him after that. OTOH Tom has pretty much gone through this already,
and he's now content to be free of the world and just live out the rest of
his life in piece. Tom has no master, because Tom's only concern is
pleasing his wife and enjoying himself. Gandalf does have a master, he's
still a servent to the world which he intends to protect. In the end when
everything's said and done, Gandalf goes to Tom to figure out what to do
next. Tom is pretty much the completion of Gandalf.
And to me the movie was just fight, fight, fight. They cut a lot of
the good stuff out. One thing I would've liked to see is the arguement
over going into Moria. Gandalf wants to go because he thinks they can make
it, although he's somewhat reluctant. Aragorn fears Moria, and doesn't
want to go anywhere near it. Gimli, believing his relatives are ruling
there, is completely gung-ho about going through. And Borimir, in a sign
of ignorrance, wants to head south past the moutains.
And that last one is the most important. One of the things the movie
doesn't do is get into Borimir. He's ignorrant in the book. He makes one
stupid suggestion after the other, and tries his best to defend it as
everyone puts it down. He considers himself one of the great men of his
age. He's the eldest son of the steward, which is ruling in place of the
king, of the most powerful nation of men. At the same time though he's in
the company of real great men inside the fellowship. Men who he really
isn't worthy to accompany.
Look at the way he views Bilbo. When Bilbo offers to take the ring
back to Mordor, he almost laughs until he sees that everyone else is
taking him seriously. What he doesn't realize is that Bilbo is one of the
great men of his age. He was one of the legendary fourteen, all of which
are considered dwarven heroes, who slayed the dragon Smaug and resotored
the Dwarven crown. He also saved a human town, and negotiated a peace with
the elves. He's accomplished more heroic feats in his lifetime than the
strong son of royalty Borimir.
Borimir's death is a way for him to prove his worth. At that point
he's turned on the ring bearer, and really fucked things up. He now has
his head back together, and he's finally starting to realize that great
men like Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf, Frodo, and Biblo aren't beneath
him, or even equal to him. They're of a high cut above him. And so he
gives his life for the cause, wanting to prove that he's worthy of his
place in the fellowship. To do something great enough to warrent a place
of renown and legend among these men. He already accepted the fact that
Aragorn was the true heir to Gondor, but he doesn't accept the fact that
Aragorn is his king, or that Aragorn is more worthy of the position until
he finally dies. That's when he finally sees himself for what he really
is.
And pretty much all of that is lost in the movie. There's a lot to the
other characters which is lost in the movie too. Honestly though, most of
the good stuff is in the first book. Although the second book has that
great scene where Theodin rides into battle, and the third book when Merry
proves himself during the seige on Minus Trithe.
Rob
news:aa1b5c$6vmcb$1...@ID-132594.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I love Tom. I've literally re-read JUST that portion of FOTR several
times,
> seperate from re-reading the rest of the series.
>
> I just wish I could figure out a tune to put the songs to.
You know Tom got his own book. I think it was like four different
stories revolving around the adventures of Tom. It's sadly out of print
now though.
Rob
> Dude... Jason in a cyborg body? Laaaaaaaaaaaame!
Dude... Curism? Laaaaaaaaaaame!
:P
Rob
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:23:37 -0700, "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> graced us
> with the following words of wisdom:
>
> Most people I know... and mind you, I don't know a lot of Disney
> fans... either hate all Disney's stuff, or they consider it all OK
> kid-fare but that's it, or they still like a lot of the new stuff...
> I really liked *The Emperor's New Groove*, *Atlantis* and *Monsters
> Inc.*... I'd say the overall average quality of Disney's stuff is
> going down because they're trying too hard to milk existing stuff with
> straight-to-video sequels, most of which really aren't trying very
> hard, though. I'm waiting for *Lilo and Stitch*. That looks kinda
> fun.
Lilo looked good too, but I'm skeptical considering Disney's track
record, and I'm referring only to their theatrical releases.
> ANYway, I did chime in for a reason... It seems to me that except for
> a lot of people who have strong opinions on animation styles, etc.,
> who very often IME are anti-Disney even with the older stuff, a lot of
> the people who insist that Disney was great but is in decline are
> suffering from golden-age syndrome. To every generation, things were
> better when they were kids. Disney has been keeping up well with its
> audience... small children and their parents. The 20- and
> 30-something parents have things to laugh at in the films that go
> whooshing over their kids' heads, and the kids they are aimed at find
> them funny and more relevant to them. If they aren't necessarily all
> artistic masterpieces... so what?
I don't watch much of the older Disney stuff anymore, but I understand
how important it was to animation in general. I think Disney really picked
up in the seventies with Oliver and Company, which is my favorite Disney
film and something I didn't get to see until I was like fifteen. You'd be
surprised at who actually told me I had to see it.
I think Dinsey really started getting things right with Mermaid, which
twenty and thirty year old men without children watch and enjoy. Alladin
was actually the bit of animation that got me watching cartoons after I
grew up. But Disney isn't completely off the hook, since it was goof troop
that got me to thinking I'd gotten too old for cartoons.
Beauty and the Beast, to me, isn't all that great of a film, and
really didn't deserve the best picture nomination. The Lion King, OTOH, I
consider to pretty much be Disney's modern masterpiece. It seemed to get
everything just right, and was the last great film they did.
I've been let down by films like Mulan that turned out to not really
be very good. Herculeas was okay, but not up to Disney standards. I came
to expect a certain level from them, and they've disappointed me with
films that aren't very good films. Even Atlantis, which I haven't seen,
I've heard is pretty much stolen directly from an anime title. I don't
think it has anything to do with wanting my youth, but more to do with the
fact that Disney just isn't making any good movies.
The same way you want to go watch
> topless chicks be slashed, artistic filmmaking be damned, *I* want to
> go watch a movie I enjoy more than I want to go watch a masterpiece.
I'm actually not very interested in the film itself. I want the
atmosphere. The screaming when the cat jumps out of no where, the
clutching during the suspense, ect. Yeah, I know they're faking it, but I
really don't care. I also want something young kids can sneak into and get
their first peek at the female anatomy and the human brain. I think kids
today are missing out by not having movies like that. And mindless
bloodshed and sex, like everything else in life, is good in moderation.
That's why I only want one slasher flick a year. Just one. The only
Slasher flick I've ever bought on Video is Halloween, for a dollar fifty,
and that one has quite a bit more artistic merit than anything else in the
genre.
Now, I think everyone should write their favorite movie studio and say
they're sick and tired of these trashy suspense movies in the vain of
Scream that used to be free to watch on USA only a couple of years ago,
starring second rate television actresses, and never even showing a single
tit or ass. I say it's time we stand up for the slasher flicks that were
on the forefront of turning all movie making into nudity and violence.
> Sometimes there's an overlap. Sometimes not. But if I wrote down my
> top-50 list of all time, it would only be based on my own enjoyment,
> not some arbitrary standard of artistry. And there would, no doubt,
> be a handful of recent Disney films on the list, because I enjoy them.
It should overlap. Any piece of art that lacks entertainment isn't
really worth looking at. Unless if you're that son of a bitch Kennedy
writing college textbooks, who I BTW despise, that believes that an
artistic work can't, at the same time, be enjoyable, and that all fiction
is either enjoyable escapist fiction or boring artistic work. It's that
attitude that perpetuates the belief that for something to be enjoyalbe,
it has to be mindless and void of any artistic merit. And anything that
does have artistic merit is going to be boring, and more like work than
anything else to read through.
And it's really those overlapping movies that have spoiled me. I have
trouble watching a movie that doesn't have a strong artistic side to it,
pretty much because I'm used to it. And more than anything I want movies
that'll take me a couple weeks to have any idea what they were really
about. Trying to piece the different parts of the film together is as
enjoyable as watching it the first time, especially if you discuss it with
other people. There are some very talented film makers still out there who
can combine the art of film making with the entertainment side of film
making.
If I were to make a list of the top fifty or hundred films, all of
them would be the most enjoyable films I've seen, and all of them would
have artistic merit, either in some general point of literature (Theme,
symbolism, character) or in something which is unique to film (acting,
cinematography, sound) or some combination. Film, after all, is a fine
art.
Cursim
Dalai Lama
lady...@jedimasterlittlegreenguy.com (LadyJack V.) wrote:
<re LOTR movie>
>. I'd say the film did pretty well for itself, wouldn't you? Someone out there both
>got it and loved it, aside from those of us who spend our weekends
>playing fantasy games and who reread LotR once a year...
IMO-It was decent and enjoyable. I didn't go into the theater
expecting it to be phenomenal, so I wasn't let down. The scenery was
nice, and the plot moved along at a reasonable pace. I don't think
it'd be possible to follow every nuance of the book and maintain a one
to one film to book ratio. I do think that the film could have been
more spectacular and awe inspiring, as the special effects were only
adequete for a book and film of this caliber.
--
Dalai Lama
> As a person interested in linguistic development I can tell you that
> today's spoken and written word lack a whole lot of subtlety and
> style that humanity used to have.
Even the words have been simplified, both in pronuciation and vaguery
of meaning. Depth, complexity and character all summed up as "deep".
BTW- do you know of any good sites or available books on Raramuri?
I haven't had much luck on reasearching their linguistics.
--
Dalai Lama
> You know Tom got his own book. I think it was like four different
>stories revolving around the adventures of Tom.
Don't forget his better half- Jerald Bombadil. They did make a good
team.
>It's sadly out of print
>now though.
--
Dalai Lama
<nkn...@pocketinet.com> wrote:
>Consider this. I have a 9th grade history book around here somewhere.
Which is the reading level found in most newspapers and magazines.
Its primary purpose is to be easy to follow.
>I have been able to glean the same amount of information (with far more
>accuracy and less bias, no less)
If the book is recent, I can understand the bias part, if the book is
quite old, than the amount of bias will be lessened considerably.
> and more, from websites that I just
>happened to run across, not actually looking to research anything. If you
>printed out those sites, it would fit in a book less than HALF the size of
>the textbook I have.
As you squeeze more info into the same word space, the reading
complexity goes up. Comprehension also drops. For conveying info,
this isn't so bad, but for teaching it's a no-no.
--
Time Goddess
"Dalai Lama" <daiail...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3cc4c417...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> If the book is recent, I can understand the bias part, if the book is
> quite old, than the amount of bias will be lessened considerably.
Exactly how old do you mean? American-centric, revisionist history is
present in *all* American history books, regardless of age; the only
difference is the exact slant. If anything, older (to a point) books are
worse, as the effort to avoid racist and misogynist biases usually wasn't
made.
Spectre
> I don't watch much of the older Disney stuff anymore, but I understand
>how important it was to animation in general. I think Disney really picked
>up in the seventies with Oliver and Company, which is my favorite Disney
>film and something I didn't get to see until I was like fifteen. You'd be
>surprised at who actually told me I had to see it.
> I think Dinsey really started getting things right with Mermaid, which
>twenty and thirty year old men without children watch and enjoy. Alladin
>was actually the bit of animation that got me watching cartoons after I
>grew up. But Disney isn't completely off the hook, since it was goof troop
>that got me to thinking I'd gotten too old for cartoons.
> Beauty and the Beast, to me, isn't all that great of a film, and
>really didn't deserve the best picture nomination. The Lion King, OTOH, I
>consider to pretty much be Disney's modern masterpiece. It seemed to get
>everything just right, and was the last great film they did.
> I've been let down by films like Mulan that turned out to not really
>be very good. Herculeas was okay, but not up to Disney standards. I came
>to expect a certain level from them, and they've disappointed me with
>films that aren't very good films. Even Atlantis, which I haven't seen,
>I've heard is pretty much stolen directly from an anime title.
Lion King is all but stolen from an anime, also ;-)
Well, maybe not stolen, but there was controversy about it.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/991224.html
straight dope article about it.
Really, it's pretty much the same as the Atlantis controversy. With
Lion King, the story is similar to the one covered by Kimba the White
Lion. Atlantis is based on a story that also has an anime series
based on it, so there's similarities.
Cameron
I think we got enough of an insight into the character of Boromir, barely
enough, but it matched with what I remembered reading. The only thing he was
really good at was fighting - hence the training the hobbits scene and the
piles of dead orcs.
In terms of his peoples history and that of the other cultures he has a very
narrow view. He still wants the ring for himself, or humans at least, to
make the the best race. completely ignoring what went on before (sword and
ring stealing scenes). He doesn't trust elves or dwarves and yet he knows
almost nothing of them, hobbits barely rate a mention in his worldview.
The only thing he knows well is fighting and he is good at that. This blinds
him to the possibility that there may be another way to defeat Sauron
besides mountains of dead orcs, goblins and other assorted evil beasts. The
fact that his advisers seem next to useless in the Council session is
another symptom of how uninspired the human leaders have become.
I think the emotional impact of his death scene does convey, to me at least,
that he had seen the error of his ways and if he could have been healed
would have been a much stronger character. Of course that couldn't be
allowed to happen as the hobbits, not humans are the heroes.
Cameron
Rob
> "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> writes:
>
> > I'll agree with you on a lot of things. The book is just too
> > description heavy. Every frickin' blade of grass has to be described
by
> > Tolkien in detail. Meanwhile, I have a pretty damn good idea what
grass
> > looks like.
>
> places...probably why I love Raymond E. Feist books...he leaves a
> lot to the reader's imagination :)
To me, that's the flaw of LOTR. Those description just take away too
much from the book. It gets to the point that after you finish reading the
two pages of description, you can't even remember what Tolkien was
describing. And the narrative suffers for it. I think he was trying to
instill awe of these various locations, but in the end all he did was
induce sleep. A major edit cutting out at least half the pages is in
order. In fact, most of the sixth book can be taken out entirely. That was
one really long epilogue. If the whole thing ran four hundred pages it'd
be a much better book.
> > Tom was a good, and necessary, part of the trilogy though. In
> > the end
>
> <snipped good description of Tom>
>
> Absolutely agree with you...Tom is, in a word, fullfilment
> incarnated, which is the only real way to happiness.
I don't see him as much fulfilled as accepting. I think he was much
more fullfilled in when he was the master of middle earth. I think he's
just come to accept the fact that there isn't really a place for him
anymore. In a way he's come to terms with old age, and he's content on the
small piece of land he still controls.
> Boromir is the lesser of them all...hell, even Pippin and Merry are
> higher men than he is. And, of course, Boromir's brother (whose name
> escapes me right now) is way better suited to be Aragorn's steward
> than Boromir ever was.
Pippin and Merry were of the noble Took lineage, and Merry also of the
Brandybuck lineage, but Boromir was of a much higher status. Later they
prove themselves as a knight of Gondor and a rider of Rohan respectively,
but that doesn't occur until after Boromir's death.
I really don't like speaking poorly of Boromir, because I don't see
him as a bad person. Hell, even Gandalf was terrified of being around the
ring for fear it would curropt him. The only difference between Gandalf
and Boromir was that Gandalf was aware of his limitations, which goes back
to Boromir's arrogance.
He was trying to do good though. He wasn't even out for himself. His
actions were what he felt was the best course of action for Middle Earth.
He had been in Minus Trithe. He knew armies were gathering, and the seige
that was coming was foreseeable, and it didn't look like Gondor would win
that one. And there was a general consensus that Minus Trithe was the last
stand against Sauron, and once it fell the rest of Middle Earth was
doomed. It was hopeless for him, and he saw the ring as a way to defeat
Sauron.
In his death, Boromir confesses to Aragorn. He didn't do what he did
to be remembered as being a great hero. With the confession in place, he's
pretty much made himself a villain who betrayed the fellowship. What he
did was a pure act of redemption and proof of his worth and lineage.
Aragorn, OTOH, doesn't mention the confession. He hides it. He wants
Boromir to be remembered as the great hero of Gondor who sacraficed
himself for the fellowship, without the stain on his reputation. Aragorn
is conceding the fact that Boromir was, despite everything else, a noble
hero, even considering the betrayal.
> Now that we are talking about I-wish-it-had-been-in-the-movie, I
> wish Jackson hadn't cut out The Gifts...that's such an important
> insight into the characters...damn movie studios (The Gifts is
> filmed, but was cut because the studio imposed a length limit on the
> movie...I hope it's one of the parts that's making it back into the
> DVDs)
The one cut that I think is really going to screw things up is the
fact that they didn't set Sarumoun up. What I think is going to happen is
instead of him being a wild card they're just going to make him an
arch-henchman of Sauron.
> > And pretty much all of that is lost in the movie. There's a lot to
the
> > other characters which is lost in the movie too. Honestly though, most
of
> > the good stuff is in the first book. Although the second book has that
> > great scene where Theodin rides into battle, and the third book when
Merry
> > proves himself during the seige on Minus Trithe.
>
> I hope Legolas and Gimil get their parts in TTT...I want to see them
> calling each other on the number of deaths :)
I think these two have already been screwed. They didn't really
comment on the prejudice they had for each other when they first met. So
the friendship isn't really as significant. In the book, it's a sign that
Middle Earth is leaving the dark period of the third age. In the second
age, when things were good, the Elves and the Dwarves were at peace. In
the third age they had a certain contempt for each because of past events,
each side painting the other as the villain. That was left out too, which
I thought added a lot to the story, especially Gandalf's remark that he's
heard both stories before and he doesn't believe either one is true.
Rob
news:aa35hb$7d02h$1...@ID-102613.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I think we got enough of an insight into the character of Boromir,
barely
> enough, but it matched with what I remembered reading. The only thing he
was
> really good at was fighting - hence the training the hobbits scene and
the
> piles of dead orcs.
I don't think he was all about fighting. That's what the movie tried
to portray him as because it was the easiest way to wrap up the character
as quickly as possible. And with two and a half hours of fight scenes in a
three hour movie, there's not even time for the really big characters to
develop, let alone someone like Boromir.
> In terms of his peoples history and that of the other cultures he has a
very
> narrow view. He still wants the ring for himself, or humans at least, to
> make the the best race. completely ignoring what went on before (sword
and
> ring stealing scenes).
He's not out to become the best race. He sees the battle of Gondor vs.
Mordor as hopeless. Gondor has a pretty good idea that the Orc armies are
gathering. Rohan has been staying nuetral. Gondor is fighting multiple
battles and can't send the neccessary support to Minus Trithe. And Sauron
has cut off the routes to gain reinforcements to the South. Meanwhile the
men of the North are pretty much scattered and without a ruler. And the
Elves and the Dwarves have their own problems. To top it all off he's
found out that Isengard has turned. And he has no idea about the Ents. The
situation is becoming hopeless, and a lot of people agree that if Minus
Trithe falls, the rest of Middle Earth will follow. He sees the ring as
the last hope for humanity, and dwarfanity, elfanity, and hobbitanity.
He doesn't trust elves or dwarves and yet he knows
> almost nothing of them, hobbits barely rate a mention in his worldview.
This is more to do with his demographics. Dwarves and Elves were only
in the north, and he was from the south. They think Elves are evil down
there (listen to what Rohan has to say on the subject), and they haven't
had very much experiences with Dwarves either. Hobbits really don't get
that much of a world view. With the exception of Bilbo, it's been a few
hundred years before a Hobbit had any influence outside of the Shire in
the Nothern part of Middle Earth, let alone in the south by Gondor.
> The only thing he knows well is fighting and he is good at that. This
blinds
> him to the possibility that there may be another way to defeat Sauron
> besides mountains of dead orcs, goblins and other assorted evil beasts.
The whole taking the ring into the mountains thing was more of a last
ditch suicide mission than a real hope, and he saw that. What he didn't
see was that using the ring would only create another great evil as it
destroyed Sauron. He can deal with that problem when it comes, but Sauron
must be defeated or nothing else really matters. And there's a lot of
people that would agree with Boromir's opinion.
The
> fact that his advisers seem next to useless in the Council session is
> another symptom of how uninspired the human leaders have become.
I don't remember him having advisors at the Council of Elrond. I'm
pretty sure he came alone. Anyways, it wasn't just the humans that were
having leadership problems. The Elves and the Dwarves, and even the
Hobbits were having issues through out the entire third age.
> I think the emotional impact of his death scene does convey, to me at
least,
> that he had seen the error of his ways and if he could have been healed
> would have been a much stronger character.
I don't think the movie really brought that out. I don't think the
true error of his ways was ever really even mentioned. If he would have
healed, I don't think that he would have been anything more than a tag
along to the great figures of the Fellowship. By that point, he realizes
there really isn't anything he can contribute, except his final sacrifice.
And that is what brings him up to the level of the fellowship.
Nicholas Knight
>
> Mmmm...I have to disagree with you on this...yes, the descriptions
> could have been shortened, but...400 pages total? nah, not
> enough. I'm not sure what you mean by sixth book, if the fight at
> the Shire or the historical Addendum...if you mean the fight at the
> Shire, you'll be a very happy guy when RotK comes to a theater near
> you (I won't give out plot unless asked...it mods TTT *and* RotK)
Something tells me I'm going to be more pissed than I was at how FOTR was
done.
I'd love to see any details you have on what Jackson did to TTT and ROTK,
please feel free to post them. Or just email them to me, my email address
is fully intact in the headers. nkn...@pocketinet.com
Nicholas Knight
> Nicholas Knight <nkn...@pocketinet.com> writes:
<spoiler barrier left in place incase anyone does something dumb :P>
>> Something tells me I'm going to be more pissed than I was at how FOTR was
>> done.
>
> I know I was pissed when I heard about it...I can understand why
> he's doing it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
>
> BIG POSSIBLE SPOILER BELLOW!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I'd love to see any details you have on what Jackson did to TTT and ROTK,
>> please feel free to post them. Or just email them to me, my email address
>
> Saruman will be the Main Bad Guy for TTT, he won't be
> captured-and-let-go by Gandalf and the Ents...he'll be destroyed
> during the taking of the tower (gdamn, I hate it when names escape
> me) which will be the climatic-destruction-of-evil of TTT.
>
Off in the distance, you hear a wail like the screams of one 16 year old
that just developed the lung capacity of 8^10*3 athletes.
> And... since there's no Saruman and no gift of blessed earth to
> Sam, the ending of RotK won't be the battle of the Shire...it'll all
> be over when they defeat Sauron by destroying the ring. Yes, Merry,
> Pippin and Sam will still be heroes for what they did to save the
> Middle Earth...but they won't get a chance to be real heroes and
> save their own land.
Ugh :/
I loved the battle of the Shire part... When I hit the part where the Sauron
and the Ring were destroyed, I thought "OK, that's it? Well, that
figures... wait... there's a whole bunch more pages here... what's next?"
And then there was much rejoicing after I turned a few pages.
>
> Mind you, this is not all *hard* facts given by Jackson...it's just
> stuff that has been going through the tolkien-fans grapevine...but
> it sounds too plausible, from what's happened so far in FotR, to not
> believe it.
>
Way too plausible. If it diverges from this in the slightest, I'll be
surprised.
BASTARDS!! YOU BLEW IT UP!
Dalai Lama
<maje...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> If the book is recent, I can understand the bias part, if the book is
>> quite old, than the amount of bias will be lessened considerably.
> Exactly how old do you mean? American-centric, revisionist history is
>present in *all* American history books,
Revisionist history isn't limited to America, nor even to the past
milennia. The practice of revising the past to suit the current
rulers' needs has been going on longer than we have had writing.
Three year olds practice it as well.
What I am referring to is not the general consensus, misinformed
history books, but the past three decades of blatant and willful
disregard for any attempt at following historical data, with the sole
intent of advancing a counterculture agenda.
Let me put it a bit more succintly. Current revisonist history would
be prosecutable as treason in many countries and rightly so. It is
nothing less than an attempt to hijack the next generation of voters.
Facts are secondary to ideology. Conclusions are drawn on data that
the students never see, and those conclusions are not ones that
reasonable people would make based on the information. Advertising
has more truth in it than current revisionist history does.
>regardless of age; the only difference is the exact slant.
While older histories might be out of level, they degree of slant on
current ones should classify them as thrill rides.
>If anything, older (to a point) books are
>worse, as the effort to avoid racist
Racism? What if the current Vegan thinking takes root and flourishes
in future academic circles? Do you think of yourself as a cruel
monster devouring and abusing helpless animals for your personal
pleasure? Future Vegan history revisions could very well consider
you such a monster.
History must be understood in context. If you try to apply today's
morals to the time period lived, you will seldom arrive at an
agreement. The less than equal treatment of other peoples (not
limited to race by any means) was a product of the times, and a
reflection of a society that didn't understand itself or its
constituents very well. It is easy to fear and hate that which is
different. When people begin to understand that the commonalities
are greater than the differences than the mistrust and the anger wil
subside-get a couple moms of different backgrounds together talking
about the tribulations of rasing infants and toddlers for example.
When the understanding is there, but a personal rejection takes place
anyways, and there isn't a strong personal experience causing it, than
it becomes racism. Otherwise, what you are referring to racism is
just xenophobism, which most people practice on a daily basis with one
group or another.
>and misogynist biases usually wasn't
>made.
Misogyny? Do you mean the feminazi spun misintrepreted slur of the
definition of the real deal? Woman hating is not common in history
books. Was there a specified role for women that was advocated in
previous history books? Most certainly, just as there is today. The
current roles touted in books offer more diversity, but they are by no
means less insistant. The roles advocated were not done so out of
hatred for women, anymore than the roles advocated for students to go
to school were done out of a hatred for kids. Annoying to women who
wanted to break out of the stereotypes? You betcha. Intentionally
devised out of hatred? Nope, not even close.
Misandry, on the other hand, happens far more frequently than
misogyny. Misandry is not only alive and well, but is a revered
practice among American women.
This will be fixed in future revisionist history books where the
blatant Carnivorous and Misandrist biases are cleaned up no?
The simplicity of the matter is that older books correspond more
accurately with the facts available at the time than newer ones do.
--
Rob
> "Rob" <r...@lvcm.com> writes:
>
> Mmmm...I have to disagree with you on this...yes, the descriptions
> could have been shortened, but...400 pages total? nah, not
> enough.
Somewhere between 4-500 pages (And I'm being generous) is about how
much of the trilogy isn't some long boring description. I know at least
half of that thing was just unneccesary description.
I'm not sure what you mean by sixth book, if the fight at
> the Shire or the historical Addendum...if you mean the fight at the
> Shire, you'll be a very happy guy when RotK comes to a theater near
> you (I won't give out plot unless asked...it mods TTT *and* RotK)
> and if you mean the Addendum...I'd kill you :P The Addendum is a
> great book all on its own right...hell, I've gone back to re-read
> just that part a bunch of times :)
I wasn't even including the Addendum, because it really isn't part of
the story. It is nice though. As for the sixth book, the trilogy was
originally meant to be six books, and most of the versions should have
them split that way. First book - up until Frodo reached Rivendale. Second
book - Forming and breaking of the fellowship, third book - Adventures of
Aragorn, Gandalf, Pippen, Merry, Gimli, and Legolas, pretty much the
battle at Isengard, fourth book - Sam and Frodo's journey through Mordor,
Fifth book, Siege of Minus Trithe, Battle at the gates of Mordor, the
final destination of the ring, Sixth book - The eagles saving Sam and
Frodo on.
I think one of the good things about the sixth book was the taking of
the Shire. But there's not much more in there. Most of it is descriptions
of celebrations and people coming and going. There's like over a hundred
pages of that stuff, and it's pretty much the epilogue. It really
should've been trimmed.
> > > Boromir is the lesser of them all...hell, even Pippin and Merry
are
> > > higher men than he is. And, of course, Boromir's brother (whose
name
> > > escapes me right now) is way better suited to be Aragorn's steward
> > > than Boromir ever was.
> >
> > Pippin and Merry were of the noble Took lineage, and Merry also of
the
> > Brandybuck lineage, but Boromir was of a much higher status. Later
they
> > prove themselves as a knight of Gondor and a rider of Rohan
respectively,
> > but that doesn't occur until after Boromir's death.
>
> Noble status means nothing when it comes to greatness, to being a
> high men (at least not in the way I was using that expression)...I
> mean spiritual/moral quality.
In that case I don't think we really can measure Boromir. I mean, if
we aren't going on some skill or trait or lineage, just spiritual/moral
quality. I really don't see Pippen as being any better than Boromir, in
fact they parallel. Pippen makes a lot of mistakes through out the
journey, and is constantly being yelled at. Just like Boromir he's
curropted by the Plantir. And in the end he does sacrafice himself at the
gates of Mordor, although Gimli saves him. And Pippen, by the end, is a
pretty big and strong hobbit.
And, I mean, Boromir isn't being evil or selfish or anything. I
understand where he's coming from most of the time. He doesn't have the
added benefit of the reader in realizing all the different things that are
going on.
> He is not a bad person, at least in my book...but he's not up to the
> quality level of the rest of the Fellowship, no matter what he
> thinks. He has no real concept of the size of the problem, even if
> everybody explained it to him, nor of what the Ring really means,
> even if everybody explained it to him.
I'll agree that as far as the fellowship goes, he's pretty much the
weak link, or the tag along guy, out of the all of them. He wasn't made of
the right stuff to be a legendary hero. But I do think his final sacrafice
is his way of proving his worth. After all, Merry and Pippen would never
of done what they did had Boromir not died for them first.
> > The one cut that I think is really going to screw things up is the
> > fact that they didn't set Sarumoun up. What I think is going to happen
is
> > instead of him being a wild card they're just going to make him an
> > arch-henchman of Sauron.
>
> <sigh> Sauroman is...the biggest problem Jackson has on the
> series...he'll be the great success for TTT for the general
> public...but most purists are going to want to kill Jackson after
> watching what he had to do in TTT with Sauroman.
I read what you said. So far, what I've seen of Sauromon, has pretty
muched killed the character into some sort of cliche. That's what Jackson
seemed to do with most of Tolkiens characters. Hobbits are little, there
for they're the weak timid race that needs to be taken care of. Tolkien
OTOH invisioned hobbits as being heroic and noble and made of the same
stuff as men. The only reason the hobbits are only portrayed as having
been sheltered for a long while, since Gandalf ordered the Rangers to
protect the borders of the Shire. Tolkien doesn't make them into something
like the little people of Willow. The rest of the characters are pretty
much the same. I don't think there's one in there that can't easily be put
into an AD&D cliche.
> > I think these two have already been screwed. They didn't really
> > comment on the prejudice they had for each other when they first met.
So
> > the friendship isn't really as significant. In the book, it's a sign
that
>
> I have to agree on this...but they still can be rescued, or so I hope.
I doubt it. They're only present because they appear in the book. To
me Jackson has pretty much turned LOTR into one big fantasy fight scene
after another. Gimli will forever be known as the short guy with an axe,
and Legolas as the pretty-boy with a bow. Merry and Pippen are there to
serve as the comic relief. Gandalf as the know it all, Aragorn as the
hero, Boromir, as Cameron pegged him, the guy who's into fighting, and
Frodo and Sam as the little guys who, quoting directly from the movie,
prove "Even the smallest person can change the course of the world"
Cameron
> I don't think he was all about fighting. That's what the movie tried
> to portray him as because it was the easiest way to wrap up the character
> as quickly as possible. And with two and a half hours of fight scenes in a
> three hour movie, there's not even time for the really big characters to
> develop, let alone someone like Boromir.
>
if they put in all the talking and minimised the combat scenes. Deciding
which scenes to use is a difficult balancing act that's always going to
disappoint someone, especially if characters they like become less complex.
> He's not out to become the best race. He sees the battle of Gondor vs.
> Mordor as hopeless. Gondor has a pretty good idea that the Orc armies are
> gathering. Rohan has been staying neutral. Gondor is fighting multiple
> battles and can't send the necessary support to Minus Trithe. And Sauron
> has cut off the routes to gain reinforcements to the South. Meanwhile the
> men of the North are pretty much scattered and without a ruler. And the
> Elves and the Dwarves have their own problems. To top it all off he's
> found out that Isengard has turned. And he has no idea about the Ents. The
> situation is becoming hopeless, and a lot of people agree that if Minus
> Trithe falls, the rest of Middle Earth will follow. He sees the ring as
> the last hope for humanity, and dwarfanity, elfanity, and hobbitanity.
>
I think I was trying to say that and he sees a final (glorious) hopeless
battle as the only option without it. Probably with himself in command,
although who would record his efforts is a moot point.
> He doesn't trust elves or dwarves and yet he knows
> > almost nothing of them, hobbits barely rate a mention in his worldview.
>
> This is more to do with his demographics. Dwarves and Elves were only
> in the north, and he was from the south. They think Elves are evil down
> there (listen to what Rohan has to say on the subject), and they haven't
> had very much experiences with Dwarves either. Hobbits really don't get
> that much of a world view. With the exception of Bilbo, it's been a few
> hundred years before a Hobbit had any influence outside of the Shire in
> the Nothern part of Middle Earth, let alone in the south by Gondor.
>
Not sure on the elves demographics, but either way he doesn't feel either
dwarves or elves can be called upon to help turn back the tides of darkness
yet. The why doesn't concern him, just the actions or lack thereof.
What's happening on the rest of the planet we'll never know. (An Australian
perspective on what seems a very Eurocentric struggle - the entire world
should not be one continent - an anachronistic thought I know :-) )
> The whole taking the ring into the mountains thing was more of a last
> ditch suicide mission than a real hope, and he saw that. What he didn't
> see was that using the ring would only create another great evil as it
> destroyed Sauron. He can deal with that problem when it comes, but Sauron
> must be defeated or nothing else really matters. And there's a lot of
> people that would agree with Boromir's opinion.
>
> The
> > fact that his advisers seem next to useless in the Council session is
> > another symptom of how uninspired the human leaders have become.
>
> I don't remember him having advisors at the Council of Elrond. I'm
> pretty sure he came alone. Anyways, it wasn't just the humans that were
> having leadership problems. The Elves and the Dwarves, and even the
> Hobbits were having issues through out the entire third age.
>
The way the humans were arranged at the council made me think that Boromir's
father had sent along a few old men to help him in any negotiations. If they
were from kingdoms other than Gondor, which is equally likely, then why none
of them turned up without a champion I don't know. Another symptom of the
Age perhaps.
> > I think the emotional impact of his death scene does convey, to me at
> least,
> > that he had seen the error of his ways and if he could have been healed
> > would have been a much stronger character.
>
> I don't think the movie really brought that out. I don't think the
> true error of his ways was ever really even mentioned. If he would have
> healed, I don't think that he would have been anything more than a tag
> along to the great figures of the Fellowship. By that point, he realizes
> there really isn't anything he can contribute, except his final sacrifice.
> And that is what brings him up to the level of the fellowship.
>
>
Maybe I was reading more into the acting abilities than you were, the
impression I got was that, this time he realised that not only had he been
tempted by the ring again,but had lost the trust of the remainder of the
Fellowship. It's that revulsion at what he's done that made me feel his
sense of honour would have been stronger than the temptation to take the
ring. Perhaps some physical distance would have helped, but a diversionary
orc slaying mission (with shield in hand) would have made a difference later
on for the Ringbearer.
However, I should stop trying to rewrite the books at this point.
Cameron