[I] LoTR Movie
MegaMole
Don't worry about the (very slight) liberties it takes, or the cuts -
it's 3 hours long as it is.
Just *see* it.
I had my doubts before, but am highly impressed. And, thank Ilúvatar, a
certain Professor of Anglo-Saxon is not turning in his grave - at least,
not as fast as we feared.
--
MegaMole, the Official Enrico Basilica
\\\\\ laaa! mo...@lspace.org mo...@music.slut.org.uk
\\\\\\\_o / www.countertenor.demon.co.uk for Stuff
__ \\\\\'c/__ Hitting the high notes with hedgehogs since 2001
pia
> See it.
Did, at the mid-night premier.
And I shall join the recommending chorus. There've been three films in
recent years into which I've invested a lot of emotion through my
geekish anticipation: The Phantom Menace, Harry Potter, and The
Fellowship of The Ring. The two first violently let me down [1]. FoTR
didn't. Unlike HP, the Ring film is primarily faithful to the spirit
rather than the letter of the book (buut see my footnote...), without
violating the letter to an unacceptable extent. It aimes to be a film,
not a visual rendering of a book. Furthermore, it adds in it some
ways. Depth of characters never was a strenght of LOTR. While watching
the film I noticed that for the first time characters like Aragorn and
Boromir seemed fully humans to me, instead of necessary plot-devices.
On the second thought, *that* may have something to do
with...uhh...estrogen-related factors too.
pia
[1] I concede that my opinion of HP-film needs to be taken with a
grain of salt. I got ill in the middle of the showing and consequently
missed almost half of it. Obviously I have to go and see it again,
but the first hour-and-half definitely failed to impress
hippo
MegaMole <Mega...@lspace.org> wrote in message news:mvvuPLAw...@countertenor.demon.co.uk...
> See it.
>
> Don't worry about the (very slight) liberties it takes, or the cuts -
> it's 3 hours long as it is.
>
> Just *see* it.
>
> I had my doubts before, but am highly impressed. And, thank Ilúvatar, a
> certain Professor of Anglo-Saxon is not turning in his grave - at least,
> not as fast as we feared.
I concur : can I retire to where ever they filmed Rivendell now please ? :)
I had thought the off-the-top-of-my-head comment should be
'it makes Harry Potter look like a Dr Who episode'
but probably that is a little harsh on HP
I certainly want to see it a second time at the cinema, and
that's only the third movie that I've ever seen, that's made me do that.
Hippo
--
Mark Datko
Christmas pages : http://www.mdatko.btinternet.co.uk/P1M01.htm
deborah cohen
> "MegaMole" <Mega...@lspace.org> wrote
> > See it.
>
> Did, at the mid-night premier.
>
> And I shall join the recommending chorus. There've been three films in
> recent years into which I've invested a lot of emotion through my
> geekish anticipation: The Phantom Menace, Harry Potter, and The
> Fellowship of The Ring. The two first violently let me down [1]. FoTR
> didn't. Unlike HP, the Ring film is primarily faithful to the spirit
> rather than the letter of the book (buut see my footnote...), without
> violating the letter to an unacceptable extent. It aimes to be a film,
> not a visual rendering of a book. Furthermore, it adds in it some
> ways. Depth of characters never was a strenght of LOTR. While watching
> the film I noticed that for the first time characters like Aragorn and
> Boromir seemed fully humans to me, instead of necessary plot-devices.
>
> On the second thought, *that* may have something to do
> with...uhh...estrogen-related factors too.
>
Huh. It's somewhat reassuring to find that any genuine *fan* of
Tolkien's LOTR really liked the film because I'm afraid to see it.
Ever since visiting the LOTR official web site months ago I
have been angry and disappointed in advance, even though I will
probably break down and go. My distress results from finding
that Peter Jackson (do I have that right?) came so damn close in
his comittment to remaining faithful to Tolkien but decided, for
some unfathomable reason, to depart in such a major way when it
came to the main character. I refer to Frodo and the movie
depiction of him as "young Frodo" which is how he's described on
the web site below the photo of that child, wosshisname, Elijah
Wood - who I don't care how good an actor he is - is way too
young to be Frodo!
The fact that they eliminated the character of Bombadil
altogether barely bothers me at all because the director made a
legitimate case for having to let him go; for the sake of time,
not really central to the fellowship, yada yada yada. But
apparently this decision was somewhat controversial and provoked
quite a bit of discussion among fans on another a LOTR website
about the film (Barrow Downs or something like that).
But what possible justification could there have been for
messing with Frodo's age? He was supposed to be about the
same age as Bilbo had been at the time of "The Hobbit"
which is middle aged, while his Hobbit companions were still
in their youth. This may seem a minor point but if you're
gonna claim to have followed the book as much as possible
then there is no excuse for arbitrary changes.
And doesn't the film change Arwen's parentage as well,
making her the child of the Celeborn & Galadrial when she's
really Elrond's daughter, or have I got that wrong?
What does it matter anyway. Apparently, no one else is
bothered by these departures. I don't mind changes that
are necessary but find it incredibly annoying when a film
adaptation of a book makes unnecessary and arbitrary
liberties; it seems so disrespectful to the author.
Okay, I've vented now - feel a bit better.
Please excuse this rant.
So, how does "young Frodo" come off in the film, anyway?
deborah
Dave Crisp
waxed long:
> But what possible justification could there have been for
> messing with Frodo's age? He was supposed to be about the
> same age as Bilbo had been at the time of "The Hobbit"
> which is middle aged, while his Hobbit companions were still
> in their youth. This may seem a minor point but if you're
> gonna claim to have followed the book as much as possible
> then there is no excuse for arbitrary changes.
The main part of the story takes place when Frodo is in his mid-50's,
true. But he inherited the Ring from Bilbo on his 33rd birthday, which
for a hobbit is only just out of childhood. The bearer of one of the
Great Rings does not age. So even though Frodo is 50-odd, he still
looks young.
--
----- Dave ----- da...@goldeneyes.org.uk ----- ICQ:119128417 -----
'There exists a secret society with branches throughout the world,
and it's plot is to spread the rumor that a Universal Plot exists'
- Umberto Eco, 'Foucault's Pendulum'
pia
> I refer to Frodo and the movie
> depiction of him as "young Frodo" which is how he's described on
> the web site below the photo of that child, wosshisname, Elijah
> Wood - who I don't care how good an actor he is - is way too
> young to be Frodo!
The events have been condensed for the film. Frodo sets
to his journey very soon after the Unexpected Party, not with 17 years
delay as in the book. This change did not bother me. I've never
thought that Frodo's actual age would've been highly relevant for the
story.
> And doesn't the film change Arwen's parentage as well,
> making her the child of the Celeborn & Galadrial when she's
> really Elrond's daughter, or have I got that wrong?
No, Arwen is still Elrond's daughter. But her part has been
considerably expanded (she has lines, among other things...), and if
you think cutting Bombadil was controversial, that was nothing
compared to the furor that the case Arwen raised. A petition was sent
to Peter Jackson by fans asking him not to destroy the original
portrayal of Arwen. I'm actually one of the many people who signed it.
Now, having seen the film, I can live with Jackson's Arwen, (although
I think Liv Tyler is not much of an actress), but I don't regret
participating the petition.
> So, how does "young Frodo" come off in the film, anyway?
He was okay. Somewhat wide-eyed and cutish in the beginning but that
may have been intentional, as he seemed to 'grow' with the journey.
Wood's was not the strongest performance among the cast, but that
hardly was expected, considering the company. Loved both sirs Ian :)
pia
Paul E. Jamison
> See it.
>
> Don't worry about the (very slight) liberties it takes, or the cuts -
> it's 3 hours long as it is.
>
> Just *see* it.
>
> I had my doubts before, but am highly impressed. And, thank Ilúvatar, a
> certain Professor of Anglo-Saxon is not turning in his grave - at least,
> not as fast as we feared.
I fully intend to see LoTR soon, probably before New Year's; I don't want
to get caught in the initial crowds. What little I've seen on tellyvision
(A Sci-Fi channel preview I can understand, but MTV??) has been
impressive.
The problem I have with going to the movies is that the nearest theaters
are several miles away, and logistics with public transportation can be
difficult. Because of this, I still haven't seen Harry Potter yet (I fully
intend on doing so the 24th). And I want to go see HP; if nothing else,
it's my way of thumbing my nose on the Harry-Potter-is-teaching-our-
children-witchcraft-but-even-worse-it's-that-much-less-money-going-
to-the-churches crowd. In a way, I'm a little disappointed with the
reaction to LoTR. Not one Fundie has written to the newspaper to
warn people about the evils of "Lord of the Rings".
Paul E. Jamison - looking forward to a long holiday from work
starting Saturday
--
"There's more pressure on a vet to get it right.
People say 'It was God's will' when Granny dies,
but they get *angry* when they lose a cow."
- Terry Pratchett
Speaker-to-Customers
"pia" wrote ...
> No, Arwen is still Elrond's daughter. But her part has been
> considerably expanded (she has lines, among other things...), and if
> you think cutting Bombadil was controversial, that was nothing
> compared to the furor that the case Arwen raised. A petition was sent
> to Peter Jackson by fans asking him not to destroy the original
> portrayal of Arwen. I'm actually one of the many people who signed it.
> Now, having seen the film, I can live with Jackson's Arwen, (although
> I think Liv Tyler is not much of an actress), but I don't regret
> participating the petition.
I am worried that Arwen's expanded role will have an adverse effect later,
detracting from the importance of Eowyn (who was my favourite character in
the books). What do you think?
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
WILLIAM STUART ADAMSON
Born 11th April 1958. Died 16th December 2001
"Oh, Lord, why did you have to go?
Oh, Lord, I've never felt so low."
Mary Messall
> The problem I have with going to the movies is that the nearest theaters
> are several miles away, and logistics with public transportation can be
Public transportation? I thought you lived in Witchita? <g>
> difficult. Because of this, I still haven't seen Harry Potter yet (I fully
> intend on doing so the 24th). And I want to go see HP; if nothing else,
> it's my way of thumbing my nose on the Harry-Potter-is-teaching-our-
> children-witchcraft-but-even-worse-it's-that-much-less-money-going-
> to-the-churches crowd. In a way, I'm a little disappointed with the
> reaction to LoTR. Not one Fundie has written to the newspaper to
> warn people about the evils of "Lord of the Rings".
On the contrary, it has been extolled in all of my mother's magazines.
The National Catholic Register, one of the more intelligent niche
newspapers, even has an interesting scholarly exposition on the
Christian themes in it. Most of the fundamentalists love the book; many
consider it spiritually significant in their lives. Their biggest worry
is that Evil Hollywood financing such a thing with its wages of sin
would distort or destroy its Godly message.
They'd no more attack LoTR than Narnia. Tolkein was, in fact,
instrumental in C.S. Lewis's own conversion.
Apparentely, Harry Potter is a heretic. The books carry the gnostic
message that we don't need God--power comes from within. They are about
rejecting authority, deceiving adults, and worldly success. LoTR, OTOH,
is the story of humble people under angelic guidance (the hobbits and
Gandalf) *destroying* the magical artifact which would have given them
enormous power. They reject the seductive magic and give up personal
glory, and the whole thing is symbolic of the battle against dark
temptations of the world. And, to be fair, Tolkein probably did intend
most of that.
But I don't see why they can't interpret Harry Potter the same way.
Harry's protection comes from the mark his mother's love left on him
when she died to save him. If that's not a metaphor for Christianity, I
don't know what is. And I hardly think Dumbledore supports the argument
that the figures of authority in the books are just mocked and lied
to--doesn't he play the same role as Gandalf? A benevolent higher
power, assisting but not interfering? So why they choose to interpret
one favorably and the other unfavorably, I don't know, unless it's that
Tolkein was a self-proclaimed Christian and Rowling wasn't.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz --> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
David Chapman
> "deborah cohen" <dco...@luc.edu> wrote
>
> > And doesn't the film change Arwen's parentage as well,
> > making her the child of the Celeborn & Galadrial when she's
> > really Elrond's daughter, or have I got that wrong?
>
> No, Arwen is still Elrond's daughter. But her part has been
> considerably expanded (she has lines, among other things...), and if
> you think cutting Bombadil was controversial, that was nothing
> compared to the furor that the case Arwen raised. A petition was sent
> to Peter Jackson by fans asking him not to destroy the original
> portrayal of Arwen.
Ah, the original portrayal of the Arwen-Aragorn love feast...
ARAGORN <twisting toe in dirt>: "Golly, Miss Arwen, you sure
are purty!"
ARWEN: "Why, thank you. I shall now marry you, somehow
in the process becoming mortal for no adequately explored reason."
I'm probably going to get lynched by the Tolkien purists for saying
this, but I *prefer* the movie version. At least Aragorn has some
reason to like her that way.
--
Nobody tosses a dwarf!
David Chapman
>
> Don't worry about the (very slight) liberties it takes, or the cuts -
> it's 3 hours long as it is.
Indeed - The Fellowship of the Ring will certainly put your
backside through its paces. I went yesterday, and my arse
is still sore.
>
> Just *see* it.
To paraphrase the Austin Powers 2 tag line:
If you see one film in the next 12 months - see FotR.
If you see two films in the next 12 months - see FotR twice.
>
> I had my doubts before, but am highly impressed. And, thank Ilúvatar, a
> certain Professor of Anglo-Saxon is not turning in his grave - at least,
> not as fast as we feared.
They've got the theme right. That's what's important.
David Chapman
news:9vqco9$o5c$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Minor spoilers for HP&PS and FotR movies:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
> I had thought the off-the-top-of-my-head comment should be
> 'it makes Harry Potter look like a Dr Who episode'
> but probably that is a little harsh on HP
No, it's not. They should send a copy of the Moria sequence and
the Black Riders to Chris Columbus, with a note attached reading
"This is how to do spectral villains so they look menacing, and how
to have someone ride a CGI troll without it looking like a cheap,
shitty special effect."
As movies, Harry Potter isn't only not in the same league as FotR,
it isn't even playing the same sport.
Stewart Tolhurst
piage...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> considerably expanded (she has lines, among other things...), and if
> you think cutting Bombadil was controversial, that was nothing
> compared to the furor that the case Arwen raised. A petition was sent
> to Peter Jackson by fans asking him not to destroy the original
> portrayal of Arwen. I'm actually one of the many people who signed it.
> Now, having seen the film, I can live with Jackson's Arwen, (although
> I think Liv Tyler is not much of an actress), but I don't regret
> participating the petition.
From what I have seen of the trailers Arwen seems to be filling in for
various other minor elven characters (e.g. Glorfindle) as well character
expansion of her own.
I would imagine that the main reason for this is to make the film more
attractive to a wider audience. Lets face it, there aren't *that* many
female parts in LotR are there? Admittedly the ones that *are* there are
good strong characters - but though what they do is significant they
aren't really major characters. In many ways Arwen is an obvious choice
for beefing up, at least for the first movie. I just hope they don't
twist the plot too much to fit her into the other films before she re-
appears in the book.
Stewart
Mary Messall
> I am worried that Arwen's expanded role will have an adverse effect later,
> detracting from the importance of Eowyn (who was my favourite character in
> the books). What do you think?
I haven't seen it yet (hopefully tomorrow) but I have to say I rather
agree with David--I read the books to my little sister, and we both
independently came to the conclusion that there were too many boys. <g>
I think playing up Arwen will only help at the end, because for those
of us who like Eowyn (finally, a girl! With lines, and action, and
interior monologue!), Aragorn's rejection of her in favor of Arwen is
really just infuriating. If Arwen gets lines and action and a point of
view as well, perhaps it will seem a little less unfair.
-Mary (But we both love the books anyway. Because the world is so real,
and the characters, that when you get annoyed it's with the characters
themselves rather than the author, who made this amazing place and
these people...)
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
[snip]
> I fully intend to see LoTR soon, probably before New Year's; I don't want
> to get caught in the initial crowds. What little I've seen on tellyvision
> (A Sci-Fi channel preview I can understand, but MTV??) has been
> impressive.
Five friends an I went to see it at the midnight premier. Apparently, they
let the line into the theater shortly after 10 (I didn't get to the theater
until 10:45). It was full, but not actually crowded. (No empty rows, but a
handful of empty seats... enough to be "sold out", according to the theater
folk.)
But then, this was an AMC 20, and they were showing the movie in several
of the larger theaters. (At 11:15, there was a line down the hall and
across the lobby for the 1AM showing.)
But then....Perhaps I was just lucky.
> The problem I have with going to the movies is that the nearest theaters
> are several miles away, and logistics with public transportation can be
> difficult. Because of this, I still haven't seen Harry Potter yet (I fully
> intend on doing so the 24th).
I saw HP twice (as the only point of intersection between two groups). I
intend to see LotR:FotR at least that many times in the theater, and the
trilogy is on the must-buy-on-DVD-as-a-box-set-damn-the-price list.
> And I want to go see HP; if nothing else,
> it's my way of thumbing my nose on the Harry-Potter-is-teaching-our-
> children-witchcraft-but-even-worse-it's-that-much-less-money-going-
> to-the-churches crowd.
I've not heard from /that/ crowd in months. I wonder if my mocking
laughter has driven them all away, or at least convinced them to stay
quiet in my presence?
> In a way, I'm a little disappointed with the
> reaction to LoTR. Not one Fundie has written to the newspaper to
> warn people about the evils of "Lord of the Rings".
That's because they've had time to get over it.
--
Stewart Stremler stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the concept that before the words "Let there be Light",
there were the words "Let there be Choice." -- Harvey White
deborah cohen
> On Wednesday 19 December 2001 10:45 pm, deborah cohen <dco...@luc.edu>
> waxed long:
>
> > But what possible justification could there have been for
> > messing with Frodo's age? He was supposed to be about the
> > same age as Bilbo had been at the time of "The Hobbit"
> > which is middle aged, while his Hobbit companions were still
> > in their youth. This may seem a minor point but if you're
> > gonna claim to have followed the book as much as possible
> > then there is no excuse for arbitrary changes.
>
> The main part of the story takes place when Frodo is in his mid-50's,
> true. But he inherited the Ring from Bilbo on his 33rd birthday, which
> for a hobbit is only just out of childhood. The bearer of one of the
> Great Rings does not age. So even though Frodo is 50-odd, he still
> looks young.
Yes, he *looked* young but he really wasn't. The fact that Frodo
didn't appear to be aging was one of the main reasons Gandalf
suspected the ring was actually the "one ring" of the Dark Lord.
This seemingly minor corruption of Frodo's identity was utterly
unneccessary to the translation from book to film. I'm quite
certain Peter Jackson was more than capable of conveying that
17 years had passed between Bilbo giving Frodo the ring and
Gandalf's revelations as to the ring's true orgin and the need
for Frodo to leave the Shire.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason behind movie Frodo's
tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
sexually attractive to the younger female movie audience, Agragorn
being too mature to fill that role. They wanted to make him into
a heart-throb figure for pre-teens and teens. Yuk.
Nevertheless, you will find me in line for the matinee on Chris-
tmas day, it being a tradition of myself and my friends without
family celebrations to attend to see a big splashy film followed
by a pot-luck dinner. Perhaps this pre-movie venting will prove
beneficial to my ability to enjoy what's good and right about the
film. Getting it all out of my system before hand, as it were.
deborah
Johanna
@luc.edu says...
> I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason behind movie Frodo's
> tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
> sexually attractive to the younger female movie audience, Agragorn
> being too mature to fill that role. They wanted to make him into
> a heart-throb figure for pre-teens and teens. Yuk.
I have no idea what the pre teen and teenage females will make of Frodo.
However this latetwenties female went to see the film yesterday morning
with three others of the same age range [1] and the main topic of
conversation when we left was Legolas, or more specifically Orlando
Bloom, the actor.
This morning we spent some time examining the websites already dedicated
to him (he's been in one or two other movies), and I believe that his
picture is now gracing a number of desktops [2].
Johanna
[1] It was a work outing - go to the cinema in the morning then the
departmental Christmas party in the afternoon. So no work done on
Wednesday. As the party continued well into the evening, it was a late
start this morning, and we went out for lunch then shopping, arriving
back in time to join my boss for mince pies and wine in his office. I
do like being a PhD student!
[2] Not mine though, I'm sticking to Angel. If I want a blond, I'd
rather have Spike.
Quantum Moth
> "hippo" <mda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9vqco9$o5c$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> Minor spoilers for HP&PS and FotR movies:
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
>
>
> > I had thought the off-the-top-of-my-head comment should be
> > 'it makes Harry Potter look like a Dr Who episode'
> > but probably that is a little harsh on HP
>
> No, it's not. They should send a copy of the Moria sequence and
> the Black Riders to Chris Columbus, with a note attached reading
>
> "This is how to do spectral villains so they look menacing, and how
> to have someone ride a CGI troll without it looking like a cheap,
> shitty special effect."
>
The black riders were bloody awful, screeching (not even tonal
screeches, just the same screech, over and over.. the same screech used
for a bloody orc a bit later), non-scary bloody *cloaks* with as much
sense of menace attached as a man brandishing a spoon. The troll looked
great, but the scene was so similar to the Potter movie it made me
laugh. Except the scene wasn't played for laughs, or apparently not.
Maybe it was. It was funny.
> As movies, Harry Potter isn't only not in the same league as FotR,
> it isn't even playing the same sport.
>
buggers. Dull, dull, dull. I revised my estimate, and Harry Potter is
now higher on my list of decent movies this year. I'd been waiting for
FotR in anticipation. I'd pencilled in a "movie of the year" slot.
Hah. Okay, first off, it's at least two hours too long - which isn't to
say there's an hour of good stuff, just that, with someone *actually
editing the script*, it could have been a lot tighter. Instead, every
scene goes on at least 5 minutes past its potential end point, with
masses and masses of, y'know, blah blah. Character motivation. Frodo
crying in every other scene. Sean Bean stroking his goatee and, in all
likelihood, contemplating tying the Hobbits to a railway track.
It - of course, being Llord[1] of the flamin' Rings - exemplifies
everything awful about fantasy. Stupid names. Po-faced, pompous
storytelling with no sense of wonder or majesty. Lines like "it glows in
the presence of orcs" delivered without humour. Amazingly, it was
even somewhat prosaic to look at, considering the flair the trailers
showed.
A major disappoinment, and a real reminder of why I never finished the
book. Having said that, Gollum looks incredible. Very, very good CGI.
And it's not often I say that.
[1]Apparently, every other word is pronounced with a Welsh accent.
Morrrdorr being the worst offender, natch. Eeeesoolde-ar.
--
\\\\\ .o0(thom willis - Corinne's Worse Half)
\\\\\\\__o(http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz | http://www.maskerade.org.uk)
_\\\\\\\'/_(let's just wait for good omens with fingers crossed, eh?)
Quantum Moth
>
> To paraphrase the Austin Powers 2 tag line:
>
> If you see one film in the next 12 months - see FotR.
> If you see two films in the next 12 months - see FotR twice.
>
No, if you see one film in the next 12 months, see Amelie.
If you see two, see Ghostworld.
Seriously, movies that touch you. That get under your skin. That shake
you down or love you up. Not.. ugh. I've never been so disappointed in a
movie. Well, maybe Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.
--
\\\\\ .o0(thom willis - Corinne's Worse Half)
\\\\\\\__o(http://sanctuary.orcon.net.nz | http://www.maskerade.org.uk)
_\\\\\\\'/_(oh, maybe the phantom menace. but, no, that had the duel of
the fates)
Dave Crisp
waxed long:
>
> It - of course, being Llord[1] of the flamin' Rings - exemplifies
> everything awful about fantasy. Stupid names. Po-faced, pompous
>
> [1]Apparently, every other word is pronounced with a Welsh accent.
> Morrrdorr being the worst offender, natch. Eeeesoolde-ar.
<extremly sad>
Check your Tengwar.
That's Malta - Arda - Ore. Arda is derived from Romen, which stands for
a 'trilled' R.
So yes, the middle R of Mordor should roll interminably.
</extremly sad>
Warwick
says...
> In article <bf390993.01122...@posting.google.com>, dcohen2
> @luc.edu says...
>
> > I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason behind movie Frodo's
> > tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
> > sexually attractive to the younger female movie audience, Agragorn
> > being too mature to fill that role. They wanted to make him into
> > a heart-throb figure for pre-teens and teens. Yuk.
>
> I have no idea what the pre teen and teenage females will make of Frodo.
> However this latetwenties female went to see the film yesterday morning
> with three others of the same age range [1] and the main topic of
> conversation when we left was Legolas, or more specifically Orlando
> Bloom, the actor.
Never mind the Elf thing... here we have a reallly truly bona fide
reverse annotation of the obscurest kind so that it... <WEBTV> MUST
BE!!! TROOF!!!!^^ </WEBTV>.
Terry Stole the idea for the Igors from Tolkein! With a name like
Legolas the guy was obviously made from lots of little bits!
Warwick --- I didn't take my coat off
David Chapman
news:MPG.168c7b9fc...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Which still puts them about twenty levels above Lord Fucking
Voldemort, who looks for all the world like a used piece of
black toilet paper floating downstream. I wouldn't wipe my arse
on him, to use another, in this case rather appropriate cliche.
non-scary bloody *cloaks* with as much
> sense of menace attached as a man brandishing a spoon.
The only loss of menace I got from them was the knowledge
that the party would get away; the scene in the Prancing Pony
is very nervy. It's familiarity with the material that harms the film,
where it *is* harmed.
The troll looked
> great, but the scene was so similar to the Potter movie it made me
> laugh.
Not really. In FotR, the effects were *good*.
> Except the scene wasn't played for laughs, or apparently not.
> Maybe it was. It was funny.
You find stabbing people in the face funny?
>
> > As movies, Harry Potter isn't only not in the same league as FotR,
> > it isn't even playing the same sport.
> >
> Nope. Harry Potter was playing Quidditch and FotR was playing silly
> buggers. Dull, dull, dull. I revised my estimate, and Harry Potter is
> now higher on my list of decent movies this year. I'd been waiting for
> FotR in anticipation. I'd pencilled in a "movie of the year" slot.
Anticipation has ruined more movies than Chris Columbus. If
you went into that cinema believing that the film was ever going
to be as good as you wanted it to be, then you're guilty of pure
folly.
>
> Hah. Okay, first off, it's at least two hours too long - which isn't to
> say there's an hour of good stuff, just that, with someone *actually
> editing the script*, it could have been a lot tighter. Instead, every
> scene goes on at least 5 minutes past its potential end point, with
> masses and masses of, y'know, blah blah. Character motivation.
And God forbid we should have that. I can see why you like
Harry Potter; none of the characters in that are motivated in any
way.
Frodo
> crying in every other scene. Sean Bean stroking his goatee and, in all
> likelihood, contemplating tying the Hobbits to a railway track.
We were definitely watching different films, then. In the FotR
I saw, Sean Bean isn't wearing a goatee. Goatees aren't close
cropped - they're pointed.
Besides, villains don't stroke their goatee when tying people
to railroad tracks; they twirl their moustaches. How can you
expect to be taken seriously when you make such fundamental
errors? <grin>
>
> It - of course, being Llord[1] of the flamin' Rings - exemplifies
> everything awful about fantasy. Stupid names. Po-faced, pompous
> storytelling with no sense of wonder or majesty.
Except for Caradhras, Isengard, Amon Hen, Moria...
Lines like "it glows in
> the presence of orcs" delivered without humour.
On the very good basis that they aren't meant to be stupid
double-entendres. Deadly dangers are not met with a quip
and a smile in the real world, so why do you expect it of
your fiction?
> A major disappoinment, and a real reminder of why I never finished the
> book.
So you hate the film because you hate the book. Great.
That doesn't make either shite, as I believe you've just
been rabbitting about at length in the art thread. I hear
consistency is a virtue; you could stand to be a bit more
virtuous, I think.
>
> [1]Apparently, every other word is pronounced with a Welsh accent.
> Morrrdorr being the worst offender, natch.
Tell you what, then; let's all do it *your* way, and not
the way Tolkien actually pronounced the fucking names
himself. Half the names are Elvish, and Tolkien designed
Elvish to be similar to Welsh - as you might know, had
you been interested in the story and not in the "cool stuff".
Your opinions of this film are not coming across to me as
being formed on an adult basis, Thom. Please delete all
the heinous stuff you've responded with if you edited your
reply to this as you went along, then come back and
*discuss* once you've had a chance to think on *why*
you're thinking as you are.
David Chapman
> David Chapman <evil...@madasafish.com> said...
>
> >
> > To paraphrase the Austin Powers 2 tag line:
> >
> > If you see one film in the next 12 months - see FotR.
> > If you see two films in the next 12 months - see FotR twice.
> >
> No, if you see one film in the next 12 months, see Amelie.
> If you see two, see Ghostworld.
It might be a little difficult to see these movies in the next
12 months. They've been and gone and cinemas [1].
[1] Yes, I know about these newfangled video cassette
recorder gizmos, but taglines are for cinemas.
Paul E. Jamison
> "Paul E. Jamison" wrote:
> > The problem I have with going to the movies is that the nearest theaters
> > are several miles away, and logistics with public transportation can be
>
> Public transportation? I thought you lived in Witchita? <g>
>
I'm not sure how you meant this, Mary, but, yes, we have public
transport, and, yes, it has lack-of-ridership problems. People around
here are so hung up on the importance of owning you own "wheels".
>
> > difficult. Because of this, I still haven't seen Harry Potter yet (I fully
> > intend on doing so the 24th). And I want to go see HP; if nothing else,
> > it's my way of thumbing my nose on the Harry-Potter-is-teaching-our-
> > children-witchcraft-but-even-worse-it's-that-much-less-money-going-
> > to-the-churches crowd. In a way, I'm a little disappointed with the
> > reaction to LoTR. Not one Fundie has written to the newspaper to
> > warn people about the evils of "Lord of the Rings".
>
> On the contrary, it has been extolled in all of my mother's magazines.
> The National Catholic Register, one of the more intelligent niche
> newspapers, even has an interesting scholarly exposition on the
> Christian themes in it. Most of the fundamentalists love the book; many
> consider it spiritually significant in their lives. Their biggest worry
> is that Evil Hollywood financing such a thing with its wages of sin
> would distort or destroy its Godly message.
>
> They'd no more attack LoTR than Narnia. Tolkein was, in fact,
> instrumental in C.S. Lewis's own conversion.
>
[not sure where to cut; I'm wasting bandwidth, so mea culpa.]
Yes, I thought that this might be the case. I knew JRRT was
a Christian, as was CS Lewis. Still, that wouldn't stop some
folks from writing in and complaining. Reading the local
newspaper is good for stirring up the blood.
>
> Apparentely, Harry Potter is a heretic. The books carry the gnostic
> message that we don't need God--power comes from within. They are about
> rejecting authority, deceiving adults, and worldly success. LoTR, OTOH,
> is the story of humble people under angelic guidance (the hobbits and
> Gandalf) *destroying* the magical artifact which would have given them
> enormous power. They reject the seductive magic and give up personal
> glory, and the whole thing is symbolic of the battle against dark
> temptations of the world. And, to be fair, Tolkein probably did intend
> most of that.
>
> But I don't see why they can't interpret Harry Potter the same way.
> Harry's protection comes from the mark his mother's love left on him
> when she died to save him. If that's not a metaphor for Christianity, I
> don't know what is. And I hardly think Dumbledore supports the argument
> that the figures of authority in the books are just mocked and lied
> to--doesn't he play the same role as Gandalf? A benevolent higher
> power, assisting but not interfering? So why they choose to interpret
> one favorably and the other unfavorably, I don't know, unless it's that
> Tolkein was a self-proclaimed Christian and Rowling wasn't.
>
Heh. Some months ago Reader's Digest, conservative as it is, ran a
very positive piece on JK Rowling, which prompted a letter of
complaint from a reader who claimed that Rowling was an avowed
Satanist and the purpose of the HP books was to teach children
witchcraft. She even gave the URL of the website she was using
as evidence. The RD editor tactfully pointed out that The Onion is
a satirical online site. I'm sure the folks at RD had a good laugh
over that one.
Paul E. Jamison
geoff...@hotmail.com
Someone wanted to retire to "wherever they shot the movie."
Apparently, it's New Zealand. Locations close to those used for
Xena. Well, close by Australian standards ;-)
Geoff
--
Geoff Field, Professional geek, amateur stage-levelling gauge.
Spamtraps: geoff...@hotmail.com, gcf...@bigmailbox.net, or
geoff...@great-atuin.co.uk; Real Email: gcfield at optusnet dot com dot au
My band's web page: http://www.geocities.com/southernarea/
geoff...@hotmail.com
Frankly, that was nearly my favourite name (after spoofing) from
_Bored Of The Rings_ by The Harvard Lampoon. He became Legolam.
I wasn't quite sure what to make of Frito, though. Spam was another
matter.
As for Frito's father, I'm a tad wary about writing his name from
a work server.
IJGMC
Geoff
PS: Merry, Merry, Happy, Happy
Ted Carmichael
> > > "hippo" <mda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > >
> > >
> > Ahahahahahaaa!!! To use a cliche, were we even watching the
> > same movie? The black riders were bloody awful, screeching
> > (not even tonal screeches, just the same screech, over and
> > over.. the same screech used for a bloody orc a bit later),
With all due respect, my good friend Thom, ARE YOU INSANE!?!?!?
LotR was abso-fuckin-lutely brilliant! The only way I could
watch that movie and not enjoy it is if a giant rat were eating
my right arm. (And *that's* only because it would be too
difficult to manage the popcorn.) It puts every other fantasy
movie ever conceived to shame, and most of the regular-type
movies as well. The only reason I'm glad it wasn't more than
3 hours is because one moment longer and I would've burst from
the 72 ounce 'jug-o-coke' I drank during the previews.
I got goose bumps. I got chills. I laughed with tears in my
eyes. LotR managed to be poignant without being sentimental,
exciting without being silly, and conveyed epic-storytelling
without bogging down the plot. The characters were fully fleshed
out, the effects worked hand-in-hand with an incredible
soundtrack, and the acting was superb. Anyone who didn't like
this movie simply doesn't like good movies.
[snip]
> > I'd been waiting for FotR
> > in anticipation. I'd pencilled in a "movie of the year" slot.
>
> Anticipation has ruined more movies than Chris Columbus. If
> you went into that cinema believing that the film was ever
> going to be as good as you wanted it to be, then you're guilty
> of pure folly.
The funny thing is, this one actually managed to not let me down,
even though expectations were high. Jackson succeeded where
Lucas failed...
> > Hah. Okay, first off, it's at least two hours too long -
> > which isn't to say there's an hour of good stuff, just that,
> > with someone *actually editing the script*, it could have
> > been a lot tighter.
Nonononono. There should be *at least* 6 more hours of this
stuff.
Oh, wait... there is.<bfg>
> Nobody tosses a dwarf!
"Of course you are. And I'm going with you!"
Ted
--
Curse you Thom - you've made me agree with David Chapman!
Bluebottle
Moth says...
>
Images from LoTR - no spoilers left
>
> Sean Bean stroking his goatee and, in all
> likelihood, contemplating tying the Hobbits to a railway track.
Thank you very much for that image - now I won't be able to watch
the film without expecting the immortal words...
'Hayulp! Hayulp!'
'I'll get you next time, Pitstop!'
*whimper*
Julie
--
I talk to the trees...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/julie.lund/
Quantum Moth
> "Quantum Moth" <sc...@mostly.com> wrote
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > > #
> > >
> > >
> > screeches, just the same screech, over and over.. the same screech used
> > for a bloody orc a bit later),
>
> Which still puts them about twenty levels above Lord Fucking
> Voldemort, who looks for all the world like a used piece of
> black toilet paper floating downstream. I wouldn't wipe my arse
> on him, to use another, in this case rather appropriate cliche.
>
very poor. But that doesn't make the Nazgul any better. I preferred
the Bakshi version.. they did scare me, they had presence. Jackson's
Dark Riders are just, well, blokes on horses.
> non-scary bloody *cloaks* with as much
> > sense of menace attached as a man brandishing a spoon.
>
> The only loss of menace I got from them was the knowledge
> that the party would get away; the scene in the Prancing Pony
> is very nervy. It's familiarity with the material that harms the film,
> where it *is* harmed.
>
But I'm unfamiliar with the the material. I went in cold. I didn't
even know Boromir gets it, and remained unmoved when he did. He didn't
actually seem to be in any danger, despite being, well, dead.
> The troll looked
> > great, but the scene was so similar to the Potter movie it made me
> > laugh.
>
> Not really. In FotR, the effects were *good*.
>
yes, the effects were good. The skin of the troll was very convincing.
Still moved like a Tracey brother with the strings cut, but boy did
its skin glisten realistically! The point I was making was that there
was a bit of excitement in the Harry Potter sequence. I rate neither
sequence, in fact neither movie, particularly highly, but if I had to
see either of them again, watch me join the Potter queue. Better yet,
can I see Amelie again?
> > Except the scene wasn't played for laughs, or apparently not.
> > Maybe it was. It was funny.
>
> You find stabbing people in the face funny?
>
Yeah, because it was all real.
> > I'd been waiting for FotR in anticipation. I'd pencilled in a
> > "movie of the year" slot.
>
> Anticipation has ruined more movies than Chris Columbus. If
> you went into that cinema believing that the film was ever going
> to be as good as you wanted it to be, then you're guilty of pure
> folly.
>
I just wanted to see a decent fantasy flick. I rather hoped that FotR
was going to live up to at least its own *trailer*...
> > Hah. Okay, first off, it's at least two hours too long - which isn't to
> > say there's an hour of good stuff, just that, with someone *actually
> > editing the script*, it could have been a lot tighter. Instead, every
> > scene goes on at least 5 minutes past its potential end point, with
> > masses and masses of, y'know, blah blah. Character motivation.
>
> And God forbid we should have that. I can see why you like
> Harry Potter; none of the characters in that are motivated in any
> way.
>
I'm saying that they were simply *saying* their character motivation
out loud. Show, don't tell, Peter! Mo-vie. Mooo-veeee. Not book.
Movie. Hello? Paying attention there? Don't have Aragorn sit down and
say "Well, you see, basically I'm the heir to Gondor, the direct
descendant of Eeeesooldee-ar and I would quite like to be king again,
but I think that probably I'll be a bit crap as a king because I
reckon I've got the 'using the One Ring to further my own ends' gene,
which is apparently heriditary and can pass down through generations
three thousand years apart and..." blah blah. Show this! Use as little
dialogue to convey this as possible! Have pity on my poor arse!
> Frodo
> > crying in every other scene. Sean Bean stroking his goatee and, in all
> > likelihood, contemplating tying the Hobbits to a railway track.
>
> We were definitely watching different films, then. In the FotR
> I saw, Sean Bean isn't wearing a goatee. Goatees aren't close
> cropped - they're pointed.
>
Whatever. He was stroking his beard in a very Panto fashion.
> Besides, villains don't stroke their goatee when tying people
> to railroad tracks; they twirl their moustaches. How can you
> expect to be taken seriously when you make such fundamental
> errors? <grin>
>
I know, I'm a bad, bad man.
> >
> > It - of course, being Llord[1] of the flamin' Rings - exemplifies
> > everything awful about fantasy. Stupid names. Po-faced, pompous
> > storytelling with no sense of wonder or majesty.
>
> Except for Caradhras, Isengard, Amon Hen, Moria...
>
If that's what floats your boat. I didn't feel particularly awestruck
at any point. And.. what was with the big empty hall full of columns?
Isn't that something of an architectural dead-end?
> Lines like "it glows in
> > the presence of orcs" delivered without humour.
>
> On the very good basis that they aren't meant to be stupid
> double-entendres. Deadly dangers are not met with a quip
> and a smile in the real world, so why do you expect it of
> your fiction?
>
It's not that I consider it a double-entendre, just a very dumb line
that could have sounded much better if delivered in a more playful
manner. A lot of people will be howling "But it's supposed to be
played straight! This is serious fantasy!" to which I say "First,
think about the massive oxymoron you've just uttered. Then look at the
best performance in the movie, Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Played
straight, but with true heart. He looked like he was enjoying himself
immensely, both the actor and the character (well, where appropriate).
Very believable, very good, hitting the exact right note between
fantasy and realism. Why couldn't it all have been like that? Would've
been cracking, then."
> > A major disappoinment, and a real reminder of why I never finished the
> > book.
>
> So you hate the film because you hate the book. Great.
Nope, I hate the film because the film is bad. I went with an open
mind. I'd attempted to read the book when a younger man, and have been
exposed to much fantasy since then. What I know of the story is good,
a solid story. I will most likely go and see the other movies, because
I'm interested in the plot. It's just the pomposity in which it is
couched.
> That doesn't make either shite, as I believe you've just
> been rabbitting about at length in the art thread. I hear
> consistency is a virtue; you could stand to be a bit more
> virtuous, I think.
>
I'm of a perfect consistency, thank you, David. If you look closely at
what I've said in the art thread, personal opinon is valid if
justified. Dismissal out of hand for no reason is not. I went to see
the movie with the best of intentions, and it disappointed me *as a
movie*. I'm not saying it's not a movie, which is what I've been
arguing against in the art thread (which, now I try to compare the
two, makes no sense as a comparison. Is the crack getting to you?),
I'm just saying it's not a good movie. Don't try to invalidate my
opinion just because you liked it. Fair enough, you thought it was
good. I, on the other hand, thought it sucked a monkey through thirty
foot of hose.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.
> > [1]Apparently, every other word is pronounced with a Welsh accent.
> > Morrrdorr being the worst offender, natch.
>
> Tell you what, then; let's all do it *your* way, and not
> the way Tolkien actually pronounced the fucking names
> himself. Half the names are Elvish, and Tolkien designed
> Elvish to be similar to Welsh - as you might know, had
> you been interested in the story and not in the "cool stuff".
>
It wouldn't have been so bad if there was some consistency. People
dropped out of their normal accents (btw, what was Gimli's accent?
Welsh? Scottish? It did wander) to suddenly talk all Welsh at us.
Sorry, *Elvish*. How do you pronounce Llandudno, David? How do you
pronounce Paris? This is not how people talk. And, though you may now
say "but it's fantasy".. well, Elves are people, too.
> Your opinions of this film are not coming across to me as
> being formed on an adult basis, Thom.
Why? Because they differ from yours? Exactly why do I get this
reaction from people over this movie? I say things like "I thought the
script was poorly edited" and people seem to hear "I din't fink it had
enough tits in". How much more adult do you want than to criticise it
on the basis of a badly-constructed script lacking in subtext, humour
or believable characterisation? People got huffy on irc last night,
refusing to listen to my *perfectly valid* criticism, calling it
childish whining. My gods! It was a bad movie!
Is it really so heretical to hold a contrary opinion? I thought it
failed. That's my opinion, and I have justified it at length. If you
want to hurl abuse, fine, but at least acknowledge that it is because
I disagree with you, not because I'm *wrong*. I am right. And you're
right. That's the thing about different opinions.
> Please delete all
> the heinous stuff you've responded with if you edited your
> reply to this as you went along, then come back and
> *discuss* once you've had a chance to think on *why*
> you're thinking as you are.
David, I hate to say this because I really do quite like you, but
you're talking utter wank in this paragraph.
--
thom willis
lord of the rings heretic.
Victoria Martin
On 21 Dec 2001, Quantum Moth wrote:
>
> Exactly why do I get this
> reaction from people over this movie? I say things like "I thought the
> script was poorly edited" and people seem to hear "I din't fink it had
> enough tits in". How much more adult do you want than to criticise it
> on the basis of a badly-constructed script lacking in subtext, humour
> or believable characterisation? People got huffy on irc last night,
> refusing to listen to my *perfectly valid* criticism, calling it
> childish whining. My gods! It was a bad movie!
>
Thom, you're my hero. I haven't seen the film yet, but you're still my
hero.
Victoria
Suzi
news:1d7c98c.01122...@posting.google.com...
[Snip]
> People got huffy on irc last night,
> refusing to listen to my *perfectly valid* criticism, calling it
> childish whining.
If you said the same sorts of things you said in here on there in the
same sorts of tone as you've been using in here of late... then I can't
say as I'd go against the majority on this one :-)
Suzi
David Chapman
news:Q_zU7.2317$BX4.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> "David Chapman" wrote:
> > Anticipation has ruined more movies than Chris Columbus. If
> > you went into that cinema believing that the film was ever
> > going to be as good as you wanted it to be, then you're guilty
> > of pure folly.
>
> The funny thing is, this one actually managed to not let me down,
> even though expectations were high. Jackson succeeded where
> Lucas failed...
I'm not precluding you enjoying the film. All I'm saying
is that nothing is perfect. If you got a list of my niggles
and grievances with the film all in one spot, you might
think *I* hated it. I didn't - it was a great film - but there
were so many things I wanted to see done differently to
how they were.
> Curse you Thom - you've made me agree with David Chapman!
Don't worry, Ted, everyone agrees with me sooner or
later. It's inevitable.
Richard Bos
> "David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote
> > On the very good basis that they aren't meant to be stupid
> > double-entendres. Deadly dangers are not met with a quip
> > and a smile in the real world, so why do you expect it of
> > your fiction?
> >
> It's not that I consider it a double-entendre, just a very dumb line
> that could have sounded much better if delivered in a more playful
> manner. A lot of people will be howling "But it's supposed to be
> played straight! This is serious fantasy!" to which I say "First,
> think about the massive oxymoron you've just uttered.
For heaven's sake, man, _what_ oxymoron? Frankly, if you really mean[1]
that "serious fantasy" is an oxymoron, then you've been listening to too
many classist Booker prize winners. Fantasy _is_ serious. Deadly
serious. More, oh so much more serious than most literature.
Well, except "comic fantasy", of course. Because we all know PTerry is
never serious, don't we?
Richard
[1] As I suspect, because I've heard all too many people - usually
rather more pretentious twits than you, unfortunately - say so
David Chapman
> > "Quantum Moth" <sc...@mostly.com> wrote
> > > > Minor spoilers for HP&PS and FotR movies:
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > > #
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The black riders were bloody awful, screeching (not even tonal
> > > screeches, just the same screech, over and over.. the same screech
used
> > > for a bloody orc a bit later),
> >
> > Which still puts them about twenty levels above Lord Fucking
> > Voldemort, who looks for all the world like a used piece of
> > black toilet paper floating downstream. I wouldn't wipe my arse
> > on him, to use another, in this case rather appropriate cliche.
> >
> Yes, well, no-one said Lord Voldemort was good. In fact, he was very,
> very poor. But that doesn't make the Nazgul any better. I preferred
> the Bakshi version.. they did scare me, they had presence.
They scared me too. Mind you, I *was* four years old at
the time.
Jackson's
> Dark Riders are just, well, blokes on horses.
But without the glowing red eyes. And those are no
ordinary horses.
>
> > non-scary bloody *cloaks* with as much
> > > sense of menace attached as a man brandishing a spoon.
> >
> > The only loss of menace I got from them was the knowledge
> > that the party would get away; the scene in the Prancing Pony
> > is very nervy. It's familiarity with the material that harms the film,
> > where it *is* harmed.
> >
> But I'm unfamiliar with the the material. I went in cold. I didn't
> even know Boromir gets it, and remained unmoved when he did. He didn't
> actually seem to be in any danger, despite being, well, dead.
YMEV.
>
> > The troll looked
> > > great, but the scene was so similar to the Potter movie it made me
> > > laugh.
> >
> > Not really. In FotR, the effects were *good*.
> >
> yes, the effects were good. The skin of the troll was very convincing.
> Still moved like a Tracey brother with the strings cut, but boy did
> its skin glisten realistically! The point I was making was that there
> was a bit of excitement in the Harry Potter sequence.
No, there wasn't. You knew nobody was going to really
be harmed in Potter because it's a kids movie.
I rate neither
> sequence, in fact neither movie, particularly highly, but if I had to
> see either of them again, watch me join the Potter queue. Better yet,
> can I see Amelie again?
<sadistic>
No.
> > > Hah. Okay, first off, it's at least two hours too long - which isn't
to
> > > say there's an hour of good stuff, just that, with someone *actually
> > > editing the script*, it could have been a lot tighter. Instead, every
> > > scene goes on at least 5 minutes past its potential end point, with
> > > masses and masses of, y'know, blah blah. Character motivation.
> >
> > And God forbid we should have that. I can see why you like
> > Harry Potter; none of the characters in that are motivated in any
> > way.
> >
> I'm saying that they were simply *saying* their character motivation
> out loud. Show, don't tell, Peter! Mo-vie. Mooo-veeee. Not book.
> Movie. Hello? Paying attention there? Don't have Aragorn sit down and
> say "Well, you see, basically I'm the heir to Gondor, the direct
> descendant of Eeeesooldee-ar and I would quite like to be king again,
> but I think that probably I'll be a bit crap as a king because I
> reckon I've got the 'using the One Ring to further my own ends' gene,
> which is apparently heriditary and can pass down through generations
> three thousand years apart and..." blah blah. Show this!
*HOW?* It positively requires exposition from somebody.
> > >
> > > It - of course, being Llord[1] of the flamin' Rings - exemplifies
> > > everything awful about fantasy. Stupid names. Po-faced, pompous
> > > storytelling with no sense of wonder or majesty.
> >
> > Except for Caradhras, Isengard, Amon Hen, Moria...
> >
> If that's what floats your boat. I didn't feel particularly awestruck
> at any point. And.. what was with the big empty hall full of columns?
> Isn't that something of an architectural dead-end?
Who knows what it was like when inhabited?
>
> > Lines like "it glows in
> > > the presence of orcs" delivered without humour.
> >
> > On the very good basis that they aren't meant to be stupid
> > double-entendres. Deadly dangers are not met with a quip
> > and a smile in the real world, so why do you expect it of
> > your fiction?
> >
> It's not that I consider it a double-entendre, just a very dumb line
> that could have sounded much better if delivered in a more playful
> manner. A lot of people will be howling "But it's supposed to be
> played straight! This is serious fantasy!"
No, I'd say "This is not humorous fantasy".
> > > [1]Apparently, every other word is pronounced with a Welsh accent.
> > > Morrrdorr being the worst offender, natch.
> >
> > Tell you what, then; let's all do it *your* way, and not
> > the way Tolkien actually pronounced the fucking names
> > himself. Half the names are Elvish, and Tolkien designed
> > Elvish to be similar to Welsh - as you might know, had
> > you been interested in the story and not in the "cool stuff".
> >
> It wouldn't have been so bad if there was some consistency. People
> dropped out of their normal accents (btw, what was Gimli's accent?
> Welsh? Scottish? It did wander) to suddenly talk all Welsh at us.
> Sorry, *Elvish*. How do you pronounce Llandudno, David?
Properly. Virtually all my living relatives are Welsh.
How do you
> pronounce Paris? This is not how people talk. And, though you may now
> say "but it's fantasy".. well, Elves are people, too.
>
> > Your opinions of this film are not coming across to me as
> > being formed on an adult basis, Thom.
>
> Why? Because they differ from yours?
No, because you're ranting a bit - at least, from where I'm
sitting it seems that way.
Exactly why do I get this
> reaction from people over this movie? I say things like "I thought the
> script was poorly edited" and people seem to hear "I din't fink it had
> enough tits in".
Which it didn't, let's face it. If they didn't want to denigrate
either of the female characters, they could at least have given
the Balrog a rack.
How much more adult do you want than to criticise it
> on the basis of a badly-constructed script lacking in subtext, humour
> or believable characterisation? People got huffy on irc last night,
> refusing to listen to my *perfectly valid* criticism, calling it
> childish whining. My gods! It was a bad movie!
It was a ride!
> > > A major disappoinment, and a real reminder of why I never finished the
> > > book.
> >
> > So you hate the film because you hate the book. Great.
>
> Nope, I hate the film because the film is bad.
Then we'll have to agree to differ, noting in passing that
you're virtually alone in your opinion and I'm not.
Quantum Moth
expressing my views, my opinons, in as frank and forthright a manner
as the subject deserves[1]. People are reacting with baffling and
offensive vitriol. And you say you're with them on that?
*sigh*
Right. Fine. AFP - at least for now - au revoir.
[1]Let's not forget, people, we're talking about a *movie* here. I
feel passionately about movies, and debate about them is something
which always animates me.
--
thom willis
signing off.
Orjan Westin
news:3c227b00$1...@warwick.dnsalias.com...
> > However this latetwenties female went to see the film yesterday morning
> > with three others of the same age range [1] and the main topic of
> > conversation when we left was Legolas, or more specifically Orlando
> ^^^^^^^
>
> reverse annotation of the obscurest kind so that it... <WEBTV> MUST
> BE!!! TROOF!!!!^^ </WEBTV>.
>
> Terry Stole the idea for the Igors from Tolkein! With a name like
> Legolas the guy was obviously made from lots of little bits!
An what's more, the name explains his somewhat androgynous looks. Had he
been a boy, he'd been called Lego-lad-
IGMC
Orjan
Chris Share
said...
FWIW I agree with you entirely - as to how you've been saying LOTR is
bad. About the film itself, I think you're insane - I loved it.
However, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it.</quote>
Personally I think the movie was really good - the actors all seemed to
fit the roles, acting was good, the locations were... wow. Insert
similar comments about the rest...
And why only 3 hours? Seemed nowhere near as long as that.
They didn't make the mistake of sitcking too slavishly to the letter of
the book while losing the spirit of it, unlike the HP movie...
chris
Suzi
news:1d7c98c.01122...@posting.google.com...
> "Suzi" <Bra...@mothernature.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<9vv2dg$t5q$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>...
> > Quantum Moth <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d7c98c.01122...@posting.google.com...
> > [Snip]
> > > People got huffy on irc last night,
> > > refusing to listen to my *perfectly valid* criticism, calling it
> > > childish whining.
> >
> > If you said the same sorts of things you said in here on there in
> > the same sorts of tone as you've been using in here of late... then
> > I can't say as I'd go against the majority on this one :-)
> >
> Why, Suzi? Exactly.. why? Because I simply don't get it. I'm
> expressing my views, my opinons, in as frank and forthright a manner
> as the subject deserves[1]. People are reacting with baffling and
> offensive vitriol. And you say you're with them on that?
I say I'm with them in that your "expression of views" (if this week is
anything to go by) is actually attacks on people in here who's views you
disagree with at a personal level instead of a _just_ at an impersonal
debating level [1] :-(
> *sigh*
>
> Right. Fine. AFP - at least for now - au revoir.
>
> [1]Let's not forget, people, we're talking about a *movie* here. I
> feel passionately about movies, and debate about them is something
> which always animates me.
It doesn't matter what you're talking about... you appear to be taking
it *all* too seriously and getting personal in the attacks. Debate
should never equate to personal attacks on other debaters. So maybe a
short break is a good idea (to get rid of some of that pre-Christmas
angst possibly?). But please, at least come back refreshed and as the
Quantum Moth pre-angst that we all knew and loved.
Suzi
Eelco Giele
> start this morning, and we went out for lunch then shopping, arriving
> back in time to join my boss for mince pies and wine in his office. I
> do like being a PhD student!
So, when are you going to start writing your Thesis?
<fill in evil overlord maniacal laughter of your choice>
Greetings, Eelco
(99.9% done....finally)
hippo
Chris Share <ch...@caesium.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.168d55a7f...@news.cis.dfn.de...
<snip>
> >*sigh*
> >
> >Right. Fine. AFP - at least for now - au revoir.
> >
> >[1]Let's not forget, people, we're talking about a *movie* here. I
> >feel passionately about movies, and debate about them is something
> >which always animates me.
>
> FWIW I agree with you entirely - as to how you've been saying LOTR is
> bad. About the film itself, I think you're insane - I loved it.
> However, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
> your right to say it.</quote>
>
> Personally I think the movie was really good - the actors all seemed to
> fit the roles, acting was good, the locations were... wow. Insert
> similar comments about the rest...
> And why only 3 hours? Seemed nowhere near as long as that.
> They didn't make the mistake of sitcking too slavishly to the letter of
> the book while losing the spirit of it, unlike the HP movie...
I agree on both points : Thom is entitled to his view : movies as well
as music seem to be a very personal thing : if something doesn't
resonate with you. there is little others can do to shed light on
the argument. Personally I thought it a very good movie
and at the moment it seems that most of the movie fandom world
agrees. For what it's worth FotR has climbed straight to the top
of imdb's top 250 poll.
Whether any more sophisticated analysis is happening I don't know.
It would be interesting to survey opinions from those who have never
read a word of the books, through those like myself who've read it
three or four times, to the Tolkien addict fluent in Elvish.
I need to see it again, but, it might surprise people, that at the moment
I wouldn't choose it as my film of the year.
hippo
--
Mark Datko
Christmas pages : http://www.mdatko.btinternet.co.uk/P1M01.htm
Johanna
says...
project so I have a bit of time. If I was really organised, I suppose I
could start writing the introduction...or I could do what everyone else
does and leave it to the third year.
Johanna
Mary Messall
> Frankly, that was nearly my favourite name (after spoofing) from
> _Bored Of The Rings_ by The Harvard Lampoon. He became Legolam.
> I wasn't quite sure what to make of Frito, though. Spam was another
> matter.
Fritos ("FREE-toes" officially called "Frito Lays") are a brand of
tortilla chip in the US. They're really disgusting--small hard curls
with unforgivable amounts of salt cooked in, designed entirely for
scooping up bean dip with.
HTH.
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz --> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Mary Messall
>
> David Chapman <evil...@madasafish.com> said...
> > "hippo" <mda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9vqco9$o5c$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
> > #
I saw it just a few hours ago, so this is going to be longish...
> Ahahahahahaaa!!! To use a cliche, were we even watching the same movie?
> The black riders were bloody awful, screeching (not even tonal
> screeches, just the same screech, over and over.. the same screech used
> for a bloody orc a bit later), non-scary bloody *cloaks* with as much
> sense of menace attached as a man brandishing a spoon. The troll looked
The black riders had my sister and my cousin both squeezing their eyes
shut, and me with my mouth hanging open. They are *meant* to be nothing
but cloaks, you know. They are barely in our world. They are blind as
they are invisible--Ring Wraiths. But you don't see so much the cloaks
as the hooves of the horses, and their pounding. You see the edges of
them, the trailing tatters of black, the silouhette of them appearing
on the road, the flying formation of them in full chase... They're like
old, proper monster movie monsters, the less you see them, the scarier
they get.
And at least one of the people I was with (there were nine of us)
thought their shrieks were coming from inside the theater, at first.
> great, but the scene was so similar to the Potter movie it made me
> laugh. Except the scene wasn't played for laughs, or apparently not.
> Maybe it was. It was funny.
I'm afraid I did have this problem a little as well. The troll looked
more stupid than scary, and too similar... But I don't think I would've
objected much if I hadn't seen Harry Potter first.
> I'd been waiting for
> FotR in anticipation. I'd pencilled in a "movie of the year" slot.
Some would say that was your first mistake. I, however, had done the
same...
> Hah. Okay, first off, it's at least two hours too long - which isn't to
> say there's an hour of good stuff, just that, with someone *actually
> editing the script*, it could have been a lot tighter.
I hate to break it to you, Thom, but the script isn't the point. At
all. It wasn't the point in the books either. Tolkein can't write
believable dialogue.
Well, it's hard to have characters talk about such impossible things
and take them so very seriously and have them sound believable no
matter how good the writing. The screenwriters wisely adapted his
tactic of keeping the dialogue, therefor, to the minimum necessary
number of matter of fact statements, and letting the audience imagine
for themselves the terror the characters must be feeling, from the
inherent terror of the situation.
(Note to self: in future, have characters emote less. It works.)
> Instead, every
> scene goes on at least 5 minutes past its potential end point, with
> masses and masses of, y'know, blah blah. Character motivation. Frodo
I do confess that I heard that complaint before, before I ever actually
went it. So I was on the lookout for this. But honestly, it's not
there. There's not a single scene, not a single *line* except possibly
in the very beginning at the Shire, which exists to provide character
delineation and motivation. In fact, there's barely any motivation at
all. Frodo just agrees to go. No argument. No waiting for more
information. He just does it. Why? The audience is left to draw their
own conclusions about Frodo. Why is Aragorn there? Why has he "chosen
exile"? Not a word said.
The only answers are on the faces of the actors, and I have to say I
was absolutely, completely floored by the quality of the acting.
Because that's not what I'd been hearing praised before I went. But
everyone thinks there's all this character motivation and development
and stuff, and I looked, and it's not in the script. The scene where
Boromir pledges his loyalty to Aragorn, "his friend, his captain, his
king" as he dies stands out in my mind as this incredibly powerful call
to duty, and the torment of it, the weight of this unwanted powerful,
is there *only* in Vigo Mortgenson's face. He never says a word.
> It - of course, being Llord[1] of the flamin' Rings - exemplifies
> everything awful about fantasy. Stupid names. Po-faced, pompous
> storytelling with no sense of wonder or majesty. Lines like "it glows in
> the presence of orcs" delivered without humour.
You can tell me I'm wrong, but I suspect that this is the real reason
you don't like it. There's really no sense of humor at all. It comes to
you with this perfectly straight face and asks to be taken seriously,
meanwhile talking in made up languages about small hairy footed
creatures on a quest to save the world. It does this, especially at the
beginning of the book and the film, very awkwardly, like a child
telling about a dream with cute little people and monsters, and there
was this *ring* you know, and it was *magic* but it was *evil* and...
The weird thing is, the descriptions get so detailed, the story so
elaborate and so self consistent, that you start to actually believe in
this dream in spite of yourself...
I've said before that I'm actually a sucker for this sort of thing.
Something which is unself-consciously over the top, stylized, campy
even, daring you to _care anyway_. (As a side note, I am *so* excited
that Ang Lee is doing a movie of The Incredible Hulk and treating it as
the Greek tragedy I always believed it was...)
What's rare and valuable about LoTR is that Tolkein was so obsessed,
went to such an effort to actually create the grammar and the geography
of this place, the history and myth, that you can actually suspend
*this* *much* disbelief after a while, and be caught up in something so
much larger than life. It's genuinely terrifying.
Peter Jackson paid nearly as much attention to the details as Tolkein
himself did, it certainly seems, and that's why the movie succeeds as
well.
> Amazingly, it was
> even somewhat prosaic to look at, considering the flair the trailers
> showed.
I will admit there was a strange feeling of switching between action
and tableau. "We haven't had any nifty camera work for a while--let's
show 'em something cool! Okay, now back to ordinary shots." Not that I
think I could have done better. And the "cool" shots really were cool.
It's just that I noticed they were trying to be.
> A major disappoinment, and a real reminder of why I never finished the
> book.
Finish the books. All three of them. Nothing that goes before means
anything until you get to the end. By the time you're done, you feel
like you've been on a journey... And the world becomes more
real--whether it's because the details pile up or your cynicism wears
off or what I don't know, but there's a kind of momentum involved.
Eventually you're carried along in spite of yourself...
The Flying Hamster
> storytelling with no sense of wonder or majesty. Lines like "it glows in
Errr... why should it be delivered with humour, it's not funny.
Hint, this film isn't the normal run of the mill swords and sorcery
with teeny little bitty bits of leather covering large breasts which
normally comes out of Hollywood and Co. It's actually doing fantasy
properly.
Makes a bloody change.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
Earth First! We`ll stripmine the other planets later
The Flying Hamster
> "Quantum Moth" <sc...@mostly.com> wrote in message
> Tell you what, then; let's all do it *your* way, and not
> the way Tolkien actually pronounced the fucking names
> himself. Half the names are Elvish, and Tolkien designed
Got the Special Edition a couple of years ago with the CD of Tolkien
reading from various parts of LotR and other books. An interesting
experience checking the way I thought the words should be said and the
way the author had worked it out.
[...]
> Your opinions of this film are not coming across to me as
> being formed on an adult basis, Thom. Please delete all
Certainly from what I've read it's coming across as "I didnt' like the
book, and I didn't like the film so it's wrong".
I've read the book, I disagree with some things Jackson has done
however it's a good film which actually gets the actors acting rather
than explaining _everything_ in dialog.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
"Far be it from us to TELL you when you should become a parent,
but we WILL be so bold as to offer you some guidelines."
-- "DNS and BIND", page 184
The Flying Hamster
[...]
> I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason behind movie Frodo's
> tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
Does this mean that short males are about to become sexy?
Yay!:)
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick
to reformat your documents in unexpected ways.
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On 21 Dec 2001 17:59:34 GMT, The Flying Hamster <ham...@vom.tm>
wrote:
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason behind movie Frodo's
>> tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
>
>Does this mean that short males are about to become sexy?
Depends how hairy your feet are.
Cheers,
Graham.
"Hairy toes", said the elf-maiden, "I love hairy toes...!"
Gurpreet Singh
"Mary Messall" <m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C231B1A...@durham.ac.uk...
Yes! to add to this - can I just see - Is there anyone who found The Blair
Witch Project scary and didn't find the black riders scary. You fear not
what you see - but what you imagine.
The way little details of the riders are picked out astounds me. To see
Frodo lying under a ditch like that, while a rider passes over him is
terrifying.
<snip>
> > I'd been waiting for
> > FotR in anticipation. I'd pencilled in a "movie of the year"
> > slot.
>
> Some would say that was your first mistake. I, however,
> had done the
> same...
>
Did it live up to your expectations though? I found HP deeply boring,
whereas I found FotR carried me through (almost) every emotion I know, and
that can be shown by a movie.
<snip>
> The only answers are on the faces of the actors, and I have
> to say I
> was absolutely, completely floored by the quality of the
> acting.
> Because that's not what I'd been hearing praised before I
> went. But
> everyone thinks there's all this character motivation and
> development
> and stuff, and I looked, and it's not in the script. The scene
> where
> Boromir pledges his loyalty to Aragorn, "his friend, his
> captain, his
> king" as he dies stands out in my mind as this incredibly
> powerful call
> to duty, and the torment of it, the weight of this unwanted
> powerful,
> is there *only* in Vigo Mortgenson's face. He never says a
> word.
New topic - who was the best actor?
I think that Gandalf was amazing - the wisdom, deep grief and pain shown in
one expression was astounding.
<Snip the rest>
Eric Jarvis
anyone want to go into business selling foot-wigs?
:)
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Nanny Ogg
writes:
>Heh. Some months ago Reader's Digest, conservative as it is, ran a
>very positive piece on JK Rowling, which prompted a letter of
>complaint from a reader who claimed that Rowling was an avowed
>Satanist and the purpose of the HP books was to teach children
>witchcraft. She even gave the URL of the website she was using
>as evidence. The RD editor tactfully pointed out that The Onion is
>a satirical online site. I'm sure the folks at RD had a good laugh
>over that one.
LOL! I read about the Onion piece, and people's response to it, on an UL
website which pointed out the irony that these people are the ones worrying
that *children* need protection in case they can't distinguish between fact and
fantasy.
All the best,
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Nanny Ogg
<piage...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Furthermore, it adds in it some
>ways. Depth of characters never was a strenght of LOTR. While watching
>the film I noticed that for the first time characters like Aragorn and
>Boromir seemed fully humans to me, instead of necessary plot-devices.
As far as increased depth of characters is concerned, Merry and Pippin would
have to be at the top of the list. I got some sense of the character of both
Aragorn and Boromir from reading FotR, but Merry and Pippin came across like a
couple of cardboard cutouts who were there to make the numbers up. Their
portrayal in the film was just _so_ much better. One of the places where I
thought the film actually improved things.
Nanny Ogg
In article <u250did...@corp.supernews.com>, "David Chapman"
<evil...@madasafish.com> writes:
>The only loss of menace I got from them was the knowledge
>that the party would get away; the scene in the Prancing Pony
>is very nervy. It's familiarity with the material that harms the film,
>where it *is* harmed.
I must say, this scene was *so* well done that despite having reread it only a
couple of days earlier, I *still* found myself on the edge of my seat and
having to remind myself forcefully that this one actually turned out all right
in the end. If I hadn't read the book, I'd probably have shrieked aloud at
this point.
......................
>Nobody tosses a dwarf!
Oh, was that `tosses'? I thought it was `touches'! `Tosses' is even better.
`Not the beard!!'
Nanny Ogg
In article <bf390993.01121...@posting.google.com>, dco...@luc.edu
(deborah cohen) writes:
>The fact that they eliminated the character of Bombadil
>altogether barely bothers me at all because the director made a
>legitimate case for having to let him go; for the sake of time,
>not really central to the fellowship, yada yada yada. But
>apparently this decision was somewhat controversial and provoked
>quite a bit of discussion among fans on another a LOTR website
>about the film (Barrow Downs or something like that).
I didn't see the discussion, but that bit bothered me as well - that they'd
have to cut out the Barrow-wight bit if they lost Tom Bombadil (whom I had no
problem with losing apart from that - he's not a character I particularly
liked). The scene in the Barrows is one of the important ones in the book in
terms of Frodo's struggle with the ring, so I was sorry to hear they'd be
losing it. However, on reflection I realised it would have been very difficult
to include anyway, as it was a scene where it would have been difficult to show
his internal struggle fully by his actions. Having seen the film, I don't feel
it lost out through the loss of that scene.
>And doesn't the film change Arwen's parentage as well,
>making her the child of the Celeborn & Galadrial when she's
>really Elrond's daughter, or have I got that wrong?
Funny you should say that. I don't remember the film mentioning her parentage
at all, but wasn't she the granddaughter of Celeborn and Galadriel in the book
(on her mother's side)?
>Please excuse this rant.
You are excused. Hey, if no-one ranted we'd have less to debate about,
wouldn't we? ;-)
>So, how does "young Frodo" come off in the film, anyway?
OK by me. I never thought he _felt_ 50 in the books, anyway, and always had
something of a problem with him being that age, so I wasn't bothered by the
change. And I thought he looked absolutely right for the part.
What bothered me is his accent. It was far better than I'd feared from the
trailers it would be, but I could still have done without even that trace of an
American accent that made it through now and again - it just didn't sound right
for a hobbit.
Nanny Ogg
<m.k.m...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
(re: Fundie Christians on Harry Potter vs. Fundie Christians on Tolkein)
>But I don't see why they can't interpret Harry Potter the same way.
>Harry's protection comes from the mark his mother's love left on him
>when she died to save him. If that's not a metaphor for Christianity, I
>don't know what is. And I hardly think Dumbledore supports the argument
>that the figures of authority in the books are just mocked and lied
>to--doesn't he play the same role as Gandalf? A benevolent higher
>power, assisting but not interfering? So why they choose to interpret
>one favorably and the other unfavorably, I don't know, unless it's that
>Tolkein was a self-proclaimed Christian and Rowling wasn't.
Having read a number of their rants, I think the answer is that Tolkien's magic
is set in a world that's very obviously fantasy, whereas HP is set (nominally
at least) in our world. Which, apparently, gives a stamp of approval to magic
as actually being OK as something to try in the real world, rather than
something eeeeeevil which the Bible condemns and which must therefore be
disapproved of at all costs! They can, apparently, cope more easily with magic
that's _obviously_ meant to be fictional, as it's less likely to give poor
innocent little kiddies the wrong idea. (Yes, I _know_ it doesn't make sense,
I'm just passing the opinion on, OK?)
Having thus decided that Harry Potter Is Bad for that reason, they then attempt
to pad this reasoning out by reinterpreting and selectively quoting the text to
an extent which has to be seen to be believed. By doing this, the leaders of
the flock can `demonstrate' to their loyal followers that the books show Harry
and friends flouting authority all the time willy-nilly and getting away with
it, and are thus setting children a Dreadful Example for this reason as well.
What's ironic about this is that the bits they take out of context to try to
show this are actually extracts from storylines where Harry and friends break
rules in desperate emergencies for really vital reasons, along the general
lines of saving lives, saving the world, and those kinds of little details.
But the fundamentalists who write this sort of drivel conveniently forget to
mention any extenuating circumstances for their `rule-breaking'. And these
people call themselves _Christians_? At one point on afhp, driven to
particular levels of teeth-grindingness by someone giving a particularly
out-of-context quote of this ilk, I asked him what his response to events of
first-century Palestine would have been. `That dreadful Jesus is telling
everyone it's quite all right to break the rules about the Sabbath! I
certainly don't want my children associating with such a bad influence as him!'
<sigh>
Disclaimer: The opinions discussed in this post are not those of all or even
the vast majority of Christians, and should not be taken as representative of
Christianity in general. They are representative of the small minority of
idiot extremists who will appear in any group of whatever persuasion.
The Flying Hamster
> gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote:
>> On 21 Dec 2001 17:59:34 GMT, The Flying Hamster <ham...@vom.tm>
>> >> tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
>> >
>> >Does this mean that short males are about to become sexy?
>>
>> Depends how hairy your feet are.
Hah, who needs foot wigs :)
Mark
(short with hairy feet, make of that what you will)
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
"We cannot get a new line down the pipe due to a blockage and we cannot
dig up the road to clear the blockage because it is covered with the
wrong type of tarmac." - British Telecom
Barry Vaughan
<evil...@madasafish.com> writes
>> Movie. Hello? Paying attention there? Don't have Aragorn sit down and
>> say "Well, you see, basically I'm the heir to Gondor, the direct
>> descendant of Eeeesooldee-ar and I would quite like to be king again,
>> but I think that probably I'll be a bit crap as a king because I
>> reckon I've got the 'using the One Ring to further my own ends' gene,
>> which is apparently heriditary and can pass down through generations
>> three thousand years apart and..." blah blah. Show this!
>
>*HOW?* It positively requires exposition from somebody.
>
I was wondering this too. I think that, given that it has
to be told that Aragorn is Isuldur's heir, the film handled
the exposition very well.
How would you show it, if you wouldn't show it as a conversation
between Aragorn, Arwen and Boromir?
Barry.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I lie awake at night, thinking that we're dead.
That all this is just Death's last joke.
That we're living one last dream before the lights go out.
And then I think, so what's new?
-Death, The Time of your life - Neil Gaiman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ba...@samael.demon.co.uk
Barry Vaughan
writes
>Paul E. Jamison <paul...@infi.net> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> And I want to go see HP; if nothing else,
>> it's my way of thumbing my nose on the Harry-Potter-is-teaching-our-
>> children-witchcraft-but-even-worse-it's-that-much-less-money-going-
>> to-the-churches crowd.
>
>I've not heard from /that/ crowd in months. I wonder if my mocking
>laughter has driven them all away, or at least convinced them to stay
>quiet in my presence?
>
>> In a way, I'm a little disappointed with the
>> reaction to LoTR. Not one Fundie has written to the newspaper to
>> warn people about the evils of "Lord of the Rings".
>
>That's because they've had time to get over it.
>
There's one on the BBC website.
BJV
Carrie Cota
>> "hippo" <mda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:9vqco9$o5c$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>>
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>> #
>>
>>
>
>A major disappoinment, and a real reminder of why I never finished the
>And it's not often I say that.
>
>[1]Apparently, every other word is pronounced with a Welsh accent.
Thom,
As I told you on IRC today (friday), you have the right to hold and
defend your opinion. Whether I or anyone else disagree with it. The
fact that most of us disagree with it may lead to some verbal
incendiariness is probably going to limit discussion a bit. But I will
defend your right to hold and express your opinion so long as I live.
I also defend Chapman's right to do the same, but do ask that people
think before sending and do not resort to ad hominem attacks.
All that being said, I saw the LotR last night at the last showing of
the night (11:20 pm). As someone said in another thread, I have had
books that took me out myself to the point that I totally lost track
of time and location. Until last night, I had never had that
experience with a film. I was totally entranced for the entire 3
hours. Ian McKellan is a genius of an actor who range seems to include
the entire universe. Chris Lee was bloody brilliant as Saruman.
Yes, they took some liberties with the original story as others have
already said. But IMO as a movie it could definitely be my film of the
year. It was as tightly made as possible for the extent of material
that needed to be covered. I thought that Jackson did a wonderful job
of balancing between character driven and plot driven as story-telling
technique.
May all of you have a blessed solstice/Yule and may your new year be
filled with light, love and happiness.
Carrie
--
"I look from the wings at the play you are staging/While my guitar gently weeps
While I'm sitting here do nothing but aging./Still my guitar getnly weeps. -George Harrison RIP
raymond larsson
"Eric Jarvis" <nos...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.168dba875...@news.dircon.co.uk...
> gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukDELETETHIS wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > On 21 Dec 2001 17:59:34 GMT, The Flying Hamster <ham...@vom.tm>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason behind movie Frodo's
> > >> tender age was a Hollywood strategy, pure and simple, to make him
> > >
> > >Does this mean that short males are about to become sexy?
> >
> > Depends how hairy your feet are.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Graham.
> >
> > "Hairy toes", said the elf-maiden, "I love hairy toes...!"
> >
>
> anyone want to go into business selling foot-wigs?
>
rgl it's winter, i've already got it
Chris Share
said...
>I need to see it again, but, it might surprise people, that at the moment
>I wouldn't choose it as my film of the year.
>
>
>hippo
Which would you say is then?
I've just tried to decide which my favourite is, and as usual can't -
narrowed it down to Shrek, Moulin Rouge or FOTR, depending what mood
I'm in. I'll have to watch FOTR again to decide properly...
chris
The Gonzo Lager
>`That dreadful Jesus is telling
>everyone it's quite all right to break the rules about the Sabbath! I
>certainly don't want my children associating with such a bad influence as him!'
The main difference here is that Jesus didn't have a really cool pet
owl. Or wisecracking friends, for that matter.
It's safe to say that 'fundamentalists' can be considered a crazy lot,
especially when you note that the word does contain "mental".
Did Fritz Leiber get this kind of stuff?
The Gonz'
Charter member, AFP Blame Society
"All of sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: You should'na said dat about me mum!"
Morgan Lewis
>
> On 21 Dec 2001, Nanny Ogg wrote:
>
> >`That dreadful Jesus is telling
> >everyone it's quite all right to break the rules about the Sabbath!
> >I certainly don't want my children associating with such a bad
> >influence as him!'
>
> The main difference here is that Jesus didn't have a really cool pet
> owl. Or wisecracking friends, for that matter.
>
> It's safe to say that 'fundamentalists' can be considered a crazy lot,
> especially when you note that the word does contain "mental".
>
> Did Fritz Leiber get this kind of stuff?
>
> The Gonz'
I hesitate to label any group as "mental", but I have to say that the
fundamentalists give me a great deal of temptation on this point.
I was talking with a family friend and a similar discussion came up; a
relative of said friend is one of those who feels "Harry Potter is evil"
based on what she's been told by other fundamentalists about it. Won't
let her 12-year-old son read the books. So what does the kid do
instead? Well, at the time the friend was talking to this relative, the
12-year-old was playing Quake.... ultra-violent, rated as suitable only
for 17+.... yet apparently this is a better thing for a twelve-year-old
than Harry Potter.
I have to conclude the mother in question simply does not research
things before deciding whether or not her kid can have it. Sadly, this
appears to be far, far too common.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@cs.uoregon.edu
The Eclectic Quotes Page: http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
David Chapman
news:20011221172254...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> >Nobody tosses a dwarf!
>
> Oh, was that `tosses'? I thought it was `touches'! `Tosses' is even
better.
Of course. It's an in-joke for Kiwis.
--
Nobody tosses a dwarf!
David Chapman
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:22:41 +0000 (UTC), hippo(mda...@btinternet.com)
> said...
> >I need to see it again, but, it might surprise people, that at the moment
> >I wouldn't choose it as my film of the year.
> Which would you say is then?
> I've just tried to decide which my favourite is, and as usual can't -
> narrowed it down to Shrek, Moulin Rouge or FOTR, depending what mood
> I'm in. I'll have to watch FOTR again to decide properly...
Put me down for FotR, just ahead of The Hole.
David Chapman
news:3C243FEC...@efn.org...
> The Gonzo Lager wrote:
> >
> > On 21 Dec 2001, Nanny Ogg wrote:
> >
> > >`That dreadful Jesus is telling
> > >everyone it's quite all right to break the rules about the Sabbath!
> > >I certainly don't want my children associating with such a bad
> > >influence as him!'
> >
> > The main difference here is that Jesus didn't have a really cool pet
> > owl. Or wisecracking friends, for that matter.
> >
> > It's safe to say that 'fundamentalists' can be considered a crazy lot,
> > especially when you note that the word does contain "mental".
> >
> > Did Fritz Leiber get this kind of stuff?
> >
> > The Gonz'
>
> I hesitate to label any group as "mental", but I have to say that the
> fundamentalists give me a great deal of temptation on this point.
You've never heard it said that they put the "mental" back
into "fundamentalist"?
>
> I was talking with a family friend and a similar discussion came up; a
> relative of said friend is one of those who feels "Harry Potter is evil"
> based on what she's been told by other fundamentalists about it. Won't
> let her 12-year-old son read the books. So what does the kid do
> instead? Well, at the time the friend was talking to this relative, the
> 12-year-old was playing Quake.... ultra-violent, rated as suitable only
> for 17+.... yet apparently this is a better thing for a twelve-year-old
> than Harry Potter.
Of course. Killing demons good. Casting magic spells evil.
Jean S and/or Jeff C
<evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>"Morgan Lewis" <m...@efn.org> wrote in message
>> I hesitate to label any group as "mental", but I have to say that the
>> fundamentalists give me a great deal of temptation on this point.
>
>You've never heard it said that they put the "mental" back
>into "fundamentalist"?
I'm wondering why it still has "fun" in it...
--
Jeff C
Gurpreet Singh
"David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:u28u7gg...@corp.supernews.com...
This is going to surprise people - but AI.
DinkiPixie
Jean S and/or Jeff C <mun...@nospam.invalid> writes
Ah well, isn't it 'fund' as in, you know, bottom?
--
Angela Touchstone
http://www.dinkipixie.btinternet.co.uk/dinkipixie.htm
Eric Weaver
Saw it last night. Yowwie.
I had just finished re-reading Lords and Ladies, so I had a hard time seeing
Elves as good guys. Plus I kept wanting to call characters by "Bored of the
Rings" parody names (Gimlet, son of Groin; Legolam; etc.). But I bet that's
just me.
Definitely pencil this movie in, if you have not already done so.
I also hope Bored of the Rings gets a new printing...
--
Eric C. Weaver we...@sigma.net
"Radio, a bar so low on the musical ladder you need a
sump pump to keep your hairpiece dry" - Brancaccio
Speaker-to-Customers
"Eric Weaver" wrote ...
(Snip)
> Definitely pencil this movie in, if you have not already done so.
>
> I also hope Bored of the Rings gets a new printing...
It already has done. A new hardback edition is stacked 50 high in Ottakars
next to the Lord of the Rings stuff.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as the Predator ripped out Piglet's skull and spinal
cord.
Michel
<Gurpree...@ukgateway.net<DELETE>> wrote:
>This is going to surprise people - but AI.
>
Might have had a chance if it'd been half an hour shorter, but that
final third of the movie kind of ruined it for me.
Guess I'll have to go for Shrek, but I haven't seen FotR yet...
Michel
Len Oil
Now I get the reference!
From that, you'll have gathered I've seen LOTR:FOTR (or should that be
"{LF}OTR"? My regexp is a bit rusty... :)
I don't wish to court too much controversy, but I'll start off with the fact
that I approve of it. It's inspiring, well made (IMHO, of course) and true
to the spirit of the book. (I think someone else talked about the spirit,
but that's still my own thoughts.)
To put things into perspective, my usual one-line review for a film (of the
kind I like to go and see, at least) is "Great effects, shame about the
plot". Not in this case, but then they obviously had a tried and tested
plot.
About the effects: There's a whole range of scene-settings from the "Must
be real" through the "Probably real, but might be good SFX" into the
"Obviously not real, but 10/10 for craftsmanship"[1] and very few that I'd
class as noticeably not quite right.[2]
I, for one, am glad that I saw this film.
It's a pity Bill didn't get any recognition until the last time we see him,
though. (I also don't recall seeing him in the snow-ledge scene, but I'd
need another look to check that out, as he hadn't been mentioned beforehand
and I wasn't particularly looking.)
[1] As a benchmark, I place into this the river scene where they're passing
between the two stone-built figures. I was actually thinking to myself how
the original makers could have constructed the outstretched arms, given that
the top appears to be blocks (must have used metal internal bracing or
something), though the lower parts are solid bedrock at least. Oh and look
(I continued, in my head) those are obviously the stone terraces that the
construction material came from.
[2] Flying past the group by the base of a hill-top ruin, for example, where
today's high standards means that I could just about spot the join between
hilltop and CGI ruin. Very well done getting it (almost) synched with the
camera swing, though.
--
Len Oil,
the man with no imaginative .sig yet.
Mary Messall
Moulin Rouge, the Fellowship, then Shrek.
But Moulin Rouge is a rare bird, and I think in many other years FoTR
may well have come in first...
-Mary
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz --> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
David Chapman
news:a02s30$4es$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
>
> "Eric Weaver" wrote ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > Definitely pencil this movie in, if you have not already done so.
> >
> > I also hope Bored of the Rings gets a new printing...
>
> It already has done. A new hardback edition is stacked 50 high in
Ottakars
> next to the Lord of the Rings stuff.
And they only got 50 in...
David Chapman
news:3C24C023...@durham.ac.uk...
> Michel wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:18:41 -0000, "Gurpreet Singh"
> > <Gurpree...@ukgateway.net<DELETE>> wrote:
> > >This is going to surprise people - but AI.
> > Might have had a chance if it'd been half an hour shorter, but that
> > final third of the movie kind of ruined it for me.
> > Guess I'll have to go for Shrek, but I haven't seen FotR yet...
>
> Moulin Rouge, the Fellowship, then Shrek.
>
> But Moulin Rouge is a rare bird,
Is that Cockney rhyming slang, Mary?
Eric Weaver
>
> "Speaker-to-Customers" <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
> news:a02s30$4es$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
> >
> > "Eric Weaver" wrote ...
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > Definitely pencil this movie in, if you have not already done so.
> > >
> > > I also hope Bored of the Rings gets a new printing...
> >
> > It already has done. A new hardback edition is stacked 50 high in
> Ottakars
> > next to the Lord of the Rings stuff.
Kewl! And on Amazon, it shows the new cover with the cute disclaimer inside a
splash.
>
> And they only got 50 in...
Yeah, rationing plain and simple.
BTW, for those who find the ending a bit abrupt, you might like to see
the after-market Appendix A by Richard Drushel at
http://junior.apk.net/~drushel/b_app_a.html
and his "Scrubbing the Stye" at http://junior.apk.net/~drushel/b_scour.html .
> --
> Nobody tosses a dwarf!
Depends on how fast one eats him...
--
Eric C. Weaver we...@sigma.net
"How comes it," said Arrowroot, "that we meet in this strange land ?"
"It is a tale long in the telling", said Pepsi, pulling out a sheaf of notes.
"Then save it," said Goodgulf.
Speaker-to-Customers
"David Chapman" wrote ...
> "Speaker-to-Customers" wrote ...
> > "Eric Weaver" wrote ...
> >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > >
> >
> > It already has done. A new hardback edition is stacked 50 high in
> Ottakars
> > next to the Lord of the Rings stuff.
>
> And they only got 50 in...
They may have had 20,000 in the back for all I know. They had as many
copies of "Bored of the Rings" out on display as they did of "Lord of the
Rings".
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as an Alien spawn burst out of Christopher Robin's
chest.
Eelco Giele
> In article <9vvjv6$i0bc6$1...@ID-120431.news.dfncis.de>, ee...@espace.cx
> says...
>> Johanna <joh...@johanna.mine.nu> wrote:
>> > start this morning, and we went out for lunch then shopping, arriving
>> > back in time to join my boss for mince pies and wine in his office. I
>> > do like being a PhD student!
>>
>> So, when are you going to start writing your Thesis?
>> <fill in evil overlord maniacal laughter of your choice>
>>
>> Greetings, Eelco
>> (99.9% done....finally)
>>
> When I have some results to put in it - I am 3 months into a three year
> project so I have a bit of time.
Ah, so you still have 1 year and 9 happy months to go :)
> If I was really organised, I suppose I
> could start writing the introduction...
Well, actually, normally, the introduction is one of the last things
you write (to be quite honest, in practice so is most of your
thesis). Since you want to introduce what you did, and you do not
know what you are going to do exactly yet.
>or I could do what everyone else
> does and leave it to the third year.
For some reason this is one of those things that everyone with
experience tells you not to do, and still every PhD student succeeds
in not heeding that advice. Comes with the job probably. Good luck
with it in any case. And in case you ever need an example of how not
to do it... (I will just slightly exceed 6 years. The project was 4...)
Greetings, Eelco
David Roy
news:1009062748.18356....@news.demon.co.uk:
> "David Chapman" <evil...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>> "Nanny Ogg" <swhi...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20011221172254...@mb-fs.aol.com...
>>
>> > >Nobody tosses a dwarf!
>> >
>> > Oh, was that `tosses'? I thought it was `touches'! `Tosses' is
>> > even better.
>>
>> Of course. It's an in-joke for Kiwis.
No it's not... Dwarf-tossing's been done all over the world. So
much so that French lawmakers have gone to the trouble of banning it.
(Infringes the "human dignity" of dwarves, apparently. Even if the dwarf
in question disagrees. The whole sorry tale is no doubt catalogued in 73
different and conflicting versions on various Web sites.) Certainly
several hundred (mostly) French people got the joke at the showing I was at
last night.
>>
>> --
>> Nobody tosses a dwarf!
>
> Now I get the reference!
>
> From that, you'll have gathered I've seen LOTR:FOTR (or should that be
> "{LF}OTR"? My regexp is a bit rusty... :)
And so have I.
>
> I don't wish to court too much controversy, but I'll start off with the
> fact that I approve of it. It's inspiring, well made (IMHO, of course)
> and true to the spirit of the book. (I think someone else talked about
> the spirit, but that's still my own thoughts.)
Wouldn't know. I've tried to read Tolkien many times. Getting on
for a dozen at any rate. And I can't do it. It's incredibly leaden
prose, banging on for longer than Dickens and Proust combined about
nothing. And if I'm going to read someone banging on about nothing, I'd
rather enjoy it than sit there and be irritated by the writer's style.
>
> To put things into perspective, my usual one-line review for a film (of
> the kind I like to go and see, at least) is "Great effects, shame about
> the plot". Not in this case, but then they obviously had a tried and
> tested plot.
Yes... You carefully leave out the fact that the plot, at least as
presented thus far in the film cycle is essentially split between about
half an hour of "there's this really nasty ring. Anyone who wants it
mustn't be allowed to have it, and Frodo's got to chuck it in a volcano
over there somewhere" and two and a half hours of "Run Away! No, Fight!
No! We fought *last* time! This time we Run Away! Next time we
Fight!" I keep hearing about this wonderful plot, the battle between good
and evil and so on, but the vast majority of what made it to the screen is
fighting or running. Think The Silver Horde led some of the time by
Rincewind, and you've got it. (BTW, does this mean that JRRT didn't nick
the plot from an episode of Star Trek, but somehow got hold of Pterry's
notes for TLH?)
>
> About the effects: There's a whole range of scene-settings from the
> "Must be real" through the "Probably real, but might be good SFX" into
> the "Obviously not real, but 10/10 for craftsmanship"[1] and very few
> that I'd class as noticeably not quite right.[2]
I'll go along with that, with one caveat. For the moment, no-one has
come up with a way of making CGI textures look real. They just don't have
the right textures, and the don't look like they're quite happening in the
same dimension as the rest of the picture. Or, to put it another way,
they're not "fractal" enough. Pure CGI (Toy Story, etc) avoids this
problem by not having to mix the two. TLOTR doesn't, and even though the
pictures are very pretty indeed, you can still spot pretty much every CGI
touch throughout. (For the hard of reading, this is valid for all CGI
work, and LOTR is up on the high end of the scale in terms of
craftsmanship.)
As a way of spending three hours, it's not bad. As a way of admiring
the stirling work of a curiously sure-footed director, it's pretty good.
As the film plot of the year, well, it edges ahead of Harry Potter...
David
David Roy
> Michel wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:18:41 -0000, "Gurpreet Singh"
>> <Gurpree...@ukgateway.net<DELETE>> wrote:
>> >This is going to surprise people - but AI.
>> Might have had a chance if it'd been half an hour shorter, but that
>> final third of the movie kind of ruined it for me.
>> Guess I'll have to go for Shrek, but I haven't seen FotR yet...
>
> Moulin Rouge, the Fellowship, then Shrek.
>
> But Moulin Rouge is a rare bird, and I think in many other years FoTR
> may well have come in first...
>
> -Mary
>
>
Sticking to the title of the thread, "Movie of the Year", then Moulin
Rouge. I don't think I've ever seen a film take so much delight in
playing around with all of the conventions of film - from the 20th Century
Fox fanfare to the closing credits - or that is so in touch with the sheer
fun of movie-making and watching. If I can also nominate a "Film of the
Year", then Memento. Film noir treachery and double-cross played
backwards, with a killer payoff. If you haven't seen it, you missed a
treat...
David
Speaker-to-Customers
"David Roy" wrote ...
> Sticking to the title of the thread, "Movie of the Year", then Moulin
> Rouge. I don't think I've ever seen a film take so much delight in
> playing around with all of the conventions of film - from the 20th Century
> Fox fanfare to the closing credits - or that is so in touch with the sheer
> fun of movie-making and watching.
Not a film I am ever likely to see. The utterly dreadful version of "Lady
Marmalade" which was the hit single put me off the film totally. By
contrast, "Shrek" had an exhilarating Nu-Metal version of "I'm a Believer",
and some inspired lunacy from the Proclaimers. "Shrek" rules!
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
"If I were a carpenter, and you were a walrus,
We could drill little holes in wood, which would make it porous."
David Jensen
David Roy <david...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
<Xns91801CC6C833Dd...@193.252.19.141>:
> As a way of spending three hours, it's not bad. As a way of admiring
>the stirling work of a curiously sure-footed director, it's pretty good.
>As the film plot of the year, well, it edges ahead of Harry Potter...
I've seen a couple of reviewers noting, almost in passing, that there
really wasn't much of a plot, yet both were quite thrilled with the
movie, and neither had read the books.
Richard Eney
Johanna <joh...@johanna.mine.nu> wrote:
> ee...@espace.cx says...
>> Johanna <joh...@johanna.mine.nu> wrote:
>> > I do like being a PhD student!
>>
>> So, when are you going to start writing your Thesis?
>> <fill in evil overlord maniacal laughter of your choice>
>could start writing the introduction...or I could do what everyone else
No, write the conclusion - both ways (or 3 ways to cover more options).
Then write the introduction, table of contents, and bibliography.
Then write the blurb for the popularization.
After all that, you may have a better idea of some things to do or to
watch out for.
=Tamar, and no, I haven't ever written a PhD thesis
Mary Messall
> fun of movie-making and watching. If I can also nominate a "Film of the
> Year", then Memento. Film noir treachery and double-cross played
> backwards, with a killer payoff. If you haven't seen it, you missed a
> treat...
Ooh, I forgot that was this year. Okay, that goes in above Shrek.
Mind you, I haven't seen Ghost World or Amelie yet...
Richard Eney
Unfortunately, Fritz Leiber never made enough money or got enough
publicity to attract the attention of the fundies.
=Tamar
The Gonzo Lager
>Of course. Killing demons good. Casting magic spells evil.
Plus, it marks the difference between saying "I cast thee out,
demon!" and "Eat hot flaming death, horned one!".
The Gonz'
AFP Blame Society
The Gonzo Lager
>Unfortunately, Fritz Leiber never made enough money or got enough
>publicity to attract the attention of the fundies.
Yes, but you'd figure that with "Conjure Wife" he might have at least
gotten some feminists up in arms.
The Gonz'
"Absorbent & yellow & porous is he."
The Gonzo Lager
>Sticking to the title of the thread, "Movie of the Year", then Moulin
>Rouge.
For me, "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back".
The Gonz'
Jean S and/or Jeff C
<dink...@dinkipix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ah well, isn't it 'fund' as in, you know, bottom?
Fundament. That's where they keep their brains. They may or may not be
in their heads while being kept there, but that's a piece of research
I'm just not interested in doing.
--
Jeff C
Ted Carmichael
"Mary Messall" wrote:
> David Roy wrote:
> > fun of movie-making and watching. If I can also nominate a
> > "Film of the Year", then Memento. Film noir treachery and
> > double-cross played backwards, with a killer payoff. If you
> > haven't seen it, you missed a treat...
>
> Ooh, I forgot that was this year. Okay, that goes in above
> Shrek.
Hmmm... IMDB says it was 2000, but I just don't remember. Bought
the DVD this year.<sef>
I'll have to say FotR is mine favorite for the year, but I
haven't seen The Man Who Wasn't There, The Royal Tenenbaums, or
Gosford Park yet, none of which - I think - are in wide release
yet. Also haven't seen Moulin Rouge, or Amelie, or (dang, this
is getting depressing) Mulholland Dr., or In The Bedroom, or...
Well, of those I *have* seen, second will have to be Monster's
Inc, 3rd 4th and 5th are: Memento, Spy Game, and Ocean's Eleven.
Most of them were a lot of fun. I *need* a lot of fun this
year...
And I don't mind admitting I really enjoyed A Knight's Tale.[1]
14th century jousts set to Queen was absolutely brilliant.
cheers,
ted
[1] and Sexy Beast! Gandhi as a foul-mouthed killer... mucho
fun.
Morgan Lewis
<warning: bad pun ahead>
So... if fund refers to bottom.... fundamentalist... "mentally, they're
at the bottom of the list"?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lewis m...@efn.org mle...@cs.uoregon.edu
The Eclectic Quotes Page: http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mlewis/
Nanny Ogg
<Ba...@samael.newantispam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Paul Jamieson wrote:
>>> In a way, I'm a little disappointed with the
>>> reaction to LoTR. Not one Fundie has written to the newspaper to
>>> warn people about the evils of "Lord of the Rings".
....
>There's one on the BBC website.
Er, any chance of a more specific reference? The BBC website gave me 1000 hits
for `Lord of the Rings', and adding in `review' and `Christian' didn't seem to
narrow it down at all.
All the best,
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Johanna
Was that full time? I know of one person who took 15 years over his
PhD, but he was registered as a part time student.
How does the system work in the Netherlands? I know that for scientific
PhDs in Sweden you have to publish a number of papers in peer-reviewed
journals, which then go on to make up your thesis.
As far as I know, in the UK you don't *have* to publish, but it is
generally considered a good thing. We write the thesis then go through
a oral exam (the dreaded viva) where we have to be able to defend every
aspect of the work.
My university has recently decided that around the time of the viva, we
will also have to give a presentation to the department where the work
was done. Over the course of the three years, we have to present
regular seminars giving updates on our progress, but no-one outside the
immediate workgroup gets to hear the conclusions. Now they will. Quite
how this will work they're not quite sure as one is rarely working at
the Uni when it becomes time for the viva, but I am sure that it will
be sorted out by the time it's my turn!
Johanna
The Flying Hamster
changed my mind now ;) The content is
|
|
|
V thataway.
This is one of the big problems PJ had to address, he needed to turn
what is undoubtably a very long and in places very slow book into a
film for today's audience. He needs to make back many millions of
dollars of production money, however he couldn't hack the book to
pieces because those who've read the book would see it and then
happily shred it and thus affect the ongoing ticket sales for the
first and subsequent films.
I think he's got the balance about right, as I've mentioned before
there are some things which are IMHO _WRONG_, but I admit to having
read the books too many times and being able to quote the dialog from
the book and the R4 adaptation[1] without too much trouble.
It's very tightly paced, in some places too tight, they should have
done more with Bree and the Council[2] and the interplay between the
characters isn't developed enough for my liking, particularly the
Legolas - Gimli relationship.
Mark
[1] A habit which normally gets me a whack from the short one.
[2] IMHO the council scene and the handling of Elrond is just wrong,
and as for the casting of Elrond, that was both right and wrong.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
"God only knows what i really want, i asked him once but he's not the
best confidant" the caufields
The Flying Hamster
>
> "David Roy" wrote ...
>
>> Sticking to the title of the thread, "Movie of the Year", then Moulin
>> Rouge. I don't think I've ever seen a film take so much delight in
>> playing around with all of the conventions of film - from the 20th Century
>> Fox fanfare to the closing credits - or that is so in touch with the sheer
>> fun of movie-making and watching.
>
> Not a film I am ever likely to see. The utterly dreadful version of "Lady
> Marmalade" which was the hit single put me off the film totally. By
> contrast, "Shrek" had an exhilarating Nu-Metal version of "I'm a Believer",
> and some inspired lunacy from the Proclaimers. "Shrek" rules!
In no particular order
Shrek
A Knights Tale
however FotR gets the top slot without even breaking a sweat.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@korenwolf.net> http://www.korenwolf.net/
Death is only a milestone - albeit one that is dropped
on you from a very great height - Terry Pratchett.
Gurpreet Singh
>
<Snip>
.
>
> Not a film I am ever likely to see. The utterly dreadful
> version of "Lady
> Marmalade" which was the hit single put me off the film
> totally. By
> contrast, "Shrek" had an exhilarating Nu-Metal version of
> "I'm a
> Believer",
> and some inspired lunacy from the Proclaimers. "Shrek"
> rules!
>
> Paul Speaker-to-Customers
I take it that you wouldn't like to know that they (Baz Luhrman?) desecrated
Smells Like Teen Spirit in Moulin Rouge.
It was the one really, really awful part of the movie - making me cringe.
The rest of the movie is, however, excellent - and you should definitely go
to see it - even if you walk out after 10 minutes in disgust.
As to everybody moaning about the ending of AI ..... It was certainly
different to the rest of the movie - and wasn't really a cohesive ending,
but I still thought that the movie itself was amazing. I just can't help
thinking that a different director would pull the whole thing off in a
better manner.
Haley (is that spelt right?) Joel Osmont was stunning - he is one of the
best actors I have ever seen.
Shrek was also very, very good. There were so many subtle jokes added in
along the way - the one flaw was Shrek's accent - if they wanted Scottish,
they should have got a Scotsman to do it.
Speaker-to-Customers
"Gurpreet Singh >" wrote ...
>
> "Speaker-to-Customers" wrote ...
(re "Moulin Rouge")
> > Not a film I am ever likely to see. The utterly dreadful
> > version of "Lady
> > Marmalade" which was the hit single put me off the film
> > totally. By
> > contrast, "Shrek" had an exhilarating Nu-Metal version of
> > "I'm a
> > Believer",
> > and some inspired lunacy from the Proclaimers. "Shrek"
> > rules!
> I take it that you wouldn't like to know that they (Baz Luhrman?)
desecrated
> Smells Like Teen Spirit in Moulin Rouge.
> It was the one really, really awful part of the movie - making me cringe.
I've heard Kurt Cobain desecrate "Smells Like Teen Spirit" himself. That
wouldn't particularly upset me; when the Grunge world was polarised into the
Nirvana camp and the Pearl Jam camp, I was firmly on the side of Pearl Jam.
> The rest of the movie is, however, excellent - and you should definitely
go
> to see it - even if you walk out after 10 minutes in disgust.
I walked out of Woody Allen's "Manhattan" in disgust after 10 minutes - and
almost everyone else followed me! Once one person had had the courage to
say "sod the critics, this is pretentious and boring twaddle", everyone else
admitted that the Emperor had no clothes. I was surprised, but not half as
surprised as the cinema staff, who were running round offering everyone
seats in the other screen instead. Unfortunately it was showing a Farah
Fawcett Major film, and I don't think anyone took them up on the offer.
(Snip)
> Shrek was also very, very good. There were so many subtle jokes added in
> along the way - the one flaw was Shrek's accent - if they wanted Scottish,
> they should have got a Scotsman to do it.
The Scottish accent was Mike Myers' own idea. I agree it would have been
better with a real Scot, but it was an excellent suggestion and it wouldn't
have been fair on Myers to get someone else to do it once he'd had the idea.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
If I worked at carpentry, and you dived for shellfish,
Would you share your oysters with me, or would you be selfish?
Flesh-eating dragon
> illustrations, check spelling, print, twiddle layout, reprint, take to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I read that as "print twaddle".
Adrian.
Jean S and/or Jeff C
>So... if fund refers to bottom.... fundamentalist... "mentally, they're
>at the bottom of the list"?
See my response to Dinki : )
--
Jeff C
Andrew McGuinness
> The Flying Hamster wrote...
>
>>>
>>>> As a way of spending three hours, it's not bad. As a way
>>>>of admiring the stirling work of a curiously sure-footed director,
>>>>it's pretty good. As the film plot of the year, well, it edges
>>>>ahead of Harry Potter...
>>>>
>>>I've seen a couple of reviewers noting, almost in passing, that there
>>>really wasn't much of a plot, yet both were quite thrilled with the
>>>movie, and neither had read the books.
>>>
>>This is one of the big problems PJ had to address, he needed to turn
>>what is undoubtably a very long and in places very slow book into a
>>film for today's audience. He needs to make back many millions of
>>dollars of production money, however he couldn't hack the book to
>>pieces because those who've read the book would see it and then
>>happily shred it and thus affect the ongoing ticket sales for the
>>first and subsequent films.
>>
>>
>
> I went to see it with a friend who has never read any of the books and
> will watch science fiction and fantasy films, but wouldn't be
> sufficiently interested to read the same. And she liked it. And could
> follow it happily. The only backstory I needed to give her was the
> connection between Aragorn being the heir of Isildur and Boromir and the
> Stewards. The fact that there *was* a connection was apparant, because
> of that oh-so-significant scene with the shards of Narsil in the
> hallway, but sometimes exposition can be a good thing.
>
> As for the whole trilogy thig - the fact that it was three hours long
> and you *still* don't get a resolution is somewhat out of the ordinary
> for your average cinema goer - but then I reckon that watching the
> conventions of a medium being messed with can be fun.
>
> The only problem now is that she's wandering around thinking Gandalf is
> dead, and asking me plaintively whether Frodo will be okay and if they
> manage to destroy the Ring or not. I haven't decided to tell her yet, or
> whether I should make her read the books...
>
I very much enjoyed the film, as a dramatisation of the book, but I have
real doubts as to how it stands on its own. The plot is quite
faithfully preserved, (except for omitting the reforging of Narsil,
which I can't understand) but without the history and the
characterisation, it isn't worth much on its own - Merry, Pippin and
Legolas are non-characters, Aragorn, Boromir and Sam about half there,
Gimli is a bad joke and only Gandalf and Frodo are really present as
characters. I would fully sympathise with anyone who has not read the
book complaining that it doesn't make much sense. Of course, even
without a powerful or even sensible story, the film can still have value
as a sort of superior "Tomb Raider", but this is one film-of-the-book
where you really should read the book first to get the benefit.