OT: LotR Questions
Sandra Schwartz
Rings because of all the good reviews, awards and nominations. I saw the
first one, but was dissapointed; to me it was just one long, special-effects
chase scene. I didn't see number two. So, my question is: is number three
worth my while? If so, would it be understandable without having seen number
two?
Thanks in advance for any information.
--
Regards,
--Sandra
Jerri
> I am possibly interested in seeing the third installment
> of Lord of the Rings because of all the good reviews,
> awards and nominations. I saw the first one, but was
> dissapointed; to me it was just one long, special-effects
> chase scene. I didn't see number two. So, my question is:
> is number three worth my while? If so, would it be
> understandable without having seen number two?
> Thanks in advance for any information.
I think it would be kind of meaningless to see Return of the King without
having seen The Two Towers first. If you didn't like Fellowship of the Ring,
I'm kind of doubting you'd like either of the other two because you kind of
have to buy into the special effects. That's my opinion, and I am a diehard
fan who has watched her copies of the theatrical release DVDs *and* extended
release DVDs many times. As to whether these movies, one or two or three,
are worth your while ... I think they're magnificent. Of course, they're
worth your while. Whether you like them is entirely a different matter. <G>
Jerri
GHorvath
hate it, but didn't get carried away with rapture, either), and didn't see the
second in theatres at all, I thought the third film was by far the best of the
three. I watched the second -- not the extended version, just the regular one
-- on DVD the night before I saw the third, and I think that was helpful to
enjoying the third.
GH
phil...@ee.signature.uk
<Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu> wrote:
>I am possibly interested in seeing the third installment of Lord of the
>Rings because of all the good reviews, awards and nominations. I saw the
>first one, but was dissapointed; to me it was just one long, special-effects
>chase scene. I didn't see number two. So, my question is: is number three
>worth my while? If so, would it be understandable without having seen number
>two?
Well......the original group of nine has been split up, so you follow
several different perspectives, all leading up to the mother and father
of all battles (pity you missed the one at Helm's Deep; this is even
more awesome) between good and evil, then the conseqences following
that. Personally, having read the book first, I was near tears the
whole time, because it is so close to the world that JRR Tolkein
described; the acting of all the characters, the emotional charge, the
locations. I was absolutely gobsmacked.
Philippa
Sandra Schwartz
First, let me correct a typo in my post. I know that "dissapointed" should
have been "disappointed." My fingers were too fast, and my eyes too slow to
catch that.
Now, thanks for your comments, Jerri. I guess there isn't any "previously on
. . ." to bring new viewers up to speed. I appreciate your sentence that it
would be meaningless to see number three without seeing number two. I think
I'll wait a bit to see if my interest is piqued again. It might very well
be. I had heard that number three was head and shoulders above its
predecessors.
Thanks again.
--
Regards,
--Sandra
Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu
"Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:v9WdnYNpYvY...@gbronline.com...
Sandra Schwartz
--
Regards,
--Sandra
Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu
<phil...@ee.signature.uk> wrote in message
news:2upn10p2bsgpg8ivp...@4ax.com...
Sandra Schwartz
third to have seen the second? I don't really want to see number two because
my impression of it is that it is one long battle scene. Please correct me
if I'm wrong.
--
Regards,
--Sandra
Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu
"GHorvath" <ghor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040131122924...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Jerri
"Sandra Schwartz" <Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu> wrote
> Hi, Jerri-- First, let me correct a typo in my post. I know
> that "dissapointed" should have been "disappointed."
> My fingers were too fast, and my eyes too slow to
> catch that.
My best typos are homonyms for what I really mean to type. As I get older,
that happens more and more frequently. I don't correct my typos after
they've hit the news server. You should feel free to ignore them, too. <G>
> Now, thanks for your comments, Jerri. I guess there isn't
> any "previously on. . ." to bring new viewers up to speed.
> I appreciate your sentence that it would be meaningless to
> see number three without seeing number two. I think
> I'll wait a bit to see if my interest is piqued again. It might very well
> be. I had heard that number three was head and shoulders above its
> predecessors.
Oh, hon ... Return of the King ****IS**** head and shoulders above the other
two. It is, it is, it really is ... and it's well worth the viewing even if
you've no idea what's going on. So pay no attention to what I said before.
Go and enjoy if you have any desire to see this masterpiece at all. Renting
the DVD of The Two Towers before seeing Return of the King is a pretty good
idea. That way you'd go in knowing who's who and get introduced to Gollum,
who is a remarkable character and an excellent characterization done by Andy
Serkis and the CGI folks.
Jerri
GHorvath
>third to have seen the second?
Hm, I'm not sure. A good synopsis would probably be as useful as actually
seeing it -- just so you have context for the third. The best person to answer
this would be someone who didn't see the second, either, of course.
All that said, I don't know that you should feel pressured to see RotK just
because of all the nominations. Chances are good that it is stil not to your
taste. I personally feel that RotK is an impressive *achievement* from a
directing and producing standpoint, but that Last Samurai, Pirates of the
Caribbean, and Lost in Translation are but a few of the films I liked better.
GH
Jette Goldie
"Sandra Schwartz" <Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu> wrote in message
news:UpSdndb_a4u...@comcast.com...
> I understand "helpful," but is it *necessary" for the understanding of the
> third to have seen the second? I don't really want to see number two
because
> my impression of it is that it is one long battle scene. Please correct me
> if I'm wrong.
> --
You're wrong. It is *not* "one long battle scene". It contains
one long battle scene - but it also contains several romantic
scenes, a lot of character scenes and some gorgeous scenery.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Edie
Sandra Schwartz wrote:
>
> I am possibly interested in seeing the third installment of Lord of the
> Rings because of all the good reviews, awards and nominations. I saw the
> first one, but was dissapointed; to me it was just one long, special-effects
> chase scene. I didn't see number two. So, my question is: is number three
> worth my while? If so, would it be understandable without having seen number
> two?
>
> Thanks in advance for any information.
I'm not sure my opinions would be a good guage for you,
because I love the books and was blown away by the first
movie, some criticisms notwithstanding. :-)
My guess is that you could see three without having seen
two, (although LOTR is not a trilogy, it is one story) but
if you didn't like Fellowship, I'm not sure that you would
like Return of the King.
I agree with those who say that ROTK was the best, but
since you found little of interest in Fellowship, I'm not
sure that ROTK will do that much more for you. It is
also special effects laden (IMO wonderfully so, in service
to the story and the setting the way effects should be,
but then I thought that of Fellowship, too. :-))
I don't want to discourage you from going, because I love
the film and would like to believe that you would like it,
too, but nothing appeals to everyone, no matter how well
crafted.
A new element in the second and third movies is Gollum,
however. I don't know whether you would find his story
of interest, but it is something different from the first
movie.
While I think that it is important to watch the second
movie for its story elements and character development,
I think you can watch the third movie and still
understand the gist of what is going on.
Hope that helps!
Edie
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> --Sandra
>
> Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu
First Fallen
Well, the thing is, it's all one story, spread over three films (just as the
it was done over three books). So, I would liken it to going to a 3 act
play, getting up and leaving for the 2nd act, and then coming back for the
third act, and trying to figure out what's going on.
I've never read the books, but I am very impressed with the films, and I
think if you're going to watch the 3rd film, you should definitely see the
2nd, or you'll just end up with a LOT of questions, and confusion.
Besides, the battle at helms deep in the 2nd film is a rather amazing
spectacle.
JDChronicler
books, then it doesn't really matter. The movies vary from the books, but not
enough that you wouldn't be up to snuff on previous events if you hadn't seen
TTT. My former housemate Michael sat me in front of the TV to watch TTT on DVD
before he and Shirin took me to see RoTK. I honestly don't think I would have
been disoriented if I hadn't seen it. As far as I'm concerned there was very
little in TTT that I would consider worthwhile. I'm not that impressed with
special effects. I was deeply disappointed in the way a couple of beloved
characters were portrayed in TTT. Yet I did like RoTK very much. There were
some magnificent dramatic scenes. But I agree with Gillian that if you aren't
a fan of LoTR, there are better movies out there.
Shomeret
Dotiran
>third to have seen the second?
I would say absolutely yes. III continues directly from where II left off. No
intro.
>I don't really want to see number two because
>my impression of it is that it is one long battle scene.
Lots of battles, yes. And ugly Orcs [close one eye, or even better, just look
at the *good* eye of the ugliest Orc :)]. But essential story line.
Dorothy aka Rottweiler
First Fallen
But there's important stuff that happens in the second film.
Spoilers for those who are considering seeing it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
There's the return of Gandalf as a white wizard, if you don't see the second
film, you'll be very confused about how he came back, and why he looks
different. There's the meeting of King Theoden and the Rohirrim, the
introduction of Faramir and Denethor, the intorduction of the Ents and the
defeat of Saruman. I think there's a lot of important stuff that happens in
TTT, that has a direct bearing on RotK, and one understanding of it.
Not to mention all of the stuff with Gollum.
JDChronicler
the books. If you have, you already know all that background.
Shomeret
Edie
JDChronicler wrote:
>
> Well, Sandra didn't mention if she'd read LoTR or not. If you've read the
> books, then it doesn't really matter. The movies vary from the books, but not
> enough that you wouldn't be up to snuff on previous events if you hadn't seen
> TTT. My former housemate Michael sat me in front of the TV to watch TTT on DVD
> before he and Shirin took me to see RoTK. I honestly don't think I would have
> been disoriented if I hadn't seen it. As far as I'm concerned there was very
> little in TTT that I would consider worthwhile. I'm not that impressed with
> special effects. I was deeply disappointed in the way a couple of beloved
> characters were portrayed in TTT.
I liked the Two Towers, especially as part of the whole
and not by itself. Taken by itself the battle of Helm's
Deep dominates the movie, but as a part of the whole, the
battle retains its rightful place as prelude. I could
have seen some different choices being made with some
characterizations, but that didn't spoil the movie for
me.
Yet I did like RoTK very much. There were
> some magnificent dramatic scenes.
I agree.
But I agree with Gillian that if you aren't
> a fan of LoTR, there are better movies out there.
I'm not sure I agree that there are better movies out
there. There are movies that might resonate more
with certain individuals because of theme and style
and genre, etc., but IMO, there's no better movie
made this year.
On a related theme, but not in relation to anything
anyone has said here:
I find the dismissive attitude towards fantasy in
general to be really annoying. Romance as a genre
usually leaves me cold, but that doesn't mean that
a great romantic movie can't be made. I had hoped that
Jackson had made the movie that would finally
change some people's attitudes towards fantasy as
escapist, juvenile, and simplistic, but it doesn't seem
to have in the minds of some critics.
Movies such as Lost In Translation or Mystic River are
often considered to be better movies because they focus on
people who might live next door rather than imagined worlds
and abstract ideas, and I find that unfair. Not that those
movies aren't excellent movies. They are, and both deserve
their Best Picture nominations, IMO. But they aren't better
movies than ROTK because of the fact that they tell a
different kind of story.
IMO, ROTK is the best movie of the year, not just because
of its technical achievement, but because of its
compellingly excecuted story.
Edie
>
> Shomeret
JDChronicler
and science fiction are still a minority taste. Most people do prefer
contemporary realism. Maybe it's their upbringing. If people aren't used to
exercising their imaginations, it's difficult to do so. That's why the
so-called "reality" shows get such high ratings.
OTOH I still don't think that RoTK was the best movie of 2003. From my
perspective, The Last Samurai told a more compelling story and it was
beautifully told. There's a possible argument for classifying The Last Samurai
as alternate history which is a sub-genre of science fiction, BTW.
Shomeret
Rebecca Wallace
I didn't see TT, but went to see RotK with my niece, so if I didn't
understand something, she would quietly fill me in... and I enjoyed it a
lot.
Becky
Lynn
news:20040131145138...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> As far as I'm concerned there was very
> little in TTT that I would consider worthwhile. I'm not that impressed
with
> special effects.
And I strongly disagree. While I'm not impressed with effects for effects
sake, that wasn't what these were. The effects were there to help bring a
story to life that otherwise could never have been realized.
TTT is the difficult middle chapter, no question. But it has some
wonderful character moments and some performances I think have been given
short shrift.
> I was deeply disappointed in the way a couple of beloved
> characters were portrayed in TTT.
<rolling eyes> Okay, whatever. I think the Extended Edition went a long way
in addressing most of these complaints (which have mostly been about one
character) however much some self-styled purists seem determined to hold
their grudges.
Until someone explains to me how Frodo and Sam's story in TTT could have
worked at all without some kind of dramatic reversal, I will continue to
believe that what the filmmakers did was both right and necessary for
translation from a novel into a film. While a character's journey was
changed, I happened to think that character ended up strengthened rather
than weakened by the changes, which are carried through beautifully in the
third film as well.
In fact -- I'm going to raise the ire of bookwraiths everywhere, and argue
that the films have actually *improved* quite a few things from the book --
Boromir's death is much more poignant and meaningful on screen than it ever
was on the page, and giving Frodo and Aragorn a moment together at the end
of FOTR was a great choice as well. While in the book, Gandalf has the
dialogue about Eowyn being trapped, and says them while she's unconscious;
the film gives them to an antagonist who says the lines to her instead,
which was brilliant. And I think the Elves at Helm's Deep were a great
tribute to the Elves who did fight during the WOTR in Mirkwood and Lorien.
Lynn
Lynn
news:UpSdndb_a4u...@comcast.com...
> I understand "helpful," but is it *necessary" for the understanding of the
> third to have seen the second?
If you haven't read the books, I would say yes.
OTOH, if you didn't like the first movie (which I thought was magnificent on
a whole lot of levels) then I am not sure whether you're going to like the
second and third any better. You certainly wouldn't get the same kind of
emotional impact that someone did who'd enjoyed the first two.
> I don't really want to see number two because
> my impression of it is that it is one long battle scene. Please correct me
> if I'm wrong.
Okay, you're wrong :) While there is a significant battle sequence, it's
certainly not the entire movie, or even the majority of it. And as battles
go, it's pretty amazing to watch.
Lynn
Lynn
news:BC419DD5.C82%717b...@comcast.net...
> I didn't see TT, but went to see RotK with my niece, so if I didn't
> understand something, she would quietly fill me in...
Nothing personal, Rebecca, but I'm glad I wasn't sitting near you. No
matter how quietly you think you're talking, people sitting near you can
hear the whispering, even if they can't hear what you're saying. Now
maybe you saw the movie in an empty theater or there was absolutely no one
anywhere near you -- I don't know.
Generally speaking, though, I am tired of paying $7 - $10 to go see a
movie, only to be subject to people whispering/talking/whatever, comforting
children too young to be there, answering their cell phones, eating the
three-course meal they smuggled in with them, etc. In fact, I'm so tired
of it I only go to the theater these days for movies I'm dying to see, or
for event-type movies I think must be seen on a big screen. I'll wait for
the rest on DVD (thank you Netflix).
Lynn
HiRene23
>third to have seen the second?
Not entirely, but seeing the third without seeing the first two is like looking
at art in a darkened room - you're cheating yourself out of much of the beauty.
Of course, if you really disliked the first one that much, then it may just
not be the type of entertainment for you.
I would recommend that you rent the second one (Two Towers) and after watching
that, see if you have any interest in seeing the rest of the story. Keep in
mind that most of those who have seen all three enjoyed the third installment
the most.
Rene
HiRene23
Generally speaking, though, I am tired of paying $7 - $10 to go see a
>movie, only to be subject to people whispering/talking/whatever, comforting
>children too young to be there, answering their cell phones, eating the
>three-course meal they smuggled in with them, etc.
Coincidentally, I went to a movie tonight (Big Fish) with my husband and a
friend. I about DIED when about midway through the movie, my friend whips out
her cell phone to answer a call! I think my exact words were along the lines
of, "WTF are you doing!"
Good movie, btw.
Rene
Jerri
> "Rebecca Wallace" <717b...@comcast.net> wrote
> > I didn't see TT, but went to see RotK
> > with my niece, so if I didn't understand
> > something, she would quietly fill me in...
> Nothing personal, Rebecca, but I'm glad I
> wasn't sitting near you. No matter how
> quietly you think you're talking, people
> sitting near you can hear the whispering,
> even if they can't hear what you're saying.
I am in total agreement with Lynn here. After waiting a whole year for the
release of ROTK, if anyone had been whispering at all where I could see or
hear them, I would have been filled with rage. I hate it when people talk
during movies. My own friends used to be guilty of it, but I've trained them
out of it. And then there are the cell phones ... mygodinheaven ... the
theater runs a nice funny short to tell people to turn off the freakin' cell
phones, but DO THEY? No. None rang during ROTK, but the next flick I saw had
a long interval of some guy tryin' to find his phone just like in that nice
funny short that the theater ran just to keep that very thing from
happening.
Jerri [went to the 1st daytime showing of ROTK on the day it opened, and the
audience was completely wrapped up in the flick ... no whispering, fidgeting
or unnecessary candy unwrapping]
Edie
Spoilers for particulars of TT and maybe ROTK:
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
**
*
*
**
*
Lynn wrote:
>
> "JDChronicler" <jdchro...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040131145138...@mb-m10.aol.com...
>
> > As far as I'm concerned there was very
> > little in TTT that I would consider worthwhile. I'm not that impressed
> with
> > special effects.
>
> And I strongly disagree. While I'm not impressed with effects for effects
> sake, that wasn't what these were. The effects were there to help bring a
> story to life that otherwise could never have been realized.
I think so too. The only way the wonders of Tolkien's
creation could have been portrayed was with amazing special
effects. It's the story that they served, not themselves,
IMO.
>
> TTT is the difficult middle chapter, no question. But it has some
> wonderful character moments and some performances I think have been given
> short shrift.
I agree, too. Theoden became one of my very favorite
characters in this movie. He had many wonderful moments.
I would have hated to have missed his release from
Saruman's spell. Two Towers develops Eowyn as a
character, and I think that her role in ROTK would be
less powerful without having seen her in TT. Brad Dourif
was wonderful as Wormtongue and his scene with Eowyn was
marvelous. And then there's Gollum. Amazing. :-)
I would have hated to have missed Treebeard, Eomer, Haldir,
the last march of the Ents, Aragorn's reluctant path to
leadership, and yes, the battle of Helms Deep, among other
things.
I agree that TTT is a difficult middle chapter by itself,
but as part of a whole, it worked, IMO. The filmmakers
did about as good a job as they could in making TTT a
complete movie experience, but like the books, the movies
are one story, not three. As I mentioned in another post,
I think that watching ROTK makes what initially looks like
perhaps too much emphasis on the Battle of Helms Deep into
a proportional event in the story.
>
> > I was deeply disappointed in the way a couple of beloved
> > characters were portrayed in TTT.
>
> <rolling eyes> Okay, whatever. I think the Extended Edition went a long way
> in addressing most of these complaints (which have mostly been about one
> character) however much some self-styled purists seem determined to hold
> their grudges.
>
> Until someone explains to me how Frodo and Sam's story in TTT could have
> worked at all without some kind of dramatic reversal, I will continue to
> believe that what the filmmakers did was both right and necessary for
> translation from a novel into a film. While a character's journey was
> changed, I happened to think that character ended up strengthened rather
> than weakened by the changes, which are carried through beautifully in the
> third film as well.
I understand the disappointment people feel when cherished
characters are changed. I have felt the same way once or
twice, but not in these movies. I think that there
are people in the world who are impervious to the lure of
power, and I liked Faramir's presence in the book as being
one of those people. It makes sense for him to also
be less favored by his father, as such a lack sometimes is
seen as weakness. If TT could have kept its dramatic
momentum with Faramir being portrayed in this manner, I
would have liked to have seen it. I don't agree with
the filmmakers that having Faramir see the ring, be
struck by its power but not be seduced by it, would
have reduced the power of the ring. It wasn't all
powerful, after all. But I *do* agree with the
filmmakers, that a benevolent meeting with Faramir would
not have kept the dramatic tension going. There needed
to be conflict there, not a friendly face. I think that
Faramir was portrayed wonderfully by David Wenham, and
while he wasn't completely impervious to the ring's power,
he came across as being far wiser than Boromir regarding
it's evil, and much less drawn to it than practically
every other character. I don't see his character as
being weakened by his momentary temptation in TT.
>
> In fact -- I'm going to raise the ire of bookwraiths everywhere, and argue
> that the films have actually *improved* quite a few things from the book --
> Boromir's death is much more poignant and meaningful on screen than it ever
> was on the page, and giving Frodo and Aragorn a moment together at the end
> of FOTR was a great choice as well. While in the book, Gandalf has the
> dialogue about Eowyn being trapped, and says them while she's unconscious;
> the film gives them to an antagonist who says the lines to her instead,
> which was brilliant. And I think the Elves at Helm's Deep were a great
> tribute to the Elves who did fight during the WOTR in Mirkwood and Lorien.
I liked all of these changes as well. They worked very well
in the movie. There were some changes that I didn't agree
with, and some more character development that I would like
to have seen, but those are nitpicks. All three movies are
terrific examples of movie making, and while of course the
movies aren't the books, IMO, they don't have to be.
MHO
Edie
>
> Lynn
Edie
<g> Someone's cellphone rang when I saw ROTK. <shaking
head> The guy was really embarrassed. :-) This
is definitely a no no in my book. OTOH, I see no reason to
let people whispering, etc,. keep me away from the movies.
Watching movies on TV just isn't the same, and I'm not
about to let a few audience members who don't know how to
keep quiet keep me away.
Edie
Jerri
> Watching movies on TV just isn't the same,
> and I'm not about to let a few audience
> members who don't know how to
> keep quiet keep me away.
I won't let them keep me away, but I practice my STARE OF IMMINENT DEATH on
them. Then, having taught them a much-needed lesson, I turn back to enjoying
the flick.
Jerri
Fuzzy
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>"Sandra Schwartz" <Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu> wrote in message
>news:UpSdndb_a4u...@comcast.com...
>> I understand "helpful," but is it *necessary" for the understanding of the
>> third to have seen the second? I don't really want to see number two
>because
>> my impression of it is that it is one long battle scene. Please correct me
>> if I'm wrong.
>> --
>
>
>You're wrong. It is *not* "one long battle scene". It contains
>one long battle scene - but it also contains several romantic
>scenes, a lot of character scenes and some gorgeous scenery.
I have to admit I'd forgotten there was more to TT than Helm's Deep. I
spent much of last winter sick, with one cold after another. I first
saw TT on a bad day when I really just wanted to go home and sleep and
Helm's Deep seemed endless. I saw it a second time when I was feeling
somewhat better, but it was still too long and I was still too tired.
But after seeing, and very much enjoying, ROTK I watched the extended
versions of FOTR and TT. I think I still prefer FOTR (I have a
fondness for the Shire), but I really enjoyed TT this time. Gollum was
amazing, I loved the Treebeard scenes and Eowyn was great.
Gabby
Sandra Schwartz
I'll give it a shot next weekend. Now all I need is a good synopsis of Two
Towers. Any suggestions?
--
Regards,
--Sandra
Sandr...@alumni.binghamton.edu
"Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:La2dnbWoLJr...@gbronline.com...
Jerri
> I'll give it a shot next weekend. Now all
> I need is a good synopsis of Two
> Towers. Any suggestions?
Let's see ... Boromir has died at the hands of the Uruk Hai after trying to
take the Ring from Frodo, who decides he must leave the Fellowship behind.
Sam goes with Frodo, and they begin the trek to Mordor in order to destroy
the Ring. They are joined by Gollum [AKA Smeagol] who promises to guide
Frodo and Sam to Mordor. Merry and Pippin are taken captive by the Uruk Hai,
who are attacked by the Rohirrim and killed. Merry and Pippin escape to
Fangorn Forest and meet up with Treebeard, the Ent. Aragorn, Gimli, and
Legolas run and run and run up hill and down dale [gorgeous scenery] to try
and rescue Merry and Pippin from the Uruk Hai ... and meet up with the
Rohirrim, who tell them there ain't much hope that 2 hobbits escaped the
slaughter of the Uruk Hai, but give them a couple horses to help them look.
The Rohirrim are riding into exile, as Wormtongue has ... oh my goodness ...
this is hard ... anyone want to take over? No? Well, Aragorn, Gimli and
Legolas run into the newly reconstituted Gandalf the White, who joins them
in their trek to Rohan ... using the King o' Horsies Shadowfax as Gandalf's
mount. Merry and Pippin have joined up with Treebeard, who is having none of
their pleas to defeat Saruman ... until he happens upon the huge forest that
Saruman destroyed in order to create his vast army ... which is going to
attack the folks of Rohan in the BATTLE OF HELM'S DEEP, which is a huge
magnificent battle with elves and orcs and men. Gandalf leaves Aragorn,
Gimli and Legolas to seek out help ... and all seems lost ... until Gandalf
arrives on the morning of the 5th day with the Rohirrim and they overrun the
army of Saruman. Frodo and Sam have been trudging to Mordor all this time,
with Gollum/Smeagol ... who is the most interesting study of
paranoid/schizophrenia *ever*. They get caught by Faramir, who has issues
with his father, but eventually lets them go ... and Sam has some very nice
things to say about history and heroes.
And that's pretty much what happened. Whatever I got wrong is probably a
lot, but there we are.
You really should rent the DVD of The Two Towers before seeing Return of the
King. In my never-very-humble opinion. <G>
Jerri
Lynn
> Jerri--
>
> I'll give it a shot next weekend. Now all I need is a good synopsis of Two
> Towers. Any suggestions?
Yeah, head to your video/DVD store tomorrow night and rent it. Watch it
over 2 nights, especially if you get the extended version (which I do think
is superior to the theatrical version).
Really, reading a synopsis is like reading the back cover of a paperback
novel instead of the book. Several major new characters are introduced in
TTT. Without seeing it, you're not going to know who they are or why you
should care about what's happening to them in ROTK.
Lynn
Lynn
> OTOH I still don't think that RoTK was the best movie of 2003. From my
> perspective, The Last Samurai told a more compelling story and it was
> beautifully told.
It had little emotional resonance for me, despite the appealing
visuals. I feel very much the same way I did about Gladiator: The
story was entirely predictable from beginning to end. I knew exactly
what was coming, and the characters felt like archetypes, not people.
It was Dances with Wolves set in Japan, and even though I liked the
visuals and the battles, I just couldn't help thinking I'd seen this
movie before.
Lynn
phil...@ee.signature.uk
wrote:
>Let's see ... Boromir has died at the hands of the Uruk Hai after trying to
>take the Ring from Frodo, who decides he must leave the Fellowship behind.
>Sam goes with Frodo, and they begin the trek to Mordor in order to destroy
>the Ring. They are joined by Gollum [AKA Smeagol] who promises to guide
>Frodo and Sam to Mordor. Merry and Pippin are taken captive by the Uruk Hai,
>who are attacked by the Rohirrim and killed. Merry and Pippin escape to
>Fangorn Forest and meet up with Treebeard, the Ent.
For the complete novice, a fully sentient tree-being.
Aragorn, Gimli, and
>Legolas run and run and run up hill and down dale [gorgeous scenery] to try
>and rescue Merry and Pippin from the Uruk Hai ... and meet up with the
>Rohirrim, who tell them there ain't much hope that 2 hobbits escaped the
>slaughter of the Uruk Hai, but give them a couple horses to help them look.
>The Rohirrim are riding into exile, as Wormtongue has ... oh my goodness ...
>this is hard ...
The beautifully rendered Viking-esque Hall of Gondor.
>.. which is going to
>attack the folks of Rohan in the BATTLE OF HELM'S DEEP, which is a huge
>magnificent battle with elves and orcs and men.
It lasts over an hour, but don't let that put you off; it just sucks you
in and carries you along a bit like surfing the most amazing emotional
wave.
>. They get caught by Faramir, who has issues
>with his father, but eventually lets them go ...
Nicely played, and prepares you somewhat for the encounters between
Denethor and his son Faramir in the next part.
Philippa
Lynn
> I don't agree with
> the filmmakers that having Faramir see the ring, be
> struck by its power but not be seduced by it, would
> have reduced the power of the ring. It wasn't all
> powerful, after all.
I agree with most of what you said, Edie!
I think it would have been a problem for the filmmakers, who'd spent
an awful lot of time establishing how evil this ring is -- if it's not
all-powerful, it's pretty darn well nearly all-seductive. Gandalf is
worried about being tempted. Aragorn is tempted, or at the least,
fears he would be. Galadriel is certainly tempted. And right there
you have three pretty powerful people.
If all of a sudden you have Faramir come along and say "I wouldn't
pick up that thing if I saw it lying by the side of the road" -- then,
gee -- here's a Man (who we've been told are in decline and all to
blame for this mess, via Isildur) and he can just blithely ignore the
Ring's power. If he can resist it so easily, why not make him the
king, instead of that guy Aragorn? If he isn't tempted, why doesn't
he take the Ring and complete the mission to Mordor, so poor Frodo can
go home? The answers seem obvious if you've read the books, but I
don't think they would be to moviegoers.
Another important difference to me is that Faramir in the book never
sees the ring, and never even comes close to touching it -- maybe if
he had, he would have been far more tempted. The filmmakers changed
this, and in doing so, added the temptation, which is certainly
consistent with nearly everyone else (at least every non-Hobbit) who's
been anywhere near the thing.
But the tempation for Faramir was never for power for himself -- I
think he saw it as a means to an end, a chance to show his value to
his father and finally get his approval and love. The line about
"showing his quality" -- which seems to be in earnest when Faramir
says it in the theatrical edition morphs into a statement dripping
with irony when you hear it in the Extended Edition, because its then
become an echo of his father's cruel taunt. Those words are redeemed
in the end by Sam's appreciation of and sincerity toward Faramir.
(When I first saw the EE, I was just amazed by the huge difference the
change in context gave to that line.)
So I think the filmmakers gave the character an arc that lifted him up
and showed him as the good and compassionate man that he is. They
gave him an internal struggle that made him real, and sympathetic, and
human.
I think they achieved the same with Aragorn throughout the three films
by making him more reluctant to face his destiny, and more aware of
his race's failings. These changes (and I think they are changes)
have received little criticism because they're more subtle -- they
have a lot more screen time with Aragorn. But I think it was
essentially the same, and not only was it not the "character
assassination," complained of, it actually strengthened both
characters. I like Aragorn much more now that I've seen this
interpretation of him.
While Faramir in the book is a much easier character to like, because,
gee, he's really nice and all, his ability to overcome his temptation
makes him a better man than never having been tempted in the first
place.
>But I *do* agree with the
> filmmakers, that a benevolent meeting with Faramir would
> not have kept the dramatic tension going. There needed
> to be conflict there, not a friendly face.
Yes. Somehow, having them eat a nice dinner and get tucked into bed
after a long chat wouldn't be much of a counterpoint to the battle
going on at Helm's Deep, or what Merry and Pippin were doing with
Treebeard.
> All three movies are
> terrific examples of movie making, and while of course the
> movies aren't the books, IMO, they don't have to be.
Amen to that. Trying to translate this book in particular to the
screen with a page-by-page adaptation would have been impossible, and
even if it were possible, it would have been utterly dreadful. You'd
have been on hour 12 before you got out of the Shire (after all of
Frodo's real-estate transactions.) The Council of Elrond alone would
have been 3 hours. That chapter is 15,000 bleepin' words long.
Lynn
Edie
phil...@ee.signature.uk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 19:17:22 -0600, "Jerri" <nooneh...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Let's see ... Boromir has died at the hands of the Uruk Hai after trying to
> >take the Ring from Frodo, who decides he must leave the Fellowship behind.
> >Sam goes with Frodo, and they begin the trek to Mordor in order to destroy
> >the Ring. They are joined by Gollum [AKA Smeagol] who promises to guide
> >Frodo and Sam to Mordor. Merry and Pippin are taken captive by the Uruk Hai,
> >who are attacked by the Rohirrim and killed. Merry and Pippin escape to
> >Fangorn Forest and meet up with Treebeard, the Ent.
>
> For the complete novice, a fully sentient tree-being.
>
> Aragorn, Gimli, and
> >Legolas run and run and run up hill and down dale [gorgeous scenery] to try
> >and rescue Merry and Pippin from the Uruk Hai ... and meet up with the
> >Rohirrim, who tell them there ain't much hope that 2 hobbits escaped the
> >slaughter of the Uruk Hai, but give them a couple horses to help them look.
> >The Rohirrim are riding into exile, as Wormtongue has ... oh my goodness ...
> >this is hard ...
>
> The beautifully rendered Viking-esque Hall of Gondor.
Edoras and Meduseld were spectacular, IMO. I guess I'm
just a sucker for environmental and structural
majesty. <g> (Lothlorien in the first movie brought
tears to my eyes...)
>
> >.. which is going to
> >attack the folks of Rohan in the BATTLE OF HELM'S DEEP, which is a huge
> >magnificent battle with elves and orcs and men.
>
> It lasts over an hour, but don't let that put you off; it just sucks you
> in and carries you along a bit like surfing the most amazing emotional
> wave.
There are many wonderful small moments amidst the
largeness of battle. It really is very well done.
>
> >. They get caught by Faramir, who has issues
> >with his father, but eventually lets them go ...
>
> Nicely played,
I agree- I think David Wenham was wonderful in both
TTT and ROTK.
and prepares you somewhat for the encounters between
> Denethor and his son Faramir in the next part.
The Faramir-Boromir-Denethor flashback that's only
in the extended edition is a wonderful scene.
I join in the recommendations that Sandra rent the
extended version before going to see ROTK.
Edie
>
> Philippa
Edie
Lynn wrote:
>
> Edie <ed...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<401BBF5F...@comcast.net>..
>
> > I don't agree with
> > the filmmakers that having Faramir see the ring, be
> > struck by its power but not be seduced by it, would
> > have reduced the power of the ring. It wasn't all
> > powerful, after all.
>
> I agree with most of what you said, Edie!
>
> I think it would have been a problem for the filmmakers, who'd spent
> an awful lot of time establishing how evil this ring is -- if it's not
> all-powerful, it's pretty darn well nearly all-seductive. Gandalf is
> worried about being tempted. Aragorn is tempted, or at the least,
> fears he would be.
I think that both Gandalf and Aragorn were definitely
tempted by it, though each in their own way had the wisdom
to resist it.
Galadriel is certainly tempted. And right there
> you have three pretty powerful people.
True, but I think that that is why they were tempted.
These were people who were born to wield power, and I
think they would be most susceptble to its seduction
because of that reason.
The hobbits, OTOH, were the least subject to
temptation by it, in a large part becase power did
not mean that much to them, I think.
I saw Faramir as the kind of person who would much rather
follow scholarly and artistic pursuits than exercise power.
What he did, he did out of duty to Gondor and family
loyalty, not for power.
>
> If all of a sudden you have Faramir come along and say "I wouldn't
> pick up that thing if I saw it lying by the side of the road" -- then,
> gee -- here's a Man (who we've been told are in decline and all to
> blame for this mess, via Isildur) and he can just blithely ignore the
> Ring's power. If he can resist it so easily, why not make him the
> king, instead of that guy Aragorn? If he isn't tempted, why doesn't
> he take the Ring and complete the mission to Mordor, so poor Frodo can
> go home? The answers seem obvious if you've read the books, but I
> don't think they would be to moviegoers.
I certainly agree that he would have to be tempted in the
way that Gandalf and Aragorn were tempted. Whether or not
he would have to actually take an unwilling Frodo to
Gondor with it, in order to keep the power of the
ring from being diminished is my question.
>
> Another important difference to me is that Faramir in the book never
> sees the ring, and never even comes close to touching it -- maybe if
> he had, he would have been far more tempted.
Hmmm, that's an excellent point.
The filmmakers changed
> this, and in doing so, added the temptation, which is certainly
> consistent with nearly everyone else (at least every non-Hobbit) who's
> been anywhere near the thing.
I agree- but I also am not sure that he would be more
tempted than Gandalf or Aragorn, who were briefly tempted,
but resisted taking the ring. I think that he might well
have felt its pull, but still recognized the foolhardiness
of taking it for Gondor or himself.
>
> But the tempation for Faramir was never for power for himself -- I
> think he saw it as a means to an end, a chance to show his value to
> his father and finally get his approval and love. The line about
> "showing his quality" -- which seems to be in earnest when Faramir
> says it in the theatrical edition morphs into a statement dripping
> with irony when you hear it in the Extended Edition, because its then
> become an echo of his father's cruel taunt. Those words are redeemed
> in the end by Sam's appreciation of and sincerity toward Faramir.
> (When I first saw the EE, I was just amazed by the huge difference the
> change in context gave to that line.)
I agree completely. I had the same reaction to the
extended edition.
>
> So I think the filmmakers gave the character an arc that lifted him up
> and showed him as the good and compassionate man that he is. They
> gave him an internal struggle that made him real, and sympathetic, and
> human.
I agree with this too. I like the Faramir of the book
because I like to see someone go against type; in this
case to see a man who is simply not tempted by power.
Sort of the exception that proves the rule. :-)
But given the choices of the filmakers to the point
where Faramir appears, I think they do an excellent
job of making his encounter with Frodo both right in
the dramatic context of the story, and right in terms of
showing the character's strength and wisdom.
Bringing the ring to Osgiliath did set up one of the
enduring images for me of TTT- Frodo o Osgiliath's
Edie
OOPS! I hit send before I had finished my reply to Lynn's
post.
Here's where I left off. :-)
Edie wrote:
>
> Hi~
>
> Lynn wrote:
> >
> > Edie <ed...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<401BBF5F...@comcast.net>..
snips
> >
> > So I think the filmmakers gave the character an arc that lifted him up
> > and showed him as the good and compassionate man that he is. They
> > gave him an internal struggle that made him real, and sympathetic, and
> > human.
>
> I agree with this too. I like the Faramir of the book
> because I like to see someone go against type; in this
> case to see a man who is simply not tempted by power.
>
> Sort of the exception that proves the rule. :-)
>
> But given the choices of the filmakers to the point
> where Faramir appears, I think they do an excellent
> job of making his encounter with Frodo both right in
> the dramatic context of the story, and right in terms of
> showing the character's strength and wisdom.
>
> Bringing the ring to Osgiliath did set up one of the
> enduring images for me of TTT- Frodo o Osgiliath's
Er, what I mean to say was... Bringing the ring to
Osgiliath did set up one of the enduring images for me
of TTT- Frodo on the Osgiliath parapet, his cloak flowing,
his ring hand outstretched towards the Nazgul...
Amazing image.
> >
> > I think they achieved the same with Aragorn throughout the three films
> > by making him more reluctant to face his destiny, and more aware of
> > his race's failings. These changes (and I think they are changes)
> > have received little criticism because they're more subtle -- they
> > have a lot more screen time with Aragorn. But I think it was
> > essentially the same, and not only was it not the "character
> > assassination," complained of, it actually strengthened both
> > characters. I like Aragorn much more now that I've seen this
> > interpretation of him.
I agree here- I think he is even more reluctant to take up
his kingship in the movies than he is in the books, and I
think it makes for good drama.
> >
> > While Faramir in the book is a much easier character to like, because,
> > gee, he's really nice and all, his ability to overcome his temptation
> > makes him a better man than never having been tempted in the first
> > place.
I'm not sure I agree completely here. In one sense it's
interesting to have a foil for all of those other men who
are tempted by power. :-) I like the idea that
occasionally there are people to whom the ring's allure
would hold no sway. But it does make for more drama and
conflict both in Faramir and in the larger movie for him
to be tempted by the ring.
> >
> > >But I *do* agree with the
> > > filmmakers, that a benevolent meeting with Faramir would
> > > not have kept the dramatic tension going. There needed
> > > to be conflict there, not a friendly face.
> >
> > Yes. Somehow, having them eat a nice dinner and get tucked into bed
> > after a long chat wouldn't be much of a counterpoint to the battle
> > going on at Helm's Deep, or what Merry and Pippin were doing with
> > Treebeard.
<g> I agree. It rightly kept Frodo and Sam's journey taut
with conflict at a moment when I think it needed to be.
> >
> > > All three movies are
> > > terrific examples of movie making, and while of course the
> > > movies aren't the books, IMO, they don't have to be.
> >
> > Amen to that. Trying to translate this book in particular to the
> > screen with a page-by-page adaptation would have been impossible, and
> > even if it were possible, it would have been utterly dreadful. You'd
> > have been on hour 12 before you got out of the Shire (after all of
> > Frodo's real-estate transactions.) The Council of Elrond alone would
> > have been 3 hours. That chapter is 15,000 bleepin' words long.
<g> Agreed.
Edie
> >
> > Lynn
HiRene23
>The Last Samurai told a more compelling story and it was
>> beautifully told.
>
>It had little emotional resonance for me, despite the appealing
>visuals.
Different strokes and all. :)
It was filled with emotional resonance for me.
>It was Dances with Wolves set in Japan, and even though I liked the
>visuals and the battles, I just couldn't help thinking I'd seen this
>movie before.
Now there's a movie that did nothing for me.
Rene
HiRene23
http://www.teemings.com/extras/lotr/
Rene
Lynn
<phil...@ee.signature.uk> wrote in message
news:fs5t10lo2necnd2ok...@4ax.com...
> It lasts over an hour, but don't let that put you off; it just sucks you
> in and carries you along a bit like surfing the most amazing emotional
> wave.
Except it really doens't last over an hour. This didn't sound right, so I
popped in the discs and checked. I am not counting the lead-in or out of
the battle as part of it, because really, it's not the same thing, and I
think the concern is being bored by lengthy battle scenes. (I think that
concern is misplaced here, but whatever :)
Anyway, in the theatrical version, the first shot is fired at 2:12. The
battle effectively ends at 2:40, shortly after dawn of the next day (trying
to avoid spoilers here). That 28 minutes includes 3 cutaways to Merry and
Pippin and 2 to Frodo and Sam.
In the EE, the battle is essentially the same length, it's just cut a bit
differently.
So really, it's more like a half-hour, but not a continuous half-hour.
Lynn
phil...@ee.signature.uk
>Edoras and Meduseld were spectacular, IMO. I guess I'm
>just a sucker for environmental and structural
>majesty. <g> (Lothlorien in the first movie brought
>tears to my eyes...)
Yes, and just about 100% of ROTK. As close to flawless as makes no
difference. Apparently they built Minas Tirith in the same place as
Helm's Deep, so the former most definitely isn't there any more. (What
was real set and not just jaw-dropping CGI).
Philippa
Jerri
the attributions right when we are supposedly quoting someone.
Jerri
"Lynn" <lynnl...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yuFTb.17460$tP1.3014@fed1read07...
Edie
Oh Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith were wonderful. I thought
that Jackson did a great job of interspersing grand
wide shots with closer shots in all of the movies.
Gandalf's ride into Minas Tirith was awesome.
One day I will *have* to get to New Zealand to do a LOTR
tour. :-)
Edie
(But Paris is first. :-))
>
> Philippa
Susan Stansfield
In article <f9b14140.04020...@posting.google.com>,
lynnl...@yahoo.com (Lynn) wrote:
>But the tempation for Faramir was never for power for himself -- I
>think he saw it as a means to an end, a chance to show his value to
>his father and finally get his approval and love.
I think the same thing could be said about Boromir. (Except, of course, for
the part about getting his father's approval <g>). He didn't want power for
himself; he wanted to save his people. Unfortunately, he didn't realize that
the Ring *always* corrupts, even when it's used for good.
The line about
>"showing his quality" -- which seems to be in earnest when Faramir
>says it in the theatrical edition morphs into a statement dripping
>with irony when you hear it in the Extended Edition, because its then
>become an echo of his father's cruel taunt. Those words are redeemed
>in the end by Sam's appreciation of and sincerity toward Faramir.
>(When I first saw the EE, I was just amazed by the huge difference the
>change in context gave to that line.)
Interesting. I haven't seen the theatrical version for some time, but I
watched the extended edition a couple of weeks ago.
>So I think the filmmakers gave the character an arc that lifted him up
>and showed him as the good and compassionate man that he is. They
>gave him an internal struggle that made him real, and sympathetic, and
>human.
Agreed.
<snip>
>> All three movies are
>> terrific examples of movie making, and while of course the
>> movies aren't the books, IMO, they don't have to be.
>
>Amen to that. Trying to translate this book in particular to the
>screen with a page-by-page adaptation would have been impossible, and
>even if it were possible, it would have been utterly dreadful. You'd
>have been on hour 12 before you got out of the Shire (after all of
>Frodo's real-estate transactions.) The Council of Elrond alone would
>have been 3 hours. That chapter is 15,000 bleepin' words long.
True. IME, movies based on books are *never* exactly like the books. There
are always going to be some changes. I generally don't have a problem with
that as long as the "spirit" of the book is still there. And it's there in
these movies.
Susan
Darth Maul's Highlander Site:
http://pub54.ezboard.com/fdarthscommunityfrm20
Susan Stansfield
In article <20040203230650...@mb-m01.aol.com>, susie...@aol.com
(Susan Stansfield) wrote:
>>> All three movies are
>>> terrific examples of movie making, and while of course the
>>> movies aren't the books, IMO, they don't have to be.
>>
>>Amen to that. Trying to translate this book in particular to the
>>screen with a page-by-page adaptation would have been impossible, and
>>even if it were possible, it would have been utterly dreadful. You'd
>>have been on hour 12 before you got out of the Shire (after all of
>>Frodo's real-estate transactions.) The Council of Elrond alone would
>>have been 3 hours. That chapter is 15,000 bleepin' words long.
>
>True. IME, movies based on books are *never* exactly like the books.
>There
>are always going to be some changes. I generally don't have a problem
>with
>that as long as the "spirit" of the book is still there. And it's there
>in
>these movies.
Just wanted to add some stuff.
I said above that keeping the spirit of a book is what's important when
adapting a book to screen. So I usually don't mind much if a few details are
changed or left out. When I saw FOTR, it didn't bother me at all that Frodo
left on his quest almost immediately after Bilbo's party instead of waiting
several years. I didn't really miss Tom Bombadil either. Then again, I'd only
read the books once at the time, so I couldn't be considered a big fan. <g>
But I am a big fan of Anne Rice novels. And I love the movie version of
Interview with the Vampire (just watched it last week, in fact). But I was
disappointed in the movie of Queen of the Damned. Once again, it's about the
spirit of the books. The Interview movie was true to the story; the QOTD movie
was not.
First Fallen
> Interview with the Vampire (just watched it last week, in fact). But I
was
> disappointed in the movie of Queen of the Damned. Once again, it's about
the
> spirit of the books. The Interview movie was true to the story; the QOTD
movie
> was not.
>
> Susan
I loved Interview. I wasn't thrilled with the changes to Louis' backstory,
but I can get past it. What's interesting (to me at least), I never cared
for the character of Armand in the books, but he's my favourite character in
the movie...so sometimes change is a good thing.
I thought the film was an excellent adaptation of the book....and was
really, really disappointed with Queen of the Damned.
John Donchig
QOTD was doomed from the start. Fast-tracking a property to beat a
rights deadline and then trying to cram two books and 1,400 pages into a
105 minute movie? *rolls eyes*
And then there were the Eurotrash accents. And pretty much every
casting decision other than Paul Bush and Vincent Perez. And the choice
of Jonathan Davis to voice Lestat's singing. And....well, it's getting
late and I need to get to bed. At this rate I'd be up all night whining.
John
Fuzzy
>
>I think they achieved the same with Aragorn throughout the three films
>by making him more reluctant to face his destiny, and more aware of
>his race's failings. These changes (and I think they are changes)
>have received little criticism because they're more subtle -- they
>have a lot more screen time with Aragorn. But I think it was
>essentially the same, and not only was it not the "character
>assassination," complained of, it actually strengthened both
>characters. I like Aragorn much more now that I've seen this
>interpretation of him.
Same here. It's been 17 years since I last read the books (I read them
3 times as a teenager), but I remember a line where, sometime after
they learn who Aragorn is, one the hobbits says he misses Strider. My
reaction was always, "Me too!!" I waited to have the same experience
with the films, but much to my pleasure, I didn't.
Jette Goldie
"John Donchig" <jdon...@earthlink.net> wrote
> And then there were the Eurotrash accents.
?? What is a "Eurotrash accent"?
<everyone sounds like Jean Paul Gaultier?>
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
John Donchig
Self correction: Paul McGann. Bush was his character in Horatio
Hornblower.
John
First Fallen
> > casting decision other than Paul Bush
>
> Self correction: Paul McGann. Bush was his character in Horatio
> Hornblower.
Forgetting for the moment that Paul McGann is also a LOT younger than David
Talbot <g>
John Donchig
Well yeah, but he was good anyway!
John
Susan Stansfield
In article <jqkUb.392874$JQ1.283882@pd7tw1no>, "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com>
wrote:
>> But I am a big fan of Anne Rice novels. And I love the movie version
>of
>> Interview with the Vampire (just watched it last week, in fact). But
>I
>was
>> disappointed in the movie of Queen of the Damned. Once again, it's about
>the
>> spirit of the books. The Interview movie was true to the story; the
>QOTD
>movie
>> was not.
>>
>> Susan
>
>I loved Interview. I wasn't thrilled with the changes to Louis' backstory,
>but I can get past it.
Ditto. I wonder why they changed that from Louis losing his brother to losing
his wife and unborn child. Probably to tell the story more quickly, I suppose.
And it didn't bother me that they left out the Frenier (sp?) family or details
of Louis and Claudia's travels in Eastern Europe.
What's interesting (to me at least), I never cared
>for the character of Armand in the books, but he's my favourite character
>in
>the movie...so sometimes change is a good thing.
That is interesting. I don't think the character was changed that much.
>I thought the film was an excellent adaptation of the book....and was
>really, really disappointed with Queen of the Damned.
Agreed, though I must admit I wasn't expecting much. <g> I hope someone
remakes it and does it right. The book is great, and I'd love to see a film
adaptation that does it justice.
First Fallen
backstory,
> >but I can get past it.
>
> Ditto. I wonder why they changed that from Louis losing his brother to
losing
> his wife and unborn child. Probably to tell the story more quickly, I
suppose.
> And it didn't bother me that they left out the Frenier (sp?) family or
details
> of Louis and Claudia's travels in Eastern Europe.
Yeah, I figured they changed his backstory to expedite things. It's easier
to say he was depressed because his wife and shild had died, than to explain
the whole thing about Paul. (Despite Anne Rice's claims to the contrary, I
still think Lestat killed Paul).
I would have liked to see Louis' and Claudia's encounter with the revenant
though.
> What's interesting (to me at least), I never cared
> >for the character of Armand in the books, but he's my favourite character
> >in
> >the movie...so sometimes change is a good thing.
>
> That is interesting. I don't think the character was changed that much.
Not so much the character, as how the character was presented. For me,
Armand was always kind of boring, but Antonio Banderas just made him really
cool.
> >I thought the film was an excellent adaptation of the book....and was
> >really, really disappointed with Queen of the Damned.
>
> Agreed, though I must admit I wasn't expecting much. <g> I hope someone
> remakes it and does it right. The book is great, and I'd love to see a
film
> adaptation that does it justice.
I'd love to see them do The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned as
mini-series.
Susan Stansfield
In article <hWHUb.415642$ts4.81473@pd7tw3no>, "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com>
wrote:
>> >I loved Interview. I wasn't thrilled with the changes to Louis'
>backstory,
>> >but I can get past it.
>>
>> Ditto. I wonder why they changed that from Louis losing his brother
>to
>losing
>> his wife and unborn child. Probably to tell the story more quickly,
>I
>suppose.
>> And it didn't bother me that they left out the Frenier (sp?) family
>or
>details
>> of Louis and Claudia's travels in Eastern Europe.
>
>Yeah, I figured they changed his backstory to expedite things. It's easier
>to say he was depressed because his wife and shild had died, than to explain
>the whole thing about Paul.
True. And in any case, it still works with the story. Louis was at a hard
point in his life, and that made him vulnerable to Lestat.
(Despite Anne Rice's claims to the contrary,
>I
>still think Lestat killed Paul).
I remember you mentioning this theory before. I'll keep an eye out for
evidence of it next time I read the book. <g>
>I would have liked to see Louis' and Claudia's encounter with the revenant
>though.
That would have been interesting. Or maybe the young man whose wife was killed
by a vampire.
>> What's interesting (to me at least), I never cared
>> >for the character of Armand in the books, but he's my favourite character
>> >in
>> >the movie...so sometimes change is a good thing.
>>
>> That is interesting. I don't think the character was changed that much.
>
>Not so much the character, as how the character was presented. For me,
>Armand was always kind of boring, but Antonio Banderas just made him really
>cool.
I thought all the actors did a great job.
>> >I thought the film was an excellent adaptation of the book....and was
>> >really, really disappointed with Queen of the Damned.
>>
>> Agreed, though I must admit I wasn't expecting much. <g> I hope someone
>> remakes it and does it right. The book is great, and I'd love to see
>a
>film
>> adaptation that does it justice.
>
>I'd love to see them do The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned as
>mini-series.
That might work. I heard rumors that a mini-series of The Witching Hour might
be made. I doubt it'll happen though.
Susan
(just finished "Blood Canticle" last night)
Susan Stansfield
First Fallen
> >I
> >still think Lestat killed Paul).
>
> I remember you mentioning this theory before. I'll keep an eye out for
> evidence of it next time I read the book. <g>
I formed the opinion after reading TVL, when Lestat talks about first seeing
Louis, and how much he reminded him of Nicholas. It made sense to me that
Lestat had killed Paul, in order to make Louis more open to Lestat. Plus,
Paul's death was very violent, and suspicious.
> >I'd love to see them do The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned as
> >mini-series.
>
> That might work. I heard rumors that a mini-series of The Witching Hour
might
> be made. I doubt it'll happen though.
I've heard about that too. I'm never read any of the Mayfair Witches books
though, so I don't know if I'd watch it...we'll see.
> Susan
> (just finished "Blood Canticle" last night)
I haven't read anything after Memnoch. I've kinda lost interest in her
style, and wasn't terribly interested with what she was doing with the
characters. I bought Pandora, but never read it.
JDChronicler
either one of the Vampire Chronicles movies. My friends have told me I should
see Interview, but my arguement is that I never like a movie based on a novel
that I didn't enjoy. Interview was the first Anne Rice book I read and I
almost never read another. If it's a well done adaptation that's faithful to
the novel, then I imagine that I would react to it the same way as I did to the
book. It was the first Anne Rice novel I ever read and I almost didn't read
another.
Fortunately, I changed my mind. I think Queen of the Damned is the best of her
vampire novels. But the promos for the movie were enough to show me that it
wasn't worth seeing.
I'm not sure how someone would televise The Witching Hour. It's a summary of
centuries of Mayfair family history. It should have been thirteen books, not
one. So the book wasn't adequate to the subject. A miniseries would probably
be just as inadequate--if not more so
Susan, what did you think of Blood Canticle? It surprised me. I'm not a fan
of LeStat, but I started to like him better with this book.
The Anne Rice novel that I just read, and would like to praise to the skies, is
Violin. I thought it was a beautiful piece of work, immensely powerful and
probably Anne Rice's most personal novel. It's an act of bravery when an author
deals with subjects that are so close to her own life.
Shomeret
First Fallen
skies, is
> Violin. I thought it was a beautiful piece of work, immensely powerful
and
> probably Anne Rice's most personal novel. It's an act of bravery when an
author
> deals with subjects that are so close to her own life.
>
> Shomeret
That's exaclt what Interview with the Vampire was. Basically the book was
fueld by the death of her young daughter.
JDChronicler
daughter-- It isn't about the death of Anne Rice's daughter and doesn't deal
with it as directly as Violin. Claudia isn't Anne Rice's daughter. Anne Rice
herself has denied it, and frankly the very idea turns my stomach. It implies
that Anne Rice is saying that her dead daughter became a monster. Disgusting!
How could a parent portray her own dead child that way? Has anyone who thinks
that Claudia is really Anne Rice's daughter thought about the implications?
Claudia is demonic!
Shomeret
First Fallen
I didn't say that...but Louis is the personification of her grief.
schatze
news:20040207025808...@mb-m24.aol.com...
Anne Rice is currently making news here. Front page news in fact, just because
she is moving out of New Orleans proper. She was also interviewed on the local
news last Thursday and talked about how her life has changed. She sees the world
as a brighter place and wants to live. After her daughter died the world was
dark and she wanted to die. In that sense she did say the Vampire stories were
about her daughter. Not as any specific character, but inspired by her death.
So yes, she said it was about her daughter but that doesn't mean it was specific
references to her daughter. She said it's out with the old. No more witches and
vampires she says.
schatze -------->They showed nice house tours, too~
Edie
It seems to me that vampires are not only a perversion of
life, but a perversion of death. Both life and death are
natural, vampirism (as portrayed in Dracula, etc) is
the epitome of the unnatural. Neither alive nor dead,
they live to suck the life blood out of human beings and
condemn them to an eternity of pseudo-living undeadness
like their own. Misery loves company after all.
It's an eternal trap that to me is the very definition of
horror: neither alive nor dead, asleep nor awake, always
hungry, never sated, not able to create or even fully
destroy, pitiful and ugly and impotent and unrelievedly
grim. Blech.
I'm glad that Rice's 'dark night of the soul' is over,
(though not, I'm sure, her grief) and that she is ready to
rejoin the living.
Maybe I will want to read her future books.
Edie
AMc in CA
>>It was Dances with Wolves set in Japan, and even though I liked the
>>visuals and the battles, I just couldn't help thinking I'd seen this
>>movie before.
To which Rene replied:
>Now there's a movie that did nothing for me.
When I first saw it in the theater, I loved it. I just watched it on TV last
month & wondered why I'd liked it so much. I think it's a movie that really
benefits from the big screen to give more of a feeling of the grand expanse of
the prairie it was taking place on. I remember thinking the cinematography was
great when I first watched it.
Alicia
Edie
I liked Dances with Wolves when I saw it in the theaters
too. I haven't seen it since, so I don't know if it holds
up for me or not.
Edie
> Alicia
First Fallen
> too. I haven't seen it since, so I don't know if it holds
> up for me or not.
I thought it was an all right movie when it came out (though I still think
GoodFellas should have won the Academy Award that year)...but I have no
interest in seeing it again.
Whenever the subject of DwW comes up, I always think of the same thing - "If
he comes back tomorrow, I will call him Two-Socks." Why the hell don't you
just call him Two-Socks now?!
The Ranger
news:DjbVb.416334$JQ1.13923@pd7tw1no...
[snip because this one sentence is SHOCKING]
> (though I still think GoodFellas should have won the
> Academy Award that year)
Whu?? You /liked/ "Goodfellas?" With Joe Pesci as a wannabe thug that can't
tie a string of sentences together without adding "f*ckin'" to it? Bah! The
best point of the movie was when Pesci's character is hit so that he can't
have an open casket.
Swearing /needs/ to have a reason for it to work successfully and
"Goodfellas" doesn't /need/ all the characters juicing up the dialogues.
Trying to increase a movie's letter-rating shouldn't be it.
The Ranger
Susan Stansfield
In article <FSXUb.425285$ts4.72335@pd7tw3no>, "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com>
wrote:
>> >I'd love to see them do The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned as
>> >mini-series.
>>
>> That might work. I heard rumors that a mini-series of The Witching Hour
>might
>> be made. I doubt it'll happen though.
>
>I've heard about that too. I'm never read any of the Mayfair Witches books
>though, so I don't know if I'd watch it...we'll see.
I've read them. I like the Vampire Chronicles best, but the Mayfair Witches
books are very good too.
>> Susan
>> (just finished "Blood Canticle" last night)
>
>I haven't read anything after Memnoch. I've kinda lost interest in her
>style, and wasn't terribly interested with what she was doing with the
>characters. I bought Pandora, but never read it.
Me, I enjoyed her books enough to keep reading them. <g>
Susan Stansfield
In article <zG6Vb.16042$Ii2.7746@lakeread03>, "schatze"
<moos...@hotmoosemail.com> wrote:
>Anne Rice is currently making news here. Front page news in fact, just
>because
>she is moving out of New Orleans proper.
I found out about that through her website. Her husband died a little over a
year ago, and her son lives on the West Coast. She can't take care of that
house by herself. So it's time to move on.
<snip>
She said it's out with the old. No more witches
>and
>vampires she says.
I've heard about that too. I hope she changes her mind. I'd really miss
Lestat, Louis et al.
>schatze -------->They showed nice house tours, too~
Susan
(wishes she'd seen that)
Susan Stansfield
In article <Ky2Vb.426671$ts4.416963@pd7tw3no>, "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com>
wrote:
>> Re Interview With The Vampire being fueled by the death of Anne Rice's
You're both right here. Anne Rice has said that although Claudia's physical
appearance is based on her daughter Michelle, Claudia is a character in her own
right. But as Troy said, Louis' grief over Claudia mirrors Anne's grief over
her daughter. One moment that really showed that was with Madeline, the
dollmaker. Louis asks her, "What do you think she is? A doll?" Madeline
replies. "She's a child who cannot die." Louis: "And the child who did die?"
Madeline: "My daughter".
I think Anne Rice puts a lot of personal things into her books. She even sets
some of them in her own houses.
Susan
Susan Stansfield
In article <20040207014726...@mb-m04.aol.com>, jdchro...@aol.com
(JDChronicler) wrote:
>I think Queen of the Damned is the best of her
>vampire novels.
I agree. What I like best about it is the way all the different characters are
brought together.
But the promos for the movie were enough to show me that
>it
>wasn't worth seeing.
Yes, the story was changed too much. The funny thing is, I have the DVD. (Got
it for Christmas 2002). I guess the Anne Rice fan in me just couldn't not have
it. <g>
>Susan, what did you think of Blood Canticle? It surprised me. I'm not
>a fan
>of LeStat, but I started to like him better with this book.
I enjoyed it. It combined the Vampire and Mayfair Chronicles in a way that
I've been hoping for since Merrick. And I was glad to *finally* find out what
became of Ashlar and Morrigan. But of her more recent books, the one I like
best is Blood and Gold. I'm rather fond of Marius.
>The Anne Rice novel that I just read, and would like to praise to the skies,
>is
>Violin. I thought it was a beautiful piece of work, immensely powerful
>and
>probably Anne Rice's most personal novel. It's an act of bravery when an
>author
>deals with subjects that are so close to her own life.
I've read that one too, and thought it was very well done. And I agree, it is
very personal.
HiRene23
>Swearing /needs/ to have a reason for it to work successfully and
>"Goodfellas" doesn't /need/ all the characters juicing up the dialogues.
I disagree. I thought the language used in "Goodfellas" was completely
appropriate to the story being told.
Rene
HiRene23
>>style, and wasn't terribly interested with what she was doing with the
>>characters. I bought Pandora, but never read it.
That may have been around the time I stopped reading her. Actually her books
became unreadable to me - ramble, ramble, ramble, preternatural something or
another, ramble, ramble, ramble.. etc.
I liked the early vamp novels, and the Mayfair stuff was fine enough, but the
last few I read left me thinking that she owed me a refund.
I do have to say that I really enjoyed a few of her non-horror novels. "Cry to
Heaven" is a favorite, and I also liked "Feast of All Saints" and "Ramses the
Damned" (which I always thought would be a perfect role for AP).
Rene
JDChronicler
probably wouldn't have liked it. It's essentially a rehash of material we
already knew from earlier books. Several of the more recent Vampire Chronicles
books are rehashes. It makes me wonder if Anne Rice really lost interest in
writing about vampires a while back, but felt trapped by the popularity of the
VC novels.
Shomeret
JDChronicler
isn't just that Violin is beautifully written. It isn't just that it has
tremendous emotional power. But it also deals with several different
significant themes in a way that's unforgettable.
I couldn't finish Memnoch The Devil. It's the only Anne Rice book that I
haven't been able to finish so far.. I suppose she thought she was Dante at the
time.
Shomeret
First Fallen
(Got
> it for Christmas 2002). I guess the Anne Rice fan in me just couldn't not
have
> it. <g>
LOL - I have the DVD too. I got it as a gift...but I had actually asked for
it. I knew all the deleted scenes with the Ancients were on the DVD, an I
wanted to watch them.
Jerri
> Ranger:
I thought the language in Goodfellas was appropriate, too. Swearing doesn't
need to have a reason. Swearing is how a whole lotta people talk, and it has
no more sinister meaning than howdy-do to other folks.
Jerri
The Ranger
news:20040208015011...@mb-m24.aol.com...
Those that friends that live in Brooklyn, Queens, and Pittsburgh -- that are
also very jaded to swearing due to Real Life® experiences and career
choices -- voiced similar opinions to mine.
Simply put, it was a hack and cheap stereotyping of those characters.
The Ranger
The Ranger
through message news:Sa2dnT8rZZM...@gbronline.com...
> > > Swearing /needs/ to have a reason for it to work successfully
> > > and "Goodfellas" doesn't /need/ all the characters juicing up
> > > the dialogues.
> > >
> > I disagree. I thought the language used in "Goodfellas" was
> > completely appropriate to the story being told.
> >
> I thought the language in Goodfellas was appropriate, too.
Nonsense; it was a cheap hack and over-reliance on stereotyping. Just
because you have three namebrand stars willing to juice it up on-screen
doesn't make it any more appropriate or true.
> Swearing doesn't need to have a reason. Swearing is how a whole
> lotta people talk, and it has no more sinister meaning than
> howdy-do to other folks.
Bolsheviks and ball-bearings.
It's how a lot of immature, unintelligent teenagers talk because they can't
communicate in a more clear manner. (And this includes those 'adults' that
never grew up mentally.) Swearing is meant to /add/ emphasis to a statement.
To shock an adversary into a pause. To scare an opponent into flight. Or
simply to release the energy of anger or surprise from oneself.
To use it as often as Joe Pesci's and DeNero's characters in shows that the
writers didn't want to spend a lot of energy thinking and that the producers
wanted to pull in more money by 'spicing' the rating to an R.
The Ranger
HiRene23
Ranger:
>Nonsense; it was a cheap hack and over-reliance on stereotyping. Just
>because you have three namebrand stars willing to juice it up on-screen
>doesn't make it any more appropriate or true.
Or, just because it's not a language mode that you are comfortable with, then
it can't be true? I'll give you that the movie may have "juiced it up" a bit,
but by no means was it inappropriate.
>Bolsheviks and ball-bearings.
>
>It's how a lot of immature, unintelligent teenagers talk because they can't
>communicate in a more clear manner. (And this includes those 'adults' that
>never grew up mentally.)
Well, damn. Who knew?
Swearing is meant to /add/ emphasis to a statement.
>To shock an adversary into a pause. To scare an opponent into flight. Or
>simply to release the energy of anger or surprise from oneself.
Those pretty much cover most of the scenes in "Goodfellas" but I would add that
it's also used a part of a natural speech pattern for some people. Certainly
it's not that far out of the realm or possiblity that there are people whose
normal speech pattern is littered with profanities.
Rene
Jerri
> >> I thought the language in Goodfellas was appropriate, too.
> Ranger:
> > Nonsense; it was a cheap hack and over-reliance
> > on stereotyping. Just because you have three
> > namebrand stars willing to juice it up on-screen
> >doesn't make it any more appropriate or true.
> Or, just because it's not a language mode that you
> are comfortable with, then it can't be true? I'll give
> you that the movie may have "juiced it up" a bit,
> but by no means was it inappropriate.
I'll go further. I doubt the movie did juice it up a bit. There are persons
of my own acquaintance who are not at all juicing it up when they use
obscene and profane language, because that's how they talk. Shootfire,
that's how *I* talk sometimes. It all depends upon whom I am with and the
circumstance.
> > Bolsheviks and ball-bearings.It's how a lot of immature,
> > unintelligent teenagers talk because they can't communicate
> > in a more clear manner. (And this includes those 'adults' that
> >never grew up mentally.)
> Well, damn. Who knew?
I never knew this, myself. I have heard it said before, but I never believed
it then and I don't believe it now. My very first boss when I became a
programmer told me that every programmer speaks profanity fluidly. He was
wrong, of course. He was wrong about a lot of things. But *most* programmers
speak profanity fluidly. Richly and in combinations not necessarily heard
outside an IT environment. Unintelligent people do not get into the
programming biz, nor do those who never grew up mentally. There are plenty
of folks in programming *classes* who might not be quite bright or might be
wildly immature, but they grow up when they're trying to make a living at
it.
> > Swearing is meant to /add/ emphasis to a statement.
> > To shock an adversary into a pause. To scare an
> > opponent into flight. Or simply to release the energy
> > of anger or surprise from oneself.
> Those pretty much cover most of the scenes in "Goodfellas"
> but I would add that it's also used a part of a natural speech
> pattern for some people. Certainly it's not that far out of
> the realm or possiblity that there are people whose
> normal speech pattern is littered with profanities.
Not at all out of the realm of possibility. I have heard the gentlest ladies
in the world reel off a string of profanity that would make Barnacle Bill
the Sailor blush. At lunch.
Jerri
The Ranger
> >> I thought the language in Goodfellas was appropriate, too.
> >>
> >Just because you have three namebrand stars willing to juice it up
> >on-screen doesn't make it any more appropriate or true.
> >
> Or, just because it's not a language mode that you are comfortable
> with, then it can't be true?
Uhm, not hardly true nor very likely; I'm not that prudish.
I will grant you that if I hear someone using an explitive every other word,
I question their IQ and will vocally attribute it to his/her supreme
immaturity and an inability to communicate beyond a grunts and groans.
> I'll give you that the movie may have "juiced it up" a bit,
> but by no means was it inappropriate.
We must have different experiences to base these beliefs upon... My
experiences are in direct confrontation with yours. <shrug>
> >Bolsheviks and ball-bearings.
> >
> >It's how a lot of immature, unintelligent teenagers talk because
> >they can't communicate in a more clear manner. (And this includes
> >those 'adults' that never grew up mentally.)
> >
> Well, damn. Who knew?
It would appear a factor of two. :)
> > Swearing is meant to /add/ emphasis to a statement.
> >To shock an adversary into a pause. To scare an opponent
> >into flight. Or simply to release the energy of anger or surprise
> >from oneself.
> >
> Those pretty much cover most of the scenes in "Goodfellas" but I
> would add that it's also used a part of a natural speech pattern for
> some people. Certainly it's not that far out of the realm or possiblity
> that there are people whose normal speech pattern is littered with
> profanities.
There were more scenes of violence where swearing fit right in. The card
scene (prior to the kid getting pumped full of Gloc lead) doesn't require
any... If I was willing to see it again (which I am not), there would be
many more where the dialogue didn't need them to push it along...
It falls back to those that litter their daily speech pattern with
profanities can't communicate effectively and are viewed as deficient. Even
when they are glorified in a film or stereotyped through a Hollyweird script
hack.
The Ranger
The Ranger
news:gZGdnawtCoo...@gbronline.com...
[snip]
> > > Bolsheviks and ball-bearings.It's how a lot of immature,
> > > unintelligent teenagers talk because they can't communicate
> > > in a more clear manner. (And this includes those 'adults' that
> > >never grew up mentally.)
> I never knew this, myself. I have heard it said before, but I never
> believed it then and I don't believe it now. My very first boss
> when I became a programmer told me that every programmer
> speaks profanity fluidly. He was wrong, of course. He was
> wrong about a lot of things. But *most* programmers speak
> profanity fluidly. Richly and in combinations not necessarily
> heard outside an IT environment. Unintelligent people do not
> get into the programming biz, nor do those who never grew up
> mentally.
Wow. Ya learn something new every day... Having also worked in IT for many
years, I can counter your every assertion above with counter-evidence...
Especially the unintelligent people do not get into programming. Dolts and
buffoons abound in that arena more frequently than a sound programmer. Good
coders aren't always smart or mature; there's something about their nature
that allows them to plunk down at a machine, though, in a Rainman-like
bubble to code. Can the majority this specific type of geek hold a
conversation outside that bubble? Generally not... And those elite coders
that can often don't swear because they are smart enough to understand and
use alternative vocabulary.
The Ranger
Jette Goldie
"The Ranger" <cuhula...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0613s$13npaf$1...@ID-61173.news.uni-berlin.de...
> HiRene23 <hire...@aol.comn> wrote in message
> news:20040208120209...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> > >> I thought the language in Goodfellas was appropriate, too.
> > >>
> > >Nonsense; it was a cheap hack and over-reliance on stereotyping.
> > >Just because you have three namebrand stars willing to juice it up
> > >on-screen doesn't make it any more appropriate or true.
> > >
> > Or, just because it's not a language mode that you are comfortable
> > with, then it can't be true?
>
> Uhm, not hardly true nor very likely; I'm not that prudish.
>
> I will grant you that if I hear someone using an explitive every other
word,
> I question their IQ and will vocally attribute it to his/her supreme
> immaturity and an inability to communicate beyond a grunts and groans.
I don't - I just cease to listen to anyone who swears excessively.
Literally, like a "ignore poster" filter on usenet, my brain
just tunes those folks out completely.
I can swear with the best of them - like any Scot (and have
been quite a lot recently) - but *every second word* is.....
excessive. Swearing has more impact if you save it for
when it's needed. When folks hear me swear, they usually
start heading for the bomb shelter.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Susan Stansfield
In article <20040208022300...@mb-m22.aol.com>, jdchro...@aol.com
(JDChronicler) wrote:
>Re Blood and Gold-- I agree with you, Susan. If I weren't so fond of Marius,
>I
>probably wouldn't have liked it. It's essentially a rehash of material
>we
>already knew from earlier books. Several of the more recent Vampire
Chronicles
>books are rehashes.
There's some truth to that, though there is some new material in them.
It makes me wonder if Anne Rice really lost interest
>in
>writing about vampires a while back, but felt trapped by the popularity
>of the
>VC novels.
I've never thought about that, but you could be right.
Susan Stansfield
In article <OrmVb.433898$ts4.12752@pd7tw3no>, "First Fallen" <no...@nope.com>
wrote:
>> Yes, the story was changed too much. The funny thing is, I have the
Same here. I will watch the movie occasionally though.
Susan Stansfield
In article <20040208020616...@mb-m24.aol.com>, hire...@aol.comn
(HiRene23) wrote:
>I do have to say that I really enjoyed a few of her non-horror novels.
> "Cry to
>Heaven" is a favorite, and I also liked "Feast of All Saints" and "Ramses
>the
>Damned" (which I always thought would be a perfect role for AP).
Funny you should say that. When I read Ramses the Damned, I actually pictured
AP as Ramses. I also think he'd make a good Khayman.
GinjerB
<cuhula...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>It falls back to those that litter their daily speech pattern with
>profanities can't communicate effectively and are viewed as deficient. Even
>when they are glorified in a film or stereotyped through a Hollyweird script
>hack.
>
>The Ranger
>
>
>
But, but...Goodfellas is *supposed* to be exaggerated! And also --well, I know
a lot of folks won't agree with this--funny. (the exaggertion being part of the
comic effect.)
As to it being sterotypical--recall that it is also based on a true story.
GinjerB
Fuzzy
wrote:
Somewhere I heard or read that Anne Rice didn't conciously realize
there was a connection between Michelle and Claudia when she was
writing the book. That sometime after the book came out someone
pointed it out to her and she agreed that yeah, there probably was a
connection, but it was all subconcious..
Gabby
Susan Stansfield
In article <amqh20tc8jk5i5di0...@4ax.com>, Fuzzy <x...@xx.com>
wrote:
>Somewhere I heard or read that Anne Rice didn't conciously realize
>there was a connection between Michelle and Claudia when she was
>writing the book. That sometime after the book came out someone
>pointed it out to her and she agreed that yeah, there probably was a
>connection, but it was all subconcious..
I've heard the same thing. Here's a quote from "The Vampire Companion", by
Katherine Ramsland: "I never consciously thought about it when I was writing
the book...I wasn't conscious of the connection. I knew that I was using the
physical beauty of Michelle as the model, but Claudia was a fictional character
in her own right. The character, the voice, and the things Claudia say have
*nothing* to do with my daughter -- but there's no question that this is the
symbolic working out of a terrible grief. What else can it possibly be?"
Here's something else you may find interesting. In earlier drafts of
Interview, Claudia doesn't die. But Anne Rice experienced psychological
problems that cleared up only after she rewrote the ending, killing off Claudia
and having Louis mourn her. This fits with what Troy said earlier about the
character of Louis being a personification of her grief.