[NEWS] -- Serenity Takes Off Soon
Stan Jensen
Joss Whedon - who is directing Serenity, a movie version of his SF western
TV series Firefly - told SCI FI Wire that he will begin production in three
weeks, with all of the original cast members in place, led by Nathan
Fillion. Compared with the Fox series, the movie will be "bigger, faster,
stronger," Whedon said in an interview at the Saturn Awards in Los Angeles.
"The show plays on a very small, personal level. And while I want that to
work in the movie, the movie has an epic quality and a resolve that you
simply can't afford in a TV show. Because if you have the epic quality, you
run out of money, and if you have the resolve, you run out of ideas. ...
The movie is really like, if you took a giant hit of the show all at once.
It's very big. Perhaps I should use different imagery."
Whedon added that the movie will wrap up story points left dangling when
Fox unceremoniously canceled the show in the middle of its first season.
"It won't wrap up all the storylines," he said. "It's not a miniseries.
It's a movie. But it does deal with some of the outstanding questions of
the show. Like River [Summer Glau]. River is a very important question in
the show."
Whedon added that the movie will be shot in Los Angeles on all-new sets.
"They're a little grander in scale," he said. "They're a little more
movie-like. ... Everything outside of Serenity is a place we haven't
visited and people we've not seen, but it is the world that was from the
show." Serenity is aiming at a 2005 release.
ToolPackinMama
>
> Serenity Takes Off Soon
Weeeeeeee! :D The sooner, the better.
--
http://www.trumpfiresbush.com/ - Make it so.
Jonathan
"Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
news:gkml90p5n4ug9kt29...@4ax.com...
So, when does the sequel start filming?
Jonathan
Captain Nerd
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
> news:gkml90p5n4ug9kt29...@4ax.com...
> > Serenity Takes Off Soon
> >
> >
> > Whedon added that the movie will be shot in Los Angeles on all-new sets.
> > "They're a little grander in scale," he said. "They're a little more
> > movie-like. ... Everything outside of Serenity is a place we haven't
> > visited and people we've not seen, but it is the world that was from the
> > show." Serenity is aiming at a 2005 release.
>
> So, when does the sequel start filming?
>
Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
the Rings" style.
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
Jonathan
"Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
news:cptnerd-9F8869...@news-50.sjc.giganews.com...
> In article <YgDmc.14919368$Of.24...@news.easynews.com>,
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Stan Jensen" <sp...@wonderful.spam> wrote in message
> > news:gkml90p5n4ug9kt29...@4ax.com...
> > > Serenity Takes Off Soon
> > >
> > >
> > > Whedon added that the movie will be shot in Los Angeles on all-new
sets.
> > > "They're a little grander in scale," he said. "They're a little more
> > > movie-like. ... Everything outside of Serenity is a place we haven't
> > > visited and people we've not seen, but it is the world that was from
the
> > > show." Serenity is aiming at a 2005 release.
> >
> > So, when does the sequel start filming?
> >
>
> Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> the Rings" style.
>
Actually, I was thinking the same thing...
However, they would have to make a 100 or so to keep me satisfied...
Jonathan
Opus the Penguin
> Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> the Rings" style.
That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
fourth one will be like.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Jonathan
"Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4...
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > the Rings" style.
>
> That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> fourth one will be like.
>
I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
Jonathan
Captain Nerd
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
And Titanic: The Series.
Nat and Al Enquirer
>
> > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > the Rings" style.
>
> That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> fourth one will be like.
We understand it will be about three and one-half hours of grass growing in
Hobbiton.
--
Respectfully,
_////|\\\\_
(-)= )|( =(-)
/ / | \ \
(_ ) | ( _)
//// | \\\\
(_____|_____)
Nat and Al
We are Nat and Al Enquirer, and we approved this post.
Rocky Frisco
>>That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
>>fourth one will be like.
> I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
When they released "The Madness of King George III" people were going to
the video stores wanting to rent I and II. ;)
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
JJ Cale Live CD and video: http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Wednesday Night Science Project: http://www.wednitesciproj.us
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
Jonathan
"Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
news:CxSmc.44871$Fl5.13029@okepread04...
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> >>That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> >>fourth one will be like.
>
> > I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
>
> When they released "The Madness of King George III" people were going to
> the video stores wanting to rent I and II. ;)
>
Actually, I am still waiting for History of the World Part II...
Jonathan
Opus the Penguin
> Jonathan wrote:
>
>>>That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what
>>>the fourth one will be like.
>
>> I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
>
> When they released "The Madness of King George III" people were
> going to the video stores wanting to rent I and II. ;)
I still want to know what happened in Malcolm I - IX.
Jonathan
C.O.Jones
Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > the Rings" style.
>
> That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> fourth one will be like.
It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
has already talked about doing it, I believe.
CoJ
Hank Tiffany
Wouldn't that be a remake of "Wake Island"(1942)?
Hank
--
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
Hank Tiffany
> In article <rVPmc.14866694$Id.24...@news.easynews.com>,
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4...
> > > Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > > > the Rings" style.
> > >
> > > That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> > > fourth one will be like.
> > >
> >
> > I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
>
> And Titanic: The Series.
Olympic: Titanics Older Sister.
Hank Tiffany
> "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4...
> > Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > > the Rings" style.
> >
> > That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> > fourth one will be like.
>
> We understand it will be about three and one-half hours of grass growing in
> Hobbiton.
Actually there's tons of things it could be:
1) The Hobbit
2) probably 4 or 5 movies could be done from individual stories
included in The Sillmarillion or The Book Of Lost Tales (earlier
version of TS, more detail)
3) probably at least 10 good movies contained in various incomplete
stories (Unfinished Tales) or hinted at in the Appendices of LOTR:
a) The ship kings of Nuemenor
b) The Fall of Nuemenor
c) The Forging of The Rings and the Destruction of Hollin.
d) The Last Alliance
e) The Division of Arnor and the wars it led to
f) The wars with Angbad
g) The Fall of Arnor
h) The Kin-strife of Gondor
i) The assault of the Wain Riders upon Gondor
j) Eorel's ride and the oath of Cirion
k) The earlier travels of Aragorn, including his service in
Rohan & Gondor as a young man.
l) The Dwarf/Orc war
4) And, if you insist on a true sequel, there is quite a bit
about the further doings of the members of the Fellowship
in the appendices too, including a strong hint that Aragorn &
Eomer went about trashing various countries that bordered
Gondor to the East & South.
What is truly sad is I just did all that from memory.
Hank, who really wishes Prof Tolkien had written down some of the
other stories instead of writing The Sillmarillion ones up to
4 times! (Originals 1918-1925, rewritten 1930, 1936, 1950's)
Hank Tiffany
You've got causality reversed there, LOTR(1953) is the sequel to
The Hobbit(1936)
Hank
Don Sample
Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Nat and Al Enquirer wrote:
>
> > "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4...
> > > Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > > > the Rings" style.
> > >
> > > That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> > > fourth one will be like.
> >
> > We understand it will be about three and one-half hours of grass growing in
> > Hobbiton.
>
> Actually there's tons of things it could be:
>
> 1) The Hobbit
Jackson is planning to make it as soon as everyone is finished fighting
over who owns the rights to it. (Jackson, and New Line Cinema have the
rights to *make* it, but MGM has the rights to *distribute* it.)
Jonathan
"C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote in message
news:070520041433094310%ap...@solidbrass.com...
Great... Because another 3 and a half hours of that is just what the planet
needs...
Jonathan
C.O.Jones
Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> xOn Fri, 7 May 2004, C.O.Jones wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4>, Opus the
> > Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > > > the Rings" style.
> > >
> > > That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> > > fourth one will be like.
> >
> > It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
> > has already talked about doing it, I believe.
>
> You've got causality reversed there, LOTR(1953) is the sequel to
> The Hobbit(1936)
>
> Hank
Check your dictionary, Hank. That's what I said.
(prequel: A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes,
introduces, or leads up to a later work.)
CoJ
Slayah
That's no joke, I feel the same way.
Nat and Al Enquirer
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0405071446500.423-100000@davidt...
> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Nat and Al Enquirer wrote:
-- snip -- The following has to to with previous comments made (mostly in
jest we think) about additional "Lord of the Rings" movies
> Actually there's tons of things it could be:
>
> 1) The Hobbit
We vote for that.
> 2) probably 4 or 5 movies could be done from individual stories
> included in The Sillmarillion or The Book Of Lost Tales (earlier
> version of TS, more detail)
Is there really enough interest in these to justify a treatment? They may
actually make better movies than they made reading liturature.
> 3) probably at least 10 good movies contained in various incomplete
> stories (Unfinished Tales) or hinted at in the Appendices of LOTR:
> a) The ship kings of Nuemenor
> b) The Fall of Nuemenor
> c) The Forging of The Rings and the Destruction of Hollin.
> d) The Last Alliance
> e) The Division of Arnor and the wars it led to
> f) The wars with Angbad
> g) The Fall of Arnor
> h) The Kin-strife of Gondor
> i) The assault of the Wain Riders upon Gondor
> j) Eorel's ride and the oath of Cirion
> k) The earlier travels of Aragorn, including his service in
> Rohan & Gondor as a young man.
> l) The Dwarf/Orc war
The fact they never made a finished product does not bode well for a real
market for such reel realization.
> 4) And, if you insist on a true sequel, there is quite a bit
> about the further doings of the members of the Fellowship
> in the appendices too, including a strong hint that Aragorn &
> Eomer went about trashing various countries that bordered
> Gondor to the East & South.
Treated in summary form because they didn't have the same substance as the
two big stories.
> What is truly sad is I just did all that from memory.
The angels are weeping for you. (We figured out how to write our true name
in Silvan Elvish script when we were in Junion High School (early sixties).
Don't feel so bad.
Jonathan
"Slayah" <Sla...@hellmouth.com> wrote in message
news:c7hi0...@drn.newsguy.com...
I wasn't joking...
A trilogy is only going to be a tease for me.
Jonathan
Nat and Al Enquirer
news:9wUmc.4022825$iA2.4...@news.easynews.com...
>
> "C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote in message
> news:070520041433094310%ap...@solidbrass.com...
> > In article <Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4>, Opus the
-- snip --
> > It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
> > has already talked about doing it, I believe.
> >
>
> Great... Because another 3 and a half hours of that is just what the
planet
> needs...
We agree. We would really like to see that, too.
Oh....wait...you didn't mean that would be a good thing, did you?
Jonathan
"Nat and Al Enquirer"
<Nat_and_A...@no.public.email.please.reply.in.group> wrote in message
news:M2Zmc.55741$Xj6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9wUmc.4022825$iA2.4...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote in message
> > news:070520041433094310%ap...@solidbrass.com...
> > > In article <Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4>, Opus
the
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
> > > has already talked about doing it, I believe.
> > >
> >
> > Great... Because another 3 and a half hours of that is just what the
> planet
> > needs...
>
> We agree. We would really like to see that, too.
>
> Oh....wait...you didn't mean that would be a good thing, did you?
>
No, I didn't...
I have never been a big 'fantasy' fan... I like the ships, the firefights
and the technology... The Two Towers bored the crap out of me... That siege
was like sitting through an episode of Friends (OK, it wasn't THAT bad...)
Jonathan
Anton Sherwood
>>> It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
>>> has already talked about doing it, I believe.
> Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>> You've got causality reversed there, LOTR(1953) is the sequel to
>> The Hobbit(1936)
C.O.Jones wrote:
> Check your dictionary, Hank. That's what I said.
> (prequel: A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes,
> introduces, or leads up to a later work.)
Yabbut in reality the word "prequel" implies something published (and
probably conceived) after the material that it internally precedes.
Thus _Enterprise_ is a prequel to the previous _Star Trek_ canon,
but STOS is not a prequel to STNG.
--
Anton Sherwood (prepend "1" to address)
http://www.ogre.nu/
Anton Sherwood
>>> I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
> Captain Nerd wrote:
>> And Titanic: The Series.
Hank Tiffany wrote:
> Olympic: Titanics Older Sister.
The King and II
Anton Sherwood
> When they released "The Madness of King George III" people were
> going to the video stores wanting to rent I and II. ;)
I am acquainted with someone who once had a job writing scripts for
educational cassette tapes, for folks who like to get a bit of erudition
as they drive; read by voices that you'd recognize very quickly (if you
were alive then). One of the narrators, reading for the series on the
American Independence period, kept saying "King George Three." The
writer, my informant, nudged the producer with increasing urgency.
Eventually the producer stopped the tape and said, "Mr. Most Trusted
Voice In America, could we have an alternate read on that?"
Thirsty Viking
"Nat and Al Enquirer"
<Nat_and_A...@no.public.email.please.reply.in.group> wrote in message
> "Hank Tiffany" <dav...@cet.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0405071446500.423-100000@davidt...
> > On Fri, 7 May 2004, Nat and Al Enquirer wrote:
> > 3) probably at least 10 good movies contained in various incomplete
> > stories (Unfinished Tales) or hinted at in the Appendices of LOTR:
> > a) The ship kings of Nuemenor
> > b) The Fall of Nuemenor
> > c) The Forging of The Rings and the Destruction of Hollin.
> > d) The Last Alliance
> > e) The Division of Arnor and the wars it led to
> > f) The wars with Angbad
> > g) The Fall of Arnor
> > h) The Kin-strife of Gondor
> > i) The assault of the Wain Riders upon Gondor
> > j) Eorel's ride and the oath of Cirion
> > k) The earlier travels of Aragorn, including his service in
> > Rohan & Gondor as a young man.
> > l) The Dwarf/Orc war
>
> The fact they never made a finished product does not bode well for a real
> market for such reel realization.
Actually it makes it better, you don't have people carping about artistic
license because it is filling GAPS instead of rewriting the story ...
Anduril for instance and the elven army at helms deep.
Anton Sherwood
> Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> the Rings" style.
Funny, not too long ago you'd have cited "Back to the Future".
Kristy Henscheid
>> Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
>> the Rings" style.
Make a whole buncha' episodes, and then when they get yanked from air,
release them to DVD? Okay! ;-)
>That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
>fourth one will be like.
Hee--I keep thinking they could have ended this one, er, up on the
helipad (hopefully that's spoiler-free enough for RotK-virgins, just
in case), and then done LotR IV: The Endings.
Kristy
"There are many Antilles, but there is only one Wedge."
http://www.terra-group.org/afw
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~khensche
Captain Nerd
Anton Sherwood <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> >> "Jonathan" wrote:
> >>> I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
>
> > Captain Nerd wrote:
> >> And Titanic: The Series.
>
> Hank Tiffany wrote:
> > Olympic: Titanics Older Sister.
>
> The King and II
ROTFL!
Captain Nerd
Anton Sherwood <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> Captain Nerd wrote:
> > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> > the Rings" style.
>
> Funny, not too long ago you'd have cited "Back to the Future".
Actually I would have cited "The Three Musketeers."
I'm old, you see.
George W. Harris
:In article <109ov9n...@corp.supernews.com>,
: Anton Sherwood <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
:
:> Captain Nerd wrote:
:> > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
:> > the Rings" style.
:>
:> Funny, not too long ago you'd have cited "Back to the Future".
:
: Actually I would have cited "The Three Musketeers."
"The Three Musketeers" and "The Four
Musketeers" have more in common with "KIll Bill
Part I" and "Kill Bill Part II" than with the second
and third BTTF movies. Richard Lester originally
conceived and filmed them/it with the intention of
releasing them/it as a single movie, but length
considerations made that infeasible, so the movie
was split in two. In fact, there was a great deal of
legal squabbling regarding what sort of
compensation to which the cast should be entitled,
as they were only contracted and paid for one film.
:
: I'm old, you see.
:
: Cap.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* fifty states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Jay G
> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Nat and Al Enquirer wrote:
>
>> "Opus the Penguin" <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4...
>>> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time,
>>>> "Lord of the Rings" style.
>>>
>>> That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
>>> fourth one will be like.
>>
>> We understand it will be about three and one-half hours of grass
>> growing in Hobbiton.
>
> Actually there's tons of things it could be:
>
> 1) The Hobbit
Most likely, since this is the only other Tolkien work
that anyone other than his Estate has the film rights too.
> 2) probably 4 or 5 movies could be done from individual stories
> included in The Sillmarillion or The Book Of Lost Tales (earlier
> version of TS, more detail)
The film rights for all of Tolkien's other works are owned by
his Estate, and Christopher Tolkien has said in no uncertain
words that he's not selling them, for any price. He's against
any film adaptation of JRR Tolkien's works.
> 3) probably at least 10 good movies contained in various incomplete
> stories (Unfinished Tales) or hinted at in the Appendices of LOTR:
The Appendices are fair game, but if it's only hinted at in there, it's
unlikely that they could flesh out a full movie without the info from
the other works.
> 4) And, if you insist on a true sequel, there is quite a bit
> about the further doings of the members of the Fellowship
> in the appendices too, including a strong hint that Aragorn &
> Eomer went about trashing various countries that bordered
> Gondor to the East & South.
New Line does own the rights to make a sequel, but the question
would be if they could make an interesting and captivating one
from the little info on the protagonists that Tolkien wrote. It
seems to me that Jackson would be reluctant to make a film
based on LOTR that was largely invented.
-Jay
Linde
"George W. Harris" <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:mmlp90tjqf8ruqnge...@4ax.com...
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>
> :In article <109ov9n...@corp.supernews.com>,
> : Anton Sherwood <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> :
> :> Captain Nerd wrote:
> :> > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
> :> > the Rings" style.
> :>
> :> Funny, not too long ago you'd have cited "Back to the Future".
> :
> : Actually I would have cited "The Three Musketeers."
>
> "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four
> Musketeers" have more in common with "KIll Bill
> Part I" and "Kill Bill Part II" than with the second
> and third BTTF movies. Richard Lester originally
> conceived and filmed them/it with the intention of
> releasing them/it as a single movie, but length
> considerations made that infeasible, so the movie
> was split in two. In fact, there was a great deal of
> legal squabbling regarding what sort of
> compensation to which the cast should be entitled,
> as they were only contracted and paid for one film.
> :
> : I'm old, you see.
> :
> : Cap.
I'm there with ya. I went to the original theatrical release of these
movies when I was an adolescent then spent years looking for them on video
before I finally found them.
So far you guys are citing all the works (movie/novel etc) that I have
enjoyed myself. LOTR in particular, but many other mentions, silly and no
so silly, that I have enjoyed over the lengthy years of my life (ha ha).
Linde
Nat and Al Enquirer
news:109otjk...@corp.supernews.com...
And that was the way it was?
C.O.Jones
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> >> C.O.Jones wrote:
> >>> It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
> >>> has already talked about doing it, I believe.
>
> > Hank Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> >> You've got causality reversed there, LOTR(1953) is the sequel to
> >> The Hobbit(1936)
>
> C.O.Jones wrote:
> > Check your dictionary, Hank. That's what I said.
> > (prequel: A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes,
> > introduces, or leads up to a later work.)
>
> Yabbut in reality the word "prequel" implies something published (and
> probably conceived)
Probably, but not necessarily.
> after the material that it internally precedes.
>
> Thus _Enterprise_ is a prequel to the previous _Star Trek_ canon,
> but STOS is not a prequel to STNG.
And however you look at it, the Hobbit is considered a Prequel to the
more famous LOTR.
CoJ
Hank Tiffany
But I've always seen it used for something written *after* the
work it precedes.
Nat and Al Enquirer
-- snip --
> > Yabbut in reality the word "prequel" implies something published (and
> > probably conceived)
>
> Probably, but not necessarily.
>
> > after the material that it internally precedes.
> >
> > Thus _Enterprise_ is a prequel to the previous _Star Trek_ canon,
> > but STOS is not a prequel to STNG.
>
> And however you look at it, the Hobbit is considered a Prequel to the
> more famous LOTR.
From the current Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition
(2003):
Main Entry:prequel
Function:noun
Etymology:pre- + -quel (as in sequel)
Date:1972
: a work (as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier
work
Jay G
>
> "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four
> Musketeers" have more in common with "KIll Bill
> Part I" and "Kill Bill Part II" than with the second
> and third BTTF movies. Richard Lester originally
> conceived and filmed them/it with the intention of
> releasing them/it as a single movie, but length
> considerations made that infeasible, so the movie
> was split in two. In fact, there was a great deal of
> legal squabbling regarding what sort of
> compensation to which the cast should be entitled,
> as they were only contracted and paid for one film.
And actually, when Kill Bill underwent the split, all
the contracts had to be renegotiated for what was
now two seperate films. The clause in the contracts
that mandated this is known as "The Salkind Clause,"
after the producers of "The Three Musketeers."
-Jay
Anton Sherwood
>> Yabbut in reality the word "prequel" implies something published
>> (and probably conceived)
C.O.Jones wrote:
> Probably, but not necessarily.
>> after the material that it internally precedes.
>> Thus _Enterprise_ is a prequel to the previous _Star Trek_ canon,
>> but STOS is not a prequel to STNG.
C.O.Jones wrote:
> And however you look at it, the Hobbit is considered a Prequel
> to the more famous LOTR.
Funny, it seems to me there were words for that
before someone coined "prequel" about thirty years ago.
Did you mean to agree with me about Star Trek OS?
C.O.Jones
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
What I mean is, no matter what was written first, when Peter Jackson
makes The Hobbit, it will be referred to, in ALL publicity, as The
Prequl To Lord Of The Rings.
Once again, my American Heritage Dictionary defines preque as:
prequel n.
1. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work taking place in or concerned
with a time before the action of a preexisting work: a prequel that
featured the characters of the famous novel in their youth.
2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes, introduces,
or leads up to a later work: ³The sequel takes up right where the
prequel left off² (Washington Post). [PRE- + (SE)QUEL.]
Please note the second definition: "precedes, introduces, or leads up
to.." If that isn't The Hobbit, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
a word means.
Tim McDaniel
> I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
Captain Nerd wrote:
> And Titanic: The Series.
Hank Tiffany wrote:
> Olympic: Titanic's Older Sister.
In article <109os3a...@corp.supernews.com>,
Anton Sherwood <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> The King and II
My sister, Mary Lewis (at BB&T in NoVa), suggests
The Poseidon Adventure Continues
Romeo and Juliet II
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Beth Smarr
> "Jonathan" wrote:
>
>>I am still waiting for Pearl Harbor II
>
>
> Captain Nerd wrote:
>
>> And Titanic: The Series.
>
>
> Hank Tiffany wrote:
>
>>Olympic: Titanic's Older Sister.
>
>
> In article <109os3a...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Anton Sherwood <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
>
>>The King and II
>
>
> My sister, Mary Lewis (at BB&T in NoVa), suggests
> The Poseidon Adventure Continues
> Romeo and Juliet II
>
They did a sequel to The Poseidon Adventure Beyond the Poseidon
Adventure http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078856/ - and they are remaking
the original one http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0409182/
--
Beth
Smarr's Beanery http://members.verizon.net/~vze4cfzz/
Beth's Wallpapers http://members.verizon.net/%7Evze4cfzz/bwalls.htm
=================================
New to ABMX-H? Read the FAQ at
http://www.rocfan.net/abmxh-faq.htm
=================================
New to ABPTS-F? Read the FAQ at
http://dancingbones.org/xena/abptsff.html
=================================
New to ABPT? Read the FAQ at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/blue.magpie/abptv.htm
Hank Tiffany
As I recall myu classes in using a dictionary 35 years ago, the first
defintition is the most common one and hence the one to be given the
most weight. And since in this case the two definitions you provide
contradict each other, you arre wrong.
> And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
> a word means.
Of course a dictionary definition *is* just what one person thinks
a word means.
Hank Tiffany
>
> They did a sequel to The Poseidon Adventure Beyond the Poseidon
> Adventure http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078856/ - and they are remaking
> the original one http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0409182/
Which leads, in both cases, to the vital question: Why?
That movie was so stupid.
Anton Sherwood
> What I mean is, no matter what was written first, when Peter Jackson
> makes The Hobbit, it will be referred to, in ALL publicity, as The
> Prequl To Lord Of The Rings.
Well, I agree that *the film* will be a prequel.
Would you care to make a small bet on whether the posters say "prequel"
or "prologue"?
> Once again, my American Heritage Dictionary defines preque as:
> prequel n.
> 1. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work taking place in or concerned
> with a time before the action of a preexisting work: a prequel that
> featured the characters of the famous novel in their youth.
> 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes, introduces,
> or leads up to a later work: ³The sequel takes up right where the
> prequel left off² (Washington Post). [PRE- + (SE)QUEL.]
I don't doubt that the WaPo has writers lazy enough to use the first
word to come to mind rather than a more accurate one.
> Please note the second definition: "precedes, introduces, or leads up
> to.." If that isn't The Hobbit, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
>
> And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
> a word means.
All a dictionary can do is record usage. They've mostly given up trying
to say when one usage is preferable to another, let alone why.
I agree with H.W.Fowler (_Modern English Usage_, 1926), whose advice is
consistently useful though sometimes debatable: two words with distinct
meanings are more useful than two words with the same meaning and
therefore "it is the business of all who care for the language" to
cherish such distinctions where they exist.
C.O.Jones
Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
(Preexisting work: The Lord of the Rings MOVIE Trilogy)
> > : a prequel that
> > featured the characters of the famous novel in their youth.
(The HOBBITS? In a NEW MOVIE by Peter Jackson?)
> > 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes, introduces,
> > or leads up to a later work: „The sequel takes up right where the
> > prequel left offľ (Washington Post). [PRE- + (SE)QUEL.]
> >
> > Please note the second definition: "precedes, introduces, or leads up
> > to.." If that isn't The Hobbit, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
>
> As I recall myu classes in using a dictionary 35 years ago,
You took a CLASS in using a dictionary?
> the first
> defintition is the most common one and hence the one to be given the
> most weight. And since in this case the two definitions you provide
> contradict each other, you arre wrong.\
Pray tell, how does the second definition contradict the first? The
first is concerning the ACTION of a preexisting work: The MOVIE trilogy
of TLOTR, and the Hobbit, with Bilbo Baggins IN HIS YOUTH.
> > And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
> > a word means.
>
> Of course a dictionary definition *is* just what one person thinks
> a word means.
Actually, I believe Dictionary Definitions are defined by concensus of
a variety of people, scholars and such, not any one person, even you..
Sorry, Hank, I am not wrong on this.
(By the way, when it comes to MOVIE prequels and sequels, it DOESN'T
MATTER to the definition which source material came first.)
CoJones
C.O.Jones
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> C.O.Jones wrote:
> > What I mean is, no matter what was written first, when Peter Jackson
> > makes The Hobbit, it will be referred to, in ALL publicity, as The
> > Prequl To Lord Of The Rings.
>
> Well, I agree that *the film* will be a prequel.
Thank you.
>
> Would you care to make a small bet on whether the posters say "prequel"
> or "prologue"?
I'll make a large bet that it won't be called a sequel. Why would I
even want to bet on the usage of "prologue?"
>
> > Once again, my American Heritage Dictionary defines preque as:
> > prequel n.
> > 1. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work taking place in or concerned
> > with a time before the action of a preexisting work: a prequel that
> > featured the characters of the famous novel in their youth.
> > 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes, introduces,
> > or leads up to a later work: ³The sequel takes up right where the
> > prequel left off² (Washington Post). [PRE- + (SE)QUEL.]
>
> I don't doubt that the WaPo has writers lazy enough to use the first
> word to come to mind rather than a more accurate one.
HUH? Are you confusing a definition with an example? The Washington
Post said, ³The sequel takes up right where the prequel left off.² It
doesn't say WHAT sequel or WHAT prequil.
>
> > Please note the second definition: "precedes, introduces, or leads up
> > to.." If that isn't The Hobbit, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
> >
> > And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
> > a word means.
>
> All a dictionary can do is record usage. They've mostly given up trying
> to say when one usage is preferable to another, let alone why.
Is this what is called a "moot point?"
>
> I agree with H.W.Fowler (_Modern English Usage_, 1926), whose advice is
> consistently useful though sometimes debatable: two words with distinct
> meanings are more useful than two words with the same meaning and
> therefore "it is the business of all who care for the language" to
> cherish such distinctions where they exist.
The ONE word was prequel. You brought up "prologue" out of the blue.
I'm not disagreeing that it might be a better word, but that wasn't
ever the point.
CoJones (Who admits that he NEVER took a class on Dictionary, but does
know how to use one)
Jacey Bedford
Nat and Al Enquirer
<Nat_and_A...@no.public.email.please.reply.in.group> writes
>"Hank Tiffany" <dav...@cet.com> wrote in message
>news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0405071446500.423-100000@davidt...
>
>jest we think) about additional "Lord of the Rings" movies
>
>> Actually there's tons of things it could be:
>>
>> 1) The Hobbit
>
LOTR - the trilogy - is so precious as a piece of unrivalled cinematic
history that I can't help thinking it should be left to stand alone. I'm
not sure I want to see the Hobbit (for a start - it's a much smaller
tale and never had the emotional pull and epic sweep that LOTR had.)
I trust Peter Jackson to make a proper job of anything he attempts but I
still have this nagging doubt... even with him at the helm.
Oh-boy do I ever wish that the original Star Wars had been left as a
stand-alone trilogy and that Ursula LeGuin had never attempted to
continue the Earthsea story beyond the first trilogy.
Three's the magic number.
So I'll be happy with the Firefly cinematic trilogy at 3 hours each,
followed by seven (also a magic number) TV seasons and then we can
consider spin-off series.
Jacey
--
To send me real mail try
artisan at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
and make the subject line obviously not spam.
Don Sample
<ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote:
> In article <109stcf...@corp.supernews.com>, Anton Sherwood
> <ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
>
> >
> > All a dictionary can do is record usage. They've mostly given up trying
> > to say when one usage is preferable to another, let alone why.
>
> Is this what is called a "moot point?"
Another example of how language changes. "A moot point" used to mean
something that was too important for casual conversation. It was
something that needed careful thought and consideration.
Hank Tiffany
No, preexisting work: The Hobbit (1936)The books count, the
movies don't as far as determining order goes.
> > > : a prequel that
> > > featured the characters of the famous novel in their youth.
>
> (The HOBBITS? In a NEW MOVIE by Peter Jackson?)
Lord Of The Rings(1953/4) by JRR Tolkien. Any movie is of secondary
importance.
> > > 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes, introduces,
> > > or leads up to a later work: „The sequel takes up right where the
> > > prequel left off¾ (Washington Post). [PRE- + (SE)QUEL.]
> > >
> > > Please note the second definition: "precedes, introduces, or leads up
> > > to.." If that isn't The Hobbit, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
> >
> > As I recall myu classes in using a dictionary 35 years ago,
>
> You took a CLASS in using a dictionary?
As part of my grade school instruction, yes. They taught us how to
to use an Encyclopedia too.
> > the first
> > defintition is the most common one and hence the one to be given the
> > most weight. And since in this case the two definitions you provide
> > contradict each other, you arre wrong.\
>
> Pray tell, how does the second definition contradict the first? The
> first is concerning the ACTION of a preexisting work: The MOVIE trilogy
> of TLOTR, and the Hobbit, with Bilbo Baggins IN HIS YOUTH.
#1 cares about which was written first, #2 cares only about the
internal action. #2 is a faulty definition.
> > > And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
> > > a word means.
> >
> > Of course a dictionary definition *is* just what one person thinks
> > a word means.
>
> Actually, I believe Dictionary Definitions are defined by concensus of
> a variety of people, scholars and such, not any one person, even you..
Not according to the history of the things I learned. Ever hear of
Mr. Johnson or Mr. Webster?
> Sorry, Hank, I am not wrong on this.
Yes, you are.
> (By the way, when it comes to MOVIE prequels and sequels, it DOESN'T
> MATTER to the definition which source material came first.)
Why not? LOTR is the sequel to The Hobbit no matter which order
some hack makes movies in.
Anton Sherwood
>> Is this what is called a "moot point?"
Don Sample wrote:
> Another example of how language changes. "A moot point" used to
> mean something that was too important for casual conversation.
> It was something that needed careful thought and consideration.
? That's a new one on me.
The word _moot_ is related to _meeting_; its central(?) meaning as a
noun is roughly `council'. Next step is _moot court_, a mock court at
which law students debate hypothetical cases; and from that the common
adjectival sense of `no longer relevant'.
Anton Sherwood
> Anton Sherwood wrote:
>> Would you care to make a small bet on whether the posters
>> [for Peter Jackson's HOBBIT] say "prequel" or "prologue"?
C.O.Jones wrote:
> I'll make a large bet that it won't be called a sequel.
No bet.
> Why would I even want to bet on the usage of "prologue?"
Because it's the right word for what you want to mis-call a "prequel".
>>> Once again, my American Heritage Dictionary defines preque as:
>>> prequel n.
>>> [...]
>>> 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes,
>>> introduces, or leads up to a later work: "The sequel takes up
>>> right where the prequel left off" (Washington Post).
>>
>> I don't doubt that the WaPo has writers lazy enough to use the
>> first word to come to mind rather than a more accurate one.
>
> HUH? Are you confusing a definition with an example?
Dictionaries record usage. For any misuse of a word, you can find an
example in print. The AHD found this one in the WaPo.
> The Washington Post said, "The sequel takes up right where the
> prequel left off." It doesn't say WHAT sequel or WHAT prequil.
I assumed the WaPo citation to be from a review of a specific work.
But okay, if this sentence is part of the definition of _prequel_,
then The Hobbit cannot fit, since sixty years (including the errantries
of Thorongil and the resettlement of Moria) pass between the end of The
Hobbit and the beginning of LotR.
>> All a dictionary can do is record usage. They've mostly given up
>> trying to say when one usage is preferable to another, let alone why.
>
> Is this what is called a "moot point?"
It will be eventually, if people persist often enough in saying
"prequel" in preference to more accurate words.
>> I agree with H.W.Fowler (_Modern English Usage_, 1926), whose advice
>> is consistently useful though sometimes debatable: two words with
>> distinct meanings are more useful than two words with the same
>> meaning and therefore "it is the business of all who care for the
>> language" to cherish such distinctions where they exist.
>
> The ONE word was prequel. You brought up "prologue" out of the blue.
> I'm not disagreeing that it might be a better word, but that wasn't
> ever the point.
The existence of a word implies other words with which it contrasts.
Calling X a wrong word implies the existence of a better word. I
suggested "prologue" but nominations remain open.
Jay G
> On Sun, 9 May 2004, Beth Smarr wrote:
>
>>
>> They did a sequel to The Poseidon Adventure Beyond the Poseidon
>> Adventure http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078856/ - and they are
>> remaking the original one http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0409182/
>
>
> Which leads, in both cases, to the vital question: Why?
> That movie was so stupid.
That answer, as is the answer for most questions concerning
Hollywood, is simple: MONEY.
-Jay
Rocky Frisco
> Oh-boy do I ever wish that the original Star Wars had been left as a
> stand-alone trilogy and that Ursula LeGuin had never attempted to
> continue the Earthsea story beyond the first trilogy.
It's my sincere opinion that the third SW flick should be remade without
the Ewoks and the Blue Ghosts and the party scene. The ending of the
trilogy just effectively trashed the entire series; it was so blindingly
bad.
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
JJ Cale Live CD and video: http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Wednesday Night Science Project: http://www.wednitesciproj.us
Rocky Frisco's LIBERTY website: http://www.liberty-in-our-time.com/
Rocky Frisco
> > C.O.Jones wrote:
> >> Is this what is called a "moot point?"
>
> Don Sample wrote:
> > Another example of how language changes. "A moot point" used to
> > mean something that was too important for casual conversation.
> > It was something that needed careful thought and consideration.
>
> ? That's a new one on me.
>
> The word _moot_ is related to _meeting_; its central(?) meaning as a
> noun is roughly `council'. Next step is _moot court_, a mock court at
> which law students debate hypothetical cases; and from that the common
> adjectival sense of `no longer relevant'.
Most interesting, especially when we are discussing, among other
matters, the LOTR Trilogy, where the Entmoot was such an important event.
Rocky Frisco
> Oh-boy do I ever wish that the original Star Wars had been left as a
> stand-alone trilogy and that Ursula LeGuin had never attempted to
> continue the Earthsea story beyond the first trilogy.
>
> Three's the magic number.
I announced my novels, "Something Fishy" and "Raccoon's Law" with the
statement that they constituted a two book trilogy, purposely created to
attempt to restore balance in a universe containing far too many four
book trilogies.
George W. Harris
:Jacey Bedford wrote:
:
:> Oh-boy do I ever wish that the original Star Wars had been left as a
:> stand-alone trilogy and that Ursula LeGuin had never attempted to
:> continue the Earthsea story beyond the first trilogy.
:
:It's my sincere opinion that the third SW flick should be remade without
:the Ewoks and the Blue Ghosts and the party scene. The ending of the
:trilogy just effectively trashed the entire series; it was so blindingly
:bad.
In my ending, since Luke did succumb to
anger and used the force to attack, he killed Vader.
We don't actually see what happens next, just Luke
standing over Vader's body with the Emperor in the
background. Also, the Millenium Falcon doesn't
quite make it out of the Death Star explosion, which
kills Lando; Luke does get out, and we see him land
on the moon and exit to the party just as we do now,
except he's gone over to the dark side and kills Han
as Han comes over to greet him, and Leia then kills
Luke in an epic lightsaber duel. So the only ones to
survive are Leia, Chewbacca, R2D2 and C3PO.
:-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Don Sample
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> > C.O.Jones wrote:
> >> Is this what is called a "moot point?"
>
> Don Sample wrote:
> > Another example of how language changes. "A moot point" used to
> > mean something that was too important for casual conversation.
> > It was something that needed careful thought and consideration.
>
> ? That's a new one on me.
>
> The word _moot_ is related to _meeting_; its central(?) meaning as a
> noun is roughly `council'.
And a moot point would be something that you would talk about at the
meeting, where it could be debated and given proper consideration by
all.
Now, it has come to mean something that's to trivial to give
consideration to.
Anton Sherwood
>>> They did a sequel to The Poseidon Adventure Beyond the Poseidon
>>> Adventure http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078856/ - and they are
>>> remaking the original one http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0409182/
> Hank Tiffany wrote:
>> Which leads, in both cases, to the vital question: Why?
>> That movie was so stupid.
Jay G wrote:
> That answer, as is the answer for most questions concerning
> Hollywood, is simple: MONEY.
That answer is valid only if the flick made money. (Did it?) If not,
one may legitimately ask: Who at [studio] was so blotto as to imagine
that this would be other than a flop?
Opus the Penguin
> So I'll be happy with the Firefly cinematic trilogy at 3 hours each,
> followed by seven (also a magic number) TV seasons and then we can
> consider spin-off series.
_Inara: Madam to the Stars_, maybe?
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Al Gore
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
It was stated loosly: The expectation or HOPE (no matter how deluded)
of making Money.
Al Gore
<ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote:
> Jacey Bedford wrote:
>
> > Oh-boy do I ever wish that the original Star Wars had been left as a
> > stand-alone trilogy and that Ursula LeGuin had never attempted to
> > continue the Earthsea story beyond the first trilogy.
> >
> > Three's the magic number.
>
> I announced my novels, "Something Fishy" and "Raccoon's Law" with the
> statement that they constituted a two book trilogy, purposely created to
> attempt to restore balance in a universe containing far too many four
> book trilogies.
Not to mention the Hitchhikers Guide trilogy of, what, 5 books?
algore
C.O.Jones
Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2004, C.O.Jones wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0405091000590.320-100000@davidt>, Hank
> > Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > C.O.Jones wrote:
> > > > > > And however you look at it, the Hobbit is considered a Prequel
> > > > > > to the more famous LOTR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny, it seems to me there were words for that
> > > > > before someone coined "prequel" about thirty years ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you mean to agree with me about Star Trek OS?
> > > >
> > > > What I mean is, no matter what was written first, when Peter Jackson
> > > > makes The Hobbit, it will be referred to, in ALL publicity, as The
> > > > Prequl To Lord Of The Rings.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, my American Heritage Dictionary defines preque as:
> > > > prequel n.
> > > > 1. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work taking place in or concerned
> > > > with a time before the action of a preexisting work
> >
> > (Preexisting work: The Lord of the Rings MOVIE Trilogy)
>
> No, preexisting work: The Hobbit (1936)The books count, the
> movies don't as far as determining order goes.
The Original Statement/Question was: What MOVIE will Peter Jackson make
in the Lord of The Rings. Movie. The order that was being determined
was of MOVIES. It doesn't matter about the source material, whether it
was a book, the back of a cereal box, or a stone tablet. It's about
MOVIES.
>
> > > > : a prequel that
> > > > featured the characters of the famous novel in their youth.
> >
> > (The HOBBITS? In a NEW MOVIE by Peter Jackson?)
>
> Lord Of The Rings(1953/4) by JRR Tolkien. Any movie is of secondary
> importance.
This discussion was about MOVIES. How can they be of secondary
importance? Believe me, Hank, I know what BOOK was written first. But
untill you decided to impress us with your knowledge, we were talking
about MOVIES..
>
> > > > 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes, introduces,
> > > > or leads up to a later work: ÑThe sequel takes up right where the
> > > > prequel left offæ (Washington Post). [PRE- + (SE)QUEL.]
> > > >
> > > > Please note the second definition: "precedes, introduces, or leads up
> > > > to.." If that isn't The Hobbit, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
> > >
> > > As I recall myu classes in using a dictionary 35 years ago,
> >
> > You took a CLASS in using a dictionary?
>
> As part of my grade school instruction, yes. They taught us how to
> to use an Encyclopedia too.
I'm sure ALL of us attended some kind of grade school instruction. We
learned how to spell, too. You don't see anybody attesting to that.
>
> > > the first
> > > defintition is the most common one and hence the one to be given the
> > > most weight. And since in this case the two definitions you provide
> > > contradict each other, you arre wrong.\
> >
> > Pray tell, how does the second definition contradict the first? The
> > first is concerning the ACTION of a preexisting work: The MOVIE trilogy
> > of TLOTR, and the Hobbit, with Bilbo Baggins IN HIS YOUTH.
>
> #1 cares about which was written first, #2 cares only about the
> internal action. #2 is a faulty definition.
>
Gosh, how will American Heritage be able to live with themselves. Hank
Tiffany insists that they (just like me) are WRONG.
> > > > And usually, a dictionary definition trumps what any one person THINKS
> > > > a word means.
> > >
> > > Of course a dictionary definition *is* just what one person thinks
> > > a word means.
> >
> > Actually, I believe Dictionary Definitions are defined by concensus of
> > a variety of people, scholars and such, not any one person, even you..
>
> Not according to the history of the things I learned. Ever hear of
> Mr. Johnson or Mr. Webster?
And Betsy Ross sewed the flag all by herself. Don't be naive. Even if,
you can't really believe that Websters Dictionary is a one-person job.
Just open it up and LOOK at it.
>
> > Sorry, Hank, I am not wrong on this.
>
> Yes, you are.
Somebody is certainly wrong, Hank. As long as you don't have to admit
that it is you, the sun will continue to come up, I suppose.
>
> > (By the way, when it comes to MOVIE prequels and sequels, it DOESN'T
> > MATTER to the definition which source material came first.)
>
> Why not? LOTR is the sequel to The Hobbit no matter which order
> some hack makes movies in.
>
Whatever, Pope Hank the First.
I'm through beating this dead horse.
CoJ
C.O.Jones
<ne...@ogre.nu> wrote:
> >> C.O.Jones wrote:
>
> > Anton Sherwood wrote:
> >> Would you care to make a small bet on whether the posters
> >> [for Peter Jackson's HOBBIT] say "prequel" or "prologue"?
>
> C.O.Jones wrote:
> > I'll make a large bet that it won't be called a sequel.
>
> No bet.
>
> > Why would I even want to bet on the usage of "prologue?"
>
> Because it's the right word for what you want to mis-call a "prequel".
No, it may not be the "perfect" word, but the definition fits. I
haven't "mis-used" prequel.
>
> >>> Once again, my American Heritage Dictionary defines preque as:
> >>> prequel n.
> >>> [...]
> >>> 2. A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes,
> >>> introduces, or leads up to a later work: "The sequel takes up
> >>> right where the prequel left off" (Washington Post).
> >>
> >> I don't doubt that the WaPo has writers lazy enough to use the
> >> first word to come to mind rather than a more accurate one.
> >
> > HUH? Are you confusing a definition with an example?
>
> Dictionaries record usage. For any misuse of a word, you can find an
> example in print. The AHD found this one in the WaPo.
Another opinion that is mightier than an established, well known
business.
>
> > The Washington Post said, "The sequel takes up right where the
> > prequel left off." It doesn't say WHAT sequel or WHAT prequil.
>
> I assumed the WaPo citation to be from a review of a specific work.
> But okay, if this sentence is part of the definition of _prequel_,
> then The Hobbit cannot fit, since sixty years (including the errantries
> of Thorongil and the resettlement of Moria) pass between the end of The
> Hobbit and the beginning of LotR.
Without the happenings in the Hobbit, the LOTR could have NOT happened.
Duh. (Time IS relative)
>
>
> >> All a dictionary can do is record usage. They've mostly given up
> >> trying to say when one usage is preferable to another, let alone why.
> >
> > Is this what is called a "moot point?"
>
> It will be eventually, if people persist often enough in saying
> "prequel" in preference to more accurate words.
Another opinion on accuracy of words. Someone better call the
Washington Post, and tell them that they are not being accurate.
>
>
> >> I agree with H.W.Fowler (_Modern English Usage_, 1926), whose advice
> >> is consistently useful though sometimes debatable: two words with
> >> distinct meanings are more useful than two words with the same
> >> meaning and therefore "it is the business of all who care for the
> >> language" to cherish such distinctions where they exist.
> >
> > The ONE word was prequel. You brought up "prologue" out of the blue.
> > I'm not disagreeing that it might be a better word, but that wasn't
> > ever the point.
>
> The existence of a word implies other words with which it contrasts.
> Calling X a wrong word implies the existence of a better word. I
> suggested "prologue" but nominations remain open.
Calling an opinion a FACT doesn't make it anything but an opinion. Even
if another person agrees with it.
I'm done untill the official word is announced that Peter Jackson will
be filming a "prequel" to Lord of the Rings, as a "prologue" to that
body of work.
But please, continue to argue the point.
Rocky Frisco
> In my ending, since Luke did succumb to
> anger and used the force to attack, he killed Vader.
> We don't actually see what happens next, just Luke
> standing over Vader's body with the Emperor in the
> background. Also, the Millenium Falcon doesn't
> quite make it out of the Death Star explosion, which
> kills Lando; Luke does get out, and we see him land
> on the moon and exit to the party just as we do now,
> except he's gone over to the dark side and kills Han
> as Han comes over to greet him, and Leia then kills
> Luke in an epic lightsaber duel. So the only ones to
> survive are Leia, Chewbacca, R2D2 and C3PO.
Certainly better than the studio version.
Opus the Penguin
> Funny, it seems to me there were words for that
> before someone coined "prequel" about thirty years ago.
When did you first encounter the term? My first recollection is for
"Butch and Sundance: The Early Years" which came out in the late '70s.
My impression at the time was that it was coined for that film. But I
was only an adolescent, so it could simply be the first time I heard
it.
Jay G
>> That answer, as is the answer for most questions concerning
>> Hollywood, is simple: MONEY.
>
> That answer is valid only if the flick made money. (Did it?)
The Poseidon Adventure grossed around $93 million. Not
bad for a film in 1972 that cost $5 million to make.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0069113/business
-Jay
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0405071503370.423-100000@davidt>, Hank
>Tiffany <dav...@cet.com> wrote:
>
>> xOn Fri, 7 May 2004, C.O.Jones wrote:
>>
>> > In article <Xns94E26AFE02B9Aop...@130.133.1.4>, Opus the
>> > Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Too bad they can't film a bunch of them at the same time, "Lord of
>> > > > the Rings" style.
>> > >
>> > > That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
>> > > fourth one will be like.
>> >
>> > It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote. Peter Jackson
>> > has already talked about doing it, I believe.
>>
>> You've got causality reversed there, LOTR(1953) is the sequel to
>> The Hobbit(1936)
>>
>> Hank
>
>Check your dictionary, Hank. That's what I said.
>
>(prequel: A literary, cinematic, or dramatic work that precedes,
>introduces, or leads up to a later work.)
OK, let's do check the dictionary
Encarta
'earlier part of story': a movie or novel set at a time preceding the
action of an existing work, especially one that has achieved commercial
success
Miriam-Webster
a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work
Cambridge International Dictionary of English
a film, book or play which develops the story of an earlier film, etc. by
telling you what happened before the events in the first film, etc
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place
before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.
In every definition I looked up online, the point is made that the
prequel is produced after the work it is a prequel to. In fact, the word
was coined (in the early 70s) to deal with that situation in SF, and
spread to general usage.
So, The Hobbit isn't a prequel to The Lord of the Rings (since The Lord
of the Rings didn't pre-exist it), LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
Dane bra'Mage
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Like LOTR Film Trilogy? (existing work)
>
> Miriam-Webster
> a literary or dramatic work whose story precedes that of an earlier work
>
> Cambridge International Dictionary of English
> a film, book or play which develops the story of an earlier film, etc. by
> telling you what happened before the events in the first film, etc
Like LOTR Film Trilogy? (earlier film/first film)
>
> American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
> A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative takes place
> before that of a preexisting work or a sequel.
>
> In every definition I looked up online, the point is made that the
> prequel is produced after the work it is a prequel to.
Did you even READ those definitions?
Hoot Rao
LOTR 'Hobbit' prequel could follow
11:36 GMT, Monday 1st December 2003 -- by Neil Wilkes
A Lord of the Rings prequel movie could be on the cards in the future,
director Peter Jackson confirmed at the Return of the King premiere in
New Zealand today.
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/1/1076717991
Article Explores Hobbit Prequel Issues
2/13/04, 7:19 pm EST - weetanya
Ringer Spy DiveTwin also sent us a link to a New York Times article
(syndicated in the Alameda Times-Star) about the sticky issues
surrounding a film version of The Hobbit.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040306/D814VP480.html
'Hobbitt,''Rings' Prequel, in the Works
Mar 6, 11:30 AM (ET)
By The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) - Peter Jackson won't be returning to the Shire any time
soon. The Oscar-winning director is planning to film "The Hobbit," the
prequel to "The Lord of the Rings," trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, but two
studios must first fight over legal rights to the film.
http://me.warcry.com/scripts/news/view_news.phtml?site=25&id=17897
New Line responds to cries for Hobbit Prequel
Just a mere two weeks into our letter writing campaign and already we
have received an official response from the co-CEO/co-Chairman of New
Line Cinema, Robert Shaye! Follow the link to read how our LET THE
HOBBIT HAPPEN campaign was received at New Line Cinema!
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=120526
'Hobbit' prequel may be made
"The Oscar-winning director is planning to film "The Hobbit," the
prequel to "The Lord of the Rings," trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, but two
studios must first fight over legal rights to the film"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113533,00.html
Jackson Plans to Film 'Rings' Prequel 'The Hobbit'
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/09/1070732182613.html?from=storyr
hs
Jackson eyes Hobbit next
New Zealand film director Peter Jackson, tipped to win an Oscar for his
The Lord of the Rings epic, said today he would like to make The Hobbit
prequel to the trilogy and work with some of the same actors again.
Comments on 'Hobbitt,''Rings' Prequel, in the Works
... Re: 'Hobbitt,''Rings' Prequel, in the Works, Hurray! I'm glad PJ is
doing The Hobbit; I wouldn't want someone else to do it. ... Hobbit
prequel, ...
www.thepalantir.com/comments.php3?id=882 - 57k
Hobbit, The : Prequel to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. $31.99
0788789821
List $39.99 Written by JRR Tolkien - Performed by Bob Inglis ...
www.audiobooksonline.com/shopsite/0788789821.html
http://www.jrrtolkienepics.com/thehobbit.html
Will The Hobbit Be The Movie Prequel To The Lord of the Rings?
Will Peter Jackson follow George Lucas' example of Star Wars prequels
by filming The Silmarillion or The Hobbit?
The Silmarillion is less likely to be filmed because of its episodic
structure, but The Hobbit has the strong story line movie makers love.
Plus it has lots of characters and events I think would make it as
popular as The Lord of the Rings movie series.
The Hobbit Movie
... Now, as the Lord of the Rings movies were a big success, chances
are that they
will be followed by The Hobbit movie as a 'prequel' not much after. ...
derhobbit-film.de/indexengl.shtml - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from derhobbit-film.de ]
Anxiety Closet: Jackson May Film "The Hobbit"
... film director Peter Jackson (news), tipped to win an Oscar for his
"The Lord of the
Rings" epic, said Monday he would like to make "The Hobbit" prequel to
the ...
www.slblogs.net/sonsofliberty2000/archives/000617.html - 15k - Cached -
Similar pages
c is for...: One trilogy to rule them all
... Jackson's expressed interest in doing The Hobbit prequel in the
future;
that's all fine and dandy, but it won't be the same. Rings ...
beanbagcentral.com/ccosas/archives/000401.php - 14k - Cached - Similar
pages
Amazon.com: Books: The Hobbit [UNABRIDGED]
... Prequel to Lord of the Rings, April 25, 2004, ... had made his mark
as an authority on
Anglo-Saxon language and mythology, by the time he wrote The Hobbit, in
1937 ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/ detail/-/0788789821?v=glance - 84k -
Cached - Similar pages
Entertainment News - Jackson wants to bring 'Hobbit' to screen
... BERLIN - Director Peter Jackson, tipped to win an Oscar for his
"The Lord of the
Rings" epic, has said he would like to make "The Hobbit" prequel to the
...
www.nzherald.co.nz/
entertainment/entertainmentstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3538756&thesection=e
ntertainme... - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
Hobbit, The (1977) (TV)
... I have seen this movie and would like to submit a comment. Hobbit,
The (1977)
(TV). ... 25 years later, Rankin/Bass' "The Hobbit" still stands tall
.... ...
www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/ - 43k - Cached - Similar pages
Advanced Combo Tricks: "Rings" director wants to film "Hobbit"
... New Zealand film director Peter Jackson, tipped to win an Oscar for
his "The Lord
of the Rings" epic, says he would like to make "The Hobbit" prequel to
the ...
act.hagale.net/
archives/2003/12/08/rings_director_wants_to_film_hobbit.php - 19k -
Cached - Similar pages
Liv Tyler Web Site - Articles - Jackson wants to make The Hobbit
... New Zealand film director Peter Jackson has said he would like to
make "The Hobbit" prequel to the Lord of the Rings. Speaking to ...
www.livtylerwebsite.com/news/articles/iTV120803.html - 16k - Cached -
Similar pages
Liv Tyler Web Site - Articles - Peter Jackson Still Interested In ...
... Peter Jackson says he is still keen on making The Hobbit, prequel
to The Lord
of the Rings series, as long as the complex legal issues can be
resolved. ...
www.livtylerwebsite.com/news/articles/ KillerMovies120903.html - 14k -
Cached - Similar pages
Marshall Field's : JRR Tolkien Hobbit Poster
... Free Shipping View Larger/More Images Product Description Tolkien
created a series
of watercolor paintings for The Hobbit, prequel to The Lord of the
Rings. ...
www.target.com/ gp/detail.html?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B00006AW9H - 33k -
Cached - Similar pages
(of about 10,200 for Hobbit prequel. (Google))
Wow. That's a LOT of wrong people...
--
--No, YOU are!
Ian Galbraith
wrote:
[snip]
>Did you even READ those definitions?
Do you even know the Hobbit was written before LOTR?
Dane bra'Mage
<igalb...@replace.com> wrote:
Yes. So? However, the trilogy of MOVIES that Peter Jackson recently
made, were made before the MOVIE the Hobbit, that he HASN't made yet. I
guess the question wasn't that has anyone READ the definitions, but do
they actually COMPREHEND what was defined within them. My guess,
obviously, is that the comprehension level is REALLY low. Or
superficial...
THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT _MOVIES_ not what book was written first. Go
check.
Jacey Bedford
<ro...@rocky-frisco.com> writes
>Jacey Bedford wrote:
>
>> Oh-boy do I ever wish that the original Star Wars had been left as a
>>stand-alone trilogy and that Ursula LeGuin had never attempted to
>>continue the Earthsea story beyond the first trilogy.
>
>It's my sincere opinion that the third SW flick should be remade
>without the Ewoks and the Blue Ghosts and the party scene. The ending
>of the trilogy just effectively trashed the entire series; it was so
>blindingly bad.
But classic compared to Eps I & II. Ewoks were positively intelligent
compared to Jar Jar Binks.
Jacey Bedford
<dsa...@synapse.net> writes
There's a site in Barnsley where the old Moot House stood.
And in Tamworth every year they have a Folk Moot.
Ian Galbraith
wrote:
>In article <7f00a0lemuis3gjid...@4ax.com>, Ian Galbraith
><igalb...@replace.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:20:29 GMT, Dane bra'Mage <kicke...@head.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Did you even READ those definitions?
>> Do you even know the Hobbit was written before LOTR?
>Yes. So? However, the trilogy of MOVIES that Peter Jackson recently
>made, were made before the MOVIE the Hobbit, that he HASN't made yet. I
>guess the question wasn't that has anyone READ the definitions, but do
>they actually COMPREHEND what was defined within them. My guess,
>obviously, is that the comprehension level is REALLY low. Or
>superficial...
>THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT _MOVIES_ not what book was written first. Go
>check.
Actually this particular subthread referred to the book of The Hobbit
as a prequel.
William George Ferguson
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Did you even READ those definitions?
>>
>In article <7f00a0lemuis3gjid...@4ax.com>, Ian Galbraith
><igalb...@replace.com> wrote:
>> Do you even know the Hobbit was written before LOTR?
Dane bra'Mage <kicke...@head.com> wrote:
>Yes. So? However, the trilogy of MOVIES that Peter Jackson recently
>made, were made before the MOVIE the Hobbit, that he HASN't made yet. I
>guess the question wasn't that has anyone READ the definitions, but do
>they actually COMPREHEND what was defined within them. My guess,
>obviously, is that the comprehension level is REALLY low. Or
>superficial...
>
>THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT _MOVIES_ not what book was written first. Go
>check.
And I quote from the message that started this particular subthread
discussion.
"C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote:
>It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote.
Do you even READ the discussion you are responding to?
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me! Hints are fine."
-Joan Girardi
(after God showed her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
Dane bra'Mage
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:20:29 GMT, Dane bra'Mage <kicke...@head.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >Did you even READ those definitions?
> >>
> >In article <7f00a0lemuis3gjid...@4ax.com>, Ian Galbraith
> ><igalb...@replace.com> wrote:
> >> Do you even know the Hobbit was written before LOTR?
>
> Dane bra'Mage <kicke...@head.com> wrote:
> >Yes. So? However, the trilogy of MOVIES that Peter Jackson recently
> >made, were made before the MOVIE the Hobbit, that he HASN't made yet. I
> >guess the question wasn't that has anyone READ the definitions, but do
> >they actually COMPREHEND what was defined within them. My guess,
> >obviously, is that the comprehension level is REALLY low. Or
> >superficial...
> >
> >THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT _MOVIES_ not what book was written first. Go
> >check.
>
> And I quote from the message that started this particular subthread
> discussion.
>
> "C.O.Jones" <ap...@solidbrass.com> wrote:
> >It is "The Hobbit," the "prequel" that JRRTolkein wrote.
>
> Do you even READ the discussion you are responding to?
Good try, but no cigar. The actual start to the thread was a question
as to what MOVIE Peter Jackson was going to make next in The Lord of
the Rings. Movie. The answer was (quite accurately for the majority of
the internet) The Hobbit, the prequel to LOTR. Please feel free to show
me some place on the internet, in any story or discussion on this
subject (except THIS one) where it IS NOT called a prequel. And when
you do, I'll show you a dozen that DO call it a prequel. Or just check
out Hoot's post...
Rick Carlson
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9YSmc.4018969$iA2.4...@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Rocky Frisco" <ro...@rocky-frisco.com> wrote in message
> news:CxSmc.44871$Fl5.13029@okepread04...
> > Jonathan wrote:
> >
> > >>That series sure has been a cash cow, hasn't it? I wonder what the
> > >>fourth one will be like.
> >
> >
> > When they released "The Madness of King George III" people were going to
> > the video stores wanting to rent I and II. ;)
> >
>
> Actually, I am still waiting for History of the World Part II...
That was, of course, very deliberate.
Anton Sherwood
I was asking whether the sequel made money.
hel
news:100520042228162148%kicke...@head.com:
This is just a thought that entered my head, but Peter Jackson could make
"The Oxford English Dictionary" as his nest Tolkien work, as long as he
used one written in the 1920's.
More seriously thoough Beowulf would make a cool film, and prof Tolkien
did a great translation of that.
hel
Beth Smarr
--
Beth
Smarr's Beanery http://members.verizon.net/~vze4cfzz/
Beth's Wallpapers http://members.verizon.net/%7Evze4cfzz/bwalls.htm
=================================
New to ABMX-H? Read the FAQ at
http://www.rocfan.net/abmxh-faq.htm
=================================
New to ABPTS-F? Read the FAQ at
http://dancingbones.org/xena/abptsff.html
=================================
New to ABPT? Read the FAQ at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/blue.magpie/abptv.htm
Jacey Bedford
<beth....@verizon.net> writes
>>>
>> This is just a thought that entered my head, but Peter Jackson
>>could make "The Oxford English Dictionary" as his nest Tolkien work,
>>as long as he used one written in the 1920's. More seriously
>>thoough Beowulf would make a cool film, and prof Tolkien did a great
>>translation of that.
>> hel
>Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :)
>
ToolPackinMama
> More seriously thoough Beowulf would make a cool film
It's been done.
http://www.uln.com/cgi-bin/vlink/717951010650IE.html?ptitle=Beowulf-DVD
jayembee
> I still want to know what happened in Malcolm I - IX.
Me, I never bothered to see XXX, because I hadn't seen I
through XXIX yet.
-- jayembee
jayembee
>> Anton Sherwood wrote:
>>>Yabbut in reality the word "prequel" implies something
>>>published (and probably conceived)
>
> C.O.Jones wrote:
>> Probably, but not necessarily.
>
>>>after the material that it internally precedes. Thus
>>>_Enterprise_ is a prequel to the previous _Star Trek_
>>> canon, but STOS is not a prequel to STNG.
>
> C.O.Jones wrote:
>>And however you look at it, the Hobbit is considered a
>>Prequel to the more famous LOTR.
>
> Funny, it seems to me there were words for that before
> someone coined "prequel" about thirty years ago.
"Predecessor", for one.
"Prequel" was a neologism that was derived from the word
"sequel", which is why it connotes something that comes
afterward (externally), while representing something
before (internally).
Since there is at least one perfectly good word (see above)
that means a work that comes before both externally and
internally, there's no point in forcing the word "prequel"
into that same meaning.
There is value in having a word like "prequel" that describes
something after-externally-but-before-internally, as distinct
from before-externally-and-internally. Why dilute the value
of the word "prequel" by using it to mean something it wasn't
intended to mean?
-- jayembee
Goldman of Chaos
ToolPackinMama <la...@lauragoodwin.org> speaking for the space aliens said:
> hel wrote:
>> More seriously thoough Beowulf would make a cool film
Matt
--
"Taikong suoyou de xingqiu dou sai jin wo de pigu." --Walsh
Mike
>> Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :)
>>
> Tam Lin!
Pamela's book?
Men do not understand it. Women love Tam Lin, but it just does not
click from the male perspective. :-)
-Mike-
Tim McDaniel
Mike <dont....@mchsi.com> wrote:
>Jacey Bedford wrote:
>[Tolkien works]
>
>>> Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :)
>>>
>> Tam Lin!
Tolkien didn't do _Tam Lin_.
>Pamela's book?
>
>Men do not understand it. Women love Tam Lin
Really? This girl is warned not to go to Carter Hall (at least in the
version I know), she does anyway, Tam Lin rapes her and gets her
pregnant, she falls in love with him and risks her life to get him out
of the clutches of the elves. Of the few modern people who would find
it attractive, I would expect fewer women.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>In article <8Fvoc.35600$iF6.3540828@attbi_s02>,
>Mike <dont....@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>Jacey Bedford wrote:
>>[Tolkien works]
>>
>>>> Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :)
>>>>
>>> Tam Lin!
>
>Tolkien didn't do _Tam Lin_.
>
>>Pamela's book?
>>
>>Men do not understand it. Women love Tam Lin
>
>Really? This girl is warned not to go to Carter Hall (at least in the
>version I know), she does anyway,
Carter Haugh in the older versions (a haugh is a sunken meadow, from the
same root as hollow). In fact most dictionaries that define 'huagh' and
give an example of usage, use Tam Lin as the example.
>Tam Lin rapes her and gets her
>pregnant, she falls in love with him and risks her life to get him out
>of the clutches of the elves. Of the few modern people who would find
>it attractive, I would expect fewer women.
"He raped her and killed her, and took her back home
Excitable boy they all said"
In many, if not most, versions, the rape is implied rather than stated
(the fact that she's pregnant tends to be fish in the milk that sex
occurred, but in the oldest versions it's not established as without her
leave)
Here's the oldest version in the Child Collection (documented as circa
1729)
Note that in this version, as in almost every succeeding version, Janet
has every right to be at Carter Haugh, it belongs to her (in some later
versions, it still belongs to her father, but she's still there by right)
Also note that in this version (as I said, the oldest) there's really no
implication that her relationship with Tam Lin was other than consensual.
She certainly defends it to her father and his court as her choice and
her right.
O I forbid you, maidens a',
That wear gowd on your hair,
To come or gae by Carterhaugh,
For young Tam Lin is there.
There's nane that gaes by Carterhaugh
But they leave him a wad,
Either their rings, or green mantles,
Or else their maidenhead.
Janet has kilted her green kirtle
A little aboon her knee,
And she has broded her yellow hair
A little aboon her bree,
And she's awa to Carterhaugh
As fast as she can hie.
When she came to carterhaugh
Tam Lin was at the well,
And there she fand his steed standing,
But away was himsel.
She had na pu'd a double rose,
A rose but only twa,
Till upon then started young Tam Lin,
Says, Lady, thou's pu nae mae.
Why pu's thou the rose, Janet,
And why breaks thou the wand?
Or why comes thou to Carterhaugh
Withoutten my command?
"Carterhaugh, it is my own,
My daddy gave it me,
I'll come and gang by Carterhaugh,
And ask nae leave at thee."
Janet has kilted her green kirtle
A little aboon her knee,
And she has broded her yellow hair
A little aboon her bree,
And she is to her father's ha,
As fast as she can hie.
Four and twenty ladies fair
Were playing at the ba,
And out then came the fair Janet,
The flower among them a'.
Four and twenty ladies fair
Were playing at the chess,
And out then came the fair Janet,
As green as onie glass.
Out then spake an auld grey knight,
Lay oer the castle wa,
And says, Alas, fair Janet, for thee,
But we'll be blamed a'.
"Haud your tongue, ye auld fac'd knight,
Some ill death may ye die!
Father my bairn on whom I will,
I'll father none on thee."
Out then spak her father dear,
And he spak meek and mild,
"And ever alas, sweet Janet," he says,
"I think thou gaest wi child."
"If that I gae wi child, father,
Mysel maun bear the blame,
There's neer a laird about your ha,
Shall get the bairn's name.
"If my love were an earthly knight,
As he's an elfin grey,
I wad na gie my ain true-love
For nae lord that ye hae.
"The steed that my true love rides on
Is lighter than the wind,
Wi siller he is shod before,
Wi burning gowd behind."
Janet has kilted her green kirtle
A little aboon her knee,
And she has broded her yellow hair
A little aboon her bree,
And she's awa to Carterhaugh
As fast as she can hie.
When she came to Carterhaugh,
Tam Lin was at the well,
And there she fand his steed standing,
But away was himsel.
She had na pu'd a double rose,
A rose but only twa,
Till up then started young Tam Lin,
Says, Lady, thou pu's nae mae.
"Why pu's thou the rose, Janet,
Amang the groves sae green,
And a' to kill the bonny babe
That we gat us between?"
"O tell me, tell me, Tam Lin," she says,
"For's sake that died on tree,
If eer ye was in holy chapel,
Or christendom did see?"
"Roxbrugh he was my grandfather,
Took me with him to bide
And ance it fell upon a day
That wae did me betide.
"And ance it fell upon a day
A cauld day and a snell,
When we were frae the hunting come,
That frae my horse I fell,
The Queen o' Fairies she caught me,
In yon green hill do dwell.
"And pleasant is the fairy land,
But, an eerie tale to tell,
Ay at the end of seven years,
We pay a tiend to hell,
I am sae fair and fu o flesh,
I'm feard it be mysel.
"But the night is Halloween, lady,
The morn is Hallowday,
Then win me, win me, an ye will,
For weel I wat ye may.
"Just at the mirk and midnight hour
The fairy folk will ride,
And they that wad their true-love win,
At Miles Cross they maun bide."
"But how shall I thee ken, Tam Lin,
Or how my true-love know,
Amang sa mony unco knights,
The like I never saw?"
"O first let pass the black, lady,
And syne let pass the brown,
But quickly run to the milk-white steed,
Pu ye his rider down.
"For I'll ride on the milk-white steed,
And ay nearest the town,
Because I was an earthly knight
They gie me that renown.
"My right hand will be gloved, lady,
My left hand will be bare,
Cockt up shall my bonnet be,
And kaimed down shall my hair,
And thae's the takens I gie thee,
Nae doubt I will be there.
"They'll turn me in your arms, lady,
Into an esk and adder,
But hold me fast, and fear me not,
I am your bairn's father.
"They'll turn me to a bear sae grim,
And then a lion bold,
But hold me fast, and fear me not,
And ye shall love your child.
"Again they'll turn me in your arms
To a red het gand of airn,
But hold me fast, and fear me not,
I'll do you nae harm.
"And last they'll turn me in your arms
Into the burning gleed,
Then throw me into well water,
O throw me in with speed.
"And then I'll be your ain true-love,
I'll turn a naked knight,
Then cover me wi your green mantle,
And hide me out o sight."
Gloomy, gloomy was the night,
And eerie was the way,
As fair Jenny in her green mantle
To Miles Cross she did gae.
At the mirk and midnight hour
She heard the bridles sing,
She was as glad at that
As any earthly thing.
First she let the black pass by,
And syne she let the brown,
But quickly she ran to the milk-white steed,
And pu'd the rider down.
Sae weel she minded what he did say,
And young Tam Lin did win,
Syne covered him wi her green mantle,
As blythe's a bird in spring
Out then spak the Queen o Fairies,
Out of a bush o broom,
"Them that has gotten young Tam Lin
Has gotten a stately-groom."
Out then spak the Queen o Fairies,
And an angry woman was she,
"Shame betide her ill-far'd face,
And an ill death may she die,
For she's taen awa the bonniest knight
In a' my companie.
"But had I kend, Tam Lin," said she,
"What now this night I see,
I wad hae taen out thy twa grey een,
And put in twa een o tree."
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
Rocky Frisco
> In message <Stmoc.64226$sK3....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Beth Smarr
> <beth....@verizon.net> writes
>
>>>>
>>> This is just a thought that entered my head, but Peter Jackson
>>> could make "The Oxford English Dictionary" as his nest Tolkien work,
>>> as long as he used one written in the 1920's. More seriously
>>> thoough Beowulf would make a cool film, and prof Tolkien did a great
>>> translation of that.
>>> hel
>>
>> Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :)
>>
> Tam Lin!
Nice surprise, seeing that reference. Pamela Dean was one of the
excellent writers who taught me the craft, years ago, on the FIDONET
writing echo.
Rocky Frisco
Sorry . . . I'm about as male as a human can get and I'm 66 yrs old and
I loved the book.
mrsnuffelupagus
Is this alt.tv.firefly or alt.tv.people argueing over lotr as opposed to the
friggin hobbit?
And for the record, let Tam Lin get his own dates...
<mega-freakin-no-topic-followin-snip>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.683 / Virus Database: 445 - Release Date: 5/12/2004
Jacey Bedford
<dont....@mchsi.com> writes
>Jacey Bedford wrote:
>
>
>>> Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :)
>>>
>> Tam Lin!
>
>Pamela's book?
pretentious and, as a Brit, the American college life left me totally
cold. I guess it didn't cross the Atlantic too well. There was too much
subtlety and not enough magic for me. I never yet met anyone who was
ambivalent towards it. People seem to either love it or hate it.
I'm talking about the original medieval story as in the ballad.
>
>Men do not understand it. Women love Tam Lin, but it just does not
>click from the male perspective. :-)
Possibly because the strong woman rescues the man? The villain of the
piece is also female - the Queen of Faeries.
In some versions Tam originally lays Janet down 'asking no man's leave'
possibly not even Janet's but in other versions rape is not implied and
whichever way it is, she comes back to seek him out when she discovers
she's pregnant. She wants to know if he's human or Elf and he tells her
he's human but destined to be the Faery Queen's tithe to hell at the end
of seven year - which will be the coming Halloween.
Janet refuses to tell her father who the child's daddy is and in some
versions she goes back to Carterhaugh to pluck herbs to induce abortion,
but Tam stops her.
He tells Janet there's only one way she can rescue him and that's to
hide at Miles Cross at midnight on All Hallows and as the Faery
procession rides past she must pull Tam from his horse and hold him
tight even though the Queen will turn him into all sorts of evil and
dangerous beasts including a snake and a lion.
She does as he says, and holds him through the transformations and the
last change leaves him as a naked knight. Janet has won, but the Queen's
cursing mad and says if she'd known what would happen she'd have turned
him to a tree.
It's got everything. Sex. Drugs & rock and roll - er - without the rock
and roll and possibly without the drugs unless you count the herbs she
pluck to 'twain the babe's life away' before Tam begs her not to.
I've had fun rewriting it.
Jay G
> hel wrote:
>>
>> More seriously thoough Beowulf would make a cool film, and prof
>> Tolkien did a great translation of that.
>>
Farmer Giles of Hamm!
-Jay
Anton Sherwood
> When did you first encounter the term [`prequel']?
Applied to some sf novel (no idea which), circa 1980 I guess,
soon after my first contacts with fandom.
> My first recollection is for
> "Butch and Sundance: The Early Years" which came out in the late '70s.