rec.arts.books.tolkien
Gary
They actually post MOSTLY Tolkien stuff instead of the other way here.
Morgil
"Gary" <ga...@kvne.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:vh81gj4...@corp.supernews.com...
> Thanks for the heads up about rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> They actually post MOSTLY Tolkien stuff instead of the other way here.
If you quit top-posting and whining, you should
find it a nice place. Bye-bye.
Morgil
Gary
off topic politcizing to be a vice. This all began shortly after I
discovered this group and was so delighted at the prospects of learning
about Tolkien and his world. Now the vast majority of posts are off
topic. NOT a good development for ANY group. Thank goodness the off
topic posters are leaving the other group alone.
Just my two cents worth.
None
>
> I do n-<SLAP>
Stop whining Gary, there's a good lad.
TIA
M.
Gary
None wrote:
Now THAT was a clever response.
Steuard Jensen
<bf123m$9usga$1...@ID-81911.news.uni-berlin.de>:
> "Gary" <ga...@kvne.com> kirjoitti:
> > Thanks for the heads up about rec.arts.books.tolkien.
> > They actually post MOSTLY Tolkien stuff instead of the other way
> > here.
> If you quit top-posting and whining, you should find it a nice
> place. Bye-bye.
Hmm. I certainly approve of your desire to introduce newcomers to
standard netiquette. I suspect, though, that you would be more
successful (and they would be happier) if your approach were more
positive and less critical.
As for your comment about "whining", take a look at the archives of
a.f.t for the past six months or so. (Heck, just look at the weekly
statistics for top threads through that period.) Look at the total
volume of on-topic discussion. Look at the total volume of off-topic
discussion. And then explain to me how Gary's comments about the
unfortunate state of the group were at all inappropriate.
Yes, I understand that a.f.t is to some extent a social venue where
Tolkien fans can meet and discuss Tolkien _and_ other topics. But
when heated discussions about non-Tolkien topics come to dominate the
group's activity for an extended time, that's simply not fair. It
makes the group unpleasant for anyone who does _not_ want to discuss
those topics here, and as some participants leave and many newcomers
don't bother to stay, the newsgroup's underlying community may be
seriously damaged. Of course everyone has the _right_ to post
whatever they want to here, but doing so ceases to be _ethical_ when
it reduces others' enjoment beyond a certain point.
The fact is, if people want to discuss current events, international
relations, or whatever, there are newsgroups where such discussions
are entirely on-topic and welcome. When people come to
alt.fan.tolkien, they have every right to expect that discussions will
focus more or less on Tolkien. Sure, this group is generally "less
serious" than r.a.b.t (that wasn't always true!), and it's fine for it
to spend more time off-topic, but the "average" discussion should
still center on Tolkien, and most discussions shouldn't be _too_ far
from that.
For the past few months, an enormous fraction of the throughput here
has centered on international affairs. That hasn't been part of a
general trend toward very broad off-topic-ness: it's a specific other
topic, which has to some extent changed the topic of the group itself.
As I said above, that's just not fair to the group as a whole. Some
would claim (and have claimed) that this new topic is "more important"
than the group's actual topic, and I'll admit that they're absolutely
right. But that's an argument for people to change which newsgroups
they post to, not an argument for changing every newsgroup into
soc.politics.
I honestly don't understand why the people here who are so passionate
about these other topics haven't already done that, actually. Why
limit themselves to discussions with the handful of people on
alt.fan.tolkien who share that interest when they could go to a more
appropriate group _filled_ with interested, knowledgeable people?
They'd still be welcome to come here and discuss Tolkien too, of
course! (Maybe some people here already do.) That seems like it
would be the ideal solution for everyone. Why not do it?
Steuard Jensen
Yuk Tang
>
> As for your comment about "whining", take a look at the archives of
> a.f.t for the past six months or so. (Heck, just look at the weekly
> statistics for top threads through that period.) Look at the total
> volume of on-topic discussion. Look at the total volume of off-topic
> discussion. And then explain to me how Gary's comments about the
> unfortunate state of the group were at all inappropriate.
Then why do the on-topic nuts keep confining Tolkien-related discussions to
rabt? I've tried to do my bit in the thread 'Shards of Narsil',
cross-posting a promising thread to aft, but it seems that no-one else wants
to take up the practice. Instead, they boycott aft in favour of rabt, then
moan about why no-one discusses on-topic here, and point to rabt as how it's
properly done.
There is going to be a certain amount of passion over a topic that, after
all, affects the world. But if people want the group to be more on-topic,
they should at least try to make it so. All it takes is cross-posting any
interesting threads to alt.fan.tolkien.
Cheers, ymt.
Een wilde Ier
wrote:
We *had* a new and engaging field of Tolkien-obsessiveness to mull and
dissect over a year ago - the Peter Jackson films.
Guess what happened?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Yep, you've probably already guessed it - non-stop bitching from the
very same people _now_ bitching about how nobody has started any
mildly interesting Tolkien-related threads!
David
--
Journalist: Where in Northern Ireland will the two leaders meet?
Ari Fleischer: Dublin.
Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer,
George W. Bush's chief spokesman
April 4, 2003
Gary
Just to keep the discussion honest, I have posted several items--usually
questions of a newbie nature. I am not ashamed at all to be a novice when it
comes to Tolkien. I don't even mind being chided for a lack of etiquette which
seems important to some. I hope those same people will strive to make this group
live up to its name a bit more. Perhaps a group named "Tolkien fans discuss
everything except Tolkien" would be appropriate. I fear some of you simply have
run out of Tolkien material to discuss or have lost your love of the man's work
and have replaced it with a love for your own bombastic pronouncements. Prove me
wrong and start digging deeply again into the Tolkien universe and its depth.
Surely you have not exhausted it to that extent. Surely not.
Gary
TchWrtrMcf
Was it fuck, Gary, you top-posting, whining little shitfuck from Hell.
However, THIS one is. That's because I'm Catholic and a famous author, and YOU aren't, you slimey little bastard.
ALL ATHEISTS & MUSLIMS MUST DIE !!!!
DEATH TO ALL SCUMBAGS WHO DON'T LOVE GEORGE BUSH & THE OIL WAR !!!!
Love & Hugs,
tchwr...@aol.com
Morgil
"Steuard Jensen" <sbje...@midway.uchicago.edu> kirjoitti
viestissä:NR_Qa.35$Y4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
> As for your comment about "whining", take a look at the archives of
> a.f.t for the past six months or so.
Oh, I have no problem with his point, but rather
that he keeps complaining about it post after post.
He also seems to include movie posts to his "unwanted
OT-subjects" list, which goes even farther to the
Newbie telling Regulars what to post and what not
-territory. And finally, it appears that he has found
another forum, which seems to be more to his liking
- so why does he still keeps posting here complaining
what a lousy place this is??
Morgil
AC
Morgil
"AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:slrnbh9b2g.1ao.m...@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net...
> Because AFT regulars are so lovable?
They are the most wretched scum ever to have
scourged the Usenet!
Morgil
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
but can they do the mirkwood run in less than twelve parsecs
AC
Henriette
> Perhaps a group named "Tolkien fans discuss
> everything except Tolkien" would be appropriate.
LOL.
To me it is interesting to notice that to my Tolkien-related posts
there are very seldom to never, any reactions, which does not stop me
from posting them every now and then. (I only post to AFT). But if I
write off-topic, I have a lot of replies and fun.
Secondly, I have a request. I wish people would stop referring to
themselves as Regulars meaning, that gives them certain special rights
(like being rude).
Henriette
Henriette
>
> We *had* a new and engaging field of Tolkien-obsessiveness to mull and
> dissect over a year ago - the Peter Jackson films.
>
"no-way-to-Middle-Earth-but-through-the-books" front, I think the
films are interesting and it would be nice to have an ongoing
film-thread in which we discuss the films and all relating aspects in
depth. In a structured manner preferably, and I'd want to rewatch them
first.
Henriette
g.skinner
> Secondly, I have a request. I wish people would stop referring to
> themselves as Regulars meaning, that gives them certain special rights
> (like being rude).
>
I'm a regular, no hang on I mean I'm regular, something to do with bran for
breakfast.
Graeme
g.skinner
news:be50318e.03071...@posting.google.com...
change your opinion of the book/characters/storyline for the better or
worse. One recent thread on AFT was regarding Bree, my view is the film got
it wrong in every way at Bree. I think Bakshi got it much better at that
point.
Graeme
AC
The film discussions have lead to some fairly nasty flaming, however. (I'm
not guiltless in that respect).
--
Aaron Clausen
None
[Steuard's whining snipped]
Stop whining Steuard.
The world is being subverted before your very eyes. I'll use any legal
means to bring this to the fore, including posting to aft, which at each
film is one of the most widely read Groups on Usenet.
Wake up Steuard. Ivory Towers are for children.
M.
None
>I fear some of you simply have
> run out of Tolkien material to discuss or have lost your love of the man's work
> and have replaced it with a love for your own bombastic pronouncements. Prove me
> wrong and start digging deeply again into the Tolkien universe and its depth.
> Surely you have not exhausted it to that extent. Surely not.
> Gary
Still TROLLING I see, Gary.
M.
None
Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
recognised rights on Usenet.
Secondly, Usenet is kind of anonymous, or at least "remote" and this
encourages rudeness amongst people.
Thirdly, its a general thing, not specific and I for one don't repress
it. It seems to be the only place some of the intellectuals here can
actually let off steam.
Gawd knows what would happen if that outlet were blocked.
M.
None
Well, I cannot agree with every way, but it certainly didn't reflect my
reading of the book.
The reason I cannot agree more, is that *someone* in Jackson's crew
seems to have actually read the books and remembered that every time
Frodo put on the Ring he was partly in the Wraiths world, and this
experience was enlarged upon in Bree.
The whole business of putting the Ring on becomse more highlit and
fraught with peril and this is something the books [for obvious reasons
of not helping the plot or repetition or both] don't dwell on.
After initially disliking it, I actually came to appreciate the scene in
Bree more than the book in places.
M.
None
Welcome to the Group, Regular.
M.
Morgil
"None" <No...@none.com> kirjoitti viestissä:3F1584A1...@none.com...
I'll never join the Dark Side!
(I jsut toy with it occasionally...)
Morgil
g.skinner
> > >
> > > They are the most wretched scum ever to have
> > > scourged the Usenet!
> > >
> > > Morgil
> >
> > Welcome to the Group, Regular.
>
> I'll never join the Dark Side!
I was told be a very reliable source that you started the Dark Side, I even
have pictures to prove it. Send a staggeringly huge bar of choklit or I'll
have to publish them.
Graeme
Morgil
"g.skinner" <gp.sk...@NOSPAMtalk21.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:gZ8Ra.27659$4O4.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Jsut because I might have started the Side
of Insufficient Light, does that make me
responsible for the atrocities committed by
the Dark Side while I was frozen in carbonate??
Morgil
g.skinner
> Jsut because I might have started the Side
> of Insufficient Light, does that make me
> responsible for the atrocities committed by
> the Dark Side while I was frozen in carbonate??
>
seem to remember it clearly states under article -3 that you will be
responsible for all activities by said group, even if carbonate is used in a
non warming fashion.
Graeme
Gary
TchWrtrMcf wrote:
Not so clever.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I wish people would stop referring to themselves as Regulars meaning,
> that gives them certain special rights (like being rude).
<?>
I'd suggest that MOST of the 'regulars' do not mean that by it at
all... and that any who do would be rude regardless. :)
Conrad Dunkerson
> Then why do the on-topic nuts keep confining Tolkien-related discussions to
> rabt?
They don't. There are Tolkien discussions going on in both groups.
The percentage of such is certainly higher in RABT, but that is as
much because of the high amount of off topic stuff in AFT as because
of a decrease in ON topic postings.
> All it takes is cross-posting any interesting threads to alt.fan.tolkien.
And how long do you think it would be before those threads would be
hijacked and turned into cross-posted politics? I've seen concerted
efforts to interject politics into any AFT thread which DARES stray
on-topic.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
only if you raped anyone after a miraculous recovery from leprosy
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
need more fights over the canoncity of jrrts napkins scribblings
AC
No one can stop you, of course. But I find it pretty pathetic that you feel
that intruding upon a topical group with off-topic posts is some sort of
legitimate form of political action. Do you go to children's birthday
parties and tell the little ones about being subverted? Do you go into
movie theatres and stand in front of the screen and tell everyone how the
world is being subverted?
If not, then why do you feel it legitimate here?
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
Conrad Dunkerson
> The world is being subverted before your very eyes. I'll use any legal
> means to bring this to the fore, including posting to aft, which at each
> film is one of the most widely read Groups on Usenet.
Nonsense. There are many Usenet groups that get more traffic year
round than AFT gets even just after one of the movies comes out.
Indeed, the political newsgroups you avoid in favor of harrassing us
are amongst them. If you were really interested in heavy readership
you should be posting there.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
> recognised rights on Usenet.
True. They are recognized to have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
> Secondly, Usenet is kind of anonymous, or at least "remote" and this
> encourages rudeness amongst people.
Ah... so that's your excuse? :)
> Thirdly, its a general thing, not specific and I for one don't repress
> it.
No kidding.
Morgil
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:1178b6d1.03071...@posting.google.com...
Agreed. To me the only valid reason for off topic
discussions in AFT is to find out what other Tolkien
fans aroud the world think about the world events
and other interesting issues. And of curse, sometimes
these views need to be "corrected". ;-)
Morgil
Morgil
"AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:slrnbhat2n.17s.m...@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net...
That's jsut my dinner. Damn enchilladas!
Morgil
Hasdrubal Hamilcar
> Quoth "Morgil" <more...@hotmail.com> in article
> <bf123m$9usga$1...@ID-81911.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>
>>"Gary" <ga...@kvne.com> kirjoitti:
>>
>>>Thanks for the heads up about rec.arts.books.tolkien.
>>>They actually post MOSTLY Tolkien stuff instead of the other way
>>>here.
>
>
>>If you quit top-posting and whining, you should find it a nice
>>place. Bye-bye.
>
>
> Hmm. I certainly approve of your desire to introduce newcomers to
> standard netiquette. I suspect, though, that you would be more
> successful (and they would be happier) if your approach were more
> positive and less critical.
>
> As for your comment about "whining", take a look at the archives of
> a.f.t for the past six months or so. (Heck, just look at the weekly
> statistics for top threads through that period.) Look at the total
> volume of on-topic discussion. Look at the total volume of off-topic
> discussion. And then explain to me how Gary's comments about the
> unfortunate state of the group were at all inappropriate.
>
> Yes, I understand that a.f.t is to some extent a social venue where
> Tolkien fans can meet and discuss Tolkien _and_ other topics. But
> when heated discussions about non-Tolkien topics come to dominate the
> group's activity for an extended time, that's simply not fair. It
> makes the group unpleasant for anyone who does _not_ want to discuss
> those topics here, and as some participants leave and many newcomers
> don't bother to stay, the newsgroup's underlying community may be
> seriously damaged. Of course everyone has the _right_ to post
> whatever they want to here, but doing so ceases to be _ethical_ when
> it reduces others' enjoment beyond a certain point.
>
> The fact is, if people want to discuss current events, international
> relations, or whatever, there are newsgroups where such discussions
> are entirely on-topic and welcome. When people come to
> alt.fan.tolkien, they have every right to expect that discussions will
> focus more or less on Tolkien. Sure, this group is generally "less
> serious" than r.a.b.t (that wasn't always true!), and it's fine for it
> to spend more time off-topic, but the "average" discussion should
> still center on Tolkien, and most discussions shouldn't be _too_ far
> from that.
>
I always thought that the poetry which every character in LOTR spouted
every several pages, was off-topic. I skipped it most of the time, when
I was younger. Talks of far off places, ancient events, it had little
interest for me and little to do with the rest of the narrarative.
Off topic posts are in that category. They have some value to the world
we see aound them. I think probably most newsgroups in usenet had such
off topic posts, this year in particular.
Hasan
Steuard Jensen
<bf1ump$9m6bd$1...@ID-134236.news.uni-berlin.de>:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
> > As for your comment about "whining", take a look at the archives
> > volume of on-topic discussion. Look at the total volume of
> > off-topic discussion.
> Then why do the on-topic nuts keep confining Tolkien-related
> discussions to rabt?
Hmm. I think it's been quite some time since I've started an on-topic
thread that I didn't cross-post to both groups. (Not that I've
started a _lot_ of them recently, mind you, but I've started at least
a few!)
On the other hand, I've been pretty busy with other things in recent
months, so I've ended up reading a.f.t considerably less often and
less carefully than at some times in the past. That's mostly a
time-saving technique, but it's also a reaction to the lower "signal
to noise ratio" over here of late. At any rate, that means that I
just plain haven't seen some of the on-topic discussions that didn't
get cross-posted to r.a.b.t. (Or at least, that I didn't see them
until they were already basically over.)
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
<o059hvorqbp56jj1c...@4ax.com>:
> "Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Steuard Jensen wrote:
> >> As for your comment about "whining", take a look at the archives
> >> of a.f.t for the past six months or so...
> >Then why do the on-topic nuts keep confining Tolkien-related
> >discussions to rabt?
[snip]
> We *had* a new and engaging field of Tolkien-obsessiveness to mull
> and dissect over a year ago - the Peter Jackson films.
> Guess what happened?
> Yep, you've probably already guessed it - non-stop bitching from the
> very same people _now_ bitching about how nobody has started any
> mildly interesting Tolkien-related threads!
Um. For the record, I don't recall ever complaining about discussions
involving the movies. I've posted reviews of both films to date, and
I've been involved in a fair number of movie-related threads
(certainly not all of them!). I _did_ support the idea of trying to
keep most movie-related discussion in a.f.t instead of r.a.b.t, but
that was only so that those who didn't want to discuss the films would
have a place where they could avoid the topic. I certainly never
advocated eliminating discussion of the films altogether!
I'll certainly concede that people who complain about movie
discussions are more likely than average to complain about off-topic
discussions, too: they probably have a specific idea of what the group
should be about, and they're willing to defend it. On the other hand,
I don't think it's at all fair to suggest that those who complain
about off-topic discussions are generally also against movie
discussions: after all, the r.a.b.t charter (and longstanding practice
in a.f.t) explicitly allows discussion of artistic interpretations of
Tolkien's work.
Steuard Jensen
None
Thank Gawd for that!
M.
None
B-b-b-b-b-b-bbut I don't know anybody dere Conwad...
M.
None
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:50:33 -0700,
> None <No...@none.com> wrote:
> > Steuard Jensen wrote:
> >
> >
> > [Steuard's whining snipped]
> >
> > Stop whining Steuard.
> >
> > The world is being subverted before your very eyes. I'll use any legal
> > means to bring this to the fore, including posting to aft, which at each
> > film is one of the most widely read Groups on Usenet.
> >
> > Wake up Steuard. Ivory Towers are for children.
>
> No one can stop you, of course. But I find it pretty pathetic that you feel
This is bullshit Aaron.
Political, religious and current affairs comment is on-Topic for aft and
has been since long before 1998, when I started posting here, and has
conitnued every year since then.
Step off the soap box on this issue. I want it back.
M.
None
>
> None <No...@none.com> wrote in message news:<3F158354...@none.com>...
>
> > Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
> > recognised rights on Usenet.
>
> True. They are recognized to have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
More. And you should know this Conrad. In groups in the *alt* hierarchy,
regulars define the groups business.
> > Secondly, Usenet is kind of anonymous, or at least "remote" and this
> > encourages rudeness amongst people.
>
> Ah... so that's your excuse? :)
I occassionally cite reasons. Children look for excuses.
<sniff>
> > Thirdly, its a general thing, not specific and I for one don't repress
> > it.
> No kidding.
WOuld I lie to you, child?
M.
None
This is just *typical* of the kind of Neocon media manipulation that's
going on in the 'States right now...
M.
Yuk Tang
> Quoth "Yuk Tang" <jim.l...@yahoo.com> in article
> <bf1ump$9m6bd$1...@ID-134236.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>
>> discussions to rabt?
>
> just plain haven't seen some of the on-topic discussions that didn't
> get cross-posted to r.a.b.t. (Or at least, that I didn't see them
> until they were already basically over.)
A short exercise for you. Look at the thread titles in rabt. Filter out
those more than a day old, if it makes it easier. Look at the thread titles
in aft. Do (m)any of them match? Are any of them political in nature, or
can be turned thus? So why aren't they being cross-posted, if the regulars
are so desperate to have a Tolkien-oriented aft?
Cheers, ymt.
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
> > Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
> > recognised rights on Usenet.
>
> True. They are recognized to have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
pot kettle
black
the softrat
>
>Secondly, I have a request. I wish people would stop referring to
>themselves as Regulars meaning, that gives them certain special rights
>(like being rude).
>
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Chairman: Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People
BaronjosefR
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Chairman: Animals for the Ethical Treatment of People<<<<<
Does that mean we should be known as Milk of Magnesia'ers?
None
It means that the Mouth shits on us on a regular basis...
M.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>>
>> None <No...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:<3F158354...@none.com>...
>>
>>> Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
>>> recognised rights on Usenet.
>>
>> True. They are recognized to have exactly the same rights as
>> everyone else.
>
> More. And you should know this Conrad. In groups in the *alt*
> hierarchy, regulars define the groups business.
But that is not a /right/ they have - that is just how things
are (a time-honoured custom) ... ;-)
- though of course they may have gained a prescriptive right by
now (in Denmark it takes longer, but usenet is a fast place ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
None
Could be a public right of way given the time compression on Usenet.
<smirk>
M.
Graham Lockwood
"How long must it be before a regular may define the group's business?"
"On USENET, but a few posts. In Denmark, 10,000 posts would not suffice..."
||// // "The narrative ends here. || //
|// // There is no reason to think ||//
(/ // that any more was ever written. |//
||// The manuscript, which becomes //
|// increasingly rapid towards the end, //|
(/ peters out in a scrawl." //||
|| -Christopher Tolkien, _The Lost Road_ // ||
Een wilde Ier
>Een wilde Ier <tr...@no1.com> wrote in message news:<o059hvorqbp56jj1c...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> We *had* a new and engaging field of Tolkien-obsessiveness to mull and
>> dissect over a year ago - the Peter Jackson films.
>>
>Although I am one of the
>"no-way-to-Middle-Earth-but-through-the-books" front, I think the
>films are interesting and it would be nice to have an ongoing
>film-thread in which we discuss the films and all relating aspects in
>depth. In a structured manner preferably, and I'd want to rewatch them
>first.
Yes, I agree, Henriette.
On raswrj, they has a co-operative re-read (parashta?) of Robert
Jordan's books between publications... a group critique by-scene of
the films would be interesting, and would throw up some interesting
new topics.
David
--
Journalist: Where in Northern Ireland will the two leaders meet?
Ari Fleischer: Dublin.
Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer,
George W. Bush's chief spokesman
April 4, 2003
Een wilde Ier
Yet, some were quite focal in complaining about film discussion, even
here. Some (quite sniffingly) loudly announced that they were off
until film-related discussion died out.
>I'll certainly concede that people who complain about movie
>discussions are more likely than average to complain about off-topic
>discussions, too: they probably have a specific idea of what the group
>should be about, and they're willing to defend it. On the other hand,
>I don't think it's at all fair to suggest that those who complain
>about off-topic discussions are generally also against movie
>discussions: after all, the r.a.b.t charter (and longstanding practice
>in a.f.t) explicitly allows discussion of artistic interpretations of
>Tolkien's work.
> Steuard Jensen
I for one would love if someone with the necessary organisational
skills and 'authority' were to set up a parasha/parashta/whatever to
deal with the failings and strengths of the films, their faithfulness
etc. on a scene-by-scene basis.
It would certainly be interesting, and useful as a guide to where PJ
departs from Tolkien's stated intentions and descriptions.
Een wilde Ier
<gp.sk...@NOSPAMtalk21.com> wrote:
>"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:be50318e.03071...@posting.google.com...
>> Een wilde Ier <tr...@no1.com> wrote in message
>news:<o059hvorqbp56jj1c...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> > We *had* a new and engaging field of Tolkien-obsessiveness to mull and
>> > dissect over a year ago - the Peter Jackson films.
>> >
>> Although I am one of the
>> "no-way-to-Middle-Earth-but-through-the-books" front, I think the
>> films are interesting and it would be nice to have an ongoing
>> film-thread in which we discuss the films and all relating aspects in
>> depth. In a structured manner preferably, and I'd want to rewatch them
>> first.
>>
>Ok, if you read the book before watching the film(s), did watching the film
>change your opinion of the book/characters/storyline for the better or
>worse. One recent thread on AFT was regarding Bree, my view is the film got
>it wrong in every way at Bree. I think Bakshi got it much better at that
>point.
Yes, the Bakshi version was rather better at that point (could an
intercut amalgam of the two films be done? ;-)
Een wilde Ier
mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>In article <bf38qr$afgpc$1...@ID-81911.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Morgil"
><more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "g.skinner" <gp.sk...@NOSPAMtalk21.com> kirjoitti
>> viestissä:gZ8Ra.27659$4O4.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>> > > > > > Because AFT regulars are so lovable?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > They are the most wretched scum ever to have
>> > > > > scourged the Usenet!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Morgil
>> > > >
>> > > > Welcome to the Group, Regular.
>> > >
>> > > I'll never join the Dark Side!
>> >
>> > I was told be a very reliable source that you started the Dark Side, I
>> even
>> > have pictures to prove it. Send a staggeringly huge bar of choklit or I'll
>> > have to publish them.
>>
>> Jsut because I might have started the Side
>> of Insufficient Light, does that make me
>> responsible for the atrocities committed by
>> the Dark Side while I was frozen in carbonate??
>
>only if you raped anyone after a miraculous recovery from leprosy
Do we have responsibility for even what we do in our dreams?
D.
Een wilde Ier
>Gary <ga...@kvne.com> wrote in message news:<3F148A31...@kvne.com>...
>
>> Perhaps a group named "Tolkien fans discuss
>> everything except Tolkien" would be appropriate.
>
>LOL.
>
>To me it is interesting to notice that to my Tolkien-related posts
>there are very seldom to never, any reactions, which does not stop me
>from posting them every now and then. (I only post to AFT). But if I
>write off-topic, I have a lot of replies and fun.
>
>Secondly, I have a request. I wish people would stop referring to
>themselves as Regulars meaning, that gives them certain special rights
>(like being rude).
Hey! I'm an Irregular, as is O'Neill...
(No, not in the scatalogical sense)
David
Een wilde Ier
>g.skinner wrote:
>>
>> "Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:be50318e.03071...@posting.google.com...
>> > Een wilde Ier <tr...@no1.com> wrote in message
>> news:<o059hvorqbp56jj1c...@4ax.com>...
>> > >
>> > > We *had* a new and engaging field of Tolkien-obsessiveness to mull and
>> > > dissect over a year ago - the Peter Jackson films.
>> > >
>> > Although I am one of the
>> > "no-way-to-Middle-Earth-but-through-the-books" front, I think the
>> > films are interesting and it would be nice to have an ongoing
>> > film-thread in which we discuss the films and all relating aspects in
>> > depth. In a structured manner preferably, and I'd want to rewatch them
>> > first.
>> >
>> Ok, if you read the book before watching the film(s), did watching the film
>> change your opinion of the book/characters/storyline for the better or
>> worse. One recent thread on AFT was regarding Bree, my view is the film got
>> it wrong in every way at Bree. I think Bakshi got it much better at that
>> point.
>>
>> Graeme
>
>Well, I cannot agree with every way, but it certainly didn't reflect my
>reading of the book.
>
>The reason I cannot agree more, is that *someone* in Jackson's crew
>seems to have actually read the books
The tea lady, you think?
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<tr...@no1.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:41:00 -0700, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes rand
> mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>
> >In article <bf38qr$afgpc$1...@ID-81911.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Morgil"
> ><more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "g.skinner" <gp.sk...@NOSPAMtalk21.com> kirjoitti
> >> viestissä:gZ8Ra.27659$4O4.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> > > > > > Because AFT regulars are so lovable?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > They are the most wretched scum ever to have
> >> > > > > scourged the Usenet!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Morgil
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Welcome to the Group, Regular.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'll never join the Dark Side!
> >> >
> >> > I was told be a very reliable source that you started the Dark Side, I
> >> even
> >> > have pictures to prove it. Send a staggeringly huge bar of choklit
or I'll
> >> > have to publish them.
> >>
> >> Jsut because I might have started the Side
> >> of Insufficient Light, does that make me
> >> responsible for the atrocities committed by
> >> the Dark Side while I was frozen in carbonate??
> >
> >only if you raped anyone after a miraculous recovery from leprosy
>
> Do we have responsibility for even what we do in our dreams?
welcome to the desert of the real
Troels Forchhammer
enriched us with:
> "How long must it be before a regular may define the group's
> business?"
>
> "On USENET, but a few posts. In Denmark, 10,000 posts would not
> suffice..."
But 25 years do ...
;-)
(Laughing, of course)
None
Is she the same one who writes your sig?
M.
None
>
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 05:41:00 -0700, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes rand
> mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>
> >In article <bf38qr$afgpc$1...@ID-81911.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Morgil"
> ><more...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "g.skinner" <gp.sk...@NOSPAMtalk21.com> kirjoitti
> >> viestissä:gZ8Ra.27659$4O4.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> > > > > > Because AFT regulars are so lovable?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > They are the most wretched scum ever to have
> >> > > > > scourged the Usenet!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Morgil
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Welcome to the Group, Regular.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'll never join the Dark Side!
> >> >
> >> > I was told be a very reliable source that you started the Dark Side, I
> >> even
> >> > have pictures to prove it. Send a staggeringly huge bar of choklit or I'll
> >> > have to publish them.
> >>
> >> Jsut because I might have started the Side
> >> of Insufficient Light, does that make me
> >> responsible for the atrocities committed by
> >> the Dark Side while I was frozen in carbonate??
> >
> >only if you raped anyone after a miraculous recovery from leprosy
>
> Do we have responsibility for even what we do in our dreams?
You got leprosy in your dreams?
M.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Yet, some were quite focal in complaining about film discussion, even
> here. Some (quite sniffingly) loudly announced that they were off
> until film-related discussion died out.
Well... it DID get rather excessive and the endless 'PJ is a god!
Movies better than books!' vs 'PJ is evil. Movies an abomination'
arguments were more than a little annoying.
> I for one would love if someone with the necessary organisational
> skills and 'authority' were to set up a parasha/parashta/whatever to
> deal with the failings and strengths of the films, their faithfulness
> etc. on a scene-by-scene basis.
Oi! That'd be a monumental undertaking... especially as there are two
different versions of the films with different degrees of accuracy to
the books in various places. At that, if it were to be an ABSOLUTE
guide to variations it would be simply HUGE... think about every minor
scene that is cut out, bit of dialogue which is changed, et cetera.
The 'summary of changes' would be longer than LotR itself. That could
be cut considerably by laying out 'ground rules' such as 'material in
the book, but not the film should be assumed to have still taken place
off camera' and 'material in the film but not in the book should be
assumed to have taken place but not been recorded in the book UNLESS
it contradicts something else from the book'... but even with those
(rather generous) assumptions the list of alterations would be very
long indeed.
Henriette
> >
> Ok, if you read the book before watching the film(s), did watching the film
> change your opinion of the book/characters/storyline for the better or
> worse. One recent thread on AFT was regarding Bree, my view is the film got
> it wrong in every way at Bree. I think Bakshi got it much better at that
> point.
>
though I would also like to have a structured discussion, e.g. like
Wilde Ier suggests somewhere, starting with the first scene of film I.
I will soon have another look at FotR and may try to start.
As for your first question (did watching the film change your opinion
of the book/characters/storyline), that is not an easy one. I read the
book 10 times before seeing the film and therefore I expected the film
would not influence my perception of the book at all. Still in subtle
ways, some images have crept in, or so I notice now I am reading LOTR
again (for the first time in Italian). I have noticed that before the
film, my perception of the Black Riders was breathtakingly horrifying,
but now, having seen these empty black coats with hoarse voices, I
have both a clearer image and I feel somewhat more at ease.... The
same goes for Saruman's Orcs. I never had a clear picture of them in
my head and I fear that now, I do. As for the rest of the characters,
they live peacefully next to one another: my "own" book ones and the
film ones. Especially my Frodo, Aragorn, Celeborn and Galadriel do not
in the slightest resemble the film ones, but I can live with somebody
elses different perception. The changes of storyline I find much
harder to cope with. I almost consider them a sacrilege.
What do you think Graeme, because ofcourse you do not ask this for no
reason?
As for the scene in Bree, I would have to rewatch it first before I
can say anything sensible.
Henriette
Yuk Tang
> Een wilde Ier <tr...@no1.com> wrote in message
> news:<fc1ehvso8thf60c41...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Yet, some were quite focal in complaining about film discussion, even
>> here. Some (quite sniffingly) loudly announced that they were off
>> until film-related discussion died out.
>
> Well... it DID get rather excessive and the endless 'PJ is a god!
> Movies better than books!' vs 'PJ is evil. Movies an abomination'
> arguments were more than a little annoying.
Simplistic arguments of that kind on *any* subject are annoying.
Unfortunately, many supporters of the film were usenet naifs, viewing 'cool'
as the winner of any argument, while many movie-snobs were of the opinion
that *any* departure from the text was necessarily bad. There were good
arguments to be had on how PJ's interpretation of LotR contributes to one's
understanding of it, but there weren't many people willing to join in that
debate, unfortunately.
>> I for one would love if someone with the necessary organisational
>> skills and 'authority' were to set up a parasha/parashta/whatever to
>> deal with the failings and strengths of the films, their faithfulness
>> etc. on a scene-by-scene basis.
>
> Oi! That'd be a monumental undertaking... especially as there are two
> different versions of the films with different degrees of accuracy to
> the books in various places.
One could start by using Steuard's reviews as an example of neutrality and
(some) reviewed opinion. I discussed PJ's filling in of empty space
(implied rather than stated features in the text) in Tsar's thread of his
review of FotR. And I'm sure that such as yourself have contributed insight
to the otherwise flame-filled fests generated by the discussion of the
films.
Cheers, ymt (snip sig and continue after quotes to reply).
Henriette
> skills and 'authority' were to set up a parasha/parashta/whatever to
> deal with the failings and strengths of the films, their faithfulness
> etc. on a scene-by-scene basis.
>
Henriette
Henriette
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
> recognised rights on Usenet.
Recognised by whom?
I think you actually started the Regular argument by saying a newbee
could not tell you off for posting off-topic, because you were a
Regular. I do not agree to that. Everyone has the same rights on AFT,
Regular or not. Anyway, since then many posters have been using the
Regular-argument for many purposes.
>
> Secondly, Usenet is kind of anonymous, or at least "remote" and this
> encourages rudeness amongst people.
I admire you for usually using your own name, although I do not know
if it is a sensible thing to do with all the reactions you provoke in
people because of your opinions and the way you put things at times.
>
> Thirdly, its a general thing, not specific and I for one don't repress
> it. It seems to be the only place some of the intellectuals here can
> actually let off steam.
Too bad.
>
> Gawd knows what would happen if that outlet were blocked.
Of that, I am convinced.
Henriette
Henriette
>
> The world is being subverted before your very eyes. I'll use any legal
> means to bring this to the fore, including posting to aft, which at each
> film is one of the most widely read Groups on Usenet.
>
I have to burst *your* bubble here Michael. I do not believe AFT is
overall one of the most widely read newsgroups, and I believe there is
only a selected few people who read *your* posts, if only because you
must be the most plonked poster in AFT. (Ofcourse not many posters
read my posts either, but I do not aim at being widely read).
As you are idealistic, you know much, you write well (although to my
taste you are often too rude) and we are often of the same opinion on
political matters (although I disagree with you *and a lot of other
political posters!* (we usually aim at *you*) that AFT is a suitable
place to state them) it is a pity you obviously somehow cannot
ventilate your opinions in the media where you would *really* reach
people.
Henriette
Henriette
>
> I always thought that the poetry which every character in LOTR spouted
> every several pages, was off-topic. I skipped it most of the time, when
> I was younger. Talks of far off places, ancient events, it had little
> interest for me and little to do with the rest of the narrarative.
>
> Off topic posts are in that category. They have some value to the world
> we see aound them. I think probably most newsgroups in usenet had such
> off topic posts, this year in particular.
>
I like this comparison and this post Hasan, but I wish you would snip
a lot more in your posts. It makes them easier to read and my RSI
would not blossom as much as it does.
Henriette
AC
Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>> Een wilde Ier <tr...@no1.com> wrote in message
>> news:<fc1ehvso8thf60c41...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> Yet, some were quite focal in complaining about film discussion, even
>>> here. Some (quite sniffingly) loudly announced that they were off
>>> until film-related discussion died out.
>>
>> Well... it DID get rather excessive and the endless 'PJ is a god!
>> Movies better than books!' vs 'PJ is evil. Movies an abomination'
>> arguments were more than a little annoying.
>
> Simplistic arguments of that kind on *any* subject are annoying.
> Unfortunately, many supporters of the film were usenet naifs, viewing 'cool'
> as the winner of any argument, while many movie-snobs were of the opinion
> that *any* departure from the text was necessarily bad. There were good
> arguments to be had on how PJ's interpretation of LotR contributes to one's
> understanding of it, but there weren't many people willing to join in that
> debate, unfortunately.
I was never against all the changes. The fleshing out of Boromir, to me,
was one of the strengths of the film. He really is, until he starts losing
his marbles, pretty much just the typical strongman. And I could fully
understand leaving Bombadil and Glorifindel out (though I did miss the
latter). The Shire, of course, was extraordinary, and if anything got the
"feel" right, it was those opening scenes.
But the warping of Arwen into the Warrior Maiden was where things really
started to go sour for me. The treatment of Gimli was just plain stupid,
and the Discord... er I mean Council of Elrond flopped very badly. I won't
touch on Galadriel, or on why precisly Frodo and Aragorn met up and had a
chat at Amon Hen, when Orcs were abroad and Frodo was trying to get away
without being seen.
Damn, there I go again...
At any rate, I thought the film started out well, but from the Fords of
Bruinen onward, things weren't so healthy. But it's been several months
since I watched the first movie and I softened a little. I still have no
intention of seeing the next two.
My honest opinion, after watching the first, is that LotR they way *I* see
it (not speaking for anyone else) could not be done in a medium that can't
real go over 180 minutes per book. A mini-series of several two hour
segments might do better, but would probably cost far more than the movie,
and thus, if it were to happen at all, would likely be several years away.
I imagine anyone wanting to do such a thing would wait at least a decade
after the films (at least). I'll probably be collecting a pension by the
time someone tries it again.
--
Aaron Clausen
g.skinner
> reason?
The films have many good points, and they're good to watch as separate
entities to the books. Alot of the scenes that did not make it from text to
film I found were vital to keep me immersed in middle earth. When I first
read LOTR, I could imagine every footstep, feel the weather against my face,
I could smell the smoke from Gandalfs pipe. The film however left me more
detatched than the book, perhaps its because I've always preferred books to
film. The venture into the old forest, meeting Tom B., Fog on the Barrow
downs, and meeting the Hobbits in a friendly Bree are scenes that to me are
part of LOTR that can not so easily be disgarded as PJ did with his comment
'they don't advance the story'.
Like yourself i'd need to watch the film again more closely to give a
proper comment.
>
> As for the scene in Bree, I would have to rewatch it first before I
> can say anything sensible.
>
I've been in places like PJ's Bree and its not nice, give me JRRT's Bree any
day.
Graeme
g.skinner
hobbiton scene, and pick which version of the film to work off. I prefer the
extended version, but it'd depend what the majority of people have.
Graeme
Bob F.
news:slrnbhg81t.mm.ma...@ts1.alberni.net:
>
> But the warping of Arwen into the Warrior Maiden was where things
> really started to go sour for me. The treatment of Gimli was just
> plain stupid, and the Discord... er I mean Council of Elrond flopped
> very badly. I won't touch on Galadriel, or on why precisly Frodo and
> Aragorn met up and had a chat at Amon Hen, when Orcs were abroad and
> Frodo was trying to get away without being seen.
>
I can understand not liking replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, that is of
course a personal preference thing. But, I do think it is hyperbole when
people refer to his Arwen as a "Warrior Maiden". Certainly she draws
weapon at the end, but I don't we were by any means presented with some
sort hyper-Amazonian creation. What I saw from her does drastically
differ from the image I have of an elf-maided, for which Tolkien does not
provide a lot to draw from in the LOTR.
As for Galadriel...the main thing that turned me off in her scenes were
the cheesey effects when she reveals herself in her power.
>
> My honest opinion, after watching the first, is that LotR they way *I*
> see it (not speaking for anyone else) could not be done in a medium
> that can't real go over 180 minutes per book. A mini-series of
> several two hour segments might do better, but would probably cost far
> more than the movie, and thus, if it were to happen at all, would
> likely be several years away. I imagine anyone wanting to do such a
> thing would wait at least a decade after the films (at least). I'll
> probably be collecting a pension by the time someone tries it again.
One can only hope it does not become fodder for the SciFi channel ala
Dune. There SciFi version was literally more true to Dune than the film,
but was too cheaply made and not particularly well acted. I don't mind
"b-movies" in general, but not when something I care about is made into
one.
Bob
AC
>
> I can understand not liking replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, that is of
> course a personal preference thing. But, I do think it is hyperbole when
> people refer to his Arwen as a "Warrior Maiden". Certainly she draws
> weapon at the end, but I don't we were by any means presented with some
> sort hyper-Amazonian creation. What I saw from her does drastically
> differ from the image I have of an elf-maided, for which Tolkien does not
> provide a lot to draw from in the LOTR.
The sword wielding certainly didn't fit the mold, but perhaps the worst part
about this, and the scene that pretty much clinched my dislike of the entire
movie was Arwen robbing Frodo of one of his defining scenes, where he
(fruitlessly) defies the Nazgul. Instead, the image of Frodo of being a
fellow of some spirit and resolve is undermined. Worse, I could see no
purpose for this alteration.
>
> As for Galadriel...the main thing that turned me off in her scenes were
> the cheesey effects when she reveals herself in her power.
That was why I referred to her as the Blue Meanie. It just came off looking
stupid. It was much the same as the nonsensical way in which Bilbo was
treated when he asked Frodo to see the Ring. PJ just couldn't get power
right. I'm not necessarily faulting him, because how do you illuminate in a
visual fashion something which Tolkien builds through purely literary means?
> One can only hope it does not become fodder for the SciFi channel ala
> Dune. There SciFi version was literally more true to Dune than the film,
> but was too cheaply made and not particularly well acted. I don't mind
> "b-movies" in general, but not when something I care about is made into
> one.
With Dune, Lynch's movie had the feel but destroyed the story line. With
the mini-series, the story line was pretty close, but the feel was wrong.
I do believe that at some point in the next few decades someone will try
again. Whether they get it right or not remains to be seen. I have yet to
be convinced that LotR can be translated to film. I think The Hobbit is far
more amenable to such treatment, and I wouldn't mind seeing someone give
that a go.
--
Aaron Clausen
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> The sword wielding certainly didn't fit the mold, but perhaps the worst
part
> about this, and the scene that pretty much clinched my dislike of the
entire
> movie was Arwen robbing Frodo of one of his defining scenes, where he
> (fruitlessly) defies the Nazgul. Instead, the image of Frodo of being a
> fellow of some spirit and resolve is undermined. Worse, I could see no
> purpose for this alteration.
I completely agree. Jackson should not have deprived Frodo of that moment.
Öjevind
Een wilde Ier
(Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
You almost sound like you're auditioning for the job, Conrad ;-)
Seriously, though, such an undertaking would surely some new and
unforeseen topics of discussion, as well as providing a good resource
for those who came to Tolkien only through the films...
A workable scheme for providing some direction to the main Parasha
(and in spinning-off interesting topics into seperate threads) could
be come up with, as your own brief thoughts above show. For what it's
worth, here's a post from rasfwrj on their Parasha:
**********************************************************************
From: jjv...@aol.comCHARN (JJVORS)
Subject: Re: PARASHA: What is it?
Date: 1999/09/12
Message-ID: <19990911210205...@ng-fk1.aol.com>#1/1
References: <MPG.1244b899c...@news.bu.edu>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
The Parasha project
The Parasha project is a group reading of TWoT together with
discussion on
rasfwr-j. Every week two or three chapters are read, and they are
discussed the
following week. Anyone who is interested is welcome to participate.
We will start with TEotW and hopefully (or not) we will be finished
with TPoD
at the time Book Nine hits the bookstores.
The "rules"
The subject line should start with "PARASHA:", and also contain the
book name
and chapter numbers (prologue and epilogue are P and E respectively),
eg:
Karl-Johan Noren (with a cute "e" ;)) started this at the end of 1998.
Here' a
bit from his page on it at:
http://hem3.passagen.se/kjnoren/jordan/parasha.html
PARASHA: Ishamael's Healing (TEotW P-2)
If the subject tagging doesn't work (ie people doesn't use the tagging
or
general book/tangential discussion creep into PARASHA-marked subjects)
then
this will likely be unworkable on rasfwr-j and we'll move over to a
mailing
list that Devin Ganger has offered to set up.
For some reason (maybe Karl-John got interrupted by a real life), this
kind of
died out. Jeff Stockwin came
up with the schedule for the Great Hunt. (I know we're behind; I'm
trying to
catch up.)
Date Chapters
------- -------------
August 9 - 33 and 34
August 16 - 35, 36, and 37
August 23 - 38 and 39
August 30 - 40 and 41
September 6 - 42 and 43
September 13 - 44 and 45
September 20 - 46 and 47
September 27 - 48, 49, and 50
I finished TGH last night. I'll post a chapter
a day until 27th. I'll then publish a schedule
for TDR, my 2nd favorite book (although I may put COS there--we'll
see.)
Any suggestions on frequency? Two chapters
a week seems a little slow, a chapter a day
is a little fast. Three chapters a week?
I'm assuming the next book will be available in
Summer or Fall of 2000, I'm expecting something
of LOC proportions. We want to fill the time between
now and the next book
I've read every Parasha post since November 1998, mostly through
DejaNews,
There's been a lot of good discussion and new understanding through
this collective re-read.
BTW, "Parasha" is the Jewish term for daily scripture reading. In
this group,
the WOT is the scripture.
Jeff Smith
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotton Son, that whosoever believes in Him should
not perish, but have everlasting life."
**********************************************************************
It would certainly breathe some new life into the Tolkien groups, what
do you think?
cheers,
D.
Een wilde Ier
The very same as the one who comes up with your aliases.
D.
Een wilde Ier
>"g.skinner" <gp.sk...@NOSPAMtalk21.com> wrote in message news:<Vz6Ra.1386$X16....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
>> >
>> Ok, if you read the book before watching the film(s), did watching the film
>> change your opinion of the book/characters/storyline for the better or
>> worse. One recent thread on AFT was regarding Bree, my view is the film got
>> it wrong in every way at Bree. I think Bakshi got it much better at that
>> point.
>>
>You have two really nice topics there which we can discuss, even
>though I would also like to have a structured discussion, e.g. like
>Wilde Ier suggests somewhere, starting with the first scene of film I.
>I will soon have another look at FotR and may try to start.
Well, the cinema version of the film has 39 scenes, going from (1)
Prologue: One Ring to Rule Them All... to (39) The Road Goes Ever
On... I presume the script is on the Net by this stage, has anyone
seen it?
Can anyone tell us how many scenes are in the extended version? And,
is there a commentary?
Een wilde Ier
Uhh, he actually has had his moments of airtime in the past ;-)
David
Een wilde Ier
What kind of a personal question is that?
d.
Een wilde Ier
Yes, AFT is looking a little bedraggled these days.
David
Een wilde Ier
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:59:51 +0100,
>Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
>>> Een wilde Ier <tr...@no1.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<fc1ehvso8thf60c41...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>>> Yet, some were quite focal in complaining about film discussion, even
>>>> here. Some (quite sniffingly) loudly announced that they were off
>>>> until film-related discussion died out.
>>>
>>> Well... it DID get rather excessive and the endless 'PJ is a god!
>>> Movies better than books!' vs 'PJ is evil. Movies an abomination'
>>> arguments were more than a little annoying.
>>
>> Simplistic arguments of that kind on *any* subject are annoying.
>> Unfortunately, many supporters of the film were usenet naifs, viewing 'cool'
>> as the winner of any argument, while many movie-snobs were of the opinion
>> that *any* departure from the text was necessarily bad. There were good
>> arguments to be had on how PJ's interpretation of LotR contributes to one's
>> understanding of it, but there weren't many people willing to join in that
>> debate, unfortunately.
>
>I was never against all the changes. The fleshing out of Boromir, to me,
>was one of the strengths of the film. He really is, until he starts losing
>his marbles, pretty much just the typical strongman.
(I disagree. Boromir was the Steward's heir, a noble captain of men
and a great warrior, not just Joe Typical Thug)
> And I could fully
>understand leaving Bombadil and Glorifindel out (though I did miss the
>latter). The Shire, of course, was extraordinary, and if anything got the
>"feel" right, it was those opening scenes.
(LOL. Here we disagree, I thought the Shire scenes were twee and felt
phony. I kept expecting the actors to 'break the fourth wall' and wink
at the camera ;-)
>But the warping of Arwen into the Warrior Maiden was where things really
>started to go sour for me.
(I have a suspicion about that cut she got on her cheek during the
chase. It was just too ostentatious for a split-second event - did
anyone else feel that a dueling-scene on horseback with the Nazgul had
been cut here?)
> The treatment of Gimli was just plain stupid,
(Can anyone else say "comic relief"?)
>and the Discord... er I mean Council of Elrond flopped very badly.
(And was probably the lowest point of the film for me personally,
worse even than the bad Saruman-Gandalf confrontation)
> I won't
>touch on Galadriel, or on why precisly Frodo and Aragorn met up and had a
>chat at Amon Hen, when Orcs were abroad and Frodo was trying to get away
>without being seen.
(And where Aragorn sent Frodo off into the woods on his own...)
cheers,
Een wilde Ier
How much extra is in the extended version?
Een wilde Ier
The Prologue Speech? Yes, good one ;-)
david
Een wilde Ier
>None <No...@none.com> wrote in message news:<3F158354...@none.com>...
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
>> recognised rights on Usenet.
>
>Recognised by whom?
Themselves (ourselves?), of course! ;-)
D.
Flame of the West
> The world is being subverted before your very eyes. I'll use any legal
> means to bring this to the fore, including posting to aft, which at each
> film is one of the most widely read Groups on Usenet.
This NG is like a soap opera: you go away for a few weeks and
you find you haven't missed a darned thing.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Flame of the West
>>>Sorry to burst your bubble Henriette, but firstly, regulars have
>>>recognised rights on Usenet.
>>
>>True. They are recognized to have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
>
>
> More. And you should know this Conrad. In groups in the *alt* hierarchy,
> regulars define the groups business.
So when's the next staff meeting?
Conrad Dunkerson
> The sword wielding certainly didn't fit the mold, but perhaps the worst part
> about this, and the scene that pretty much clinched my dislike of the entire
> movie was Arwen robbing Frodo of one of his defining scenes, where he
> (fruitlessly) defies the Nazgul. Instead, the image of Frodo of being a
> fellow of some spirit and resolve is undermined.
Yes, Frodo was very abused in the film's entire run-up to Rivendell.
In the book it is Frodo who repeatedly saves the day and acts most
heroically of the hobbits... in the movie he comes off as the LEAST
impressive of the four. Instead of being the only hobbit able to
fight at Weathertop Jackson makes Frodo the only one who ISN'T. With
the Willow Man and Barrow Wight scenes cut Frodo loses two other
chances to show his resolve. And then he just collapses and whimpers
at the ford. It was very strage and made his ability to stifle the
'debate' at the council seem laughable... why would ANY of them have
entrusted something so important to the yutz PJ had portrayed him as?
Conrad Dunkerson
> Can't we just start with film I scene I and see what comes up?
Which version? I'd suggest the extended as it was a little closer to
the books. I'm pretty sure that the DVD is split into numerous scenes
that could be analyzed one at a time as you suggest.
Morgil
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:1178b6d1.03072...@posting.google.com...
1. Prologue: Completely misleading about why
the Rings were made and by whom. The battle
of Dagorlad is moved to Mt.Doom, the seven
years of siege are completely skipped, and Sauron
about to singlehandedly defeat the entire army is
rediculous. And Isildur only cut off the Ring after
Sauron was struck down.
Morgil
Henriette
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:26:35 GMT, AC <maureen-t...@alberni.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I was never against all the changes. The fleshing out of Boromir, to me,
> >was one of the strengths of the film. He really is, until he starts losing
> >his marbles, pretty much just the typical strongman.
>
> (I disagree. Boromir was the Steward's heir, a noble captain of men
> and a great warrior, not just Joe Typical Thug)
>
of LOTR. The struggle of a brave warrior, who slowly sees all of his
compatriots die, to understand the "folly" of sending away "a mighty
weapon" into Mordor, and his subsequent regret, I find very moving.
BTW I cannot rewatch the film at the moment owing to technical
problems.
Henriette
the softrat
>
>BTW I cannot rewatch the film at the moment owing to technical
>problems.
>
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"What hoop?" "We'll worry about that once you're in the air."
Henriette
>
> 1. Prologue: Completely misleading about why
> the Rings were made and by whom. The battle
> of Dagorlad is moved to Mt.Doom, the seven
> years of siege are completely skipped, and Sauron
> about to singlehandedly defeat the entire army is
> rediculous. And Isildur only cut off the Ring after
> Sauron was struck down.
>
Henriette
TT Arvind
> I like this comparison and this post Hasan, but I wish you would snip
> a lot more in your posts. It makes them easier to read and my RSI
> would not blossom as much as it does.
What newsreader do you use? Good ones (I use Microplanet Gravity, which
is free) have an option to mute quoted text. Using this will mean you
only see the last four lines of so of quoted text, regardless of how many
the author included.
--
Meneldil
Drive defensively. Buy a tank.
None
A "very personal" question.
Confirm your current valid e-mail addy to me, willya?
Ta.
M.
None
>
> None <No...@none.com> wrote in message news:<3F158259...@none.com>...
> >
> > The world is being subverted before your very eyes. I'll use any legal
> > means to bring this to the fore, including posting to aft, which at each
> > film is one of the most widely read Groups on Usenet.
> I have to burst *your* bubble here Michael.
I love these spanish chat-up lines...
> I do not believe AFT is
> overall one of the most widely read newsgroups, and I believe there is
> only a selected few people who read *your* posts, if only because you
> must be the most plonked poster in AFT.
<nods>
There are a lot of plonkers in aft.
> (Ofcourse not many posters
> read my posts either, but I do not aim at being widely read).
<nods>
True.
> As you are idealistic, you know much, you write well (although to my
> taste you are often too rude) and we are often of the same opinion on
> political matters (although I disagree with you *and a lot of other
> political posters!* (we usually aim at *you*) that AFT is a suitable
> place to state them) it is a pity you obviously somehow cannot
> ventilate your opinions in the media where you would *really* reach
> people.
>
> Henriette
Henriette, I'm glad we share some views. However, regarding the power of
the media and in case you are living in another Spain than the one I
know if, please remember the utter ignorance shown to the voices of the
people protesting in Spain by your current head of government currying
favour with the Americans. The Irish Government misrepresented the facts
to us and a lot of loud rumblings are currently being heard in the
corridors of power. As in an avalanche of public opinion.
Ironically it seem the catholic right are backing the mainly WASP Bush
administration, possibly because they see Islam as a threat in the
longer term. Ironic in that Iraq was quite secular in composition.
Ironic because they don't seem to yet understand that the Bush breed
only sees people as a threat when they disagree with them. Religion
doesn't count. The American Government were effectively fighting
catholic priests in South America ten years ago because they sought to
help the people against the right-wing dictators and their murderous
henchmen. How quickly the catholic right forgets.
The media therefore are already on the case, if a bit late, but that
applies only to the media in Europe. America has no media, apart from a
few websites. The rest are merely government mouthpieces.
Educate even a few young people and you start information at grass roots
level moving through a generation. Perhaps there will be some
interesting effects. Perhaps not.
BTW, I don't usually interrupt threads to bring them into political
discussion. I leave most On-Topic threads alone unless I have something
to add to them that's on-topic. As you noted, several people have
killfiled my three addy's and I'm not morphing to avoid them. That's the
ultimate democracy of Usenet. People can says what they like [within
certain bounds] and people can choose whether to listen or not.
FWIW
M.