Attn JMS: Opinions on LOTR Early Trailer
Jon Frain
Just wondering what your opinion of the LOTR pre-trailer that just came
out. Any comments on how ambitious Peter Jackson is at attempting to
make this trilogy? Do you think he'll be able to do the novels justice?
I personally think he's doing a lot of things right.
Jms at B5
>out. Any comments on how ambitious Peter Jackson is at attempting to
>make this trilogy?
Dunno...I went to the LoTR website just today in fact to check it out, but when
I got to the part about choosing what size, after I chose, nothing happened....
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Pål Are Nordal
> Dunno...I went to the LoTR website just today in fact to check it out, but when
> I got to the part about choosing what size, after I chose, nothing happened....
Have you downloaded the latest version (4.1.1) of Quicktime? It can be found at
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Patrick MARCEL
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Pål Are Nordal wrote:
>
> Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > Dunno...I went to the LoTR website just today in fact to check it out, but when
> > I got to the part about choosing what size, after I chose, nothing happened....
>
> Have you downloaded the latest version (4.1.1) of Quicktime? It can be found at
> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
Impressive trailer. Even actors I'm not wild about (Elijah Wood) look
impressively the part! My only regret is that one cannot save the
trailer! :-(((
Patrick
--
"We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars; molecules
that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we came
from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over lines
on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame
reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
Phoebe
clicking several times all over the image for the size I wanted did work
eventually.
Jms at B5 wrote:
> >Just wondering what your opinion of the LOTR pre-trailer that just came
> >out. Any comments on how ambitious Peter Jackson is at attempting to
> >make this trilogy?
>
> Dunno...I went to the LoTR website just today in fact to check it out, but when
> I got to the part about choosing what size, after I chose, nothing happened....
>
Phoebe
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Jon Frain wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Just wondering what your opinion of the LOTR pre-trailer that just came
> out. Any comments on how ambitious Peter Jackson is at attempting to
> make this trilogy? Do you think he'll be able to do the novels justice?
>
> I personally think he's doing a lot of things right.
Pity he decided that Arwen needed a total rewrite.
Tolkein DID write a female character who went to war against the wishes of
her family and after an argument with Aragorn. Her name was Éowyn.
Anyone who doesn't like the idea of Arwen Warrior Princess can go to
http://www.tolkienonline.com/index.cfm and sign their Integrity Petition
(closing April 9th).
http://lotrmap.cjb.net/ The LOTR Movie Accuracy page is also worth a visit.
With the movie not coming out for over a year and a half I should think
there's time for Jackson to reconsider trying to "improve" on Tolkein's
classic.
Brandon
>Dunno...I went to the LoTR website just today in fact to check it
What is the Lord of the Rings web site? I want to check it out...
Has anyone seen the original animated film? I want to see it one of
these days too. The filmmaker's name has temporarily escaped my mind.
Brandon.
--------------------------------------
and after this there's just the circus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Thomas Bagwell
news:38EF29CD...@bigfoot.com...
> Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > Dunno...I went to the LoTR website just today in fact to check it out,
but when
> > I got to the part about choosing what size, after I chose, nothing
happened....
>
found at
> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
Is there anyway to download and save the preview? I enjoyed watching it,
but dislike having to wait an hour for it to download each time I want to
see it...
Tom B.
Jay Denebeim
>What is the Lord of the Rings web site? I want to check it out...
>Has anyone seen the original animated film?
Hasn't everyone? It was one of the more disappointing things that
have happened to me.
>The filmmaker's name has temporarily escaped my mind.
I assume you're talking about the Bakshi work right? Ralph Bakshi,
brilliant animator from the '70s and '80s did some great really dark
stuff.
Anyway, if that's what you're talking about, skip it. It was,
um... okay, if you can consider doing half of the three books in 1.5
hrs 'okay'. Most people call it incredibly disappointing, tom
bombadill was never mentioned, for instance.
It's been a very long time since I've read the book or seen the movie
though.
The Rankel-Bass version of 'the hobbit' and 'return of the king' were
quite good though, if you wern't too pickey :-), they were accurate,
but lite versions. Bakshi's version was supposed to be a 'real'
version of it.
Anyway, skip LoTR and see anything else Bakshi made, especially
'Wizards'
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.aurora.co.us *
Ryan Nock
I know that if you have getright (www.getright.com), you can press ctrl-alt
and click the link, and it will automatically download and save it. If a
movie is streamed directly to a webpage, such as when they released the
Phantom Menace trailer, you could download the whole webpage, then choose
individual files to download out of the page. Getright also lets you resume
broken downloads (very good, since you'll want to download the 22 MB
version). Good luck, and cool orcs. Better than D&D, at least.
Iain Reid
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:8cr6g5$h5e$1...@dent.deepthot.org...<snip>
> Anyway, if that's what you're talking about, skip it. It was,
> um... okay, if you can consider doing half of the three books in 1.5
> hrs 'okay'. Most people call it incredibly disappointing, tom
> bombadill was never mentioned, for instance.
I remember reading that Tom Bombadill isn't going to make it into this
trilogy either (mind you this was when people knew very little about it - so
it might just be a rumour). Peter Jackson, apparently, really didn't like
that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what bits of
the book would have to be dropped, it was the first to go.
Iain Reid
Brian Watson
I think Tom WILL be in this one, judging by the person on the leg and arm
extensions with the large hands.. that's GOT to be a Dom Bombadill suit they
were working on.
Lisa Coulter
and out of character and story--- and I *like* female warriors - Delenn for
example.
Lisa Coulter
10 of 10321
Iain Reid <theva...@callnet0800.com> wrote in message
news:8csq2h$6qvbg$1...@fu-berlin.de...
>
> "Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
> news:8cr6g5$h5e$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
> > In article <8cp520$7fu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Brandon <kla...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Anyway, if that's what you're talking about, skip it. It was,
> > um... okay, if you can consider doing half of the three books in 1.5
> > hrs 'okay'. Most people call it incredibly disappointing, tom
> > bombadill was never mentioned, for instance.
>
> I remember reading that Tom Bombadill isn't going to make it into this
> trilogy either (mind you this was when people knew very little about it -
so
> it might just be a rumour). Peter Jackson, apparently, really didn't like
> that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what bits of
> the book would have to be dropped, it was the first to go.
>
>
AFAIK, he's still out. The reasoning is that it's a verry slow paced part.
(Easily 15-30 min.) and non-essential.
>
>
Shaz
> trilogy either (mind you this was when people knew very little about it -
so
> it might just be a rumour). Peter Jackson, apparently, really didn't like
> that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what bits of
> the book would have to be dropped, it was the first to go.
>
> Iain Reid
In that case he's an idiot. Tom's the only person who can touch the ring
without it affecting him in any way. He's neither made invisible by it, nor
does he covet it, and Gandalf says if they gave it to him to look after he'd
only mislay it because it's not important enough to him. Considering what
the ring is, that has to make you wonder about Bombadil. Who or what is he
that he's unaffected? Even Gandalf and Galadriel fear the ring's power, but
Tom couldn't give a damn. That's a nice mystery that ought to be left in.
Shaz
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
The sad fact is that if you don't remove <some> events from LOTR, the film
will be hopelessly long. Personally, I love the Tom Bombadil part. The
whole Old Forest and Barrow Wights section is a nice piece of foreshadowing
(the lite version <g>) of the descents into the underworld that the heroes
must make (don't you just hate Joseph Campbell?). There is also a lovely
dream sequence which foreshadows the end of the book. I also love the
nonsense verse, and the wonderful dreamlike feeling of <oldness>. But ... it
must be said that purely in terms of plot, the whole sequence can be neatly
excised, since the only reference to it afterwards is a few sentences at the
Council of Elrond. In fact, both the animated version and the classic BBC
radio version excise this section (although some of it was done a year or so
ago in "Tales from the Perilous Realm").
P.S. Is this the person who I spent talking about Monty Python & Douglas
Adams for hours into the morning at the Wrap Party? If so, Hello!!
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8ct1j6$gl9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Shaz
"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:LttI4.4293$hh6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Shaz -
>
> The sad fact is that if you don't remove <some> events from LOTR, the film
> will be hopelessly long.
Sad but true. I just wish for ONCE a book I liked was translated hook, line
and sinker onto the screen. They always seem to miss out something I like
<sigh>
> P.S. Is this the person who I spent talking about Monty Python & Douglas
> Adams for hours into the morning at the Wrap Party? If so, Hello!!
I suspect so. I rarely leave the convention bar until the sun's coming up!
So long as there's interesting conversation, I'll be there. There's such a
dearth of it where I live! If I was smoking a pipe, that's me!
Shaz
Chris Carter
Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
:
: Iain Reid wrote:
: >
: > I remember reading that Tom Bombadill isn't going to make it into this
: > trilogy either (mind you this was when people knew very little about it - so
: > it might just be a rumour). Peter Jackson, apparently, really didn't like
: > that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what bits of
: > the book would have to be dropped, it was the first to go.
: I think Tom WILL be in this one, judging by the person on the leg and arm
: extensions with the large hands.. that's GOT to be a Dom Bombadill suit they
: were working on.
It's more likely an Orc suit, probably Uruk-hai.
--
Chris Carter <*> car...@q7.com
Unaffiliated with both Q7 Enterprises and FOX TV.
o/~ Here I am just waiting for a sign
Asking questions, learning all the time
It's always here, it's always there
It's just love and miracles out of nowhere... o/~
-- Kansas
Ian Galbraith
:Ah! Just missed it. Yeah, Arwen "warrior princess" I consider *very* dubious
:and out of character and story--- and I *like* female warriors - Delenn for
:example.
Peter Jackson seems to be a guy with a fair bit of integrity, I doubt if it
will be like that, but merely an extension of Arwen's character in the
books. He has a valid point that the books are very male dominated for much
of their length, and he's doing what he can to alleviate that.
[snip]
Patrick MARCEL
> Is there anyway to download and save the preview? I enjoyed watching it,
> but dislike having to wait an hour for it to download each time I want to
> see it...
Go to the following site and look for the preview. You can download and save.
Patrick MARCEL
> I think Tom WILL be in this one, judging by the person on the leg and arm
> extensions with the large hands.. that's GOT to be a Dom Bombadill suit they
> were working on.
Considering Tom Bombadil is someone with normal proportions, I'd say the
extensions are for the trolls.
Iain Clark
"Jay Denebeim" <dene...@deepthot.org> wrote in message
news:8cr6g5$h5e$1...@dent.deepthot.org...
> In article <8cp520$7fu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Brandon <kla...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> www.lordoftherings.net
>
> >Has anyone seen the original animated film?
>
> Hasn't everyone? It was one of the more disappointing things that
> have happened to me.
The ending is particularly abominable. It's a shame as I like the character
designs and some scenes, like Bree, are exceptionally well realised.
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Iain Clark
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8ct1j6$gl9$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> "Iain Reid" <theva...@callnet0800.com> wrote in message
> news:8csq2h$6qvbg$1...@fu-berlin.de...
> >
> > trilogy either (mind you this was when people knew very little about
it -
> so
> > it might just be a rumour). Peter Jackson, apparently, really didn't
like
> > that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what bits
of
> > the book would have to be dropped, it was the first to go.
> >
>
> In that case he's an idiot. Tom's the only person who can touch the ring
> without it affecting him in any way. He's neither made invisible by it,
nor
> does he covet it, and Gandalf says if they gave it to him to look after
he'd
> only mislay it because it's not important enough to him. Considering what
> the ring is, that has to make you wonder about Bombadil. Who or what is he
> that he's unaffected? Even Gandalf and Galadriel fear the ring's power,
but
> Tom couldn't give a damn. That's a nice mystery that ought to be left in.
Tom's not even in the BBC radio adaptation IIRC. It seems he's generally
considered a nice idea but redundant to the plot when you're having to make
tough decisions about what you can fit into your adaptation.
I like the radio version. A bit stilted but very true to the book.
Phoebe
I'm sorry, but I do NOT think he has a point. Yes the book is male dominated but
if Jackson didn't like it he could have written his own story and filmed that.
Exactly where does he get off assuming that he knows better than the writer and
that his PC changes are an improvement ? Sending Arwen off to war is NOT and
"extension" it's a rewrite.
Phoebe
> <snip>
> >
> > Iain Reid
>
> In that case he's an idiot.
I think that's a given.
Phoebe
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
>
> > In that case he's an idiot.
>
> I think that's a given.
Oh, this is utter tripe. Anyone who isn't a total Renaissance
Festival-going, henna-wearing Tolkien purist and has actually seen DEAD
ALIVE, MEET THE FEEBLES, HEAVENLY CREATURES, or THE FRIGHTENERS knows
that Mr. Jackson is known for his excellent lenswork as well as for
having a keen insight into his material and knowing exactly what he
wants to achieve in every shot. And that aside, he's on-record as being
a huge fan of the books since childhood. If you can think of a better
name to helm these pictures, I'd sure like to hear it.
You know, if the hobbitheads had their way, there'd never *be* an LOTR
movie--the producers would spend all their time taking unsolicited
advice on the exact size, shape and composition of waybread, the height
and girth of a Balrog, and the pitch of Frodo's voice.
--
Reverend Jacob
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/shirley/272/
"Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is
writing a book." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
WWS
Shaz wrote:
>
> "Iain Reid" <theva...@callnet0800.com> wrote in message
> news:8csq2h$6qvbg$1...@fu-berlin.de...
> >
> > I remember reading that Tom Bombadill isn't going to make it into this
> > trilogy either (mind you this was when people knew very little about it -
> so
> > it might just be a rumour). Peter Jackson, apparently, really didn't like
> > that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what bits of
> > the book would have to be dropped, it was the first to go.
> >
> > Iain Reid
>
> In that case he's an idiot. Tom's the only person who can touch the ring
> without it affecting him in any way. He's neither made invisible by it, nor
> does he covet it, and Gandalf says if they gave it to him to look after he'd
> only mislay it because it's not important enough to him. Considering what
> the ring is, that has to make you wonder about Bombadil. Who or what is he
> that he's unaffected? Even Gandalf and Galadriel fear the ring's power, but
> Tom couldn't give a damn. That's a nice mystery that ought to be left in.
I liked the part as well, although as others have said, if they were going
to film everything in the book it could last 20 hours, easily.
I took Tom's imperviousness to the Ring to be the sign that he was the only
perfectly honest, completely humble, and absolutely pure in heart character
ever to come across the ring. There wasn't a single spot of darkness anywhere
in him that the ring could use or entice. All the others had it, even Gandalf.
The source of all Evil is pride, that's how all the Great Ones were ensnared,
and Gandalf and Galdriel knew they would be susceptible to it's lure.
Tom was free of that - and he was the only one. No one who had tasted or held
Power could ever be trusted to hold the Ring. Frodo was the closest to
Tom that they could find while still being clearminded and dedicated enough
to see the job through.
I just hope they do Moria right - that trip, and scene, was always one of
my favorites.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Tom Holt
The message <38F4A0DD...@tyler.net>
from WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> contains these words:
> I just hope they do Moria right - that trip, and scene, was always one of
> my favorites.
Indeed. I'm just hoping they keep in my favorite line in the whole trilogy;
Elrond (to Gandalf); If you go to Khazad-dum, you will die...
Ian Galbraith
:Ian Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
:> Peter Jackson seems to be a guy with a fair bit of integrity, I doubt if it
:> will be like that, but merely an extension of Arwen's character in the
:> books. He has a valid point that the books are very male dominated for much
:> of their length, and he's doing what he can to alleviate that.
:I'm sorry, but I do NOT think he has a point. Yes the book is male dominated but
:if Jackson didn't like it he could have written his own story and filmed that.
:Exactly where does he get off assuming that he knows better than the writer and
:that his PC changes are an improvement ? Sending Arwen off to war is NOT and
:"extension" it's a rewrite.
<sigh> Books and films are 2 different mediums. Changes have to be made to
film adaptations of books with this mind. Saying that the films should
follow the books exactly is just naive, and you'll be guaranteed to be
disappointed. As for the specific example of Arwen, how can you judge it
without seeing it for yourself?
Philip R. Columbus
>
> "Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net>
wrote in message
>
news:LttI4.4293$hh6.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Shaz -
> >
> > The sad fact is that if you don't remove <some> events
from LOTR, the film
> > will be hopelessly long.
> <snip>
>
> Sad but true. I just wish for ONCE a book I liked was
translated hook, line
> and sinker onto the screen. They always seem to miss out
something I like
> <sigh>
>
Rememberance" sagas on TV. I think they were pretty much
the entire books translated to film.
Phil
Lisa Coulter
Ian Galbraith wrote:
I guess you are right and we can't judge, but it is a *complete* rewrite. Go back and
read the books. Elrond letting Arwen go off to war or her desiring too? You've got
to be kidding. In all seriousness, Tolkien and Lewis had certain attitudes about
women I don't agree with, but these were *their* books. Also, many films without
female warriors have been made, maybe the *majority* of war movies. Given the
ancient feel of this epic, makes much more sense she is not a warrior.
Also do remember, Eowyn and (in some ways) Galdriel *are*
Lisa Coulter
Patrick MARCEL
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>
> > As for the specific example of Arwen, how can you judge it
> > without seeing it for yourself?
>
> I guess you are right and we can't judge, but it is a *complete* rewrite.
Er, if I may: it may be a complete rewrite, as you say, but of a minor
part of the book. Anyway, it does make sense in a cinematographic way,
to have Aragorn marry a character prominent in the narrative. Arwen is
hardly featured in LotR. If Aragorn ends up marrying on-screen someone
who has appeared for two minutes in the films, the majority of the
audience is going to feel cheated (the general feeling might be that he
should marry Eowyn).
But why are we even discussing this, since we have NO IDEA YET what the
end result of this "complete" rewrite is going to be??
Ronald P. Peterson
to go with IE. Go figure.
Lurker #2
Iain Clark
"Tom Holt" <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200004122...@zetnet.co.uk...
Ah yes...Sheridan the White.
Phoebe
The Reverend Jacob Corbin wrote:
> Phoebe wrote:
>
> >
> > > In that case he's an idiot.
> >
> > I think that's a given.
>
> Oh, this is utter tripe. Anyone who isn't a total Renaissance
> Festival-going, henna-wearing Tolkien purist and has actually seen DEAD
> ALIVE, MEET THE FEEBLES, HEAVENLY CREATURES, or THE FRIGHTENERS knows
> that Mr. Jackson is known for his excellent lenswork as well as for
> having a keen insight into his material and knowing exactly what he
> wants to achieve in every shot. And that aside, he's on-record as being
> a huge fan of the books since childhood. If you can think of a better
> name to helm these pictures, I'd sure like to hear it.
>
> You know, if the hobbitheads had their way, there'd never *be* an LOTR
> movie--the producers would spend all their time taking unsolicited
> advice on the exact size, shape and composition of waybread, the height
> and girth of a Balrog, and the pitch of Frodo's voice.
Well I'm not, and I haven't and I don't much care. Read my other posts to
see why I'm less than impressed by Jackson's changes, then comment.
Christian McNeill
news:38f8fe70...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
> On 11 Apr 2000 09:26:51 -0600, Phoebe wrote:
> :Ian Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
>
> :> Peter Jackson seems to be a guy with a fair bit of integrity, I doubt
if it
> :> will be like that, but merely an extension of Arwen's character in the
> :> books. He has a valid point that the books are very male dominated for
much
> :> of their length, and he's doing what he can to alleviate that.
>
> :I'm sorry, but I do NOT think he has a point. Yes the book is male
dominated but
> :if Jackson didn't like it he could have written his own story and filmed
that.
> :Exactly where does he get off assuming that he knows better than the
writer and
> :that his PC changes are an improvement ? Sending Arwen off to war is NOT
and
> :"extension" it's a rewrite.
>
> <sigh> Books and films are 2 different mediums. Changes have to be made to
> film adaptations of books with this mind. Saying that the films should
> follow the books exactly is just naive, and you'll be guaranteed to be
> without seeing it for yourself?
There's once exception to that rule... The Princess Bride. I believe that
movie followed the book closely... to the point of being word for word in
some cases.
--
==========================================
Christian McNeill
One of the Medwar First Ones
Keeper of the "Grrr Arrgh"
Guardian of Mutant Enemy
E-mail: chri...@quicknet.com.au
Web: red.underground.com.au
ICQ: 818458
or 48580607
Phoebe
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2000 09:26:51 -0600, Phoebe wrote:
>
> :Ian Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
>
> :> Peter Jackson seems to be a guy with a fair bit of integrity, I doubt if it
> :> will be like that, but merely an extension of Arwen's character in the
> :> books. He has a valid point that the books are very male dominated for much
> :> of their length, and he's doing what he can to alleviate that.
>
> :I'm sorry, but I do NOT think he has a point. Yes the book is male dominated but
> :if Jackson didn't like it he could have written his own story and filmed that.
> :Exactly where does he get off assuming that he knows better than the writer and
> :that his PC changes are an improvement ? Sending Arwen off to war is NOT and
> :"extension" it's a rewrite.
>
> <sigh> Books and films are 2 different mediums. Changes have to be made to
> film adaptations of books with this mind. Saying that the films should
> follow the books exactly is just naive, and you'll be guaranteed to be
> disappointed. As for the specific example of Arwen, how can you judge it
> without seeing it for yourself?
Yes, just trot out the accusation of naiveté, that'll devalue my argument won't it ?
Afraid not. I'm not saying that films (plural) have to be identical the books on
which they are "based", I'm questioning specific changes being made to this, a very
unusual book which I happen to care about, in the name of Political Correctness.
Can I judge without seeing it ? Now you are being naive aren't you ? We have to go
see a film before we can have ANY opinions about it ? Don't you think that's what
all the web sites and trailers are for ? They WANT potential viewers to judge before
they see, only they want the judgment to be positive. Much nearer the release date
I'll have a good idea just how angry any "improvements" are going to make me and if
I want to spend $9.50 to see it. Right now I'm making my opinions heard in the
distant hope that if enough people do so the film makers might make changes.
Phoebe
The Reverend Jacob Corbin wrote:
> Phoebe wrote:
>
> >
> > > In that case he's an idiot.
> >
> > I think that's a given.
>
> Oh, this is utter tripe. Anyone who isn't a total Renaissance
> Festival-going, henna-wearing Tolkien purist and has actually seen DEAD
> ALIVE, MEET THE FEEBLES, HEAVENLY CREATURES, or THE FRIGHTENERS knows
> that Mr. Jackson is known for his excellent lenswork as well as for
> having a keen insight into his material and knowing exactly what he
> wants to achieve in every shot. And that aside, he's on-record as being
> a huge fan of the books since childhood. If you can think of a better
> name to helm these pictures, I'd sure like to hear it.
>
> You know, if the hobbitheads had their way, there'd never *be* an LOTR
> movie--the producers would spend all their time taking unsolicited
> advice on the exact size, shape and composition of waybread, the height
> and girth of a Balrog, and the pitch of Frodo's voice.
>
Well the penny finally dropped. The people making this movie don't give a
rat's arse what either you or I think. They're after the Phantom Menace
merchandising market. That explains why they cast some who looks like
Natalie Portman to play Arwen.
Me cynical ? Nothing compared to the Makers of this movie, they're
professionals.
Phoebe
> Lisa Coulter wrote:
>
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > As for the specific example of Arwen, how can you judge it
> > > without seeing it for yourself?
> >
> > I guess you are right and we can't judge, but it is a *complete* rewrite.
>
> Er, if I may: it may be a complete rewrite, as you say, but of a minor
> part of the book. Anyway, it does make sense in a cinematographic way,
It makes sense if you're thinking about the merchandising rights and need a
little plastic toy in the Happy Meals that the girls will want.
>
> to have Aragorn marry a character prominent in the narrative. Arwen is
> hardly featured in LotR. If Aragorn ends up marrying on-screen someone
> who has appeared for two minutes in the films, the majority of the
> audience is going to feel cheated (the general feeling might be that he
> should marry Eowyn).
That's dealt with, by that point she's snuggled up with Faramir.
>
> But why are we even discussing this, since we have NO IDEA YET what the
> end result of this "complete" rewrite is going to be??
>
> Patrick
>
If you understand WHY they're doing it the results become all too predictable
:o(
Brandon
> that bit of the book with Tom in it and when he was deciding what
Just watched the preview and it looks incredible. As has been mentioned
a faithful adaption would be very hard because the film could obviously
go for many hours. However, this part of the book is a good one, for
the reasons that the story of Tom is important because Tom isn't
affected by the Ring. Obviously in any adaption, even one as promising
as this, you can't please everyone. The Lord of the Rings is the STORY
of the Ring. What Peter Jackson has done is now created a PLOT. It's
the essential nature of film which he has to adapt to. There isn't any
way around it. By the way does anyone know what the running time of
each of the movies will be? I've noticed a trend that movies are
getting shorter in length, generally. The LOTR movies ought to be an
exception.
Brandon.
--------------------------------------
and after this there's just the circus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Blair Leatherwood
Iain Clark wrote:
> "Tom Holt" <lemmi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:200004122...@zetnet.co.uk...
> >
> > The message <38F4A0DD...@tyler.net>
> > from WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> contains these words:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I just hope they do Moria right - that trip, and scene, was always one
> of
> > > my favorites.
> >
> >
> > Indeed. I'm just hoping they keep in my favorite line in the whole
> trilogy;
> >
> > Elrond (to Gandalf); If you go to Khazad-dum, you will die...
>
> Ah yes...Sheridan the White.
Londo the Crested
G'Kar the Mottled
Vir the Varyingweighted
Patrick MARCEL
> By the way does anyone know what the running time of
> each of the movies will be? I've noticed a trend that movies are
> getting shorter in length, generally. The LOTR movies ought to be an
> exception.
It depends which movies you've seen, recently. I have seen "Magnolia",
"The Green Mile" and "Any Given Sunday". 2h50, 3h05 and 2h40 or
thereabouts respectively. Most films clock in at around 1h40, but I
expect the three LotR should be about "Star Wars" (aka blockbuster)
length: 2h+.
M.E.Tonkin
Christian McNeill wrote:
>
> There's once exception to that rule... The Princess Bride. I believe that
> movie followed the book closely... to the point of being word for word in
> some cases.
>
> -
That's not surprising. William Goldman, who wrote the novel, also
wrote the screenplay.
MET
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Patrick MARCEL wrote:
> Brandon wrote:
>
> > By the way does anyone know what the running time of
> > each of the movies will be? I've noticed a trend that movies are
> > getting shorter in length, generally. The LOTR movies ought to be an
> > exception.
>
> It depends which movies you've seen, recently. I have seen "Magnolia",
> "The Green Mile" and "Any Given Sunday". 2h50, 3h05 and 2h40 or
> thereabouts respectively. Most films clock in at around 1h40, but I
> expect the three LotR should be about "Star Wars" (aka blockbuster)
> length: 2h+.
There's also "The Insider", ~2.5 hrs.; "Three Kings", 2.3 hrs.; "Fight
Club", 2.75 hrs., and today Edward Norton's "Keeping the Faith" was
released--a comedy with a 2+ hrs. running time.
Lisa Coulter
Phoebe wrote:
Have to agree. Maybe I am a "hobbithead" but I remember in college *hoping*
this movie *would* be made and having fun casting it with firends ( along with
Dune and others). Sorry, just because I am not certain about different parts
of the film (the Arwen rewrite) *deosn't* mean I ever expected it to be
exactly my vision - that is not reasonable. But to make a major change like
this to an improtant character (and Arwen *is* important, she is Aragorn's
Beatrice) is disturbing.
On the other hand, probably I will see it - I saw the Bakshi(sp?) tagedy after
all....
and I do expect this to be better than that.
Don't assume all of us who criticize aren't interested in, rooting for, etc.
the movie - otherwise we would just ignore it.
Faith manages - Delenn
In the end, there is always the sunrise.....
Lisa Coulter
flet...@post.queensu.ca
> There's once exception to that rule... The Princess Bride. I believe
> that movie followed the book closely... to the point of being word for
> word in some cases.
So I've heard at least. *grin*
Ae.
Damien Ryan
> There's once exception to that rule... The Princess Bride. I believe that
> movie followed the book closely... to the point of being word for word in
> some cases.
It didn't follow the original version of the book. The one you've read was a
reworking by the author of the screenplay which he called "The Princess Bride
with the boring bits cut out";)
--
Damien 4.7*@7.5#
http://djryan.tripod.com/
Patrick MARCEL
> It didn't follow the original version of the book. The one you've read was a
> reworking by the author of the screenplay which he called "The Princess Bride
> with the boring bits cut out";)
Yeah, I understand all of Florin is still up in arms about what William
Goldman did when he severely adapted Morgenstern's much beloved
masterpiece. Goldman is still persona non grata, over there. :-))
Iain Clark
"Phoebe" <rutho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:38F5B260...@prodigy.net...
> Can I judge without seeing it ? Now you are being naive aren't you ? We
have to go
> see a film before we can have ANY opinions about it ? Don't you think
that's what
> all the web sites and trailers are for ? They WANT potential viewers to
judge before
> they see, only they want the judgment to be positive. Much nearer the
release date
> I'll have a good idea just how angry any "improvements" are going to make
me and if
> I want to spend $9.50 to see it. Right now I'm making my opinions heard in
the
> distant hope that if enough people do so the film makers might make
changes.
Personally I think it's likely that there will be any number of variances
between the books and the films. After all, the films need to be faithful
to the novels, but also successful in their own right, and from my
recollections the books aren't structured well to provide a satisfying,
self-contained story in each volume; they were never intended to do so. The
films do have to achieve that, so certain changes to the structure are
inevitable. I'd venture to say that even Tolkien would almost certainly
have made changes in the (extremely unlikely!) event that he had become
involved in adapting the books into a screenplay.
I agree that it's less 'necessary' to increase the roles of the female
characters, but to assume it will be "Arwen: Warrior Princess" is to assume
both a worst case scenario and a complete lack of integrity on the part of
the film-makers. One for which there is no other evidence at this point.
In fact, plenty of other evidence seems to point to their desire to make
good films which are also as true to the books as possible given the
constraints of time and medium.
It does sound as if Arwen will have a more active role in the film. I hope
and expect that it will be justified in terms of the internal logic and
dialogue of the film. I would be in vehement opposition to rewriting the
books in that way (or any other way!). But the film is a different animal
and I think it's only fair to let it be.
(If on the other hand it turns out that Terry Brooks is writing a
novelisation of the films I will of course reduce my optimism accordingly
<g>)
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
Phoebe wrote:
> Right now I'm making my opinions heard in the
> distant hope that if enough people do so the film makers might make changes.
These "film makers" you keep referring to *do not exist.* There is but one person
orchestrating these films: the director and screenwriter, Peter Jackson. You forget
that he himself has read the LOTR books many, many times and is as informed on the lore
of Tolkien's world and work as anyone. I can assure you that, by all accounts, the
choices he makes as a filmmaker are the ones he thinks are genuinely important rather
than choices based on cynicism or political correctness, and as such, you or anyone else
has about a 0.0000% chance of changing his mind. This is, after all, the definition of
an auteur.
--
Reverend Jacob
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/shirley/272/
"People that are really weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous
impact on history." -- J. Danforth Quayle
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
>
> Personally I think it's likely that there will be any number of variances
> between the books and the films. After all, the films need to be faithful
> to the novels, but also successful in their own right, and from my
> recollections the books aren't structured well to provide a satisfying,
> self-contained story in each volume; they were never intended to do so.
Quite correct. What everybody forgets when they talk about a Lord of the
Rings "Trilogy" is that it was never meant to be a trilogy. The book was
finished a couple of years after the Second World War, and the only reason
why it was split into volumes was because of the paper shortage during the
rationing in the UK which lasted well into the 1950s. It wasn't until the
late 60s until single volume editions (even then omitting the appendices)
were issued, by which time the concept of "trilogy" had stuck in the popular
mind, and has led to the appalling LOTR clone fantasy trilogies which have
spewed forth and saturated the market place from the 70s onwards. In fact,
rather than volume, the structure of the story is six "books", all but the
last having cliff-hanger endings.
> The
> films do have to achieve that, so certain changes to the structure are
> inevitable. I'd venture to say that even Tolkien would almost certainly
> have made changes in the (extremely unlikely!) event that he had become
> involved in adapting the books into a screenplay.
For a start, there is absolutely no way that they can do the Two Towers
justice. At the end of the first volume, the party are split up into two,
and one half of "The Two Towers" follows one group, and the second follows
the other. I imagine that these two very different quests would have to be
interposed a la Star Wars type transitions, with maybe each section ending
with a dramatic shock of some kind. I don't envy Peter Jackson the task of
doing this - it seems like a very difficult task, and he will be hated by
the fans, regardless.
> I agree that it's less 'necessary' to increase the roles of the female
> characters, but to assume it will be "Arwen: Warrior Princess" is to
assume
> both a worst case scenario and a complete lack of integrity on the part of
> the film-makers. One for which there is no other evidence at this point.
> In fact, plenty of other evidence seems to point to their desire to make
> good films which are also as true to the books as possible given the
> constraints of time and medium.
Personally, I wouldn't mind <too> much, since when reading the book, she was
a character I was interested in, and I was disappointed that she wasn't
explored. However, there are hints in the story as to something far deeper
between her and Aragorn. Unfortunately, using her means that other
"historical" characters such as Glorfindel will get the chop.
> It does sound as if Arwen will have a more active role in the film. I
hope
> and expect that it will be justified in terms of the internal logic and
> dialogue of the film. I would be in vehement opposition to rewriting the
> books in that way (or any other way!). But the film is a different animal
> and I think it's only fair to let it be.
My mixed feelings too ...+
> (If on the other hand it turns out that Terry Brooks is writing a
> novelisation of the films I will of course reduce my optimism accordingly
> <g>)
Iain - don't scare me!! It's already happened to Philip K Dick (but then to
be fair, "Do Androids ..." has only passing similarities to Blade Runner).
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
WWS
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw wrote:
>
> Iain -
>
> > I agree that it's less 'necessary' to increase the roles of the female
> > characters, but to assume it will be "Arwen: Warrior Princess" is to
> assume
> > both a worst case scenario and a complete lack of integrity on the part of
> > the film-makers. One for which there is no other evidence at this point.
> > In fact, plenty of other evidence seems to point to their desire to make
> > good films which are also as true to the books as possible given the
> > constraints of time and medium.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't mind <too> much, since when reading the book, she was
> a character I was interested in, and I was disappointed that she wasn't
> explored. However, there are hints in the story as to something far deeper
> between her and Aragorn. Unfortunately, using her means that other
> "historical" characters such as Glorfindel will get the chop.
I think that's one thing that has to happen in almost any novel turned
to film - film just doesn't have the time or space to justify small
but important walk on parts that the viewers won't understand and won't
relate to. Film has to develop backstory, and make the characters
something the viewers can relate to. One of the greatest advantages
of novels is that the author has time and space to do that for hundreds
of characters - but film has got to be pared down to only the most
essential ones. (And in LoTR, that is still going to be dozens of
characters) I think one of the biggest failings of Dune (the movie)
(okay, besides being directed by "Alan Smithee", heh) was that they
presented characters like Dr. Kynes with no explanation or story at
all, and expected everyone watching to understand why he was supposed
to be important. Instead, he dies, and the viewers said "who was that
guy? Why should we care?" I think they really attempted to pack all
the elements of Herberts book into the screen version, and ended up
with nothing but a big damn mess.
>
> > It does sound as if Arwen will have a more active role in the film. I
> hope
> > and expect that it will be justified in terms of the internal logic and
> > dialogue of the film. I would be in vehement opposition to rewriting the
> > books in that way (or any other way!). But the film is a different animal
> > and I think it's only fair to let it be.
>
> My mixed feelings too ...+
>
> > (If on the other hand it turns out that Terry Brooks is writing a
> > novelisation of the films I will of course reduce my optimism accordingly
> > <g>)
>
> Iain - don't scare me!! It's already happened to Philip K Dick (but then to
> be fair, "Do Androids ..." has only passing similarities to Blade Runner).
And also to be fair, Blade Runner is still one of the greatest
SF movies ever done! (director's cut, of course)
But that's due mainly to Ridley Scott - btw, anyone see the trailer
for Ridley Scotts "Gladiator" yet? Looks Gorgeous!
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
:Me cynical ? Nothing compared to the Makers of this movie, they're
:professionals.
Do have even the slightest idea of Peter Jackson's personal integrity?
You've taken one off the cuff comment in the trailor and are building it
into a mountain of paranoia and delusion about the films based on the
marketing for the film and very little actual evidence.
Ian Galbraith
:Ian Galbraith wrote:
:> :I'm sorry, but I do NOT think he has a point. Yes the book is male dominated but
:> :if Jackson didn't like it he could have written his own story and filmed that.
:> :Exactly where does he get off assuming that he knows better than the writer and
:> :that his PC changes are an improvement ? Sending Arwen off to war is NOT and
:> :"extension" it's a rewrite.
:> <sigh> Books and films are 2 different mediums. Changes have to be made to
:> film adaptations of books with this mind. Saying that the films should
:> follow the books exactly is just naive, and you'll be guaranteed to be
:> disappointed. As for the specific example of Arwen, how can you judge it
:> without seeing it for yourself?
:Yes, just trot out the accusation of naiveté, that'll devalue my argument won't it ?
:Afraid not. I'm not saying that films (plural) have to be identical the books on
:which they are "based", I'm questioning specific changes being made to this, a very
:unusual book which I happen to care about, in the name of Political Correctness.
You may not have specifically said it, but it is the implication and intent
of your remarks.
:Can I judge without seeing it ? Now you are being naive aren't you ? We have to go
:see a film before we can have ANY opinions about it ? Don't you think that's what
Uh, yes actually. You are in no position to make any judgements whatsoever.
Fair enough to use a trailer and marketing to decide if you want to see a
film or not, but you can't use it to judge the overall quality of a film
and how well the books have been adapted..
:all the web sites and trailers are for ? They WANT potential viewers to judge before
:they see, only they want the judgment to be positive. Much nearer the release date
The trailers are to drag bums on to seats, that is all.
:I'll have a good idea just how angry any "improvements" are going to make me and if
:I want to spend $9.50 to see it. Right now I'm making my opinions heard in the
:distant hope that if enough people do so the film makers might make changes.
IMHO you shouldn't go to see it you will be bound to be disappointed.
Jeff Walther
Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> wrote:
> But ... it
> must be said that purely in terms of plot, the whole sequence can be neatly
> excised, since the only reference to it afterwards is a few sentences at the
> Council of Elrond. In fact, both the animated version and the classic BBC
> radio version excise this section (although some of it was done a year or so
> ago in "Tales from the Perilous Realm").
Actually, the Bombadill sequence is essential because the Barrows is where
the Hobbits get the swords/knives made by the Men of Westernesse which are
capable of piercing the spell that binds the flesh of the Dark Riders.
One of those swords is used to cut the hamstring of the leader of the nine
ringwraiths at the walls of that city whose name I've forgotten, so that
when Eowyn strikes him with a mundane sword the blow has an effect.
Certainly, you could come up with some other mechanism for the hobbits to
aquire those special weapons, but the story looses some charm with each
such alteration.
In Tolkien's version, they don't know that their weapons are special.
Yet, the hobbits end up using them for exactly the purpose their long dead
makers intended. There is a type of justice and happy irony in that that
lends the books part of charm. The Wringwraiths thought the Kingdom of
Arnor long dead and all its works buried and destroyed. Yet, out of the
grave comes its works in the hands of the least war like creature, and the
leader of the Wraiths is destroyed.
I hope that the maker of this movie has read the Silmarillian. It is
essential to understanding much of the motivations in The Lord of the
Rings.
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Thanks for reminding me of that! I don't suppose you caught the BBC radio
version (it's on tape & CD)? I can't remember if they bothered explaining
how Merry & Pippin got their magic swords.
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
"Jeff Walther" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:trag-24040...@aus-as3-064.io.com...
lcou...@stetson.edu
mant...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > Have you downloaded the latest version (4.1.1) of Quicktime? It can
be found at
> > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
>
> Impressive trailer. Even actors I'm not wild about (Elijah Wood) look
> impressively the part! My only regret is that one cannot save the
> trailer! :-(((
>
> Patrick
OK, most people seem to be agreeing that the trailer looks good. A
question: given the fact that Arwen/ Aragorn are going to get much more
screen time and at least some changes....who wants to comment on whether
he can do their romance right? I mean, to equal Sheridan/Delenn ala
Boxleitner/Furlan/jms wil take a lot of work - I am not familair with
the actors credits but I really can't believe it will be as good.
Lisa Coulter
> --
> "We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars;
molecules
> that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
> billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we
came
> from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over
lines
> on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The
flame
> reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
> spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
>
>
Iain Clark
<lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message news:8e7akk$hpg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38EF25E6...@wanadoo.fr>,
> mant...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > Have you downloaded the latest version (4.1.1) of Quicktime? It can
> be found at
> > > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/
> >
> > Impressive trailer. Even actors I'm not wild about (Elijah Wood) look
> > impressively the part! My only regret is that one cannot save the
> > trailer! :-(((
> >
> > Patrick
>
>
> OK, most people seem to be agreeing that the trailer looks good. A
> question: given the fact that Arwen/ Aragorn are going to get much more
> screen time and at least some changes....who wants to comment on whether
> he can do their romance right? I mean, to equal Sheridan/Delenn ala
> Boxleitner/Furlan/jms wil take a lot of work - I am not familair with
> the actors credits but I really can't believe it will be as good.
Actually, I found Sheridan and Delenn's romance to be quite awkward and
unconvincing at first. It was only around the time of Comes the Inquisitor
that I began to be sold on the idea.
Possibly I was too used to thinking of Delenn as an alien to think of her as
a romantic interest - my prejudice if so. Sheridan obviously didn't have
that problem (especially not after the incident with The Dress). In fact,
one of the nice things about their romance is that way that both overcame
the prejudices of their races to make it happen.
Patrick MARCEL
> OK, most people seem to be agreeing that the trailer looks good. A
> question: given the fact that Arwen/ Aragorn are going to get much more
> screen time and at least some changes....who wants to comment on whether
> he can do their romance right? I mean, to equal Sheridan/Delenn ala
> Boxleitner/Furlan/jms wil take a lot of work - I am not familair with
> the actors credits but I really can't believe it will be as good.
Well, apart from the fact that discussing it would be premature, as we
know nothing of what will be done, there's a very good chance that the
Arwen/Aragorn romance, which will develop as a minor part of three two
hours+ films, will not get as much exposure as the Sheridan/Delenn
affair, which was a running thread through a 120 43mn episodes series
(and a couple of TVmovies).
Can we wait until we know more about TLotR before discussing it, or
would the film itself be totally irrelevant to the discussion?
Patrick
Thomas A. Horsley
> impressively the part! My only regret is that one cannot save the
> trailer! :-(((
Ha! You just have to thwart the forces of evil, you really can save the
trailer:
1. After the monstrous download has been progressing for a while, use the
"find files" feature in explorer to search through your hard disks for
files > 10 meg or so. Ones of particular interest will be in temp
directories or named something.tmp.
2. Keep monitoring the files you found - one of them will keep growing
(at least under windows NT, under 98 it might be harder to tell).
3. Once you are pretty sure you have found the .tmp file it is
downloading the movie to, wait till you can play it (which means the
download is done).
4. Now (the tricky bit) leave your computer idle for a while without
exiting quicktime and write down the filename then press the reset
switch on your computer, terminating the evil program without
giving it a chance to cleanup the temp file.
5. Boot in safe mode (so the OS won't do any temp file cleaning either),
copy the temp file somewhere else, make it read-only, and rename it to
something like lotr.mov.
Ta Da! The quicktime player will now be perfectly willing to play the
trailer over and over again if you open lotr.mov.
It worked for me :-).
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.H...@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+
Iain Clark
"Thomas A. Horsley" <Tom.H...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:u66t4o...@worldnet.att.net...
I've, er, heard that you can do an ftp search with programs like Go!Zilla or
GetRight for the filenames: "lotr_480_fs.l.mov" (15.8 Mb) or
"lotr_640_full.mov" (27.5 Mb)
There's also a way I saw on Ain't It Cool News involving making the movie a
Favourite in your Quicktime player while it starts to download, then usng
Notepad to look at the end of your windows\system\quicktime.qtp file for the
implausibly long URL.
lcou...@stetson.edu
"Iain Clark" <iain.c...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> <lcou...@stetson.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > OK, most people seem to be agreeing that the trailer looks good. A
> > question: given the fact that Arwen/ Aragorn are going to get much
more
> > screen time and at least some changes....who wants to comment on
whether
> > he can do their romance right? I mean, to equal Sheridan/Delenn ala
> > Boxleitner/Furlan/jms wil take a lot of work - I am not familair
with
> > the actors credits but I really can't believe it will be as good.
>
> Actually, I found Sheridan and Delenn's romance to be quite awkward
and
> unconvincing at first. It was only around the time of Comes the
Inquisitor
> that I began to be sold on the idea.
To be honest, I really did not think of them as being a romantic couple
until "Confessions and Lamentations" and of course, "Inquisitor". So it
was not awkwardness, I just did not see it coming. From this point on,
I (IMHO) thought it was great.
> Possibly I was too used to thinking of Delenn as an alien to think of
her as
> a romantic interest - my prejudice if so. Sheridan obviously didn't
have
> that problem (especially not after the incident with The Dress). In
fact,
> one of the nice things about their romance is that way that both
overcame
> the prejudices of their races to make it happen.
>
> Iain
Perhaps. But I wouldn't be too slef-critical. We were used to looking a
her as an alien ambassador from the (sort of) bad guy Minbari.
And you are right, Sheridan clearly had to overcome raccial prejudices,
as did she, in addition to reconciling themselve to the fact that they
had a past in a war against each other. And it was nice.
Interestingly, Aragorn and Arwen, since they are more in the forefront,
must overcome some of the same problems. She is an Elf; he is human
(although very distantly akin). Even Elrond says, in the Arwen /
Aragorn appendix, that he really doesn't think she will think of Aragorn
that way. Wonder how Jackson et al will handle this. It was so
background in the books it did not matter. Here, it clearly won't be.
My point is, Sheridan/Delenn have, IMHO, a beautiful romance. If Arwen/
Aragorn and their romance is to be brought more to the forefront (which
we seem to have every indication will be done) they have their work cut
out to do anything half as good. And the romances have many similar
qualities - mythic, royal unions between two disparate cultures.
Anyone taking bets? ;)
> --
> "Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
> we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
>
Lisa Coulter
lcou...@stetson.edu
mant...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> lcou...@stetson.edu wrote:
>
> > OK, most people seem to be agreeing that the trailer looks good. A
> > question: given the fact that Arwen/ Aragorn are going to get much
more
> > screen time and at least some changes....who wants to comment on
whether
> > he can do their romance right? I mean, to equal Sheridan/Delenn ala
> > Boxleitner/Furlan/jms wil take a lot of work - I am not familair
with
> > the actors credits but I really can't believe it will be as good.
>
> know nothing of what will be done,
there's a very good chance that the
> Arwen/Aragorn romance, which will develop as a minor part of three two
> hours+ films, will not get as much exposure as the Sheridan/Delenn
> affair, which was a running thread through a 120 43mn episodes series
> (and a couple of TVmovies).
*for* speculation, as well as opinions based on what others (not me) may
know of the actors/ Jackson. Granted it (as well as LOTR) will be only 6
+ hours as opposed to B5, my point is that in *feel* it should have the
same mythic/ royal quality, and I was asking for speculation on how well
people think it will be done.
> Can we wait until we know more about TLotR before discussing it, or
> would the film itself be totally irrelevant to the discussion?
>
> Patrick
but it is fun (at least to me) to think about "how are they going to do
that" before I do. I am aware I may change my opinion completely after
seeing the first, second, or third movie. Frankly, though I am not
expecting Sheridan/ Delenn or B5 - which I in fact think is much more
complex / realistic than LOTR , but that is partly if not mainly due to
the "length" of the respective novels, I am wishing them well. If you
don't want to talk about it or speculatte before the movies come out,
fine. If anyone *does* want to discuss it with me, I think it might be
interesting. Much like my discussions in college where we cast every
fantasy /SF novel under the sun (with no real hope they would ever get
made ;). Just an opinion.
>
> --
> "We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars;
molecules
> that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
> billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we
came
> from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over
lines
> on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The
flame
> reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
> spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
Faith manages - Delenn
WWS
Those are both very good ways around the limitations of a lousy program!
(Quicktime) We do they put out trailers on a crap product like that
and not on a decent player like RealPlayer, anyway? (Or comparable others)
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Patrick MARCEL
Thanks for Thomas Horsley and Iain Clark who suggested ways to download
the LotR trailer in spite of the no saving precautions. Unfortunately,
they couldn't have worked for me, since I have a Mac. But in the
meantime, I've found a way which works wonderfully well: I went to
http://www.movie-list.com/ and downloaded it there.
Patrick
Iain Reid
"WWS" <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:3908B1F5...@tyler.net...
>
>
> Iain Clark wrote:
>
> Those are both very good ways around the limitations of a lousy program!
> (Quicktime) We do they put out trailers on a crap product like that
> and not on a decent player like RealPlayer, anyway? (Or comparable
others)
For one, the compression on Quicktime is usually far superior to anything on
Realplayer leading to much better picture and sound quality. I know this is
not always the case - but almost invariably, Quicktime done well will be
better than Realvideo done well.
For another, there is the cost. Real charge for each server-side feed, and
you have to pay them quite a lot to have a decent number of possible
simultaneous streams. Apple, on the other hand, have a tendancy to pay the
companies to put their trailers in Quicktime format - even in some cases
offering to do the compression theirselves (since they see it as a good
promotion of their software). Plus once you buy their server-side software,
that's all you pay - you don't have to pay for each individual stream.
Besides that, I don't really see the inabilty to save as something to say
that Quicktime is worse. You can only save realvideo if you have Realplayer
Plus, and even then you wouldn't have been able to save this one - since you
couldn't save it with Quicktime Pro either. This means that the film
company specifically set it to be non-savable, which they would also have
done with a Realvidoe stream as well.
Iain Reid
Patrick MARCEL
> Look, you seem quite honestly hostile.
Sorry if I do, as I don't think I am, nor meant to be. I was just annoyed.
My annoyance stems from the fact that, so far, I've already seen Peter
Jackson raked quite angrily over the coals in this thread, called a hack
and denounced as a commercial sell-out for the tremendous, irredeemable
flaws in his sacrilegious version of LotR...
...Even though we've only seen all of two minutes' worth of disjointed
clips of the supposed sacrilege, so far, and only heard a few vague
rumours (stress on "rumours").
That's why I felt comparisons between Sheridan/Delenn and the film's
Aragorn/Arwen to be premature. Especially since whatever Jackson does
with the relationship will have to be original material. If memory
serves, the whole story is pretty much contained in an *appendix* to
LotR, "The tale of Aragorn and Arwen".
> We know that the two actors are being billed as "stars" of the series.
Well, they are names actors, so the publicity department of the film is
playing up that aspect. Considering the importance of women characters
in LotR, the feminine stars won't probably total up a huge amount of
screen time. "Superman" played up the Marlon Brando angle of it, which
was minimal - although Brando wanted it to be even shorter, and even
suggested at one time that he should just voice his part, while locked
up inside a large green suitcase :-)).
But I digress.
> If anyone *does* want to discuss it with me, I think it might be
> interesting. Much like my discussions in college where we cast every
> fantasy /SF novel under the sun (with no real hope they would ever get
> made ;). Just an opinion.
Well, you seemed quite honestly to be asking for a discussion on what
the comparison *was*, and not what it *might be*. Hence my annoyance, in
the light of those previous angry posts I mentioned. It was the "trial
before the fact" aspect which bothered me.
Jeff Walther
Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> wrote:
> "Jeff Walther" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:trag-24040...@aus-as3-064.io.com...
> > Actually, the Bombadill sequence is essential because the Barrows is where
> > the Hobbits get the swords/knives made by the Men of Westernesse which are
> > capable of piercing the spell that binds the flesh of the Dark Riders.
> > One of those swords is used to cut the hamstring of the leader of the nine
> > ringwraiths at the walls of that city whose name I've forgotten, so that
> > when Eowyn strikes him with a mundane sword the blow has an effect.
> Thanks for reminding me of that! I don't suppose you caught the BBC radio
> version (it's on tape & CD)? I can't remember if they bothered explaining
> how Merry & Pippin got their magic swords.
No, I never caught the BBC radio version. I saw a large collection of
cassettes at the book store some years ago that purported to be the Lord
of the Rings. Would that be the BBC version? Or is there also a
books-on-tape version kicking around. It makes my throat sore just to
think about reading all three books aloud.
Interestingly, (to me anyway), I liked the animated version when I first
saw it, though I was taken aback with the realization that while the movie
had ended, we had no idea how the main plot was resolved. But, you see,
at that point in my life all the Tolkien I had ever read was an excerpt of
the Hobbit in a seventh grade reader. My sister had read The Lord of the
Rings and were it not for her, I wouldn't have known there were books to
go with the movie. So I proceeded to read the books. And after that I
had to read the Silmarillian which answered so many questions (such as
What IS Gandalf). And then, of course, it was time to read The Hobbit and
TLOTR again for proper chronological sequence.
Now I'm completely ruined for the movie. But it got me into the books.
I have high hopes for this new movie, but low expectations. Too many
other book to movie projects have failed miserably. On the other hand,
have you seen and read The Age of Innocence. It's a wonderful Scorcese
film. I don't know why, but I really adore that movie. So I read the
book. It's the most boring book I've read in a while. How Scorcese ever
got the idea to turn that dull writing into such a lush movie I can't
imagine. Genius.
Iain Rae
> In article <II4N4.2434$0d2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Mark
> Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jeff Walther" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
> > news:trag-24040...@aus-as3-064.io.com...
>
> > > Actually, the Bombadill sequence is essential because the Barrows is where
> > > the Hobbits get the swords/knives made by the Men of Westernesse which are
> > > capable of piercing the spell that binds the flesh of the Dark Riders.
> > > One of those swords is used to cut the hamstring of the leader of the nine
> > > ringwraiths at the walls of that city whose name I've forgotten, so that
> > > when Eowyn strikes him with a mundane sword the blow has an effect.
>
> > Thanks for reminding me of that! I don't suppose you caught the BBC radio
> > version (it's on tape & CD)? I can't remember if they bothered explaining
> > how Merry & Pippin got their magic swords.
>
> No, I never caught the BBC radio version. I saw a large collection of
> cassettes at the book store some years ago that purported to be the Lord
> of the Rings. Would that be the BBC version? Or is there also a
> books-on-tape version kicking around. It makes my throat sore just to
> think about reading all three books aloud.
If it was gold/silver on black then it was the BBC version, if you ever see it
again buy it. it's one of the best things I've heard done on radio.
I's been ages since I've listened to it and I think I'll have to dig it out
again. The production is very high, apart from the Tom Bombadill part I'm farly
shure they followed the book very closely (It's about 13 hours long)and Ian Holm
is good as frodo and Michael Horden IS (WAS) Gandalf.
see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0563388129/qid=956924418/sr=1-5/026-4207845-8625248
NB there is an audio book version which is 38 tapes, bit of a bugger if you get
to tape 37 and it's on backwards (happened to me, tape 11 was backwards on my BBC
set)
Iain Clark
"Iain Rae" <ia...@civ.hw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39098482...@civ.hw.ac.uk...
> Jeff Walther wrote:
>
> > In article <II4N4.2434$0d2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Mark
> > Alexander Bertenshaw" <Mark.Be...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > No, I never caught the BBC radio version. I saw a large collection of
> > cassettes at the book store some years ago that purported to be the Lord
> > of the Rings. Would that be the BBC version? Or is there also a
> > books-on-tape version kicking around. It makes my throat sore just to
> > think about reading all three books aloud.
>
> If it was gold/silver on black then it was the BBC version, if you ever
see it
> again buy it. it's one of the best things I've heard done on radio.
> I's been ages since I've listened to it and I think I'll have to dig it
out
> again. The production is very high, apart from the Tom Bombadill part I'm
farly
> shure they followed the book very closely (It's about 13 hours long)and
Ian Holm
> is good as frodo and Michael Horden IS (WAS) Gandalf.
It's excellent. I'm not that much of an LOTR afficionado, but I understand
that they streamlined things a little bit whilst remaining mostly true to
the dialogue and spirit of the book. Some people I know who are devoted to
the book think that the radio series is better!
Iain
lcou...@stetson.edu
OK this is just in case my post from another news server doesn't get
through - I have been noticing problems recently, but not with deja - L
probably should go to it completely. If it does, sorry.
I understand all this. Note I did say let's discuss it since most people
seem to have accepted the fact that the movies will be a bit different.
No criticism implied.
That said, we have at least some reason to believe Arwen/ Aragorn will
be brought more to the forefront. It is an important romance, and shares
many of the "mythic" "royal" qualities that Sheridan and Delenn did
(do).In addition, there is the cross - cultural / racial aspect. Now we
don't know for sure how much time it will be given, so I am clearly
asking for speculation. Also, I don't know these actors or Jackson (in
terms of work, that is), so I am curious if people believe they will do
a good job with it. I am perfectly willing to change my views on this as
mmore info becomes available and, if necessary, as and after each movie
airs. To bring it back to a smaller scale (since clearly he does not
have 100+ episodes to work with) how about comparing it (or at least how
well we think it will be done) to Ladyhawke? I am sure others can come
up with other suggestions along these lines.
Jeff Walther
> (do).In addition, there is the cross - cultural / racial aspect. Now we
> don't know for sure how much time it will be given, so I am clearly
> asking for speculation. Also, I don't know these actors or Jackson (in
There's not really that much of a cross-cultural/racial aspect in the
story. I would be very disappointed if it is played up in the movie. The
main point that might be hit upon is that Arwen is giving up immortality
for Aragorn, and so, no matter how long she does live, she will eventually
be severed from her elven kin including Elrond.
Elrond had a brother, Elros. The powers that be gave Elrond and Elros the
choice to be human or elven. Elrond chose elven, Elros chose human.
Aragorn is a direct descendant of Elros. Arwen is, of course, Elrond's
daughter. This makes her a kind of Great to the nth power aunt of
Aragorn.
When you factor in that Elrond and his brother weren't simply half elven,
half human you find that perhaps Aragorn and Arwen have more in common
with each other racially than anyone else has in common with either of
them. Additionally, Aragorn and the other rangers were raised in Elrond's
household, so there's not likely to be that much difference in culture.
They were raised in the same household. Of course, Arwen is immortal and
Aragorn isn't...
Elwe (elf) and Melian (minor diety) begat Luthien. Luthien married Beren,
a human, and after the two of them had died, they sort of came back and
had Dior. So Dior is arguably half human, 1/4 elven and 1/4 god. Though
you could argue that any number of changes had occured in the status of
Melian, Luthien, or Beren.
Dior of the severly mixed heritage married the elf Nimloth and they begat
Elwing. So Elwing was 1/2 elf, 1/4 human, another 1/8 elf, and 1/8 god.
Elwing's husband's, Earendil, was a straight half elf, half human. Elwing
and Earendil produced Elrond and Elros. So Elrond and Elros are a little
more than 1/2 elf, about 3/8 human with a little bit of a god thrown in
for good measure.
With that heritage, Aragorn and Arwen have more in common with each other,
than anybody else has with either of them.
An interesting side note--Elrond is only four or five (depending on which
side of the tree you use) generations down from the first elves. The
original one's who just sort of appeared or sprung up. Galadrial is the
granddaughter of two of the original elvish high kings.