What have you done, Peter Jackson?

[Stan Brown]

From The Meta Picture:

http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/12/14/funny-Hobbit-feelings-movie.jpg




--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Sandman]

In article <MPG.2ef1db827...@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> From The Meta Picture:
>
> http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/12/14/funny-Hobbit-feelings-movie.jpg

Rather... "one book, and sources from several other books, adapted into
three movies" :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Oregonian Haruspex]

I'm not sure that there's any canon source depicting old furnaces being
activated and encasing Smaug in liquid gold only to have him fly away.
After a giant Scooby-Doo style romp through Erebor.

Nor am I totally convinced that the Orkish SAS's invasion of Laketown
is mentioned either. Or an interspecies romance (hopefully
unrequited?) between a female elven ninja and one of the Company.

[Paul S. Person]

I, on the other hand, am quite certain the items you mention are /not/
in anything JRRT ever wrote and only less certain that they are things
he never imagined because, really, who can say what he might have
imagined but not written down?

As to your last point, all I will say is, that Trent Lott, author of
this review of /TT/
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringstwotowers.html,
would have no problems with how that romance turns out. The
traditional family values of the 1950s are fully upheld.

I encourage you to see the film, if you though seeing the first two
was at least worth the time, trouble, and expense involved, for this
one will also be worth the time, trouble and expense involved.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."

[Rast]

Paul S. Person wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:13:12 -0800:
> http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringstwotowers.html,

Mr Cranky is still around?!?




--
There walked into the lethal quicksands a very old man in tattered
purple, crowned with withered vine-leaves and gazing ahead as if upon the
golden domes of a fair city where dreams are understood. That night
something of youth and beauty died in the elder world. - H P Lovecraft

[Sandman]

In article <m70f1u$8ve$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2014-12-10 11:01:33 +0000, Sandman said:
>
>> In article <MPG.2ef1db827...@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> From The Meta Picture:
>>>
>>> http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/12/14/funny-Hobbit-feelings-movie.jpg
>>>
>>
>> Rather... "one book, and sources from several other books, adapted into
>> three movies" :)
>
> I'm not sure that there's any canon source depicting old furnaces being
> activated and encasing Smaug in liquid gold only to have him fly away.

No one said there is. But there are tons of things in the movies not in the
"The Hobbit" book, but still from Tolkien. See how that works, yet?

> After a giant Scooby-Doo style romp through Erebor.
>
> Nor am I totally convinced that the Orkish SAS's invasion of Laketown
> is mentioned either. Or an interspecies romance (hopefully
> unrequited?) between a female elven ninja and one of the Company.

Did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White council? Sauron? Saruman?
Because neither of those are in the book either, but still - you know -
Tolkien actually invented all of them! Amazing, huh?


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:53:46 -0500, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Paul S. Person wrote on Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:13:12 -0800:
>> http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/lordoftheringstwotowers.html,
>
>Mr Cranky is still around?!?

The web site is (usually) still there each morning. When it's not
there on a particular morning, it is usually back the next day, so
someone must be keeping it going.

A review of /Dracula Untold/ appeared relatively recently (a lot more
recently than the other reviews) so, yes, apparently Mr Cranky is
still around. Just not doing much, movie-review-wise.

[Paul S. Person]

You do realize that /none/ of the items he mentioned is in /any/ work
by JRRT, don't you?

That the film contains material, based on things written by JRRT but
not in /The Hobbit/, is not relevant here.

The real question is, do these totally non-JRRT items constitute
"filler", or are they essential to the story.

The story of the film, of course. None of the material, whether based
(however vaguely) on something by JRRT or not, not from the book is
essential to the story in the book -- if it were, it would be /in/ the
book.

Or are you going to argue that the book JRRT wrote is incomplete?

[John W Kennedy]

On 2014-12-19 06:03:00 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
> Or an interspecies romance (hopefully unrequited?) between a female
> elven ninja and one of the Company.

"Unrequited" isn't the right word (I can't help thinking of inserting a
"Babylon 5" quote here), but it's more Wilfred of Ivanhoe and Rebecca
of York than Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet.

And there's no sense in being snide about "ninjas". It's canon that an
Elf can walk on deep powder snow, which is a lot harder than being a
fast and accurate archer.

--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"

[Sandman]

In article <o1jg9algmottvaaiq...@4ax.com>, Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> From The Meta Picture:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/12/14/funny-Hobbit-feelings-movie.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rather... "one book, and sources from several other books, adapted into
>>>> three movies" :)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that there's any canon source depicting old furnaces being
>>> activated and encasing Smaug in liquid gold only to have him fly away.
>>
>>No one said there is. But there are tons of things in the movies not in the
>>"The Hobbit" book, but still from Tolkien. See how that works, yet?
>>
>>> After a giant Scooby-Doo style romp through Erebor.
>>>
>>> Nor am I totally convinced that the Orkish SAS's invasion of Laketown
>>> is mentioned either. Or an interspecies romance (hopefully
>>> unrequited?) between a female elven ninja and one of the Company.
>>
>>Did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White council? Sauron? Saruman?
>>Because neither of those are in the book either, but still - you know -
>>Tolkien actually invented all of them! Amazing, huh?
>
> You do realize that /none/ of the items he mentioned is in /any/ work
> by JRRT, don't you?

You do realize that I was in reference to the work that DOES come from
Tolkien, when I said "Rather one book and sources from several other books,
adapted into three movies".

The image the OP linked to gives the impression that the three Hobbit
movies are "stretched", i.e. it's the same story but told slowly and
uneventfully to cover three movies. I wanted to contrast that by saying
that a lot of the content in the three movies that isn't from the book DOES
come from Tolkien himself.

I made a chart of that a while back which you snipped. Remember?

> That the film contains material, based on things written by JRRT but
> not in /The Hobbit/, is not relevant here.

It's very relevant to the OP's post.

> The real question is, do these totally non-JRRT items constitute
> "filler", or are they essential to the story.

Some are, some are not.

> The story of the film, of course. None of the material, whether based
> (however vaguely) on something by JRRT or not, not from the book is
> essential to the story in the book -- if it were, it would be /in/ the
> book.

I think you're using the word "essential" incorrectly.

> Or are you going to argue that the book JRRT wrote is incomplete?

I think Tolkien himself would argue that much better than me. He edited it
so many times and probably would edit it more if he could have. These books
were always a work in progress and both before and after publishing did
they receive a lot of edits. Especially after Lord of the Rings was
released. Notable, of course, are the changes to Gollum and the events that
led up to Bilbo's possession of the ring, or how elves were called
"gnomes".

In short - every book ever written is incomplete. Great art is never
finnished, it's always abandoned (in the case of books, abandoned to a
publisher).

For instance, would you not agree that the Silmarillion is incomplete? :)

--
Sandman[.net]

[Oregonian Haruspex]

Oh I will probably see it once my local library has the DVD. I want to
make sure Mr. Jackson and the money grubbing Christopher Tolkien (whom
I am convinced has pawned off a bunch of his ridiculous works as "lost"
manuscripts by his father) get the smallest amount of money from me as
possible.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2014-12-22 12:31:41 +0000, Sandman said:

> In article <m70f1u$8ve$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex
> <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-12-10 11:01:33 +0000, Sandman said:
>>
>>> In article <MPG.2ef1db827...@news.individual.net>, Stan Brown
>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From The Meta Picture:
>>>>
>>>> http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/12/14/funny-Hobbit-feelings-movie.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rather... "one book, and sources from several other books, adapted into
>>> three movies" :)
>>
>> I'm not sure that there's any canon source depicting old furnaces being
>> activated and encasing Smaug in liquid gold only to have him fly away.
>
> No one said there is. But there are tons of things in the movies not in the
> "The Hobbit" book, but still from Tolkien. See how that works, yet?

No, I'm afraid not. Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien" are
probably the creation of his much less gifted son, passed off as the
work of his father.

>> After a giant Scooby-Doo style romp through Erebor.
>>
>> Nor am I totally convinced that the Orkish SAS's invasion of Laketown
>> is mentioned either. Or an interspecies romance (hopefully
>> unrequited?) between a female elven ninja and one of the Company.
>
> Did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White council? Sauron? Saruman?
> Because neither of those are in the book either, but still - you know -
> Tolkien actually invented all of them! Amazing, huh?

I never heard about the rabbit-drawn sleigh piloted by a poop-headed
Radegast. Is this something that Tolkien hid away in an appendix that
I never managed to read? How about the interspecies love triangle?

You're desperate to retcon this shite as Tolkien Canon and your
attitude gives you away.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2014-12-23 00:03:55 +0000, John W Kennedy said:

> On 2014-12-19 06:03:00 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
>> Or an interspecies romance (hopefully unrequited?) between a female
>> elven ninja and one of the Company.
>
> "Unrequited" isn't the right word (I can't help thinking of inserting a
> "Babylon 5" quote here), but it's more Wilfred of Ivanhoe and Rebecca
> of York than Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet.
>
> And there's no sense in being snide about "ninjas". It's canon that an
> Elf can walk on deep powder snow, which is a lot harder than being a
> fast and accurate archer.

Oh sure, Elves are bad-ass. This I take no issue with. But the
presentation given to us of them, and the Orkish SAS they are battling,
is reminiscent of a cheesy 1980s ninja film - many of which I sucked
down through my eye-holes as a youth - and it feels very out of place.

Give me the Ralph Bakshi version any day. I was such a fan of that one
that I purchased a number of original movie film cels which still hang
on the wall today.

Roads go ever on and on... and nowadays they all lead straight into a
bank account.

[Sandman]

In article <m8i6i3$j45$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> > > > > Stan Brown:

> > > > > From The Meta Picture:
> > > >
> > > > > http://cdn.themetapicture.com/pic/images/2014/12/14/funny-Hobbit-feelings-movie.jpg
> > > >

> > > > Sandman:

> > > > Rather... "one book, and sources from several other books,
> > > > adapted into three movies" :)
> > >

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > I'm not sure that there's any canon source depicting old
> > > furnaces being activated and encasing Smaug in liquid gold only
> > > to have him fly away.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > No one said there is. But there are tons of things in the movies
> > not in the "The Hobbit" book, but still from Tolkien. See how that
> > works, yet?
>
> No, I'm afraid not. Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien"
> are probably the creation of his much less gifted son, passed off as
> the work of his father.

Nope.

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > After a giant Scooby-Doo style romp through Erebor.
> >
> > > Nor am I totally convinced that the Orkish SAS's invasion of
> > > Laketown is mentioned either. Or an interspecies romance
> > > (hopefully unrequited?) between a female elven ninja and one of
> > > the Company.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White council? Sauron?
> > Saruman? Because neither of those are in the book either, but
> > still - you know - Tolkien actually invented all of them! Amazing,
> > huh?
>
> I never heard about the rabbit-drawn sleigh piloted by a poop-headed
> Radegast.

But did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White Council? Sauron? Saruman?
Galadriel? Gundabad? Because they're not in the book either, but still -

you know - Tolkien actually invented all of them! Amazing, huh?

> You're desperate to retcon this shite as Tolkien Canon and your attitude
> gives you away.

You have severe reading comprehension problems that I can not be held
responsible for.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:47:53 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2014-12-23 00:03:55 +0000, John W Kennedy said:
>
>> On 2014-12-19 06:03:00 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
>>> Or an interspecies romance (hopefully unrequited?) between a female
>>> elven ninja and one of the Company.
>>
>> "Unrequited" isn't the right word (I can't help thinking of inserting a
>> "Babylon 5" quote here), but it's more Wilfred of Ivanhoe and Rebecca
>> of York than Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet.
>>
>> And there's no sense in being snide about "ninjas". It's canon that an
>> Elf can walk on deep powder snow, which is a lot harder than being a
>> fast and accurate archer.
>
>Oh sure, Elves are bad-ass. This I take no issue with. But the
>presentation given to us of them, and the Orkish SAS they are battling,
>is reminiscent of a cheesy 1980s ninja film - many of which I sucked
>down through my eye-holes as a youth - and it feels very out of place.

The third film will do /nothing/ to improve that impression.

Well, provided you can stay awake during the very long Action Sequence
which (as might be expected from the title) dominates the film.

>Give me the Ralph Bakshi version any day. I was such a fan of that one
>that I purchased a number of original movie film cels which still hang
>on the wall today.

I still wish he had done the second half.

I don't think /his/ Faramir would have had to see Frodo confronting a
Black Rider to decide to do the right thing.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

Of course I've heard of them. They weren't in the book. Why would
they be in the movie? But did you hear about a rabbit-drawn sleigh
piloted by a poop-headed wizard? Tolkien never mentioned anything
about it even in *ANOTHER BOOK*. Astounding!

>> You're desperate to retcon this shite as Tolkien Canon and your attitude
>> gives you away.
>
> You have severe reading comprehension problems that I can not be held
> responsible for.

I just can't understand why you're stoically ignoring all the non-canon
stuff that was in the Hobbit series. You point out something that was
in *ANOTHER BOOK* as a way to excuse this horse-shit. And when called
out on it you claim that I have reading comprehension problems?

Where was the poop-headed Radegast and his sleigh? Which appendix am I
missing in my many editions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and
associated works? Where was the romp through Erebor culminating in the
Dwarves firing up the old forge and heating up a bunch of gold so they
could trap Smaug? Where were the SAS-trained Orks in Laketown? When
was the love triangle between two Elves and a Dwarf ever mentioned?
Did all of these things belong in the movie?

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-07 18:09:14 +0000, Paul S. Person said:

> On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:47:53 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
> <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-12-23 00:03:55 +0000, John W Kennedy said:
>>
>>> On 2014-12-19 06:03:00 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
>>>> Or an interspecies romance (hopefully unrequited?) between a female
>>>> elven ninja and one of the Company.
>>>
>>> "Unrequited" isn't the right word (I can't help thinking of inserting a
>>> "Babylon 5" quote here), but it's more Wilfred of Ivanhoe and Rebecca
>>> of York than Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet.
>>>
>>> And there's no sense in being snide about "ninjas". It's canon that an
>>> Elf can walk on deep powder snow, which is a lot harder than being a
>>> fast and accurate archer.
>>
>> Oh sure, Elves are bad-ass. This I take no issue with. But the
>> presentation given to us of them, and the Orkish SAS they are battling,
>> is reminiscent of a cheesy 1980s ninja film - many of which I sucked
>> down through my eye-holes as a youth - and it feels very out of place.
>
> The third film will do /nothing/ to improve that impression.
>
> Well, provided you can stay awake during the very long Action Sequence
> which (as might be expected from the title) dominates the film.

I'll be too astounded and enraged to fall asleep, if the last two
movies were any indication.

>> Give me the Ralph Bakshi version any day. I was such a fan of that one
>> that I purchased a number of original movie film cels which still hang
>> on the wall today.
>
> I still wish he had done the second half.
>
> I don't think /his/ Faramir would have had to see Frodo confronting a
> Black Rider to decide to do the right thing.

Sorry, I meant Rankin / Bass (Bakshi did LOTR) but either one is
preferable to Jackson's treatment.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-07 09:23:53 +0000, Sandman said:

> Nope.

It's obvious - JRR wasn't a hack and Christopher is. He (and his
shifty wife) are the ghostwriters for a dead man.

Yup.

[Bill O'Meally]

On 2015-01-07 18:09:14 +0000, Paul S. Person said:

> On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:47:53 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
> <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Give me the Ralph Bakshi version any day. I was such a fan of that one
>> that I purchased a number of original movie film cels which still hang
>> on the wall today.
>
> I still wish he had done the second half.

Alas that Rankin-Bass got to it first, though their 'Hobbit' was decent enough.
--
Bill O'Meally

[Rast]

Sandman wrote on 7 Jan 2015 09:23:53 GMT:
> You have severe reading comprehension problems that I can not be held
> responsible for.

Ah, Usenet! Never change.

[Sandman]

In article <m8k9a1$n7q$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> > > > > Oregonian Haruspex:
> > > > > After a giant Scooby-Doo style romp
> > > > > through Erebor.
> > > >
> > > > > Nor am I totally convinced that the Orkish SAS's invasion of
> > > > > Laketown is mentioned either. Or an interspecies romance
> > > > > (hopefully unrequited?) between a female elven ninja and one
> > > > > of the Company.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White
> > > > council? Sauron? Saruman? Because neither of those are in the
> > > > book either, but still - you know - Tolkien actually invented
> > > > all of them! Amazing, huh?
> > >

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > I never heard about the rabbit-drawn sleigh piloted by a
> > > poop-headed Radegast.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > But did you ever hear about Dol Goldur? The White Council? Sauron?
> > Saruman? Galadriel? Gundabad? Because they're not in the book
> > either, but still - you know - Tolkien actually invented all of
> > them! Amazing, huh?
>
> Of course I've heard of them. They weren't in the book. Why would
> they be in the movie?

Dunno, maybe because they wanted to include more from Tolkien in the same
movie? Just an idea.

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > You're desperate to retcon this shite as Tolkien Canon and your
> > > attitude gives you away.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > You have severe reading comprehension problems that I can not be
> > held responsible for.
>
> I just can't understand why you're stoically ignoring all the
> non-canon stuff that was in the Hobbit series.

When did I do that? I was just making you aware that not everything in the
movie that wasn't in the book was invented by the movie-makers, a lot comes
directly from Tolkien himself.

> You point out something that was in *ANOTHER BOOK* as a way to excuse
> this horse-shit.

Again, your reading comprehension problems is irrelevant. I've done nothing
of the kind.

> And when called out on it you claim that I have reading
> comprehension problems?

Not claim, I am pointing out your reading comprehension problem, since
you're making claims about what I think and what I said that isn't true.
The only explanation is that you're confused or you're a liar, and I'm
giving you the benefit of a doubt.

> Where was the poop-headed Radegast and his sleigh? Which appendix
> am I missing in my many editions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings
> and associated works?

You have to ask someone that is claiming it was in any book. I know of no
such person so I can't help you.




--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <m8k9o7$p3o$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > Nope.
>
> It's obvious - JRR wasn't a hack and Christopher is. He (and his
> shifty wife) are the ghostwriters for a dead man.

> Yup.

Here's what you had to snip, and what my "Nope" was in reference to:

"Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien" are probably the creation
of his much less gifted son, passed off as the work of his father."

And "nope", lots of "these 'tons of things'" are not from his son, but from
Tolkien himself. In fact, 100% of it is. The filmmakers doesn't have, as
far as I'm aware of, the rights to any of the works of his son.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <MPG.2f1863986...@news.eternal-september.org>, Rast wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > You have severe reading comprehension problems that I can not be
> > held responsible for.
>
> Ah, Usenet! Never change.

Indeed :)

--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:43:56 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

This should be obvious by now:

You are talking about "A".

Sandman is talking about "B".

You can tell the difference.

He can't.

[Paul S. Person]

Indeed.

In fact, comparing the two is a good illustration of how what works
for a children's story doesn't work so well for a book written for
adults.

Of course, the current Hobbit extravaganza makes the opposite point:
what works for a book written for adults doesn't work so well for a
book written for children.

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:47:29 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex

<bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2015-01-07 18:09:14 +0000, Paul S. Person said:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 18:47:53 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
>> <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh sure, Elves are bad-ass. This I take no issue with. But the
>>> presentation given to us of them, and the Orkish SAS they are battling,
>>> is reminiscent of a cheesy 1980s ninja film - many of which I sucked
>>> down through my eye-holes as a youth - and it feels very out of place.
>>
>> The third film will do /nothing/ to improve that impression.
>>
>> Well, provided you can stay awake during the very long Action Sequence
>> which (as might be expected from the title) dominates the film.
>
>I'll be too astounded and enraged to fall asleep, if the last two
>movies were any indication.

Well, that's good, in a way: at least you'll get your
time/money/trouble's worth!

>>> Give me the Ralph Bakshi version any day. I was such a fan of that one
>>> that I purchased a number of original movie film cels which still hang
>>> on the wall today.
>>
>> I still wish he had done the second half.
>>
>> I don't think /his/ Faramir would have had to see Frodo confronting a
>> Black Rider to decide to do the right thing.
>
>Sorry, I meant Rankin / Bass (Bakshi did LOTR) but either one is
>preferable to Jackson's treatment.

I liked that Rankin/Bass /TH/ so much I bought the two-disc LP set
and, not finding it on CD, digitized it myself. And I still like it
every time I see it on DVD!

I /might/, I suppose, watch PJ & accomplices Hobbit movies on DVD --
if someone were holding a gun to my head, that is. But maybe not even
then; there are worse things than death, and these films may qualify.

They were entertaining when I watched them, but I have a positive
aversion to seeing them again. I can't say that seeing them once was
too much, but it was definitely enough.

I am even considering removing my PJ & accomplices /LOTR/ DVDs from my
collection and seeing what Half-Price Books will give me for them. My
aversion to the PJ & accomplices Hobbit movies is that strong.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

I never said it didn't, I merely pointed out that an even bigger lot
was never Tolkien material.

>> You point out something that was in *ANOTHER BOOK* as a way to excuse
>> this horse-shit.
>
> Again, your reading comprehension problems is irrelevant. I've done nothing
> of the kind.

But you've stoically avoided admitting that there's a lot of
non-Tolkien horseshit in these movies.

>> And when called out on it you claim that I have reading
>> comprehension problems?
>
> Not claim, I am pointing out your reading comprehension problem, since
> you're making claims about what I think and what I said that isn't true.
> The only explanation is that you're confused or you're a liar, and I'm
> giving you the benefit of a doubt.

I'm making observations about your intent, which is obvious to anybody
with any training in deception. You're equivocating and then
attempting to cover up your equivocation with counter-accusations -
both are strong evidence for a guilty mind.

>> Where was the poop-headed Radegast and his sleigh? Which appendix
>> am I missing in my many editions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings
>> and associated works?
>
> You have to ask someone that is claiming it was in any book. I know of no
> such person so I can't help you.

Ah, so is this a tacit admission by you that there's a lot of non-canon
horseshit in the movies, FINALLY?

Thanks.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-08 17:39:34 +0000, Paul S. Person said:

> On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:43:56 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
> <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This should be obvious by now:
>
> You are talking about "A".
>
> Sandman is talking about "B".
>
> You can tell the difference.
>
> He can't.

Nah, he's equivocating and pretending not to notice the difference.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-08 15:52:18 +0000, Sandman said:

> In article <m8k9o7$p3o$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> Nope.
>>
>> It's obvious - JRR wasn't a hack and Christopher is. He (and his
>> shifty wife) are the ghostwriters for a dead man.
>
>> Yup.
>
> Here's what you had to snip, and what my "Nope" was in reference to:

I didn't "have" to snip anything, and anybody reading this sub-thread
would know what was going on.

> "Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien" are probably the creation
> of his much less gifted son, passed off as the work of his father."

I stand by my statement. Christopher Tolkien and his wife are both
literary hacks, and I believe that they could be passing off their own
work as that of JRR. Few authors have been as prolific or profitable
after their own death.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-08 17:52:06 +0000, Paul S. Person said:

> I am even considering removing my PJ & accomplices /LOTR/ DVDs from my
> collection and seeing what Half-Price Books will give me for them. My
> aversion to the PJ & accomplices Hobbit movies is that strong.

I hear ya. The damn thing of it is that Jackson did a more or less
exceptional job with LOTR! Of course I have a litany of nits to pick
with even LOTR but you can tell that he was really trying hard to stay
with the general theme and story, in the bounds circumscribed by his
medium, and while he did omit some things and throw some casual
one-liners in there, the general feeling I had was that he made a
best-faith effort to bring LOTR to the big screen and that he was
successful. I was very skeptical when I heard that LOTR was being made
into a movie series and that Peter Jackson (of Bad Taste and Meet the
Feebles fame!) was going to be in charge. I believe my exact reaction
was a snort of derision.

Sadly, Mr. Jackson eventually disappointed me by murdering The Hobbit,
which should have been much easier to faithfully adapt to the big
screen than LOTR was.

I suspect Mr. Jackson is fully aware that his treatment was less than
ideal, much as I suspect that Mr. Lucas was aware of how desperate and
lame his last Star Wars movies were. Even Star Trek has thrown away
the canon in order to produce a 2.5 hour long sex explosion in lieu of
a movie.

These are dark times.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

Yes I had the two confused for some reason, which is odd. Must be getting old.

[Sandman]

In article <slrnmatvpf....@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sandman <m...@sandman.net>was all,
> like:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > It's obvious - JRR wasn't a hack and Christopher is. He (and
> > > his shifty wife) are the ghostwriters for a dead man.
> >
> > > Yup.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Here's what you had to snip, and what my "Nope" was in reference
> > to:
>
> > "Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien" are probably the
> > creation of his much less gifted son, passed off as the work of
> > his father."
>
> > And "nope", lots of "these 'tons of things'" are not from his son,
> > but from Tolkien himself. In fact, 100% of it is. The filmmakers
> > doesn't have, as far as I'm aware of, the rights to any of the
> > works of his son.
>

> What the idiot is claiming is that Christopher has written things
> and claimed they were written by his father.

Huh? What are you talking about?


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <m8mvk0$pup$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > I just can't understand why you're stoically ignoring all the
> > > non-canon stuff that was in the Hobbit series.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > When did I do that? I was just making you aware that not
> > everything in the movie that wasn't in the book was invented by
> > the movie-makers, a lot comes directly from Tolkien himself.
>
> I never said it didn't, I merely pointed out that an even bigger lot
> was never Tolkien material.

This is what I said:

Sandman
Re: What have you done, Peter Jackson?
12/10/2014 <slrnm8ga...@irc.sandman.net>

"Rather... "one book, and sources from several other books,
adapted into three movies" :)"

And this was your reply:

Oregonian Haruspex
Re: What have you done, Peter Jackson?
12/19/2014 <m70f1u$8ve$1...@dont-email.me>

"I'm not sure that there's any canon source depicting old
furnaces being activated and encasing Smaug in liquid gold

only to have him fly away. After a giant Scooby-Doo style
romp through Erebor."

Clearly seeming to imply that the "and sources from several other books"
would encompass everything in the movie not in the Hobbit book.

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > You point out something that was in *ANOTHER BOOK* as a way to
> > > excuse this horse-shit.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Again, your reading comprehension problems is irrelevant. I've
> > done nothing of the kind.
>
> But you've stoically avoided admitting that there's a lot of
> non-Tolkien horseshit in these movies.

Why not quote this supposed evasion/excuses of mine? Should be easy enough,
right? Either that, or retract your incorrect claim. Those are your two
choices.

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > And when called out on it you claim that I have reading
> > > comprehension problems?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Not claim, I am pointing out your reading comprehension problem,
> > since you're making claims about what I think and what I said that
> > isn't true. The only explanation is that you're confused or you're
> > a liar, and I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt.
>
> I'm making observations about your intent, which is obvious to
> anybody with any training in deception.

You can only make observation about what I write, and make personal
*interpretation* about intent, which is a fancy word for guessing. And the
more severe reading comprehension problems you have, the crazier these
interpretations become.

My "intent" is known only to me, and if you're curious and/or unsure, feel
free to ask instead of creating straw men on your own to argue with.

> You're equivocating and then attempting to cover up your equivocation
> with counter-accusations - both are strong evidence for a guilty mind.

I can not be held responsible for events that only took place inside your
mind.

> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > Where was the poop-headed Radegast and his sleigh? Which
> > > appendix am I missing in my many editions of The Hobbit and Lord
> > > of the Rings and associated works?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > You have to ask someone that is claiming it was in any book. I
> > know of no such person so I can't help you.
>
> Ah, so is this a tacit admission by you that there's a lot of
> non-canon horseshit in the movies, FINALLY?

I've never ever claimed otherwise, so why is this something huge to you?
It's like if I were to say: "So you FINALLy admit that the sky is blue??
THANKS!!"

Duh.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <m8mvr5$qsk$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> On 2015-01-08 15:52:18 +0000, Sandman said:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Nope.
> > >
> > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > It's obvious - JRR wasn't a hack and Christopher is. He (and
> > > his shifty wife) are the ghostwriters for a dead man.
> >
> > > Yup.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Here's what you had to snip, and what my "Nope" was in reference
> > to:
>
> I didn't "have" to snip anything, and anybody reading this
> sub-thread would know what was going on.

Actually, you had to snip it, because what you wrote had nothing to do with
the context of what my "Nope" was in reference to, and the irrelevancy of
your post would be way too obvious with the context still in the post.

> > Sandman:

> > "Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien" are probably the
> > creation of his much less gifted son, passed off as the work of
> > his father."
>
> I stand by my statement.

Yes, you seem to "stand by" lots of incorrect things. The "nope" still
applies though.

> Christopher Tolkien and his wife are both literary hacks, and I believe
> that they could be passing off their own work as that of JRR. Few
> authors have been as prolific or profitable after their own death.

You changed "lots of these ... are probably" to "could be passing off".
Curious.

But the "nope" applies equally to this change as well.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <m8gtaa1ube9lusqnc...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Bill O'Meally:

> > On 2015-01-07 18:09:14 +0000, Paul S. Person said:
>

> > > > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > > > Give me the Ralph Bakshi version any day. I was such a fan of
> > > > that one that I purchased a number of original movie film cels
> > > > which still hang on the wall today.
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I still wish he had done the second half.
> >

> > Bill O'Meally:

> > Alas that Rankin-Bass got to it first, though their 'Hobbit' was
> > decent enough.
>
> Indeed.

> In fact, comparing the two is a good illustration of how what works
> for a children's story doesn't work so well for a book written for
> adults.

Also, comparing the two shows how it is impossible to make The Hobbit into
one movie and still keep it interesting. The Rankin Bass version is a story
and scene mess that is not representative of the narrative of the books in
any capacity.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-08 22:52:54 +0000, Sandman said:

/blabla

> I've never ever claimed otherwise, so why is this something huge to you?
> It's like if I were to say: "So you FINALLy admit that the sky is blue??
> THANKS!!"
>
> Duh.

Of course you went out of your way and never admitted anything.
However, your original intent was clear - when I pointed out there was
a lot of non-canon horseshit in these movies, you countered that there
were some elements from other canon sources that were also in the
movies.

The intent here is clear. It's equivocation and anybody can see that
this was your intent. That you had to deny equivocation and then cast
aspersions and counter-accusations is telling as well.

You can fool yourself, but I doubt you are fooling any of your audience
and you certainly aren't fooling me.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-08 22:55:47 +0000, Sandman said:

> You changed "lots of these ... are probably" to "could be passing off".
> Curious.

Well, both are indicators that I can't prove beyond a doubt that
Christopher has been ghost-writing, but I have strong suspicions in
that direction.

> But the "nope" applies equally to this change as well.

Nope!

[Sandman]

In article <m8n49j$f5b$1...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > I've never ever claimed otherwise, so why is this something huge
> > to you? It's like if I were to say: "So you FINALLy admit that the
> > sky is blue?? THANKS!!"
>
> > Duh.
>
> Of course you went out of your way and never admitted anything.

Here's a lesson for you - for me to "admit" to something, something need to
have been proposed to me as a question about its veracity. As I'm sure you
(don't) know, that actually never happened. I made a correct statement and
you were confused about it (which, of course, you would never admit to).

> However, your original intent was clear - when I pointed out there
> was a lot of non-canon horseshit in these movies, you countered
> that there were some elements from other canon sources that were
> also in the movies.

This is, as usual, completely false. I made a reply to the OP, you are the
one that responded to me, not the other way around. The original claim from
me was that much of the extra material in the movies comes from Tolkien
himself, after which you joined in and asked me where scene X and Y is in
the books, totally missing the point, and responding to me as if I had said
that everything not from the books are from Tolkien - which of course I
hadn't. See how your reading comprehension problem manifested itself?

> The intent here is clear.

What is "clear" to you is of no concern to me. Thus far it has had no
relation what so ever to reality.

> It's equivocation and anybody can see that this was your intent. That
> you had to deny equivocation and then cast aspersions and
> counter-accusations is telling as well.

Now you've made this claim a couple of times - that I have denied, made
excuses and evaded something. You've yet to substantiate this claim. And
since I've told you it is untrue you have two options:

1. Substantiate the claim - quote me denying/evading.
2. Retract your incorrect claim.

Failure to do either makes you a liar.

> You can fool yourself, but I doubt you are fooling any of your
> audience and you certainly aren't fooling me.

Seeing how thus far, everything you've said has been 100% disconnected from
reality, I have lost any hope into "fooling" you to join it.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <m8n4bh$f5b$2...@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> On 2015-01-08 22:55:47 +0000, Sandman said:

> > Sandman:

> > You changed "lots of these ... are probably" to "could be passing
> > off". Curious.
>
> Well, both are indicators that I can't prove beyond a doubt that
> Christopher has been ghost-writing, but I have strong suspicions in
> that direction.

Which is false, hence the "nope".

> > Sandman:

> > But the "nope" applies equally to this change as well.
>
> Nope!

Indeed it does.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <m5gtaahqhijv2hoem...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> This should be obvious by now:

> You are talking about "A".

> Sandman is talking about "B".

> You can tell the difference.

> He can't.

Hint for you: I've been telling him this since his first post in this
thread, he still hasn't understood it. The irony is that you're saying that
*I* can't tell the difference! :-D


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <slrnmavkep....@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Here's what you had to snip, and what my "Nope" was
> > > > in reference to:
> > >
> > > > "Lots of these "tons of things... from Tolkien" are probably
> > > > the creation of his much less gifted son, passed off as the
> > > > work of his father."
> > >
> > > > And "nope", lots of "these 'tons of things'" are not from his
> > > > son, but from Tolkien himself. In fact, 100% of it is. The
> > > > filmmakers doesn't have, as far as I'm aware of, the rights
> > > > to any of the works of his son.
> > >

> > > Lewis:

> > > What the idiot is claiming is that Christopher has written
> > > things and claimed they were written by his father.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Huh? What are you talking about?
>

> Oregoknob has made the claim, several times, that Christopher
> Tolkien has written things on his own and then published them
> claiming JRRT wrote them.

Ah, ok, this was the first time I saw it.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:18:50 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex

<bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2015-01-08 17:39:34 +0000, Paul S. Person said:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:43:56 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
>> <bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> This should be obvious by now:
>>
>> You are talking about "A".
>>
>> Sandman is talking about "B".
>>
>> You can tell the difference.
>>
>> He can't.
>
>Nah, he's equivocating and pretending not to notice the difference.

Back when I was working, our managers would occasionally do something
truly outrageous and clearly wrong.

I always gave them a choice between being regarded as incompetent (of
not realizing how badly they were behaving) and as vicious (as doing
what they did deliberately).

They invariably chose "vicious".

I prefer to think of Sandman as "incompetent". But he may well prefer
"vicious", as you do. And you may even be right.

I'm just not sure he isn't like my last manager, who paid no attention
to what she was saying and even denied it as soon as it was out of her
mouth. I don't think she did this deliberately, for it gained her
nothing. I think she was simply not paying attention to what she was
saying.

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:28:44 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2015-01-08 17:52:06 +0000, Paul S. Person said:
>
>> I am even considering removing my PJ & accomplices /LOTR/ DVDs from my
>> collection and seeing what Half-Price Books will give me for them. My
>> aversion to the PJ & accomplices Hobbit movies is that strong.
>
>I hear ya. The damn thing of it is that Jackson did a more or less
>exceptional job with LOTR! Of course I have a litany of nits to pick
>with even LOTR but you can tell that he was really trying hard to stay
>with the general theme and story, in the bounds circumscribed by his
>medium, and while he did omit some things and throw some casual
>one-liners in there, the general feeling I had was that he made a
>best-faith effort to bring LOTR to the big screen and that he was
>successful. I was very skeptical when I heard that LOTR was being made
>into a movie series and that Peter Jackson (of Bad Taste and Meet the
>Feebles fame!) was going to be in charge. I believe my exact reaction
>was a snort of derision.

Which is why I may keep them -- they are not as bad as the Hobbit
films. And, anyway, I've seen them enough times to get used to them. I
even find myself /anticipating in a positive sense/ such appalling
atrocities as Flaming Denethor.

>Sadly, Mr. Jackson eventually disappointed me by murdering The Hobbit,
>which should have been much easier to faithfully adapt to the big
>screen than LOTR was.
>
>I suspect Mr. Jackson is fully aware that his treatment was less than
>ideal, much as I suspect that Mr. Lucas was aware of how desperate and
>lame his last Star Wars movies were. Even Star Trek has thrown away
>the canon in order to produce a 2.5 hour long sex explosion in lieu of
>a movie.

If you are referring to /Trek/, it was a complete waste of time. I
didn't find the "cute" parts cute at all -- I found them stupid. This
is never a good sign. Still, it was nice to see a villain who actually
exhibited "wrath", unlike Khan in the second movie, who exhibited
something more like a temper tantrum or, perhaps, a hissy fit.

If you are referring to the more recent one, I haven't seen it yet
(it's on my list for renting, eventually), but I /really/ have to
wonder if a third version of Khan is at all prudent, never mind
necessary.

>These are dark times.

Indeed they are, and they are the reason I now watch most new movies
as rentals, not in theaters. Only those I really want to see right
away are eligible for viewing in a theater. Just sounding interesting
is no longer good enough -- I've been burned too often by
well-reviewed films that turned out to be disappointments.

I have been assured that films intended to be blockbusters are all
PG-13, even if cuss words must be added to avoid the dreaded PG.
Perhaps if the filmmakers focused on /making good movies/ instead of
on what the rating is, more blockbusters would appear.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Blockbuster_films
indicates that it how refers to how much money is put /into/ a film
and how excessive the publicity campaign is, regardless of how well it
does at the box office or whether anyone wants to see it. That would
explain a lot.

And I thought it referred to how much money a film made, particularly
on its first weekend. Oh, well.

[Sandman]

In article <sa50ba9udujroktdc...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Oregonian Haruspex:

> > Nah, he's equivocating and pretending not to notice the
> > difference.
>
> Back when I was working, our managers would occasionally do
> something truly outrageous and clearly wrong.

> I always gave them a choice between being regarded as incompetent
> (of not realizing how badly they were behaving) and as vicious (as
> doing what they did deliberately).

> They invariably chose "vicious".

> I prefer to think of Sandman as "incompetent". But he may well
> prefer "vicious", as you do. And you may even be right.

I must have hurt some form of pride of yours I suppose, not sure why you
would post ad hominem's about me as a reply to another poster.

It's also a bit ironic, given the multitude of times you have made claims
that I have asked you to support or retract and you have failed to do so. I
remember you consistently claiming - in spit of me opposing this - that I
wanted the Mockingjay movie to be an action movie. You kept doing this and
I kept telling you to stop doing it.

You've also spent a lot of time telling me what I "think" about things,
which is fine enough since it can be your interpretation of what I am
saying/writing, but you've kept doing it even after I've told you that
you've misunderstood what I wrote.

> I'm just not sure he isn't like my last manager, who paid no
> attention to what she was saying and even denied it as soon as it
> was out of her mouth. I don't think she did this deliberately, for
> it gained her nothing. I think she was simply not paying attention
> to what she was saying.

This is were you post examples of me "denying" things I've said, or the
above is a lot of hot air and empty claims (seem familliar?). You see, when
I make a claim - especially about another poster - I am always careful to
also post support, especially if the claim is subsequently questioned. Here
is a bit of support for my claims about you in this post:

You making claims about what I want:

"That is simply not the case. I saw the film before I read
the book, and the emotional state of Katniss was clear at
each point throughout the movie. They are all present, they
just aren't done in some over-the-top fashion you have
convinced yourself they should be."
/ Paul S. Person - 12/01/2014

My response, since this had been done many times:

"Now you're just outright lying about what I think, given the
fact that I've told you many times what I think, and
nothing I've said is even remotely related to your above
remarks."
/ Sandman- 12/05/2014

So, to get this straight, I suppose this would be a case of me supposedly
"denying" something I've said, yet you were unable at the time to actually
point to me saying the things you attributed to me, so it's actually a case
of you making claims you can't support. Do you understand the difference?

I think the biggest problem with you is that you have no problem joining a
thread making ad hominem's and when I respond to you and explain what I
meant, what the context was and how my responses related to the earlier
posts, your followup pretty much always just snips those parts out and then
you continue with the same response. It's akin to the entire "plug your
ears and go *lalalala*" thing.

Case in point (i.e. support):
http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=233968

Your followup:
http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=234063

Snip snip snip. My response:

"agreement" is of no concern to me. I knew you would snip
and run from the actual facts and reason, and why would any
form of "agreement" be important from such a person?"
/ Sandman - 12/30/2014

--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 10 Jan 2015 09:45:19 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <sa50ba9udujroktdc...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>It's also a bit ironic, given the multitude of times you have made claims
>that I have asked you to support or retract and you have failed to do so. I
>remember you consistently claiming - in spit of me opposing this - that I
>wanted the Mockingjay movie to be an action movie. You kept doing this and
>I kept telling you to stop doing it.

What I said was that your selection of alleged "filler", and your
clear description of those we discussed as "nothing happens", shows a
preference for action. I did /not/ say that you wanted /Mockingjay 1/
to be an Action Movie, merely that you preferred to see action rather
than people sitting around doing nothing (where "nothing" includes
singing). (If I actually /did/ state that I thought you believed it
should be an actual Action Movie, then I overreached myself and hereby
apologize. But I am quite certain I did not.)

>You've also spent a lot of time telling me what I "think" about things,
>which is fine enough since it can be your interpretation of what I am
>saying/writing, but you've kept doing it even after I've told you that
>you've misunderstood what I wrote.

What you write reveals what you think.

And I cannot have misunderstood it, for you write so clearly.

Unless, of course, you deliberately wrote it to deceive. In which
case, the consequences are entirely your own fault.

>> I'm just not sure he isn't like my last manager, who paid no
>> attention to what she was saying and even denied it as soon as it
>> was out of her mouth. I don't think she did this deliberately, for
>> it gained her nothing. I think she was simply not paying attention
>> to what she was saying.
>
>This is were you post examples of me "denying" things I've said, or the
>above is a lot of hot air and empty claims (seem familliar?). You see, when
>I make a claim - especially about another poster - I am always careful to
>also post support, especially if the claim is subsequently questioned. Here
>is a bit of support for my claims about you in this post:

I said I wasn't sure. This means that I haven't made up my mind yet.

If I ever become sure on this point, examples will follow.

Don't hold your breath.

>You making claims about what I want:
>
> "That is simply not the case. I saw the film before I read
> the book, and the emotional state of Katniss was clear at
> each point throughout the movie. They are all present, they
> just aren't done in some over-the-top fashion you have
> convinced yourself they should be."
> / Paul S. Person - 12/01/2014

Your desires were clearly expressed: you believe that Katniss should
show /externally/ in the film, the emotion she shows /internally/ in
the book. The result, as I have noted before, would /not be Katniss/.

And your failure to pick up on the Elf-Dwarf love story in the second
and third Hobbit films until it became so obvious that the slice of
cheese in /Diary of a Wimpy Kid/ would have noticed it supports the
theory that you are blind to emotions that are in any way subtle.

Once again, we have the difference between quiet scenes (subtle
emotions), which you don't like/don't notice, and scenes with action
(blatant emotion) in them, which you do.

>My response, since this had been done many times:
>
> "Now you're just outright lying about what I think, given the
> fact that I've told you many times what I think, and
> nothing I've said is even remotely related to your above
> remarks."
> / Sandman- 12/05/2014

Any remarks I made were directly related to your statements. At least,
that was and is my intent.

It is not my fault if you choose to make your statements in a secret
language, known only to yourself. It is not my fault if you choose to
hide details, obscuring what you are really talking about, until the
other party has said something stupid based on your own statements. It
is entirely your fault, and you are responsible for any consequences.

[Oregonian Haruspex]

On 2015-01-09 18:14:14 +0000, Paul S. Person said:

> If you are referring to /Trek/, it was a complete waste of time. I
> didn't find the "cute" parts cute at all -- I found them stupid. This
> is never a good sign. Still, it was nice to see a villain who actually
> exhibited "wrath", unlike Khan in the second movie, who exhibited
> something more like a temper tantrum or, perhaps, a hissy fit.
>
> If you are referring to the more recent one, I haven't seen it yet
> (it's on my list for renting, eventually), but I /really/ have to
> wonder if a third version of Khan is at all prudent, never mind
> necessary.

Actually I saw the first reboot Trek movie in the theater and I thought
it was terrible, even if the one enemy guy was really angry. I haven't
bothered with any of the other ones - there's plenty of "real" Star
Trek stuff out there anyway. I will just treat this reboot as if it is
another, unrelated series which I have no interest in.

>> These are dark times.
>
> Indeed they are, and they are the reason I now watch most new movies
> as rentals, not in theaters. Only those I really want to see right
> away are eligible for viewing in a theater. Just sounding interesting
> is no longer good enough -- I've been burned too often by
> well-reviewed films that turned out to be disappointments.
>
> I have been assured that films intended to be blockbusters are all
> PG-13, even if cuss words must be added to avoid the dreaded PG.
> Perhaps if the filmmakers focused on /making good movies/ instead of
> on what the rating is, more blockbusters would appear.
>
> But perhaps I am misunderstanding the term.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(entertainment)#Blockbuster_films
> indicates that it how refers to how much money is put /into/ a film
> and how excessive the publicity campaign is, regardless of how well it
> does at the box office or whether anyone wants to see it. That would
> explain a lot.
>
> And I thought it referred to how much money a film made, particularly
> on its first weekend. Oh, well.

I have pretty much stopped going to the theater as well. My TV is
better, my couch is cleaner, my speakers are more properly adjusted,
and it's cheaper. Plus I have have a beer and smoke my pipe.

[Sandman]

In article <vfo2balc2dprmrolk...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > It's also a bit ironic, given the multitude of times you have made
> > claims that I have asked you to support or retract and you have
> > failed to do so. I remember you consistently claiming - in spit
> > of me opposing this - that I wanted the Mockingjay movie to be an
> > action movie. You kept doing this and I kept telling you to stop
> > doing it.
>
> What I said was that your selection of alleged "filler", and your
> clear description of those we discussed as "nothing happens", shows
> a preference for action.

Which I repeatedly told you was incorrect, yet you kept repeating it.

> I did /not/ say that you wanted /Mockingjay 1/ to be an Action Movie,
> merely that you preferred to see action rather than people sitting around
> doing nothing (where "nothing" includes singing).

This is one of your misinterpretations:

"Everything you object to is not action. The action
sequences, including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense
that they aren't in the book, you don't object to. It is
quite clear where your interests lie."
/ Paul S. Person - 11/28/2014

This was false, your "clear" was not clear at all - given the multitude of
times I had told you things like:

"Again with the action. I hope it has better pacing and that
Jennifer has learned to emote."

And:

"Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many times (and
which you have snipped many times) is that the remedy for boredom isn't
automatically "action", unless your name is Michael Bay."

It was *perfectly* clear that I was not asking for more "action", yet you
kept repeating and repeating this.

> (If I actually /did/ state that I thought you believed it should be an
> actual Action Movie, then I overreached myself and hereby apologize. But
> I am quite certain I did not.)

You did say it:

"I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an
Action Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie
(BDSAM)."
/ Paul S. Person - 11/25/2014

But that's not the problem - the problem is that you kept saying it over
and over and over again in spite of my correcting you many many times.

> > Sandman:

> > You've also spent a lot of time telling me what I "think" about
> > things, which is fine enough since it can be your interpretation
> > of what I am saying/writing, but you've kept doing it even after
> > I've told you that you've misunderstood what I wrote.
>
> What you write reveals what you think.

Except in those cases where the reader (you) *misunderstands* what I write,
and claim I meant something I did not mean. At which point I am happy to
chalk it up to a mere misunderstanding on your part or me being unclear. So
then I explain in further detail what I meant, and usually you snip that
away and *repeat* your misunderstanding.

> And I cannot have misunderstood it, for you write so clearly.

Indeed - when I have explained what I meant it should be clear, and your
misunderstanding should have been remedied. When you insist on your
incorrect interpretation, you're being disingenious.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I'm just not sure he isn't like my last manager, who paid no
> > > attention to what she was saying and even denied it as soon as
> > > it was out of her mouth. I don't think she did this
> > > deliberately, for it gained her nothing. I think she was simply
> > > not paying attention to what she was saying.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > This is were you post examples of me "denying" things I've said,
> > or the above is a lot of hot air and empty claims (seem
> > familliar?). You see, when I make a claim - especially about
> > another poster - I am always careful to also post support,
> > especially if the claim is subsequently questioned. Here is a bit
> > of support for my claims about you in this post:
>
> I said I wasn't sure. This means that I haven't made up my mind yet.

Then don't make the claim unless you can back them up. You said I was
incompetent, yet you can show no examples of this incompetence. Then
retract your claim or be branded a liar.

> If I ever become sure on this point, examples will follow.

> Don't hold your breath.

Of you backing up your claims? Haha, not likely.

> > Sandman:

> > You making claims about what I want:
>
> > "That is simply not the case. I saw the film before I read the
> > book, and the emotional state of Katniss was clear at each point
> > throughout the movie. They are all present, they just aren't done
> > in some over-the-top fashion you have convinced yourself they
> > should be." / Paul S. Person - 12/01/2014
>
> Your desires were clearly expressed: you believe that Katniss should
> show /externally/ in the film, the emotion she shows /internally/ in
> the book. The result, as I have noted before, would /not be
> Katniss/.

Which is an incorrect conclusion and also not substantiation for your claim
that *I* think they should be done in "some over-the-top fashion".

> And your failure to pick up on the Elf-Dwarf love story in the
> second and third Hobbit films until it became so obvious that the
> slice of cheese in /Diary of a Wimpy Kid/ would have noticed it
> supports the theory that you are blind to emotions that are in any
> way subtle.

What. The. Fuck? I am going to ask you to support that I have supposedly
"failed" to "pick up" on this love story? I can support the exact opposite,
but it is now on your shoulders to support this outrageous claim *or*
retract it.

Stop making claims you can't support.

> Once again, we have the difference between quiet scenes (subtle
> emotions), which you don't like/don't notice, and scenes with action
> (blatant emotion) in them, which you do.

Another bit of misinformation from Paul about what I like - in spite of
what I have told him I like. At this point, you know, your claims are lies.
They are claims about another poster that you are making in spite of that
poster on numerous occasions having told you that this just isn't true.

More of this and you will forever be seen as a lying troll, Paul.

> > Sandman:

> > My response, since this had been done many times:
>
> > "Now you're just outright lying about what I think, given the fact
> > that I've told you many times what I think, and nothing I've said
> > is even remotely related to your above remarks." / Sandman-
> > 12/05/2014
>
> Any remarks I made were directly related to your statements. At
> least, that was and is my intent.

Then you failed, as I explained many many many times. Yet you kept doing
it, over and over again.

> It is not my fault if you choose to make your statements in a secret
> language, known only to yourself.

I'm not. I may be unclear from the outset, and I totally take
responisbility for some, or even most, misunderstandings on your part, but
when you keep doing it after I have explained myself in excruciating
detail, then you are being disingenious.

> It is not my fault if you choose to hide details, obscuring what you are
> really talking about, until the other party has said something stupid
> based on your own statements. It is entirely your fault, and you are
> responsible for any consequences.

True - up until I have explained myself. After which it's entirely the
problem of the person that keeps telling the same misinformation.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

This was in response to a different topic: you assault on the player
depicting Katniss.

It is /not/ that you object to Katniss and Gale sitting by a stream
doing nothing (for about 30 seconds) because the actress cannot emote
to suit you. Yet that is what your out-of-context quote implies. Try
playing it straight some time.

>And:
>
> "Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many times (and
> which you have snipped many times) is that the remedy for boredom isn't
> automatically "action", unless your name is Michael Bay."
>
>It was *perfectly* clear that I was not asking for more "action", yet you
>kept repeating and repeating this.

Exactly. Any scene not involving some form of action, however mild,
acceptable to yourself is "boring".

I kept pointing it out because you were (and are) clearly in denial.

>> (If I actually /did/ state that I thought you believed it should be an
>> actual Action Movie, then I overreached myself and hereby apologize. But
>> I am quite certain I did not.)
>
>You did say it:
>
> "I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an
> Action Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie
> (BDSAM)."
> / Paul S. Person - 11/25/2014

And you have my apology. Please take another.

>But that's not the problem - the problem is that you kept saying it over
>and over and over again in spite of my correcting you many many times.

Are you saying that I claimed you expected to see an Action Movie
"over and over again" or merely that I pointed out that your own words
clearly show your preference for (some sort of) action (however mild)?

IOW, are you actually saying something new here, or merely repeating
what you said above?

>> > Sandman:
>> > You've also spent a lot of time telling me what I "think" about
>> > things, which is fine enough since it can be your interpretation
>> > of what I am saying/writing, but you've kept doing it even after
>> > I've told you that you've misunderstood what I wrote.
>>
>> What you write reveals what you think.
>
>Except in those cases where the reader (you) *misunderstands* what I write,
>and claim I meant something I did not mean. At which point I am happy to
>chalk it up to a mere misunderstanding on your part or me being unclear. So
>then I explain in further detail what I meant, and usually you snip that
>away and *repeat* your misunderstanding.
>
>> And I cannot have misunderstood it, for you write so clearly.
>
>Indeed - when I have explained what I meant it should be clear, and your
>misunderstanding should have been remedied. When you insist on your
>incorrect interpretation, you're being disingenious.

I guess you don't understand sarcasm either.

If you wrote clearly, I would not be able to misunderstand you.

So, to say that I misunderstood you, is to say that you did not write
clearly.

I believe I suggested that the problem might be how you were
expressing yourself. I forget whether you blew it off or just ignored
it.

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > I'm just not sure he isn't like my last manager, who paid no
>> > > attention to what she was saying and even denied it as soon as
>> > > it was out of her mouth. I don't think she did this
>> > > deliberately, for it gained her nothing. I think she was simply
>> > > not paying attention to what she was saying.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > This is were you post examples of me "denying" things I've said,
>> > or the above is a lot of hot air and empty claims (seem
>> > familliar?). You see, when I make a claim - especially about
>> > another poster - I am always careful to also post support,
>> > especially if the claim is subsequently questioned. Here is a bit
>> > of support for my claims about you in this post:
>>
>> I said I wasn't sure. This means that I haven't made up my mind yet.
>
>Then don't make the claim unless you can back them up. You said I was
>incompetent, yet you can show no examples of this incompetence. Then
>retract your claim or be branded a liar.

I did not make a claim. "I 'm just not sure" means /exactly/ what it
says: no claim (about you) is being made. I'm still not sure. And
there is no claim to retract.

And, I never said you /were/ incompetent. I merely said I preferred to
think of you that way, as opposed to thinking of you as vicious.

That is, I would prefer to think that you really are being as clear as
you can be, and not that you are deliberately being deceptive.

>> If I ever become sure on this point, examples will follow.
>
>> Don't hold your breath.
>
>Of you backing up your claims? Haha, not likely.

Of my becoming sure.

>> > Sandman:
>> > You making claims about what I want:
>>
>> > "That is simply not the case. I saw the film before I read the
>> > book, and the emotional state of Katniss was clear at each point
>> > throughout the movie. They are all present, they just aren't done
>> > in some over-the-top fashion you have convinced yourself they
>> > should be." / Paul S. Person - 12/01/2014
>>
>> Your desires were clearly expressed: you believe that Katniss should
>> show /externally/ in the film, the emotion she shows /internally/ in
>> the book. The result, as I have noted before, would /not be
>> Katniss/.
>
>Which is an incorrect conclusion and also not substantiation for your claim
>that *I* think they should be done in "some over-the-top fashion".

And yet the emotions you recognize are very strong and may be, to
some, over the top. So perhaps I should simply have said "Katniss
should not be Katniss in the relevant films, but somebody else, just
as Aragorn was not Aragorn in the relevant films, but somebody else".

>> And your failure to pick up on the Elf-Dwarf love story in the
>> second and third Hobbit films until it became so obvious that the
>> slice of cheese in /Diary of a Wimpy Kid/ would have noticed it
>> supports the theory that you are blind to emotions that are in any
>> way subtle.
>
>What. The. Fuck? I am going to ask you to support that I have supposedly
>"failed" to "pick up" on this love story? I can support the exact opposite,
>but it is now on your shoulders to support this outrageous claim *or*
>retract it.

You asked for it ... from 12/15/14 1126AM:

<me>
>> I would, however, point out that she abandoned her post, refused a
>> direct order from a superior officer (Legolas), and abandoned said
>> officer -- all to follow and save Kili from the Morgul blade -- in
>> the second film.
>
<you>
>Which is a far cry from "true love", and could all be ascribed to her
>feeling that he doesn't deserve to die coupled with the fact that Thranduil
>doesn't seem to want her around either way. It would have been another
>matter all together if she was already betrothed to Legolas and they in
>turn was not in love with each other, the the events on screen would have
>more meaning. As it is, she's an elf that fancies Legolas, but Legolas
>father doesn't approve and she meets this nice dwarve dude that has some
>unfortune that she wants to help him with. Bam, true love!

You failed to pick up on it. Instead, you made excuses for not
believing it. Any excuse, it appears, is better than actually paying
attention to the story.

And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this part
of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the Parting at the
Lake should have been noticeable.

And I would like to point out that "true love" is your own
interpretation, based on your own refusal to notice the preliminary
parts of the story. It is not in the film. At least, not in the
film(s) I saw.

What /is/ in the film is Thranduil, not 15 minutes after taunting
Tauriel with the "fact" that an Elf cannot feel real love for a Dwarf,
partially removing the corncob from his heinie to admit to her that
the love she felt for Kili was, indeed, real. This, I would think, is
intended to relate to the earlier information about how his wife died.

I still haven't made my mind up on that earlier issue. Yes, you appear
to have forgotten this exchange. But it has been so long that anyone
may have forgotten it. The manager was forgetting things almost as
soon as she said them.

As further evidence that you are not paying strict attention to the
films, I offer this exchange from 12/15/14 0105AM:

<me>
>> I forgot to ask: does Galadriel awaken Gandalf with a kiss, as she
>> appears to do in the trailer? Have PJ & accomplices been overdosing
>> on Disney animation?
>
<you>
>I don't... think so, not that I can remember. But she does cradle him and
>speak to him softly to wake him. Not really lovingly like that.

The film I saw showed her kissing him on the forehead, just as she
does in the trailer. But this is a minor point, and perhaps you were
distracted by something else at the time. After all, it does take a
certain amount of dedication to pay strict attention to a film.

Or perhaps you were seeing a different version of the film. Who can
say?

This, of course, allows us to compile a list of

Films PJ & Accomplices Watched /Way/ Too Often While Writing The
Script:

1) At least one of /Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs/ or /Cinderella/,
both of which used the "arouse by kissing" technique.
2) /Tremors/, the origin of the giant worms who travel through earth.
3) The theatrical /Dune/, the origin (at least approximately) of how
the worms looked when they opened their mouths.
4) Any number of cartoons or /Castle in the Sky/ or, as I was reminded
recently, /Hellboy/, for the "running along a bridge that is falling
apart stone-by-stone" motif.
5) And, of course, their own prior work for the Scary Blue Lady and
the armor worn by the Elves of the Last Alliance, and perhaps other
things.

Feel free to add others!

<I'm stopping here, this is getting out of hand>

[Sandman]

In article <m708batf2tag92ut2...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > This is one of your misinterpretations:
>
> > "Everything you object to is not action. The action sequences,
> > including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense that they aren't
> > in the book, you don't object to. It is quite clear where your
> > interests lie." / Paul S. Person - 11/28/2014
>
> > This was false, your "clear" was not clear at all - given the
> > multitude of times I had told you things like:
>
> > "Again with the action. I hope it has better pacing and that
> > Jennifer has learned to emote."
>
> This was in response to a different topic: you assault on the player
> depicting Katniss.

No, it was not. It was in response to this:

"and, that said, you aren't going to like the next movie any
better, although it should have more action in it"
/ Paul S. Person - 11/27/2014

Don't make stuff up as you go along.

> It is /not/ that you object to Katniss and Gale sitting by a stream
> doing nothing (for about 30 seconds) because the actress cannot
> emote to suit you. Yet that is what your out-of-context quote
> implies. Try playing it straight some time.

It was not out of context - I provided the context; you making claims that
I want an action movie in spite of me telling you multiple times that that
isn't true.

At this point, all you have to do to behave like an adult is say something
like "Ok, I misunderstood you and what you wanted, I realize that now,
sorry about that".

> > Sandman:

> > And:
>
> > "Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many times
> > (and which you have snipped many times) is that the remedy for
> > boredom isn't automatically "action", unless your name is Michael
> > Bay."
>
> > It was *perfectly* clear that I was not asking for more "action",
> > yet you kept repeating and repeating this.
>
> Exactly. Any scene not involving some form of action, however mild,
> acceptable to yourself is "boring".

WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension - my quote above says *THE
EXACT OPPOSITE* of that - yet here you are telling the same lie AGAIN? As a
direct reply to those exact words?

> I kept pointing it out because you were (and are) clearly in denial.

Nothing is "clear" here to you. What *IS* clear is that I was *NOT* asking
for an action movie, which I've said over and over and over again. These
were just two quotes out of a multitude of quotes from me where I told you
this.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > (If I actually /did/ state that I thought you believed it should
> > > be an actual Action Movie, then I overreached myself and hereby
> > > apologize. But I am quite certain I did not.)
> >

> > Sandman:

> > You did say it:
>
> > "I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an Action
> > Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie (BDSAM)." /
> > Paul S. Person - 11/25/2014
>
> And you have my apology. Please take another.

I want an apology for your continous lies about me wanting "action" when I
never said anything like it. As you did in this very post I'm replying to.
Why apologize when you keep doing it?

> > Sandman:

> > But that's not the problem - the problem is that you kept saying
> > it over and over and over again in spite of my correcting you
> > many many times.
>
> Are you saying that I claimed you expected to see an Action Movie
> "over and over again" or merely that I pointed out that your own
> words clearly show your preference for (some sort of) action
> (however mild)?

I am claiming, and have claimed unambigously over and over again, that you
are *incorrect* in claiming that I wanted Mockingjay to have more action in
it. I said the movie was *boring* which you interpreted as me wanting more
action. That's a perfectly valid misinterpretation, but since that
misinterpretation on your part, I have told you many times that I do *not*
want more action, yet you kept repeating that over and over again.

> IOW, are you actually saying something new here, or merely repeating
> what you said above?

It must appear new to you, since you didn't understand it the ten first
times I told it.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > And I cannot have misunderstood it, for you write so clearly.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Indeed - when I have explained what I meant it should be clear,
> > and your misunderstanding should have been remedied. When you
> > insist on your incorrect interpretation, you're being
> > disingenious.
>
> I guess you don't understand sarcasm either.

> If you wrote clearly, I would not be able to misunderstand you.

Misunderstandings happen all the time, that's not the problem. I'm not
saying you did something wrong by misunderstanding me. It's an easy enough
mistake to make, on both parts. I could be unclear or you could infer
something that I didn't imply. That's not the problem. The problem is when
you misunderstand something, and I explain myself, and you keep claiming
your misunderstanding is the correct interpretation. *That's* the problem.

> So, to say that I misunderstood you, is to say that you did not
> write clearly.

Of course not. While that's a perfectly valid reason for misunderstanding,
it's hardly the only reason for misunderstanding someone. You could
misunderstand me because you inferred something incorrectly. Or you could
misread something, or have a brain fart. Or you could willingly
misinterprete me in order to troll me.

> I believe I suggested that the problem might be how you were
> expressing yourself. I forget whether you blew it off or just
> ignored it.

Again - the problem is that not *THAT* you misunderstood me - it's that you
*INSISTED* that your misunderstandment took precedence over my
clarifications. That's where you're being disingenious. If you think I am
being unclear, or if I see you misunderstand something, I am happy to
clarify what I meant, at all times. And I don't think of less of you for
having to do that. That doesn't irritate me at all. Misunderstandings
happen *all the time* in written media.

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > You making claims about what I want:
> > >
> > > > "That is simply not the case. I saw the film before I read the
> > > > book, and the emotional state of Katniss was clear at each
> > > > point throughout the movie. They are all present, they just
> > > > aren't done in some over-the-top fashion you have convinced
> > > > yourself they should be." / Paul S. Person - 12/01/2014
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Your desires were clearly expressed: you believe that Katniss
> > > should show /externally/ in the film, the emotion she shows
> > > /internally/ in the book. The result, as I have noted before,
> > > would /not be Katniss/.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Which is an incorrect conclusion and also not substantiation for
> > your claim that *I* think they should be done in "some
> > over-the-top fashion".
>
> And yet the emotions you recognize are very strong and may be, to
> some, over the top.

That they are "to some" over the top, is *NOT* substantiation for your
incorrect claim that *I* think they should be done in "some over-the-top-
fashion".

Support your claim, or retract it.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > And your failure to pick up on the Elf-Dwarf love story in the
> > > second and third Hobbit films until it became so obvious that
> > > the slice of cheese in /Diary of a Wimpy Kid/ would have noticed
> > > it supports the theory that you are blind to emotions that are
> > > in any way subtle.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > What. The. Fuck? I am going to ask you to support that I have
> > supposedly "failed" to "pick up" on this love story? I can
> > support the exact opposite, but it is now on your shoulders to
> > support this outrageous claim *or* retract it.
>
> You asked for it ... from 12/15/14 1126AM:

> <me>

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I would, however, point out that she abandoned her post, refused
> > > a direct order from a superior officer (Legolas), and abandoned
> > > said officer -- all to follow and save Kili from the Morgul
> > > blade -- in the second film.

> <you>

> > Sandman:

> > Which is a far cry from "true love", and could all be ascribed to
> > her feeling that he doesn't deserve to die coupled with the fact
> > that Thranduil doesn't seem to want her around either way. It
> > would have been another matter all together if she was already
> > betrothed to Legolas and they in turn was not in love with each
> > other, the the events on screen would have more meaning. As it
> > is, she's an elf that fancies Legolas, but Legolas father doesn't
> > approve and she meets this nice dwarve dude that has some
> > unfortune that she wants to help him with. Bam, true love!
>
> You failed to pick up on it. Instead, you made excuses for not
> believing it. Any excuse, it appears, is better than actually paying
> attention to the story.

What the hell is wrong with you? This is me questioning the sudden "true
love" turn of events, not me "missing" that there was chemistry between
Tauriel and Kili. This was written in a thread about the third movie - and
how the hell am I supposed to have "failed to picked up" something by that
time? All events were known to us, and this was me questioning the "true
love" part of their rather quick relationship.

> And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
> part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the Parting
> at the Lake should have been noticeable.

Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third movie.

> And I would like to point out that "true love" is your own
> interpretation, based on your own refusal to notice the preliminary
> parts of the story. It is not in the film. At least, not in the
> film(s) I saw.

Not at all - the words "true love" is directly from the film, and I was
merely pointing out that the characters had not been given enough time to
develop any supposed "true love". Again you misunderstood me and are
claiming your misinterpretation is the only valid one.

> I still haven't made my mind up on that earlier issue. Yes, you
> appear to have forgotten this exchange. But it has been so long that
> anyone may have forgotten it. The manager was forgetting things
> almost as soon as she said them.

It is clear that you are trying to bend things to fit your preconcieved
notion of things. Your claim remains unsubstantiated and should thus be
retracted.

> As further evidence that you are not paying strict attention to the
> films, I offer this exchange from 12/15/14 0105AM:

> <me>

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I forgot to ask: does Galadriel awaken Gandalf with a kiss, as
> > > she appears to do in the trailer? Have PJ & accomplices been
> > > overdosing on Disney animation?
> >
> <you>

> > Sandman:

> > I don't... think so, not that I can remember. But she does cradle
> > him and speak to him softly to wake him. Not really lovingly like
> > that.
>
> The film I saw showed her kissing him on the forehead, just as she
> does in the trailer. But this is a minor point, and perhaps you were
> distracted by something else at the time. After all, it does take a
> certain amount of dedication to pay strict attention to a film.

I have a very good film memory, actually, but I was unsure about this at
the time.

> <I'm stopping here, this is getting out of hand>

You should stop BEFORE you make moronic claims you can't support, not after
you're being asked to support them. At that point, you should either
support them (which you never have done, not one single time) or retract
them (which you never have done, not one single time).


--
Sandman[.net]

[JJ]

This thread is getting just like the good old days of Michael Martinez: going on and on and on, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing ...

[Taemon]

On 13-1-2015 13:39, JJ wrote:
> This thread is getting just like the good old days of Michael Martinez: going on and on and on, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing ...

I feel that warm and tender feeling of being at home, don't you?

[Paul S. Person]

On 13 Jan 2015 08:33:50 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <m708batf2tag92ut2...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

<Snipping most of the repetitive stuff>

<which, by the way, is good netiquette>

Note: if you can produce an alternate to the Katniss/Gale river scene
that would satisfy you and contain ABSOLUTELY NO ACTION OF ANY KIND
(no talking, no hugging, no singing, nothing) I will concede your
point.

For my point is, and always has been (even when I got carried away,
for which you may have another apology) that, in rejecting these
sequences because "nothing happens", you show that you want something
to happen, and, if something happens, that is action.

There is no "rather quick relationship". Their relationship unfolds
over time, not, perhaps, over decades, but over time nontheless.

And it starts with them flirting in the dungeon.

But you can't see it. It is, perhaps, too subtle for you.

>> And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
>> part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the Parting
>> at the Lake should have been noticeable.
>
>Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third movie.

And so missed entirely the Parting at the Lake as part of the
continuing love story. Too suble, I suppose.

>> And I would like to point out that "true love" is your own
>> interpretation, based on your own refusal to notice the preliminary
>> parts of the story. It is not in the film. At least, not in the
>> film(s) I saw.
>
>Not at all - the words "true love" is directly from the film, and I was
>merely pointing out that the characters had not been given enough time to
>develop any supposed "true love". Again you misunderstood me and are
>claiming your misinterpretation is the only valid one.

Not the version I saw. Perhaps you saw a different version.

If you are thinking of Thranduil, he said "real love" not "true love".
The issue was not whether Fili was "her one true love", but whether or
not her love for Fili was real or merely an affectation.

<snippo ignored stuff>

>It is clear that you are trying to bend things to fit your preconcieved
>notion of things. Your claim remains unsubstantiated and should thus be
>retracted.

As expected, you refuse to see the point even when the evidence is
presented.

There is no point in preenting "proof" to you -- you will only and
always reject it. Your calls for "proof" are as valid as North Korea's
call for a joint investigation of the recent hack which provided such
excellent publicity to a certain movie.

>> As further evidence that you are not paying strict attention to the
>> films, I offer this exchange from 12/15/14 0105AM:
>
>> <me>
>
>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > I forgot to ask: does Galadriel awaken Gandalf with a kiss, as
>> > > she appears to do in the trailer? Have PJ & accomplices been
>> > > overdosing on Disney animation?
>> >
>> <you>
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > I don't... think so, not that I can remember. But she does cradle
>> > him and speak to him softly to wake him. Not really lovingly like
>> > that.
>>
>> The film I saw showed her kissing him on the forehead, just as she
>> does in the trailer. But this is a minor point, and perhaps you were
>> distracted by something else at the time. After all, it does take a
>> certain amount of dedication to pay strict attention to a film.
>
>I have a very good film memory, actually, but I was unsure about this at
>the time.

Then you made the wrong choice in your answer; as I said, you may have
blinked (that would have been enough, it is very quick). But that can
happen to anybody, and I was pleasantly surprised to see it in the
film.

Just as I was pleasantly surprised to see the love story continued,
and not just popping up at the end. And to find no indication of "true
love" being involved. So your (accidental) misinformation actually
served a useful purpose.

Then again, perhaps you saw a different version of the film. The
version I saw was projected correctly. Did you have to wear special
glasses to be able to see the version you saw, by any chance?

It is not, after all, as if the two (or three, counting IMAX) versions
of a film are required by law to be identical!

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 04:39:11 -0800 (PST), JJ
<jo...@jones5011.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>This thread is getting just like the good old days of Michael Martinez: going on and on and on, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing ...

Amen to that!

[Sandman]

In article <1tiabadv1f0elcpkr...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> Note: if you can produce an alternate to the Katniss/Gale river
> scene that would satisfy you and contain ABSOLUTELY NO ACTION OF ANY
> KIND (no talking, no hugging, no singing, nothing) I will concede
> your point.

> For my point is, and always has been (even when I got carried away,
> for which you may have another apology) that, in rejecting these
> sequences because "nothing happens", you show that you want
> something to happen, and, if something happens, that is action.

This is what you have been reduced to - semantics. You have now realized
that I don't want action after you have claimed that I wanted an action
movie, so now you have to backtrack to interprete the word "action" as in
"any action taken by any character". You are now trying to retcon this to
have these quotes from you:

"I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an
Action Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie"

/ Paul S. Person - 11/25/2014

"This is not an action flick."
/ Paul S. Person - 11/26/2014

"you aren't going to like the next movie any
better, although it should have more action in it"
/ Paul S. Person - 11/27/2014

"Everything you object to is not action. The action
sequences, including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense
that they aren't in the book, you don't object to."

/ Paul S. Person - 11/28/2014

..to mean that when you said "action", you were talking about characters
"hugging, singing and talking".

Weak, very weak. Just come clean and say outright that you misunderstood me
in spite of my clarifications.

> > Sandman:

> > What the hell is wrong with you? This is me questioning the sudden
> > "true love" turn of events, not me "missing" that there was
> > chemistry between Tauriel and Kili. This was written in a thread
> > about the third movie - and how the hell am I supposed to have
> > "failed to picked up" something by that time? All events were
> > known to us, and this was me questioning the "true love" part of
> > their rather quick relationship.
>
> There is no "rather quick relationship". Their relationship unfolds
> over time, not, perhaps, over decades, but over time nontheless.

I.e. over the span of days, during which they meet... wait for it... three
times. Once in the dungeons, once in Laketown and once by the lake. True
love indeed.

> And it starts with them flirting in the dungeon.

Of course.

> But you can't see it. It is, perhaps, too subtle for you.

Here is me reviewing the second movie:

Sandman
[SPOILERS] The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
12/12/2013 <slrnlaj2...@irc.sandman.net>

"... and Tauriel seems to fancy Kili (which seems to
be at odds with... just about everything)"

Yeah, really subtle. So subtle that I saw it the first time I saw the
movie, and wrote about it in the group.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
> > > part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the
> > > Parting at the Lake should have been noticeable.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third movie.
>
> And so missed entirely the Parting at the Lake as part of the
> continuing love story. Too suble, I suppose.

I missed "entirely" the supposed "true love" part of their relationship,
yes, because there wasn't enough time for that to develop. They had one
single scene in which they actually talked to each other (dungeon) in a way
where a relationship between them could form. After that, they say pretty
much nothing to each other.

She comes to heal him in Laketown, they go in the boat together - no time
to talk there. And then they part on the shore.

This is "true love" in the way George Lucas would write it.

> If you are thinking of Thranduil, he said "real love" not "true
> love". The issue was not whether Fili was "her one true love", but
> whether or not her love for Fili was real or merely an affectation.

Ah, semantics. "real love" or "true love" isn't the problem, the problem is
that at that point in time, she might feel sad over Kili because she liked
him, because she cared for him, not because she felt "real love" towards
him. What is the difference, in your mind, between "true love" and "real
love"?

> > Sandman:

> > It is clear that you are trying to bend things to fit your
> > preconcieved notion of things. Your claim remains unsubstantiated
> > and should thus be retracted.
>
> As expected, you refuse to see the point even when the evidence is
> presented.

I correctly point out that you made a claim and have failed to substantiate
it.

> There is no point in preenting "proof" to you

How would you know - you have yet to attempt to present any "proof"?

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I don't... think so, not that I can remember. But she
> > > > does cradle him and speak to him softly to wake him. Not
> > > > really lovingly like that.
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > The film I saw showed her kissing him on the forehead, just as
> > > she does in the trailer. But this is a minor point, and perhaps
> > > you were distracted by something else at the time. After all, it
> > > does take a certain amount of dedication to pay strict attention
> > > to a film.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > I have a very good film memory, actually, but I was unsure about
> > this at the time.
>
> Then you made the wrong choice in your answer;

How so? I correctly stated that I don't think so.

> as I said, you may have blinked (that would have been enough, it is very
> quick). But that can happen to anybody, and I was pleasantly surprised to
> see it in the film.

Uh, ok?

> Just as I was pleasantly surprised to see the love story continued,
> and not just popping up at the end.

The "love" part of the relationship between Kili and Tauriel most certainly
popped up at the end.

<snip trolling>


--
Sandman[.net]

[Wayne Brown]

I don't know that Paul was really backtracking here. He may well
have always been using that definition of "action" in his conversation
with you. But it certainly doesn't fit with my own concept of "action"
so I was completely at a loss until now to understand why he kept using
your comments as proof that you wanted more action scenes.

This is a problem with many films, and I agree that the problem
exists here as well. "Real love" or "true love" (I see those terms
as synonymous) takes a lot of time and shared experiences to develop.
With their limited and short-term interactions Tauriel and Kili at most
could have been infatuated with each other. But infatuation is pretty
much the standard substitute for "real love" in many if not most films
and that's what I saw in this case too. It seems Paul disagrees, and
just as with the definition of "action," you two are using different
definitions of "true" or "real" love. He appears to think the "real
thing" could have developed in the time they spent together, and you
(and I) don't think so.

As an outside observer to this conversation, it seemed to me that the
arguments you and Paul had were not due to either deliberate deception
or stupidity on either side but by an inability on both sides to see
each other's viewpoints because you were using the same words to mean
different things. My (unsolicited) advice is just to agree to disagree
and stop trying to attribute motives to each other because I'm not sure
either of you understands the other well enough for that.

Of course, I may have completely misinterpreted either or both of you,
too, so having said my piece I'll retire from the field.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

[Sandman]

In article <m961hl$q9d$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> > Weak, very weak. Just come clean and say outright that you
> > misunderstood me in spite of my clarifications.
>
> I don't know that Paul was really backtracking here. He may well
> have always been using that definition of "action" in his
> conversation with you. But it certainly doesn't fit with my own
> concept of "action" so I was completely at a loss until now to
> understand why he kept using your comments as proof that you wanted
> more action scenes.

According to this new "definition" of his - every movie is an action movie.
:-D

> > Sandman:

> > Ah, semantics. "real love" or "true love" isn't the problem, the
> > problem is that at that point in time, she might feel sad over
> > Kili because she liked him, because she cared for him, not
> > because she felt "real love" towards him. What is the difference,
> > in your mind, between "true love" and "real love"?
>
> This is a problem with many films, and I agree that the problem
> exists here as well. "Real love" or "true love" (I see those terms
> as synonymous) takes a lot of time and shared experiences to
> develop.

Indeed. And to portray that in a movie takes some real finesse on part of
the moviemaker.

> With their limited and short-term interactions Tauriel and
> Kili at most could have been infatuated with each other.

Exactly my point.

> But infatuation is pretty much the standard substitute for "real love" in
> many if not most films and that's what I saw in this case too. It seems
> Paul disagrees, and just as with the definition of "action," you two are
> using different definitions of "true" or "real" love. He appears to
> think the "real thing" could have developed in the time they spent
> together, and you (and I) don't think so.

This is a common theme with Paul.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Just as I was pleasantly surprised to see the love story
> > > continued, and not just popping up at the end.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > The "love" part of the relationship between Kili and Tauriel most
> > certainly popped up at the end.
>
> > <snip trolling>
>
> As an outside observer to this conversation, it seemed to me that
> the arguments you and Paul had were not due to either deliberate
> deception or stupidity on either side but by an inability on both
> sides to see each other's viewpoints because you were using the same
> words to mean different things.

Well, I disagree. Any "argument" I am having with Paul is that he has made
claims about me which I have told him is incorrect, yet he has kept making
those claims over and over again. That is disingenious on his part and I
call him out on it.

The topic of "true/real love" is of no concern to me, really. If he thinks
there was plenty of on-screen time for real love to develop between them,
fine. I think there wasn't, for the reasons I've listed many times. BUt he
keeps saying I "missed" and "didn't pick" up things I've quite clearly
commented on in the past is also disingenious on his part.

There are only so many times you can let someone repeat the same mistake
until it becomes deliberate misinformation.

> My (unsolicited) advice is just to agree to disagree and stop trying to
> attribute motives to each other because I'm not sure either of you
> understands the other well enough for that.

That's what I've been telling him - stop making claims about others that
you can't support.

> Of course, I may have completely misinterpreted either or both of
> you, too, so having said my piece I'll retire from the field.

You contributed much more of value to the thread than Paul could ever hope
to do :-D


--
Sandman[.net]

[Wayne Brown]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:54:47 in article <slrnmbd4...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <m961hl$q9d$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:
>
>> As an outside observer to this conversation, it seemed to me that
>> the arguments you and Paul had were not due to either deliberate
>> deception or stupidity on either side but by an inability on both
>> sides to see each other's viewpoints because you were using the same
>> words to mean different things.
>
> Well, I disagree. Any "argument" I am having with Paul is that he has made
> claims about me which I have told him is incorrect, yet he has kept making
> those claims over and over again. That is disingenious on his part and I
> call him out on it.
>
> The topic of "true/real love" is of no concern to me, really. If he thinks
> there was plenty of on-screen time for real love to develop between them,
> fine. I think there wasn't, for the reasons I've listed many times. BUt he
> keeps saying I "missed" and "didn't pick" up things I've quite clearly
> commented on in the past is also disingenious on his part.
>
> There are only so many times you can let someone repeat the same mistake
> until it becomes deliberate misinformation.

This is one of the cases where I think you're both misunderstanding each
other. To illustrate what I mean I'm going to use a rather silly example.
(Paul, if you're reading this, please don't think I'm calling either you
or Sandman silly or stupid. I'm using a ridiculous exaggeration to make
my point clear.)

Paul: Did you see the blue unicorn in the closet?

Sandman: There's nothing in the closet but an old wooden rocking-horse,
painted blue.

Paul: You missed it! Didn't you look in the closet? There's a blue
unicorn there!

Sandman: Yes, I looked, but there's no unicorn. There's only a
rocking-horse.

Paul: You must not have looked, or you'd have seen the unicorn.

Sandman: I told you I did look, and there's no unicorn!

Paul: If you looked then you didn't pick up on it, because it
certainly is there!

Sandman: I'm telling you I did look, and there was nothing to pick up on!
There's only a rocking-horse!

etc. etc. etc.

When you look in the closet (the dungeon) you see the rocking-horse
(the flirtation). Paul sees the unicorn (the beginning of true love).
Paul says you missed the love. You say you didn't miss anything because
you saw the flirtation. Paul repeats that you "missed" and "didn't pick
up on" the love, and you tell him to stop saying that because you DID
see the flirtation. Both of you are looking, both of you are seeing
the same thing but interpreting it differently. Paul insists you must
have missed something because you didn't see what he saw. You insist
that what he saw wasn't really there and that he's spreading deliberate
misinformation when he says you "missed it" because the flirtation was
the only thing there and you've told him you did see that. From Paul's
viewpoint he's speaking the truth because he's sure the love was there and
clearly you didn't really see anything because just seeing the flirtation
isn't enough to count as "seeing" if you didn't recognize it as love.
From your viewpoint he's being disingenuous because he keeps saying you
DIDN'T see things you already told him you DID see.

Anyway, that's how I see what both of you are saying. But who knows what
I've "missed" or failed to "pick up on" in your discussion? I probably
should have stuck to my intention to stay out of it.

[Paul S. Person]

I have already admitted that I went too far, and have apologized for
it. I hereby apologize for it again.

>Weak, very weak. Just come clean and say outright that you misunderstood me
>in spite of my clarifications.

IOW, you can't produce such a scene.

Instead, you evade the issue.

<snipping, and acknowledging, that you noticed the flirting in the
dungeon>

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
>> > > part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the
>> > > Parting at the Lake should have been noticeable.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third movie.

Which means, what?

That you didn't mean it?

That you stand by it?

Did anyone ever say you wrote it /before/ you saw the third Hobbit
movie?

>> And so missed entirely the Parting at the Lake as part of the
>> continuing love story. Too suble, I suppose.
>
>I missed "entirely" the supposed "true love" part of their relationship,
>yes, because there wasn't enough time for that to develop. They had one
>single scene in which they actually talked to each other (dungeon) in a way
>where a relationship between them could form. After that, they say pretty
>much nothing to each other.
>
>She comes to heal him in Laketown, they go in the boat together - no time
>to talk there. And then they part on the shore.
>
>This is "true love" in the way George Lucas would write it.

The problem here is that you are obsessed with "true love", which is
not in the film.

The film shows Tauriel and Fili falling in love to the point where
there /is/ a Parting at the Lake. It does not show "true love".

As I have noted before, "true love" has a long tradition in Western
culture. No attempt at showing "true love" exists here.

>> If you are thinking of Thranduil, he said "real love" not "true
>> love". The issue was not whether Fili was "her one true love", but
>> whether or not her love for Fili was real or merely an affectation.
>
>Ah, semantics. "real love" or "true love" isn't the problem, the problem is
>that at that point in time, she might feel sad over Kili because she liked
>him, because she cared for him, not because she felt "real love" towards
>him. What is the difference, in your mind, between "true love" and "real
>love"?

Thranduil, not 15 minutes before, assured her that what she felt for
Kili was /not real/ because an Elf could not feel /real love/ for a
Dwarf. IIRC, this is just after (but may be just before) he cuts her
bow in half with his sword while she is trying to make him stand up
and be an Elf as opposed to slinking away like a coward.

Now he is admitting that an Elf /can/ feel real love for a Dwarf. The
issue is the reality of her feelings, not their depth. She could have
loved him like a brother, and the love would have been just as real.

This has /nothing/ to do with "true love". The concept of "true love"
is that each individual has a single, unique "true love" somewhere in
the world, and each individual's job is to find and bond with that
"true love". This is why "true love" can only come once. This is why
"true love" is connected with people "being made for each other". This
is why, when someone states that he or she has found "my true love",
they are talking about another person, not an emotional state.

I sometimes wonder if this goes back to what Aristophanes says in the
Symposium. But I don't know if it does or not.

And the possibility that we saw two slightly different versions of the
film has not yet been ruled out. You can snip it all you want, but
that still remains as a possibility.

After all, doesn't it seem logical that (so-called) 3D and IMAX must
eventually be used for effects that simply make no sense in a film
projected flat, and so that some films will eventually have different
content in different formats, if this hasn't happened already?

Films are an art form and, artistically, I would think, this is
inevitable.

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:21:28 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown
<fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 02:03:52 in article <slrnmbc8...@irc.sandman.net> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> In article <1tiabadv1f0elcpkr...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

>I don't know that Paul was really backtracking here. He may well
>have always been using that definition of "action" in his conversation
>with you. But it certainly doesn't fit with my own concept of "action"
>so I was completely at a loss until now to understand why he kept using
>your comments as proof that you wanted more action scenes.

I was /definitely/ not clear at the time, for which I have apologized
to the offended party. But it is still an ongoing confusion.

>This is a problem with many films, and I agree that the problem
>exists here as well. "Real love" or "true love" (I see those terms
>as synonymous) takes a lot of time and shared experiences to develop.
>With their limited and short-term interactions Tauriel and Kili at most
>could have been infatuated with each other. But infatuation is pretty
>much the standard substitute for "real love" in many if not most films
>and that's what I saw in this case too. It seems Paul disagrees, and
>just as with the definition of "action," you two are using different
>definitions of "true" or "real" love. He appears to think the "real
>thing" could have developed in the time they spent together, and you
>(and I) don't think so.

I do distinguish "true love" from "real love".

Briefly, "true love" is unique: everybody gets exactly one, with one
specific individual -- and if you don't find that individual, neither
of you ever find (your) "true love".

But in this case, "real love" is contrasted with "fooling yourself".
Thranduil clearly tells Tauriel she is doing just that because an Elf
cannot really love a Dwarf in close proximity to cutting her bow in
half with his sword, and then, about 15 minutes later, he tells her
that "it hurts so much" because it was, in fact "real". It doesn't
matter what type of love it was, and it certainly does not satisfy my
understanding of "true love"; what matters is that the feeling was
/real/ and not just imaginary. /That/ is what the film is attempting
to convey.

>As an outside observer to this conversation, it seemed to me that the
>arguments you and Paul had were not due to either deliberate deception
>or stupidity on either side but by an inability on both sides to see
>each other's viewpoints because you were using the same words to mean
>different things. My (unsolicited) advice is just to agree to disagree
>and stop trying to attribute motives to each other because I'm not sure
>either of you understands the other well enough for that.

I tried that.

It didn't work.

But I am perfectly willing to try it again.

>Of course, I may have completely misinterpreted either or both of you,
>too, so having said my piece I'll retire from the field.

With my gratitude.

[Taemon]

On 14-1-2015 19:10, Paul S. Person wrote:
> Briefly, "true love" is unique: everybody gets exactly one, with one
> specific individual -- and if you don't find that individual, neither
> of you ever find (your) "true love".

Do you mean in the Tolkienverse or in movies?

As for the Tauriel/Kili-love thing, finding true love on first sight
happens all the time in Tolkien's works. It didn't bother me at all that
they extended the boundaries a little.

[Sandman]

In article <m968tp$qr1$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> This is one of the cases where I think you're both misunderstanding
> each other. To illustrate what I mean I'm going to use a rather
> silly example.

<snip unicorn example>

As I said in my earlier post, I have no problem with us having interpreted
this differently, that's what people do, and I don't mind him calling it
"true love" or "real love" or whatever. I don't *agree* with it, but that's
still just opinions, and we're both free to have them.

But, and again - as I said - what I *do* object to is anyone making
explicit claims about me, about what I've said, about what I think and so
on and when I know (i.e. *not* a mere opinion) they are incorrect, I ask
them to support the claim. The reason for doing this is that I imagine that
in being questioned, they would realise that they *can't* support it and
thus they have only one option left; retract the claim.

Paul has claimed I want Mockingjay to be an action movie - he has so far
been 100% unable to substantiate that supposed desire of mine - even by
quoting things I've said that he could have misunderstood.

And on top of that, as a response I have told him many times that I do
*not* want it to be an action movie. So the unicorn example is more like
this:

Paul: You like unicorns
Sandman: When did I say that?
Paul: It's clear from what you said
Sandman: So when did I say it?
Paul: It was clear
Sandman: I haven't said that, and for the record, I don't like them
Paul: You like unicorns
Sandman: No, I don't, stop repeating this
Paul: You like unicorns
Sandman: Sigh...




--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <cbadbapp0ju732rgo...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > "I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an Action
> > Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie" / Paul S.
> > Person - 11/25/2014
>
> > "This is not an action flick." / Paul S. Person - 11/26/2014
>
> > "you aren't going to like the next movie any better, although it
> > should have more action in it" / Paul S. Person - 11/27/2014
>
> > "Everything you object to is not action. The action sequences,
> > including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense that they aren't
> > in the book, you don't object to." / Paul S. Person - 11/28/2014
>
> > ..to mean that when you said "action", you were talking about
> > characters "hugging, singing and talking".
>
> I have already admitted that I went too far, and have apologized for
> it. I hereby apologize for it again.

Ok - just to be clear here - you are by the above retracting your claim
that I want an action movie or "action" as substitute for boring scenes?

Have we finally arrived at this? After almost two months? That would be
awesome.

> > > > > Paul S. Person:
> > > > > And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
> > > > > part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the
> > > > > Parting at the Lake should have been noticeable.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third
> > > > movie.
>
> Which means, what?

That I did see it, and thus "picked up" on it. I just disagree with your
(and the movie's) label on the relationship.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > And so missed entirely the Parting at the Lake as part of the
> > > continuing love story. Too suble, I suppose.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > I missed "entirely" the supposed "true love" part of their
> > relationship, yes, because there wasn't enough time for that to
> > develop. They had one single scene in which they actually talked
> > to each other (dungeon) in a way where a relationship between
> > them could form. After that, they say pretty much nothing to each
> > other.
>
> > She comes to heal him in Laketown, they go in the boat together -
> > no time to talk there. And then they part on the shore.
>
> > This is "true love" in the way George Lucas would write it.
>
> The problem here is that you are obsessed with "true love", which is
> not in the film.

"true love" and "real love" - what is the supposed difference to you?

> The film shows Tauriel and Fili falling in love to the point where
> there /is/ a Parting at the Lake. It does not show "true love".

To me - it shows no love at all. I think you're just being semantic here.
To me, "true love" or "real love" are synonymous. Either way, both terms
signify a deeper connection between two people than I think is justified by
the events we saw in the movie. But that's just my opinion. You are free to
have another opinion.

> As I have noted before, "true love" has a long tradition in Western
> culture. No attempt at showing "true love" exists here.

What does "real love" mean that makes it difference to "true love"? I mean,
you're effectively saying that these two terms are quantifiable and that
one is more or less than the other, so I am asking you to explain how they
differ.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > If you are thinking of Thranduil, he said "real love" not "true
> > > love". The issue was not whether Fili was "her one true love",
> > > but whether or not her love for Fili was real or merely an
> > > affectation.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Ah, semantics. "real love" or "true love" isn't the problem, the
> > problem is that at that point in time, she might feel sad over
> > Kili because she liked him, because she cared for him, not
> > because she felt "real love" towards him. What is the difference,
> > in your mind, between "true love" and "real love"?
>
> Thranduil, not 15 minutes before, assured her that what she felt for
> Kili was /not real/ because an Elf could not feel /real love/ for a
> Dwarf. IIRC, this is just after (but may be just before) he cuts her
> bow in half with his sword while she is trying to make him stand up
> and be an Elf as opposed to slinking away like a coward.

Indeed.

> Now he is admitting that an Elf /can/ feel real love for a Dwarf.
> The issue is the reality of her feelings, not their depth. She could
> have loved him like a brother, and the love would have been just as
> real.

Again - I am not talking about the words used, but the supposed deep love
she felt for Kili. She wept over him and wanted her feelings to go away,
because the severity of her supposed love was to great a burden.

> This has /nothing/ to do with "true love". The concept of "true
> love" is that each individual has a single, unique "true love"
> somewhere in the world, and each individual's job is to find and
> bond with that "true love".

Ok, so maybe we're just disagreeing about this supposed difference in the
terms. "True love" to me is just a fairy tale term, and totally
interchangeable with "real love". It's a moot point, since neither can
imply the at most affectionate relationship they may have had time to build
during the scenes we see them in.

> This is why "true love" can only come once.

That is, if your name is Cinderella. I think applying disney logic to any
other movie is a bit far-fetched.

> And the possibility that we saw two slightly different versions of
> the film has not yet been ruled out. You can snip it all you want,
> but that still remains as a possibility.

I snip it because it's just silly diversions on your part, so by snipping
it out you appear to be more coherent than you actually are in my followup,
see it as a service.




--
Sandman[.net]

[John W Kennedy]

Especially because both characters walked into the room in romantically
hopeless situations. Tauriel is in love with someone she knows she can
never marry, and any male dwarf has two strikes against him from the
start. It's the kind of love that grabs you by the lapels and throws
you across the room, and all you can do is hope you come out of it
alive.

--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:22:36 +0100, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>On 14-1-2015 19:10, Paul S. Person wrote:
>> Briefly, "true love" is unique: everybody gets exactly one, with one
>> specific individual -- and if you don't find that individual, neither
>> of you ever find (your) "true love".
>
>Do you mean in the Tolkienverse or in movies?

I meant "in the Western tradition", a much wider field than just the
moves or the Tolkienverse.

>As for the Tauriel/Kili-love thing, finding true love on first sight
>happens all the time in Tolkien's works. It didn't bother me at all that
>they extended the boundaries a little.

It doesn't bother me either.

But the assertion that it was "true love" is Sandmans, from his
initial post on the movie on 12/10/14. I understood him to be saying
that Tauriel's reaction to Fili's death was both unprepared for and
excessive. Or, perhaps better, excessive precisely because it was not
prepared for in the preceding parts of the film.

Any response to /that/ post that I made mentioning "true love" is
simply my taking his words in good faith, as I did not see the film
until it opened here on 12/17/14. Thus my discussion of "true love"
focused on the "love at first sight" component.

When I saw the film, it was immediately clear that the situation was
not as I had understood him to describe it; "love at first sight" went
right out the window. It was quite clear not only that Thranduil used
"real" but also what he meant by it.

I did not discuss this until much later because there is no reason at
all why Sandman, or yourself, or me, or anyone else cannot
simultaneously say two things about the film:

1) The issue articulated in the film is whether or not her love is
/real/, as opposed to /imaginary/ -- where "imaginary" can include
"fooling herself" and similar expressions. This is Thranduil's
understanding of the situation.

2) The love she feels for Kili is, in fact, "true love" (however you
chose to define it). I, myself, do not think so, but opinions can
certainly vary, and, if it seems to you that the filmmakers were
trying to depict "true love", that's just fine.

IOW, I delayed bringing it up because it seemed entirely likely that
we were talking about /two different things/.

In a desperate attempt to return to actual discussion of the film, let
me add this:

I suspect that the filmmakers intended us to believe that the reason
Thranduil responed to Tauriel's question "Why does it hurt so much?"
by affirming that her love for Fili (whatever its type) was real is
because he felt the same way when his wife died. IOW, he recognized
her love as real because she felt the same way he did under similar
circumstances, and his love was certainly real (to him).

Note that, when they discover the Deadly Flying Blue Monkeys -- er,
Bats, Legolas tells Fanduil that that is where his mother died. So we
know what happened to /her/, and can infer what the effect was on
Thranduil.

This last bit is, of course, entirely IMHO

[Paul S. Person]

On 14 Jan 2015 21:30:11 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <cbadbapp0ju732rgo...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

>> I have already admitted that I went too far, and have apologized for
>> it. I hereby apologize for it again.
>
>Ok - just to be clear here - you are by the above retracting your claim
>that I want an action movie or "action" as substitute for boring scenes?

I am retracting any claim I made that you want an Action Movie.

That you want some form of action (which, if I may be so bold as to
point this out, must clearly be more than just Katniss singing, for
you objected to that as well) instead of scenes where "nothing
happens", is still just as clear as you want it to be.

>Have we finally arrived at this? After almost two months? That would be
>awesome.

That depends on you. Are you willing to admit that, by rejecting
scenes notable for their lack of any action at all, you are showing a
preference for some action?

Not, to be sure, the sort of action seen in an Action Movie. I am not
saying you want to see Katniss take down a helicopter with an
automobile, for example. Not at all. But I am saying you want to see
some sort of action (however mild) in every scene.

>> > > > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > > > And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
>> > > > > part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the
>> > > > > Parting at the Lake should have been noticeable.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sandman:
>> > > > Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third
>> > > > movie.
>>
>> Which means, what?
>
>That I did see it, and thus "picked up" on it. I just disagree with your
>(and the movie's) label on the relationship.

But what you picked up appeared to me to be that Tauriel's reaction
was over the top precisely because no prior foundation had been laid
for it.

Indeed, that is why I cited /The Amazing Spider Man 2/: I thought you
were objecting to something that really /was/ over the top, as occurs
in that film.

What I saw was perfectly reasonable, given the preparatory scenes.

<snippo>

>> As I have noted before, "true love" has a long tradition in Western
>> culture. No attempt at showing "true love" exists here.
>
>What does "real love" mean that makes it difference to "true love"? I mean,
>you're effectively saying that these two terms are quantifiable and that
>one is more or less than the other, so I am asking you to explain how they
>differ.

No, I am saying that, in this context, they are two differen concepts
altogether.

>> Thranduil, not 15 minutes before, assured her that what she felt for
>> Kili was /not real/ because an Elf could not feel /real love/ for a
>> Dwarf. IIRC, this is just after (but may be just before) he cuts her
>> bow in half with his sword while she is trying to make him stand up
>> and be an Elf as opposed to slinking away like a coward.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> Now he is admitting that an Elf /can/ feel real love for a Dwarf.
>> The issue is the reality of her feelings, not their depth. She could
>> have loved him like a brother, and the love would have been just as
>> real.
>
>Again - I am not talking about the words used, but the supposed deep love
>she felt for Kili. She wept over him and wanted her feelings to go away,
>because the severity of her supposed love was to great a burden.

You appear to be the only one among me, yourself, and Thranduil who
believe she has a "deep love" for Kili; however, if we revert to "true
love" for a moment, there are other posters who appear to may or may
not agree with you. She has some sort of love for him, but it could
just be friendship, or she could love him as a brother. And its depth
is not measured.

People mourn friends and siblings just as they do lovers.

Or is that just "fairy tale" stuff to you as well?

>> This has /nothing/ to do with "true love". The concept of "true
>> love" is that each individual has a single, unique "true love"
>> somewhere in the world, and each individual's job is to find and
>> bond with that "true love".
>
>Ok, so maybe we're just disagreeing about this supposed difference in the
>terms. "True love" to me is just a fairy tale term, and totally
>interchangeable with "real love". It's a moot point, since neither can
>imply the at most affectionate relationship they may have had time to build
>during the scenes we see them in.

It is not possible to use a word properly if you do not know what it
means. And it makes no difference where it gets its meaning from. What
matters is what its meaning is.

>> This is why "true love" can only come once.
>
>That is, if your name is Cinderella. I think applying disney logic to any
>other movie is a bit far-fetched.

Your contempt for fairy tales misleads you.

How long did it take Romeo and Juliet to fall in love? It's been a
while since I read the play, but didn't they just have to catch sight
of each other and -- BAM!

When I said "Western tradition", I /meant/ "Western tradition".

And I bet you never even considered Aristophanes and the Symposium.

[Taemon]

On 15-1-2015 18:44, Paul S. Person wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:22:36 +0100, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 14-1-2015 19:10, Paul S. Person wrote:
>>> Briefly, "true love" is unique: everybody gets exactly one, with one
>>> specific individual -- and if you don't find that individual, neither
>>> of you ever find (your) "true love".
>> Do you mean in the Tolkienverse or in movies?
> I meant "in the Western tradition", a much wider field than just the
> moves or the Tolkienverse.

Mmm, I don't know if it doesn't exist in other tradition too, I think it
does.

> But the assertion that it was "true love" is Sandmans,

Hey, don't drag me into your idiotic discussion. I just wanted to know
what you meant by ""true love"".

[Sandman]

In article <s4vfba1squda7vhn4...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I have already admitted that I went too far, and have apologized
> > > for it. I hereby apologize for it again.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Ok - just to be clear here - you are by the above retracting your
> > claim that I want an action movie or "action" as substitute for
> > boring scenes?
>
> I am retracting any claim I made that you want an Action Movie.

> That you want some form of action (which, if I may be so bold as to
> point this out, must clearly be more than just Katniss singing, for
> you objected to that as well) instead of scenes where "nothing
> happens", is still just as clear as you want it to be.

I.e. not at all - given the fact that I never ever said that I want "some
form of action".

> > Sandman:

> > Have we finally arrived at this? After almost two months? That
> > would be awesome.
>
> That depends on you. Are you willing to admit that, by rejecting
> scenes notable for their lack of any action at all, you are showing
> a preference for some action?

You know, that's the kind of question you wouldn't need to ask me, had you
had the ability to read what I answered you when you insisted again and
again that I wanted "action". Like here:

"Again with the action. I hope it has better pacing and that
Jennifer has learned to emote."

/ Sandman- 11/28/2014

That's a quote, from me, that is being really clear about what my
"preference" is. And it's quite clear to someone fluent in English that
"action" is not part of it.

"And now you're back to talking about action. I've never said
it's an action flick, I've never said it should be an
action flick."
/ Sandman- 11/27/2014

Both me saying it isn't an action flick and clearly stating that I've never
said that I want it to be an "action flick". Here is me answering you when
you told me that I expected to see an action movie:

"I would hate that."
/ Sandman- 11/26/2014

And when you say that everything I object to is "not action", with the
supposed implication that if I object to something that isn't action, then
I must want it to be action, as if those are the only two possible ways to
portray a scene, this is my reply:

"Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many
times (and which you have snipped many times) is that the
remedy for boredom isn't automatically "action", unless
your name is Michael Bay."

/ Sandman- 12/01/2014

Again, making it very clear that I don't want the things I object to to be
replaced with "action".

> Not, to be sure, the sort of action seen in an Action Movie. I am
> not saying you want to see Katniss take down a helicopter with an
> automobile, for example. Not at all. But I am saying you want to see
> some sort of action (however mild) in every scene.

Yeah, this is what you have been reduced to - you can't retract your claim
because your pride won't allow for it, so you have to retcon the word
"action" to mean "just about any action", i.e. "an event taking place".

> > > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > > Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the
> > > > > > third movie.
> > > > >

> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > Which means, what?
> >
> > Sandman:

> > That I did see it, and thus "picked up" on it. I just disagree
> > with your (and the movie's) label on the relationship.
>
> But what you picked up appeared to me to be that Tauriel's reaction
> was over the top precisely because no prior foundation had been laid
> for it.

Exactly. But not because I missed the flirting, but because they had not
had enough time to develop any kind of love for each other.

> > Sandman:

> > Again - I am not talking about the words used, but the supposed
> > deep love she felt for Kili. She wept over him and wanted her
> > feelings to go away, because the severity of her supposed love
> > was to great a burden.
>
> You appear to be the only one among me, yourself, and Thranduil who
> believe she has a "deep love" for Kili

Enough for her to say:

"If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does it hurt
so much?"

And, as I've said many times now, for "love" to "hurt that much", they need
to be given the proper time to develop that love.

> She has some sort of love for him, but it could just be friendship, or
> she could love him as a brother. And its depth is not measured.

She. Just. Met. Him. Literally. Tauriel, the wood eld, would not come to
"love" a dwarf like a *brother* after having flirted with him in a dungeon,
mended his wound once, be with him in a boat and then talked to him on a
beach.

*THAT'S* what's far-fetched and over the top. Regardless of what kind of
love you want to label it as, it was certainly MORE than a more appropriate
affection or "like" for one of those dwarves.

> People mourn friends and siblings just as they do lovers.

> Or is that just "fairy tale" stuff to you as well?

When applied to people that have had three scenes together, then yes, that
kind of "Instant Love" is pure fairy tale and out of place.

Even fairy tales these days don't use it because it's illogical.

> > Sandman:

> > Ok, so maybe we're just disagreeing about this supposed difference
> > in the terms. "True love" to me is just a fairy tale term, and
> > totally interchangeable with "real love". It's a moot point,
> > since neither can imply the at most affectionate relationship
> > they may have had time to build during the scenes we see them in.
>
> It is not possible to use a word properly if you do not know what it
> means. And it makes no difference where it gets its meaning from.
> What matters is what its meaning is.

Please. We're not talking about *a* word, we're talking about a phrase. And
both words and phrases can have many different meanings. Just look at you
trying to bend over backwards to give the word "action" new meaning.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > This is why "true love" can only come once.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > That is, if your name is Cinderella. I think applying disney logic
> > to any other movie is a bit far-fetched.
>
> Your contempt for fairy tales misleads you.

There is no such contempt, so that's a non sequitur.




--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:59:05 +0100, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

>On 15-1-2015 18:44, Paul S. Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:22:36 +0100, Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14-1-2015 19:10, Paul S. Person wrote:
>>>> Briefly, "true love" is unique: everybody gets exactly one, with one
>>>> specific individual -- and if you don't find that individual, neither
>>>> of you ever find (your) "true love".
>>> Do you mean in the Tolkienverse or in movies?
>> I meant "in the Western tradition", a much wider field than just the
>> moves or the Tolkienverse.
>
>Mmm, I don't know if it doesn't exist in other tradition too, I think it
>does.

It may indeed.

But JRRT doesn't. And neither do PJ & accomplices.

So the Western Tradition is all that need concern us here.

>> But the assertion that it was "true love" is Sandmans,
>
>Hey, don't drag me into your idiotic discussion. I just wanted to know
>what you meant by ""true love"".

Sorry about that.

I just didn't want you to think that I had introduced the term.

[Paul S. Person]

On 15 Jan 2015 22:12:50 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <s4vfba1squda7vhn4...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> That you want some form of action (which, if I may be so bold as to
>> point this out, must clearly be more than just Katniss singing, for
>> you objected to that as well) instead of scenes where "nothing
>> happens", is still just as clear as you want it to be.
>
>I.e. not at all - given the fact that I never ever said that I want "some
>form of action".

Perhaps if I said "that you want some sort of activity" in those
scenes it would be more palatable. Not to mention a whole lot clearer.

>> But what you picked up appeared to me to be that Tauriel's reaction
>> was over the top precisely because no prior foundation had been laid
>> for it.
>
>Exactly. But not because I missed the flirting, but because they had not
>had enough time to develop any kind of love for each other.

Rather than get sucked into the same-old same-old (on both sides, mind
you), let me point out that my statement of what "true love" means
versus what "real love" means was meant to explain /why I think them
different/.

As long as you understand the distinction, that is enough. You don't
have to accept it. Or refute it. Merely understand it.

If you want to live in a world where, when you say of someone that she
loves him "truly, deeply, really" you have said the same thing three
times, that is your privilege.

I prefer to live in a world where, when I say of someone that she
loves him "truly, deeply, really", I have said three different things.

[Sandman]

In article <psjiba5ioun8pa0fp...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > I.e. not at all - given the fact that I never ever said that I
> > want "some form of action".
>
> Perhaps if I said "that you want some sort of activity" in those
> scenes it would be more palatable. Not to mention a whole lot
> clearer.

Hilarious. Here is an array of susbtantiation that you can snip and run
away from again. I inlucde it for (the appearant) other readers so no one
could ever claim I don't support my claims:

So when I said that the Mockingjay movie was a "snore fest", and you
replied with:

"Perhaps you would prefer /Divergent/. I haven't and don't
plan to read that series, but it certainly had a lot of
action"

You meant that the Divergetn movie had a lot of "activities"?

And when you said this:

"I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an
Action Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie

(BDSAM)."

You meant to say "Activity Movie"? And when you also said this:

"These books/films, however, are so far from being BDSAM that they
aren't even Action; they are a war story."

You meant to say that Mockingjay wasn't even "Activity"? And here as well:

"So, the only "padding", in fact, consists in action
sequences. Not the boring stuff you are complaining about."

You apparently meant "activity sequences", then? Also, here:

"The stuff from Mockingjay that made it into Part 1 is not nonstop
action."

You meant that Mockingjay part 1 isn't non-stop activities, then. And then
there's:

"This is not an action flick."

Meaning, Mockingjay is not an activities flick, whatever that means.
Apparently, according to you - there are more "activities" in the next
movie:

"and, that said, you aren't going to like the next movie any

better, although it should have more action in it"

And:

"the second film should have a fair amount of squad-level action."

I.e. "squad-level activities", meaning things like workout and perhaps a
lunch break I suppose? But then you say this:

"Everything you object to is not action."

And here it's harder to susbstitute with "activities", because all I've
complained about most certainly falls under the definition of "activity",
like eating, standing, talking, walking, eating, walking, standing,
looking, standing and walking. You then say:

"The action sequences, including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense
that they aren't in the book, you don't object to."

Not sure what "activity sequence" you're supposedly in reference to here.
Is it when they're waling, standing, talking, eating, standing, talking,
eating or standing?

I have atons of more of these examples where you've clearly used the word
"action" in the normal sense of the word as it relates to movies - i.e.
some scene with fights/explosions/chase/crashing/whatever. Not merely some
form of "activity" going on.

This is the level of disingenious person you are. You're too proud to admit
to having made a mistake and you will try to retcon history to fit an
alternate but illogical definition of a word.

Here are some of my replies to these multitude claims of yours, where I
*clearly* explained exactly what I missed and would have wanted instead of
those boring scenes:

"Scenes does not need to have action in them to not be boring."

"I've never said it's an action flick, I've never said it should
be an action flick."

"Then you're mistaken." (reply to your claim that it's clear to you that
I want an action movie)

"I hope it has better pacing and that Jennifer has learned to emote."

(me expliclty denouncing "action" and explicitly stating what I want)

"Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many
times (and which you have snipped many times) is that the
remedy for boredom isn't automatically "action", unless
your name is Michael Bay."

And so on, rinse and repeat. And here you are, still arguing that you were
right all along in spite of all these quotes proving you wrong.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > But what you picked up appeared to me to be that Tauriel's
> > > reaction was over the top precisely because no prior foundation
> > > had been laid for it.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Exactly. But not because I missed the flirting, but because they
> > had not had enough time to develop any kind of love for each
> > other.
>
> Rather than get sucked into the same-old same-old (on both sides,
> mind you), let me point out that my statement of what "true love"
> means versus what "real love" means was meant to explain /why I
> think them different/.

I don't care, the difference - if any - between "true love" and "real love"
is not important to my point - that any supposed love between these
characters had not been established, not any love that would warrant tears
to an elf over a dwarf.

Now go and snip this post up in your reply so you can pretend some things
weren't proven without a doubt.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <slrnmbo7r7....@kreme.eternal-september.org>, Lewis wrote:

> > Wayne Brown:

> > I'm using a ridiculous exaggeration to make my point clear.)
>

> That's a perfect explanation of the parts of this inane thread I've
> accidentally read. Personally, I stopped paying attention when
> sandman claimed Jennifer Lawrence couldn't act.

She's an awesome actress, but sucks in the Hunger Games movies,
unfortunately. Lost potential.

> > Wayne Brown:

> > Anyway, that's how I see what both of you are saying. But who
> > knows what I've "missed" or failed to "pick up on" in your
> > discussion? I probably should have stuck to my intention to stay
> > out of it.
>

> Probably. I can't say I agree with either one of them and I don't
> understand why they are going on an on about the first half of
> Mockingjay.

Not much. The current thread is about Paul being unable to substantiate
explicit claims he's made about another poster (me).

> For my part, I don't consider it to be a completed movie, it really
> is the first half.

Indeed.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 19 Jan 2015 14:03:58 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

1) I am not saying that /every time/ I used "action" I meant something
less strong than I established as that word's meaning. Indeed, I
usually do use "action" in the sense of "action movie" or, at least,
"the sort of thing one would expect to see in an action movie".

What I /am/ saying, and have apologized for, is that I mis-used
"action" when that meaning did not apply.

I should indeed have used "activity" or something else other than
"action" in contexts like this:

> "So, the only "padding", in fact, consists in action
> sequences. Not the boring stuff you are complaining about."
>
>You apparently meant "activity sequences", then? Also, here:

Consider our iconic exchange:

You: I don't want action. How many times do I have to tell you this?
Me: But your own words clearly show that you do want action.

Suppose, instead, it had gone like this:

You: I don't want action. How many times do I have to tell you this?
Me: But your own words clearly show that you do want some sort of
activity.

Would this not have been much clearer?

It was wrong for me to imply that you wanted the Hunger Games films to
be Die Hard films. It was not wrong for me to infer, from your
description of the scenes you did not like, that you wanted to see
something more active in them.

And that is all I am saying on this point.

>I don't care, the difference - if any - between "true love" and "real love"
>is not important to my point - that any supposed love between these
>characters had not been established, not any love that would warrant tears
>to an elf over a dwarf.

Fine.

You saw it one way and I saw it another. This happens. Your view of
the matter is not determinative of anyone elses. Nor, for that matter,
is mine.

This is why I do not regard your statements in this regard as
deceptive: they were not deceptive, they honestly reflected your view
of the matter. But when I saw the film, I reached a different
conclusion.

I had no problem believing, on the basis of what had gone before, that
she was truly affected by his death. As I have stated before, I never
thought it was "true love" except when you asserted it before I had
seen the movie.

What Thranduil is talking about is "real love". He is saying that
whatever it is that she feels for the dwarf, it is real and not, as he
asserted just 15 minutes earlier, illusory.

What he said had /nothing/ to do with what type or depth of love she
felt, only whether or not she was fooling herself in believing that
she felt it.

And I thought you were saying that there is no difference between the
two. But perhaps I was mistaken.

[Sandman]

In article <7rgqba5hepq795rro...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> 1) I am not saying that /every time/ I used "action" I meant
> something less strong than I established as that word's meaning.
> Indeed, I usually do use "action" in the sense of "action movie" or,
> at least, "the sort of thing one would expect to see in an action
> movie".

Which I've repeatedly told you I was not looking for.

> What I /am/ saying, and have apologized for, is that I mis-used
> "action" when that meaning did not apply.

BUt you've yet to apologize for claiming that I want "action" in the scenes
I objected to for being boring. This is a false statement of yours and
you've yet to admit to it.

> > "So, the only "padding", in fact, consists in action sequences.
> > Not the boring stuff you are complaining about."
>
> > You apparently meant "activity sequences", then? Also, here:
>
> Consider our iconic exchange:

> You: I don't want action. How many times do I have to tell you this?
> Me: But your own words clearly show that you do want action.

> Suppose, instead, it had gone like this:

> You: I don't want action. How many times do I have to tell you this?
> Me: But your own words clearly show that you do want some sort of
> activity.

> Would this not have been much clearer?

See how *your* statement needs to change for things to become clearer, not
mine? You've told me over and over again that it's "clear" that I wanted
Mockingjay to be an action movie and/or the scenes I thought were boring
should have been action scenes - when in fact I have been very clear that
this is NOT what I want.

> It was wrong for me to imply that you wanted the Hunger Games films
> to be Die Hard films. It was not wrong for me to infer, from your
> description of the scenes you did not like, that you wanted to see
> something more active in them.

What you supposedly inferred and what you wrote differed, so I can't take
that into account

> And that is all I am saying on this point.

I.e. you're never going to admit to having made false statements about what
I want. Gotcha.

> > Sandman:

> > I don't care, the difference - if any - between "true love" and
> > "real love" is not important to my point - that any supposed love
> > between these characters had not been established, not any love
> > that would warrant tears to an elf over a dwarf.
>
> Fine.

> You saw it one way and I saw it another. This happens. Your view of
> the matter is not determinative of anyone elses. Nor, for that
> matter, is mine.

Of course not, we're only having this conversations because you incorrectly
claimed that I didn't "pick up" on the love story.

> This is why I do not regard your statements in this regard as
> deceptive: they were not deceptive, they honestly reflected your
> view of the matter. But when I saw the film, I reached a different
> conclusion.

Which is fine, no problem with that. People have different opinions. I am
only here to counter the explicit claims you've made about *me*, not the
movie or your own opinions.

> What Thranduil is talking about is "real love". He is saying that
> whatever it is that she feels for the dwarf, it is real and not, as
> he asserted just 15 minutes earlier, illusory.

The distinction is irrelevant to the point.

> What he said had /nothing/ to do with what type or depth of love she
> felt, only whether or not she was fooling herself in believing that
> she felt it.

Her reaction and her words show the supposed depth that this supposed love
is supposed to be, not Thranduil. He is not the arbiter of Tauriels "love
depth".

> And I thought you were saying that there is no difference between
> the two. But perhaps I was mistaken.

I do say they're the same in this context. But they're just words. At that
point in time, Tauriel and Kili had spent enough time together for Tauriel
to develop perhaps a slight fondness, or friendship or perhaps just a
fascination for Kili.

Now, the other way around is less turbulent. While dwarves are unlikely to
fall in love with elves as well, his fascination with her can most
certainly be attributed in part to her being a strikingly beautiful elf,
and we've had other instances where dwarves have been "enchanted" by the
beauty of elves in LotR. While Gimli may not have fallen in love with
Galadriel, he was most certainly enchanted by her. And not in a sorcery
kind of way.

The entire "love at first sight" storyline of movies and fairy tales have
gone out of style more or less. Modern stories actually mock it somewhat,
especially Disney these days. The audience of today is not so easily fooled
and for them to relate to on-screen love, it needs to be built in a
beliveable fashion.

Now, Tauriel and Kili has levels of improbability on top of that, being elf
and dwarf, which the common moviegoer may not be aware of, but even if
Tauriel was a beautiful dwarf woman or Kili was an elf, it's still too much
in too little time. Like too much butter scraped over not enough bread, so
to speak.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 20 Jan 2015 07:11:37 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <7rgqba5hepq795rro...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

>> Suppose, instead, it had gone like this:
>
>> You: I don't want action. How many times do I have to tell you this?
>> Me: But your own words clearly show that you do want some sort of
>> activity.
>
>> Would this not have been much clearer?
>
>See how *your* statement needs to change for things to become clearer, not
>mine? You've told me over and over again that it's "clear" that I wanted
>Mockingjay to be an action movie and/or the scenes I thought were boring
>should have been action scenes - when in fact I have been very clear that
>this is NOT what I want.

That is why I have admitted that the problem was my fault and
apologized for it.

When I "told [you] over and over again that it's "clear" that [you]
wanted Mockingjay to be an action movie and/or the scenes [you]
thought were boring should have been action scenes", I should have
said something like the change shown above. Using, and continuing to
use /after establishing its meaning/, the word "action" when it was
not appropriate /in that meaning/ was wrong and I have admitted this
and apologized for it.

As to your "not picking up on the love story", I was basing that on
your assertion that Tauriel's crying over Kili was over-the-top and
that no proper preparation for it had been made. What I saw was not
over-the-top (if you want over-the-top crying, I recommend /The
Amazing Spider-Man 2/), and followed naturally from what had gone
before.

I really do not understand your need to try to justify your reaction
to the Elf/Dwarf relationship. You aren't going to change my mind,
which is based on my viewing of the films, and I am perfectly content
to let you continue on with yours, which is, of course, based on your
viewing of the films.

Your recent introduction of "depth" is also puzzling; IIRC, it was
"true" that you were insisting on. But perhaps it was there at the
start, and I have simply forgotten it.

I do note that you are now allowing that Tauriel may have developed

"perhaps a slight fondness, or friendship or perhaps just a

fascination for Kili". Whatever the intentions of the filmmakers may
have been, I don't think they actually showed enough to justify more
than that.

I do wonder whether you have factored in the several weeks (months?)
the Dwarves were in the dungeon before Bilbo got them out. I don't
recall this being mentioned in the second Hobbit movie and, indeed,
given PJ & accomplices' demonstrated lack of respect for JRRT's
timelines, it is possible that they also regarded it as lasting only a
day or two. If present in the film, it would greatly extend the time
the two had to flirt through the cell door.

As to recent Disney films, they illustrate something that also shows
up in /The Hunger Games/: the use of "true love" to mean merely that A
is not deliberately deceiving B. In /Frozen/, this involves a supposed
Prince whom the Princess believes is her true love; in /The Hunger
Games/, this involves Katniss in the cave. In both cases, however, it
is used negatively: that is is, neither love is "true" in the sense of
not being faked. This is a rather vapid meaning of "true"; however, if
it happens to be the meaning you prefer, I will concede that Tauriel's
love for Kili was true, meaning only that she was not deceiving him.
It is the more elaborate meaning, the source of such expressions as
"my better half", that I have in mind when I say that Tauriel's love
does not, for me, appear to be "true".

In contrast, when Thranduil is saying that her love is /real/, he is
saying that she is not fooling herself. And that is what I heard him
say in the film -- and the point is not /that/ her love is real, it is
that Thranduil now recognizes it as real, something he had denied not
15 minutes before. That scene is about Thranduil as much as it is
about Tauriel. IMHO, of course.

[Sandman]

In article <6c4tba92fn3sc9ltp...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Suppose, instead, it had gone like this:
> >
> > > You: I don't want action. How many times do I have to tell you
> > > this? Me: But your own words clearly show that you do want some
> > > sort of activity.
> >
> > > Would this not have been much clearer?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > See how *your* statement needs to change for things to become
> > clearer, not mine? You've told me over and over again that it's
> > "clear" that I wanted Mockingjay to be an action movie and/or the
> > scenes I thought were boring should have been action scenes -
> > when in fact I have been very clear that this is NOT what I want.
>
> That is why I have admitted that the problem was my fault and
> apologized for it.

> When I "told [you] over and over again that it's "clear" that [you]
> wanted Mockingjay to be an action movie and/or the scenes [you]
> thought were boring should have been action scenes", I should have
> said something like the change shown above. Using, and continuing to
> use /after establishing its meaning/, the word "action" when it was
> not appropriate /in that meaning/ was wrong and I have admitted this
> and apologized for it.

Yes, now you have. Earlier you seemed to only apologie for claiming that I
wanted it to be an action movie.

Either way, apology accepted.

> As to your "not picking up on the love story", I was basing that on
> your assertion that Tauriel's crying over Kili was over-the-top and
> that no proper preparation for it had been made.

Which it is my personal opinion that there wasn't. You are free to disagree
with that without claiming I supposedly "missed" something.

> What I saw was not over-the-top (if you want over-the-top crying, I
> recommend /The Amazing Spider-Man 2/), and followed naturally from what
> had gone before.

And I disagree, and have explained why.

> I really do not understand your need to try to justify your reaction
> to the Elf/Dwarf relationship. You aren't going to change my mind,
> which is based on my viewing of the films, and I am perfectly
> content to let you continue on with yours, which is, of course,
> based on your viewing of the films.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I have said many times that these
are just opinions, not "facts". And in the text you snipped away I
specifically said that the only reason we're talking about this is because
you made an incorrect claim about me; that I didn't "pick up" on something
in the movies. I did, I have shown that I did, and my opinion on its
significance differs from yours.

> Your recent introduction of "depth" is also puzzling; IIRC, it was
> "true" that you were insisting on. But perhaps it was there at the
> start, and I have simply forgotten it.

It's just a word. "true love" or "real love" makes no difference to my
point, as I said in the text you snipped in your followup. It's that there
was any love at all that was illogical.

real/true is just a modifier to the word "love", which in itself already
carries a deep connotation, and the word "real" strengthens that
connotation.

But again - as I said in what you snipped - it's just a word, and it's not
even something Tauriel "feels", it's what Thranduil claims, and he is no
authority on Tauriels supposed feelings, he's just explaining what he sees.
And what he, and we, see is way too much feelings from Tauriel towards Kili
than is warranted by the preceeding events. Again, obviously, according to
me.

> I do note that you are now allowing that Tauriel may have developed
> "perhaps a slight fondness, or friendship or perhaps just a
> fascination for Kili". Whatever the intentions of the filmmakers may
> have been, I don't think they actually showed enough to justify more
> than that.

Then her weeping is way over the top for that feeling, and her wanting
those feelings to go away. I quoted her words earlier, but you snipped
them.

> I do wonder whether you have factored in the several weeks (months?)
> the Dwarves were in the dungeon before Bilbo got them out.

That's in the book. In the movies, they weren't. If it's not shown in any
way, then it doesn't happen. And still, even if you were to try to claim
that they COULD have been there for (far) longer than is shown, we - the
audience - still need to *see* their supposed relationship develop for it
to be believable.

> As to recent Disney films, they illustrate something that also shows
> up in /The Hunger Games/: the use of "true love" to mean merely that
> A is not deliberately deceiving B. In /Frozen/, this involves a
> supposed Prince whom the Princess believes is her true love;

That's Disney making fun of the "love at first sight" idea from older fairy
tales (and earlier Disney movies).

> In contrast, when Thranduil is saying that her love is /real/, he is
> saying that she is not fooling herself. And that is what I heard him
> say in the film -- and the point is not /that/ her love is real, it
> is that Thranduil now recognizes it as real, something he had denied
> not 15 minutes before. That scene is about Thranduil as much as it
> is about Tauriel. IMHO, of course.

And it's totally nonsensical. First off, for story-internal reasons;
nothing has changed between then and now to him. All he sees is Tauriel
weeping over a dead dwarf. And secondly, it's the concept of there being
any *love* at all between them that is logic-defying to their entire story
arc.

Indeed, there were more buildup for Eowyn to love Aragorn, more on-screen
development of her feelings towards him, more actual reason for her to fall
in love with Aragorn, and they were both human so no racial borders to defy
logic even!


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 21 Jan 2015 08:06:04 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <6c4tba92fn3sc9ltp...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

>Either way, apology accepted.

So, issue resolved?

>> What I saw was not over-the-top (if you want over-the-top crying, I
>> recommend /The Amazing Spider-Man 2/), and followed naturally from what
>> had gone before.
>
>And I disagree, and have explained why.

Indeed you have, and you are entitled to your opinion.

>> I really do not understand your need to try to justify your reaction
>> to the Elf/Dwarf relationship. You aren't going to change my mind,
>> which is based on my viewing of the films, and I am perfectly
>> content to let you continue on with yours, which is, of course,
>> based on your viewing of the films.
>
>I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I have said many times that these
>are just opinions, not "facts". And in the text you snipped away I
>specifically said that the only reason we're talking about this is because
>you made an incorrect claim about me; that I didn't "pick up" on something
>in the movies. I did, I have shown that I did, and my opinion on its
>significance differs from yours.

Which is what this bit was in response to:

>> As to your "not picking up on the love story", I was basing that on
>> your assertion that Tauriel's crying over Kili was over-the-top and
>> that no proper preparation for it had been made.

which is my explanation for why I believed you had not picked up on
the story.

>Which it is my personal opinion that there wasn't. You are free to disagree
>with that without claiming I supposedly "missed" something.

I also apologize for that claim, as it has turned out to be false.

>> Your recent introduction of "depth" is also puzzling; IIRC, it was
>> "true" that you were insisting on. But perhaps it was there at the
>> start, and I have simply forgotten it.
>
>It's just a word. "true love" or "real love" makes no difference to my
>point, as I said in the text you snipped in your followup. It's that there
>was any love at all that was illogical.

Romantic love, perhaps; but that is not the only kind of love.
Friendship, for example, is a form of love, it just isn't romantic.

>> I do note that you are now allowing that Tauriel may have developed
>> "perhaps a slight fondness, or friendship or perhaps just a
>> fascination for Kili". Whatever the intentions of the filmmakers may
>> have been, I don't think they actually showed enough to justify more
>> than that.
>
>Then her weeping is way over the top for that feeling, and her wanting
>those feelings to go away. I quoted her words earlier, but you snipped
>them.

In your opinion. Not in mine. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

>> I do wonder whether you have factored in the several weeks (months?)
>> the Dwarves were in the dungeon before Bilbo got them out.
>
>That's in the book. In the movies, they weren't. If it's not shown in any
>way, then it doesn't happen. And still, even if you were to try to claim
>that they COULD have been there for (far) longer than is shown, we - the
>audience - still need to *see* their supposed relationship develop for it
>to be believable.

Agreed in that, if PJ & accomplices wanted Tauriel and Kili to be
involved romantically, they failed. And part of that failure is not
making clear how much time they had together in the dungeon (albeit on
opposite sides of the cell door).

>> As to recent Disney films, they illustrate something that also shows
>> up in /The Hunger Games/: the use of "true love" to mean merely that
>> A is not deliberately deceiving B. In /Frozen/, this involves a
>> supposed Prince whom the Princess believes is her true love;
>
>That's Disney making fun of the "love at first sight" idea from older fairy
>tales (and earlier Disney movies).

Well, maybe it is. But then, there is the yak-herder (or whatever he
is supposed to be). They could just be trying to introduce a plot
twist.

Still, several more recent animated films have seemed, to me, to be
having fun with the standard plot elements. Which I find entertaining.

>> In contrast, when Thranduil is saying that her love is /real/, he is
>> saying that she is not fooling herself. And that is what I heard him
>> say in the film -- and the point is not /that/ her love is real, it
>> is that Thranduil now recognizes it as real, something he had denied
>> not 15 minutes before. That scene is about Thranduil as much as it
>> is about Tauriel. IMHO, of course.
>
>And it's totally nonsensical. First off, for story-internal reasons;
>nothing has changed between then and now to him. All he sees is Tauriel
>weeping over a dead dwarf. And secondly, it's the concept of there being
>any *love* at all between them that is logic-defying to their entire story
>arc.

We don't know that. He admission to Tauriel may be the indication that
something /has/ changed, just off-screen, who can say?

Again, I think we are supposed to relate this to the death of his
wife, which Legolas tells Tauriel (and so us) about earlier in the
film. That is, I think we are supposed to take it that he recognized
in Tauriel the same feelings he had when his wife died. This sort of
thing happens all the time; people even have special nerve cells
dedicated to figuring out what someone else is feeling. Well, most
people do, anyway; sociopaths may not.

But I would hardly say that this was clear. What /is/ clear is that
his opinion on this issue has changed. And that he uses the word
"real", and that it clearly means, to him, that Tauriel was not
fooling herself about her feelings (whatever they may have been) for
the Dwarf. And that neither this nor anything else in the film has
anything to do with "true" or "deep", which serve only as distractors.

As to their story-arc: this is in your opinion. My opinion differs.

>Indeed, there were more buildup for Eowyn to love Aragorn, more on-screen
>development of her feelings towards him, more actual reason for her to fall
>in love with Aragorn, and they were both human so no racial borders to defy
>logic even!

I'm not sure "racial" is the best word to use here although Trent Lott
would certainly agree with you.

Here's a hint: try not to sound like a known racist. Unless, of
course, you happen to be one (which, in your case, I doubt).

The first time I read /LOTR/ I was very puzzled and upset at Aragorn's
indifference to Eowyn. In the book, unless the reader is very quick on
the uptake (well, clearly quicker than I was), the reader has no idea
he is affianced to Arwen until she pops up at the end.

[Sandman]

In article <c5ovba9cjhnstr578...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Your recent introduction of "depth" is also puzzling; IIRC, it
> > > was "true" that you were insisting on. But perhaps it was there
> > > at the start, and I have simply forgotten it.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > It's just a word. "true love" or "real love" makes no difference
> > to my point, as I said in the text you snipped in your followup.
> > It's that there was any love at all that was illogical.
>
> Romantic love, perhaps; but that is not the only kind of love.
> Friendship, for example, is a form of love, it just isn't romantic.

There was no events in the movie prior to that scene that would have the
audience believe there was any love of any kind. That said, it's clear that
the moviemaker's wanted their relationship to be more than just mere
"friendship". The tears the dwarves shed over all fallen dwarves are tears
of having lost a leader and a friend, and those tears have been
thouroughly built up in all preceeding movies, where it's not over the top
or out of place for them to weep over their comrades.

> > Sandman:

> > And it's totally nonsensical. First off, for story-internal
> > reasons; nothing has changed between then and now to him. All he
> > sees is Tauriel weeping over a dead dwarf. And secondly, it's the
> > concept of there being any *love* at all between them that is
> > logic-defying to their entire story arc.
>
> We don't know that. He admission to Tauriel may be the indication
> that something /has/ changed, just off-screen, who can say?

That's the point - for us, the audience, nothing has changed. A story
untold is not a story. You can't just have a scene with two mortal enemies
fighting, cut away and then cut back to them giving each other piggy back
rides. When telling a story, especially when considering character
development, the events that lead to someone changing their mind needs to
be shown. If it isn't, they are changing their mind without reason, even if
the moviemaker meant for the reason to be off-screen while something else
happened.

A story is self-sustained and can not hinge on unknown parameters only
known to the storyteller.

> Again, I think we are supposed to relate this to the death of his
> wife, which Legolas tells Tauriel (and so us) about earlier in the
> film.

Again, that doesn't make much sense either. His wife was as dead in the
first scene as in the second. Nothing has changed.

> That is, I think we are supposed to take it that he recognized
> in Tauriel the same feelings he had when his wife died.

Which, I'm sure you agree, wasn't "friendship love".

> But I would hardly say that this was clear. What /is/ clear is that his
> opinion on this issue has changed. And that he uses the word "real", and
> that it clearly means, to him, that Tauriel was not fooling herself about
> her feelings (whatever they may have been) for the Dwarf. And that
> neither this nor anything else in the film has anything to do with "true"
> or "deep", which serve only as distractors.

In the context, it's the same thing.

> > Sandman:

> > Indeed, there were more buildup for Eowyn to love Aragorn, more
> > on-screen development of her feelings towards him, more actual
> > reason for her to fall in love with Aragorn, and they were both
> > human so no racial borders to defy logic even!
>
> I'm not sure "racial" is the best word to use here although Trent
> Lott would certainly agree with you.

> Here's a hint: try not to sound like a known racist. Unless, of
> course, you happen to be one (which, in your case, I doubt).

Huh? Tauriel and Kili are members of two different races in Middle Earth.
That's the word "racial" in the biology sense, they are different taxonomic
ranks, and even species.

Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human classification, has
nothing to do with it.

> The first time I read /LOTR/ I was very puzzled and upset at
> Aragorn's indifference to Eowyn. In the book, unless the reader is
> very quick on the uptake (well, clearly quicker than I was), the
> reader has no idea he is affianced to Arwen until she pops up at the
> end.

True, but there is no doubt that Eowyn has very strong feelings for
Aragorn, and it's completely logical. Eowyn admires his resolv and his
character. They don't have that many scenes together (at least not as many
as in the movie) yet no one is questioning the reasons for her feelings. He
is a suitable spouse for him in every sense of the word.

Tauriel... well, she... Hmmm, I guess she thinks Kili is tall... for a
dwarf... So, why does she like him, again?


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 22 Jan 2015 12:38:09 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <c5ovba9cjhnstr578...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > Your recent introduction of "depth" is also puzzling; IIRC, it
>> > > was "true" that you were insisting on. But perhaps it was there
>> > > at the start, and I have simply forgotten it.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > It's just a word. "true love" or "real love" makes no difference
>> > to my point, as I said in the text you snipped in your followup.
>> > It's that there was any love at all that was illogical.
>>
>> Romantic love, perhaps; but that is not the only kind of love.
>> Friendship, for example, is a form of love, it just isn't romantic.
>
>There was no events in the movie prior to that scene that would have the
>audience believe there was any love of any kind. That said, it's clear that
>the moviemaker's wanted their relationship to be more than just mere
>"friendship". The tears the dwarves shed over all fallen dwarves are tears
>of having lost a leader and a friend, and those tears have been
>thouroughly built up in all preceeding movies, where it's not over the top
>or out of place for them to weep over their comrades.

So we agree, more or less, on what the filmmakers intended, and how
they failed to achieve it? (It worked better for me than for you, but
still, as I have noted several times, if they were trying for anything
romantic beyond preliminary interest in each other, they failed for
me.)

>> > Sandman:
>> > And it's totally nonsensical. First off, for story-internal
>> > reasons; nothing has changed between then and now to him. All he
>> > sees is Tauriel weeping over a dead dwarf. And secondly, it's the
>> > concept of there being any *love* at all between them that is
>> > logic-defying to their entire story arc.
>>
>> We don't know that. He admission to Tauriel may be the indication
>> that something /has/ changed, just off-screen, who can say?
>
>That's the point - for us, the audience, nothing has changed. A story
>untold is not a story. You can't just have a scene with two mortal enemies
>fighting, cut away and then cut back to them giving each other piggy back
>rides. When telling a story, especially when considering character
>development, the events that lead to someone changing their mind needs to
>be shown. If it isn't, they are changing their mind without reason, even if
>the moviemaker meant for the reason to be off-screen while something else
>happened.

We are discussing internal states here. How else would you expect a
change in Thranduil's internal state to be signified than by a change
in his clearly expressed opinion?

>A story is self-sustained and can not hinge on unknown parameters only
>known to the storyteller.

Was this written on the rock of Mount Sinai by the very Finger of God?
Or is it just your opinion, from which I may safely differ?

But perhaps you meant to say "IMHO, ..." or to insert "supposed to be"
between "is" and "self-sustained" and simply forgot to do so.

Also, would this not apply to the Balrog in /LOTR/ as written by JRRT?
Was not the existence of the Balrog an "unknown parameter" until it
was revealed? Did its sudden appearance not explain to Gandalf what
the source of opposition to his power was?

>> Again, I think we are supposed to relate this to the death of his
>> wife, which Legolas tells Tauriel (and so us) about earlier in the
>> film.
>
>Again, that doesn't make much sense either. His wife was as dead in the
>first scene as in the second. Nothing has changed.

Tauriel has changed: from defying him and being told she is fooling
herself, she is now mourning a Dwarf.

But perhaps you have problems with scenes which can only be understood
by considering more than one participant.

I mean, first you talk as if Tauriel were the only participant who
mattered, and now Thranduil has that honor. In my view, they are
/both/ involved.

This isn't Aeschylus, after all; there is more than one Actor on stage
at a time.

>> That is, I think we are supposed to take it that he recognized
>> in Tauriel the same feelings he had when his wife died.
>
>Which, I'm sure you agree, wasn't "friendship love".

It was /grief/. He recognizes, in Tauriel, the grief he felt, and so
infers that her love, whatever its type (friendship, sister/brother,
whatever) was real -- just as his love for his wife was real.

He says nothing about the type of love -- only its reality.

And, besides, why else would Legolas tell Tauriel where his mother
died except to inform us of Thranduil's loss? I'm not saying the
filmmakers were able to actually tie all this together, only that it
seems to be that that is what they were trying to do.

>> But I would hardly say that this was clear. What /is/ clear is that his
>> opinion on this issue has changed. And that he uses the word "real", and
>> that it clearly means, to him, that Tauriel was not fooling herself about
>> her feelings (whatever they may have been) for the Dwarf. And that
>> neither this nor anything else in the film has anything to do with "true"
>> or "deep", which serve only as distractors.
>
>In the context, it's the same thing.

What's the same thing? Perhaps its time you /defined/ "true" and
"deep" (as applied to love). Don't forget: they must have the same
meaning as "real" for your assertions on this point to be true.

>> > Sandman:
>> > Indeed, there were more buildup for Eowyn to love Aragorn, more
>> > on-screen development of her feelings towards him, more actual
>> > reason for her to fall in love with Aragorn, and they were both
>> > human so no racial borders to defy logic even!
>>
>> I'm not sure "racial" is the best word to use here although Trent
>> Lott would certainly agree with you.
>
>> Here's a hint: try not to sound like a known racist. Unless, of
>> course, you happen to be one (which, in your case, I doubt).
>
>Huh? Tauriel and Kili are members of two different races in Middle Earth.
>That's the word "racial" in the biology sense, they are different taxonomic
>ranks, and even species.

There is, apparently, some effort to use "race" in regard to animals.
There are indications that it is informal rather than official. How it
relates to "sub-species" and "variety" appears to be unsettled. How it
is treated may depend on the type of organism studied.

Racist biologists, naturally enough, used "race" to support racist
beliefs.

Applying it to people is generally regarded as racist.

And it's not clear how closely related the Eruhini are. Was Aragorn's
son by Arwen sterile, like a mule? Dwarves are Eruhini, at best, by
adoption. Would Kili and Tauriel even have been fertile?

"Species" will do nicely. There is no reason to believe that Elves,
Men, and Dwarves are related any closer than that, and they may be
even further apart.

>Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human classification, has
>nothing to do with it.

When applied to people, it has /everything/ to do with it.

Racist speech is racist speech. And racist speech is something racists
do.

It mars (to a limited extent) Gibbon. Darwin uses it repeatedly,
albeit often when quoting other writers, in /The Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex/, although the net effect is ambiguous.

I suggest you avoid it. Unless you want to be thought of (and perhaps
even referred to) as a racist should that somehow become relevant.

>> The first time I read /LOTR/ I was very puzzled and upset at
>> Aragorn's indifference to Eowyn. In the book, unless the reader is
>> very quick on the uptake (well, clearly quicker than I was), the
>> reader has no idea he is affianced to Arwen until she pops up at the
>> end.
>
>True, but there is no doubt that Eowyn has very strong feelings for
>Aragorn, and it's completely logical. Eowyn admires his resolv and his
>character. They don't have that many scenes together (at least not as many
>as in the movie) yet no one is questioning the reasons for her feelings. He
>is a suitable spouse for him in every sense of the word.
>
>Tauriel... well, she... Hmmm, I guess she thinks Kili is tall... for a
>dwarf... So, why does she like him, again?

Good question. As I have noted, the filmmakers failed here. Perhaps
the inevitable Director's Cut will expand on this; too bad I have no
plans to see it.

Incidentally, liking him because he is tall would be "superficial",
which might be a measure of "depth". But that, of course, would be a
meaning of "deep" that has nothing to do with it being "real" or not.
The term "real" simply means that she is not fooling herself but
really felt that way about him. Whatever way it may have been.

[Sandman]

In article <1dc2cal0n2q69rst0...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > There was no events in the movie prior to that scene that would
> > have the audience believe there was any love of any kind. That
> > said, it's clear that the moviemaker's wanted their relationship
> > to be more than just mere "friendship". The tears the dwarves
> > shed over all fallen dwarves are tears of having lost a leader
> > and a friend, and those tears have been thouroughly built up in
> > all preceeding movies, where it's not over the top or out of
> > place for them to weep over their comrades.
>
> So we agree, more or less, on what the filmmakers intended, and how
> they failed to achieve it?

Probably, yes.

> > Sandman:

> > That's the point - for us, the audience, nothing has changed. A story
> > untold is not a story. You can't just have a scene with two mortal
> > enemies fighting, cut away and then cut back to them giving each other
> > piggy back rides. When telling a story, especially when considering
> > character development, the events that lead to someone changing their
> > mind needs to be shown. If it isn't, they are changing their mind
> > without reason, even if the moviemaker meant for the reason to be
> > off-screen while something else happened.
>
> We are discussing internal states here. How else would you expect a
> change in Thranduil's internal state to be signified than by a
> change in his clearly expressed opinion?

By on-screen events, on-screen displays of him contemplating and this
changing his mind.

Let's take an example; Darth Vader.

In the first and second movie, he's this dark evil villain, and it is
revealed that he is Luke's father.

In the third movie, Luke pleads to Vader to let go of his hatred and leave
with him. Vader explains that the power of the dark side is too strong -
revealing a step in his redemption, it's not that he himself do not want
to, at least not explicitly, there are external factors. So he brings Luke
to the Emperor.

Ultimately, Luke falls. He pleads to his father, that has just witnessed
the passion and compassion of Luke towards Vader's daughter and his sister.
We see - *even without any facial expressions* - how Vader contemplates the
situation, how he is looking to Luke, to the emperor and takes that fatal
descision to let go of his hatred.

That's how a change of mind is shown on screen. We go from a dark unfeeling
and unrelentless villain to someone that does have compassion and wants
redemption during the course of over one movie (it begins in the second).
Not someone that changed their mind in the course of fifteen minutes in the
end of one movie.

> > Sandman:

> > A story is self-sustained and can not hinge on unknown parameters
> > only known to the storyteller.
>
> Was this written on the rock of Mount Sinai by the very Finger of
> God? Or is it just your opinion, from which I may safely differ?

You may differ all you like. My comments are general about the art of
storytelling.

> But perhaps you meant to say "IMHO, ..." or to insert "supposed to
> be" between "is" and "self-sustained" and simply forgot to do so.

Somewhat. All is in my opinion, but I am stating it as objectively as
possible.

> Also, would this not apply to the Balrog in /LOTR/ as written by
> JRRT? Was not the existence of the Balrog an "unknown parameter"
> until it was revealed? Did its sudden appearance not explain to
> Gandalf what the source of opposition to his power was?

Only if they fell in love with each other :)

The Balrog was not an unknown parameter, since it became known to us. But,
let's say the Balrog presents itself, and suddenly Gandalf is turned into a
small gnome and this is never explained.

So the audience go "Eh, did the Balrog do that? Did Gandalf do that? What
happened?" and the unknown parameter was a spell set upon the Balrog by
Glorfindel a millenia ago - never to be explained to the audience in any
way. That would be as unexpected and illogical.

Some things must and can be left untold, especially when magic is involved
of course, but some basic parts of storytelling still apply to character
development.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Again, I think we are supposed to relate this to the death of
> > > his wife, which Legolas tells Tauriel (and so us) about earlier
> > > in the film.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Again, that doesn't make much sense either. His wife was as dead
> > in the first scene as in the second. Nothing has changed.
>
> Tauriel has changed: from defying him and being told she is fooling
> herself, she is now mourning a Dwarf.

She had already displayed affection towards him in that first encounter,
which is what Thranduil is in reference to.

> But perhaps you have problems with scenes which can only be
> understood by considering more than one participant.

Perhaps you have problems discussing things without being an asshole?

> I mean, first you talk as if Tauriel were the only participant who
> mattered, and now Thranduil has that honor. In my view, they are
> /both/ involved.

Then perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > That is, I think we are supposed to take it that he recognized
> > > in Tauriel the same feelings he had when his wife died.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Which, I'm sure you agree, wasn't "friendship love".
>
> It was /grief/. He recognizes, in Tauriel, the grief he felt, and so
> infers that her love, whatever its type (friendship, sister/brother,
> whatever) was real -- just as his love for his wife was real.

> He says nothing about the type of love -- only its reality.

So Thranduil could have felt "friendship love" for his wife?

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > But I would hardly say that this was clear. What /is/ clear is
> > > that his opinion on this issue has changed. And that he uses
> > > the word "real", and that it clearly means, to him, that
> > > Tauriel was not fooling herself about her feelings (whatever
> > > they may have been) for the Dwarf. And that neither this nor
> > > anything else in the film has anything to do with "true" or
> > > "deep", which serve only as distractors.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > In the context, it's the same thing.
>
> What's the same thing? Perhaps its time you /defined/ "true" and
> "deep" (as applied to love). Don't forget: they must have the same
> meaning as "real" for your assertions on this point to be true.

I mean that on the scale of affection, they are on the same level:

1. Like
2. Love
3. True/Real/Deep Love

Regardless of word used, Tauriel is meant to be at that third level, while
at most she should have been on the first.

You can weep over a lost person whose affection level was any of the above,
it's the characters in the movie that add the third-level parameter.

Imagine this quote:

"If this is liking someone, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why

does it hurt so much?"

"Because it was real like"

And it sounds just weird. Now remove the "real" part alltogether:

"If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why
does it hurt so much?"

"Because it is love"

And would have *the same problem* with it. The word "real", "deep" or
"true" is irrelevant. It's a modifier that just gives it even more
importance than the above. But the above is equally illogical to the
relationship they've had thus far.

> > Sandman:

> > Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human classification, has
> > nothing to do with it.
>
> When applied to people, it has /everything/ to do with it.

Mayhaps. Tauriel and Kili aren't "people", however. They are fictional
characters in a story.

> > Sandman:

> > True, but there is no doubt that Eowyn has very strong feelings for
> > Aragorn, and it's completely logical. Eowyn admires his resolv and his
> > character. They don't have that many scenes together (at least not as
> > many as in the movie) yet no one is questioning the reasons for her
> > feelings. He is a suitable spouse for him in every sense of the word.
>
> > Tauriel... well, she... Hmmm, I guess she thinks Kili is tall...
> > for a dwarf... So, why does she like him, again?
>
> Good question. As I have noted, the filmmakers failed here. Perhaps
> the inevitable Director's Cut will expand on this; too bad I have no
> plans to see it.

See, you can't even answer why she would *like* him, let alone *love* him,
yet you claim that her reaction was not unwarranted given the events
leading up to it.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 23 Jan 2015 10:47:46 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <1dc2cal0n2q69rst0...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

>> We are discussing internal states here. How else would you expect a
>> change in Thranduil's internal state to be signified than by a
>> change in his clearly expressed opinion?
>
>By on-screen events, on-screen displays of him contemplating and this
>changing his mind.
>
>Let's take an example; Darth Vader.

<snipping to the chase>

>We see - *even without any facial expressions* - how Vader contemplates the
>situation, how he is looking to Luke, to the emperor and takes that fatal
>descision to let go of his hatred.

Well, he looks from one side to the other. Or, rather, the helmet
does. What he is looking at, or whether he is just scratching an itch,
is not known.

Yes, it is no doubt /intended/ to show Darth Vader making a decision,
but it has never worked for me.

>That's how a change of mind is shown on screen. We go from a dark unfeeling
>and unrelentless villain to someone that does have compassion and wants
>redemption during the course of over one movie (it begins in the second).
>Not someone that changed their mind in the course of fifteen minutes in the
>end of one movie.

In your opinion, anyway.

Other examples of much faster changes, no doubt, exist.

>> > Sandman:
>> > A story is self-sustained and can not hinge on unknown parameters
>> > only known to the storyteller.
>>
>> Was this written on the rock of Mount Sinai by the very Finger of
>> God? Or is it just your opinion, from which I may safely differ?
>
>You may differ all you like. My comments are general about the art of
>storytelling.
>
>> But perhaps you meant to say "IMHO, ..." or to insert "supposed to
>> be" between "is" and "self-sustained" and simply forgot to do so.
>
>Somewhat. All is in my opinion, but I am stating it as objectively as
>possible.

Then /say/ it is your opinion.

And the statement above isn't "objective". It is "religious". It is
just as religious as "God exists" or "religion is evil".

An /objective/ statement would be something like "recent surveys of
movie-goers has shown that 60% of them believe ...". To be objective,
the alleged "fact" must be based on reality, not ideology, not
personal opinion.

>> Also, would this not apply to the Balrog in /LOTR/ as written by
>> JRRT? Was not the existence of the Balrog an "unknown parameter"
>> until it was revealed? Did its sudden appearance not explain to
>> Gandalf what the source of opposition to his power was?
>
>Only if they fell in love with each other :)
>
>The Balrog was not an unknown parameter, since it became known to us. But,
>let's say the Balrog presents itself, and suddenly Gandalf is turned into a
>small gnome and this is never explained.

That actually makes sense. It also makes the prior statement clearer.

To bad you expressed it in an ideological form instead of what is
was, an opinion.

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > Again, I think we are supposed to relate this to the death of
>> > > his wife, which Legolas tells Tauriel (and so us) about earlier
>> > > in the film.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Again, that doesn't make much sense either. His wife was as dead
>> > in the first scene as in the second. Nothing has changed.
>>
>> Tauriel has changed: from defying him and being told she is fooling
>> herself, she is now mourning a Dwarf.
>
>She had already displayed affection towards him in that first encounter,
>which is what Thranduil is in reference to.

And Thranduil told her, in effect, that she was imagining things.
(Memory fades, but I believe that, more precisely, he told her that
she /must/ be fooling herself because Dwarfs are mortal, allowing PJ &
accomplices to recycle yet another bit from /LOTR/, in this case the
very similar speech of Elrond to Arwen on Aragorn's mortality.)

>> But perhaps you have problems with scenes which can only be
>> understood by considering more than one participant.
>
>Perhaps you have problems discussing things without being an asshole?
>
>> I mean, first you talk as if Tauriel were the only participant who
>> mattered, and now Thranduil has that honor. In my view, they are
>> /both/ involved.
>
>Then perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote.

Perhaps not.

But then, perhaps you weren't entirely clear.

Or consistent.

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > That is, I think we are supposed to take it that he recognized
>> > > in Tauriel the same feelings he had when his wife died.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Which, I'm sure you agree, wasn't "friendship love".
>>
>> It was /grief/. He recognizes, in Tauriel, the grief he felt, and so
>> infers that her love, whatever its type (friendship, sister/brother,
>> whatever) was real -- just as his love for his wife was real.
>
>> He says nothing about the type of love -- only its reality.
>
>So Thranduil could have felt "friendship love" for his wife?

I was referring to the type of Tauriel's love, not Thranduil's. Sorry
for the confusion.

The whole point is that "real love" is "real love", regardless of its
type or other qualities. The suggestion is that Thranduil recognized,
in Tauriel, love just as real as his, whether it was the same type or
not.

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > But I would hardly say that this was clear. What /is/ clear is
>> > > that his opinion on this issue has changed. And that he uses
>> > > the word "real", and that it clearly means, to him, that
>> > > Tauriel was not fooling herself about her feelings (whatever
>> > > they may have been) for the Dwarf. And that neither this nor
>> > > anything else in the film has anything to do with "true" or
>> > > "deep", which serve only as distractors.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > In the context, it's the same thing.
>>
>> What's the same thing? Perhaps its time you /defined/ "true" and
>> "deep" (as applied to love). Don't forget: they must have the same
>> meaning as "real" for your assertions on this point to be true.
>
>I mean that on the scale of affection, they are on the same level:
>
>1. Like
>2. Love
>3. True/Real/Deep Love
>
>Regardless of word used, Tauriel is meant to be at that third level, while
>at most she should have been on the first.

That is complete nonsense.

You realize that, don't you?

Your first two categories can be just as "real" as your third. All
that "real" means is that she isn't fooling herself but actually feels
what she thinks she feels.

<snipping to the chase again>

>And it sounds just weird. Now remove the "real" part alltogether:
>
> "If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why
> does it hurt so much?"
>
> "Because it is love"
>
>And would have *the same problem* with it. The word "real", "deep" or
>"true" is irrelevant. It's a modifier that just gives it even more
>importance than the above. But the above is equally illogical to the
>relationship they've had thus far.

And you might be correct -- had he said that.

But that isn't what he said. You are trying to re-write the film to
suit your prior statements.

This is quite common, actually: to discuss, not the film that was
seen, but the film the writer would have /preferred/ to see. This can
sometimes be useful, but it can never be mistaken for actually
discussing the film that was seen.

You still appear to be applying "real" to the /quality/ or /type/ of
her feeling for Kili. This is not correct. The term "real" applies to
the /reality/ of her feelings, whatever other qualities they may have.

>> > Sandman:
>> > Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human classification, has
>> > nothing to do with it.
>>
>> When applied to people, it has /everything/ to do with it.
>
>Mayhaps. Tauriel and Kili aren't "people", however. They are fictional
>characters in a story.

Nonetheless, your use of it is the same as the use made by racists.

And, even if "race" were legitimate biological nomenclature in this
situation (which, so far as I can tell, it is not, except among racist
biologists), it's not accurate: "species" or "kind" would be more to
the point. The usage of "race" you are claiming is essentially a
synonym of "variety" or "breed", which does not capture the difference
between Men, Elves, and Dwarves.

I suggest "kind" because inheritance in /LOTR/ is by blood: thus, it
is said that "the blood of Numenor runs truer" in Faramir than in his
father or his brother, not that "the genes of Numenor express
themselves" in Faramir, and "kind" belongs to that same older
understanding of how critters are organized.

>> > Sandman:
>> > True, but there is no doubt that Eowyn has very strong feelings for
>> > Aragorn, and it's completely logical. Eowyn admires his resolv and his
>> > character. They don't have that many scenes together (at least not as
>> > many as in the movie) yet no one is questioning the reasons for her
>> > feelings. He is a suitable spouse for him in every sense of the word.
>>
>> > Tauriel... well, she... Hmmm, I guess she thinks Kili is tall...
>> > for a dwarf... So, why does she like him, again?
>>
>> Good question. As I have noted, the filmmakers failed here. Perhaps
>> the inevitable Director's Cut will expand on this; too bad I have no
>> plans to see it.
>
>See, you can't even answer why she would *like* him, let alone *love* him,
>yet you claim that her reaction was not unwarranted given the events
>leading up to it.

Just because the filmmakers failed to make it clear why she is
attracted to him doesn't mean they failed to show her attraction.

This is bad filmmaking, but what else can you expect from PJ &
accomplices?

[Sandman]

In article <7h05ca1egqoiojgr9...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > We are discussing internal states here. How else would you
> > > expect a change in Thranduil's internal state to be signified
> > > than by a change in his clearly expressed opinion?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > By on-screen events, on-screen displays of him contemplating and
> > this changing his mind.
>
> > Let's take an example; Darth Vader.
>
> <snipping to the chase>

> > Sandman:

> > We see - *even without any facial expressions* - how Vader
> > contemplates the situation, how he is looking to Luke, to the
> > emperor and takes that fatal descision to let go of his hatred.
>
> Well, he looks from one side to the other. Or, rather, the helmet
> does. What he is looking at, or whether he is just scratching an
> itch, is not known.

It is. You're being trollishly silly now.

> Yes, it is no doubt /intended/ to show Darth Vader making a
> decision, but it has never worked for me.

You snipped the entire buildup to that scene above, where this intention is
clearly built up.

> > Sandman:

> > That's how a change of mind is shown on screen. We go from a dark
> > unfeeling and unrelentless villain to someone that does have
> > compassion and wants redemption during the course of over one
> > movie (it begins in the second). Not someone that changed their
> > mind in the course of fifteen minutes in the end of one movie.
>
> In your opinion, anyway.

I am describing it as objectively I can.

> Other examples of much faster changes, no doubt, exist.

The "change" in Return of the Jedi was fairly swift, really, but the reason
*for* the change was built up during several scenes.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > But perhaps you meant to say "IMHO, ..." or to insert "supposed
> > > to be" between "is" and "self-sustained" and simply forgot to do
> > > so.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Somewhat. All is in my opinion, but I am stating it as objectively
> > as possible.
>
> Then /say/ it is your opinion.

I apologize if it wasn't clear.

> And the statement above isn't "objective". It is "religious". It is
> just as religious as "God exists" or "religion is evil".

Uh, no.

> An /objective/ statement would be something like "recent surveys of
> movie-goers has shown that 60% of them believe ...". To be
> objective, the alleged "fact" must be based on reality, not
> ideology, not personal opinion.

It is my opinion that my statements fit that description as best they
could.

> > > > > Paul S. Person:

> > > > > Paul S. Person: Again, I think we are supposed to relate
> > > > > this to the death of his wife, which Legolas tells Tauriel
> > > > > (and so us) about earlier in the film.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Again, that doesn't make much sense either. His wife
> > > > was as dead in the first scene as in the second. Nothing has
> > > > changed.
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Tauriel has changed: from defying him and being told she is
> > > fooling herself, she is now mourning a Dwarf.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > She had already displayed affection towards him in that first
> > encounter, which is what Thranduil is in reference to.
>
> And Thranduil told her, in effect, that she was imagining things.
> (Memory fades, but I believe that, more precisely, he told her that
> she /must/ be fooling herself because Dwarfs are mortal, allowing PJ
> & accomplices to recycle yet another bit from /LOTR/, in this case
> the very similar speech of Elrond to Arwen on Aragorn's mortality.)

Can't google it anywhere, so we'll put this down as a "?" for now.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > But perhaps you have problems with scenes which can only be
> > > understood by considering more than one participant.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Perhaps you have problems discussing things without being an
> > asshole?
>

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I mean, first you talk as if Tauriel were the only participant
> > > who mattered, and now Thranduil has that honor. In my view, they
> > > are /both/ involved.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Then perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote.
>
> Perhaps not.

> But then, perhaps you weren't entirely clear.

> Or consistent.

The problem is either on my side or on yours. Lately, it has become obvious
that it more often is on your end. I think it may be partly due to your
excessive snipping, where you reply to a post, snip away something I wrote
and post as if I already haven't explained/answered/clarified something.

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Which, I'm sure you agree, wasn't "friendship love".
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > It was /grief/. He recognizes, in Tauriel, the grief he felt,
> > > and so infers that her love, whatever its type (friendship,
> > > sister/brother, whatever) was real -- just as his love for his
> > > wife was real.
> >
> > > He says nothing about the type of love -- only its reality.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > So Thranduil could have felt "friendship love" for his wife?
>
> I was referring to the type of Tauriel's love, not Thranduil's.
> Sorry for the confusion.

> The whole point is that "real love" is "real love", regardless of
> its type or other qualities. The suggestion is that Thranduil
> recognized, in Tauriel, love just as real as his, whether it was the
> same type or not.

And you keep on talking about the qualifier word in spite of me repeating
that it makes no difference to the point.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > What's the same thing? Perhaps its time you /defined/ "true" and
> > > "deep" (as applied to love). Don't forget: they must have the
> > > same meaning as "real" for your assertions on this point to be
> > > true.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > I mean that on the scale of affection, they are on the same level:
>
> > 1. Like 2. Love 3. True/Real/Deep Love
>
> > Regardless of word used, Tauriel is meant to be at that third
> > level, while at most she should have been on the first.
>
> That is complete nonsense.

> You realize that, don't you?

> Your first two categories can be just as "real" as your third. All
> that "real" means is that she isn't fooling herself but actually
> feels what she thinks she feels.

Why can't you read? Tauriel never said she "liked" Kili and Thranduil
agreeing that her "liking" was real. The claim was "love", and regardless
of whatever qualifier you put in front of it, it was not supported by the
preceeding scenes.

> <snipping to the chase again>

Here you did it again.

> > Sandman:

> > And it sounds just weird. Now remove the "real" part alltogether:
>
> > "If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does
> > it hurt so much?"
>
> > "Because it is love"
>
> > And would have *the same problem* with it. The word "real", "deep"
> > or "true" is irrelevant. It's a modifier that just gives it even
> > more importance than the above. But the above is equally
> > illogical to the relationship they've had thus far.
>
> And you might be correct -- had he said that.

Sigh... *rolleye*

> But that isn't what he said. You are trying to re-write the film to
> suit your prior statements.

No. I. Am. Not.

> This is quite common, actually: to discuss, not the film that was
> seen, but the film the writer would have /preferred/ to see. This
> can sometimes be useful, but it can never be mistaken for actually
> discussing the film that was seen.

I'll take your word for it - I am discussing the film I saw. Perhaps you
should stop discussing the film you wanted to see?

> You still appear to be applying "real" to the /quality/ or /type/ of
> her feeling for Kili. This is not correct. The term "real" applies
> to the /reality/ of her feelings, whatever other qualities they may
> have.

What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? *FORGET* the word
"real", it is *IRRELEVANT* to what I am saying. Remove it altogether and my
objection is exactly the same. The word "real" has no bearing at all to
what I am saying. It does not factor in to the problem. It's the word
"love" that I am objecting to.

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human
> > > > classification, has nothing to do with it.
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > When applied to people, it has /everything/ to do with it.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Mayhaps. Tauriel and Kili aren't "people", however. They are
> > fictional characters in a story.
>
> Nonetheless, your use of it is the same as the use made by racists.

No.

> > Sandman:

> > See, you can't even answer why she would *like* him, let alone
> > *love* him, yet you claim that her reaction was not unwarranted
> > given the events leading up to it.
>
> Just because the filmmakers failed to make it clear why she is
> attracted to him doesn't mean they failed to show her attraction.

When did they supposedly show her love towards Kili? Care to be specific
about this "love" she displays? I mean, other than in the end scene where
she is weeping. When did she start to *love* him? In what scene, and based
on what of her actions, did you realize that she *loves* him?




--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 23 Jan 2015 18:42:16 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <7h05ca1egqoiojgr9...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > We see - *even without any facial expressions* - how Vader
>> > contemplates the situation, how he is looking to Luke, to the
>> > emperor and takes that fatal descision to let go of his hatred.
>>
>> Well, he looks from one side to the other. Or, rather, the helmet
>> does. What he is looking at, or whether he is just scratching an
>> itch, is not known.
>
>It is. You're being trollishly silly now.

I just looked at it again. It is not as I remembered it, but such
things happen sometimes; memory is a tricky thing.

It still has never worked for me.

And the actual decision now appears to be very quick. Most of the time
he is merely observing his son or the Emperor or, in one part,
apparently looking off to his right (Luke is in front of him and down,
the Emperor is to his left), as if taking in the view. At times, in
the distance shots, he appears to be rocking back and forth, as if
listening to music in his iPod.

>> Yes, it is no doubt /intended/ to show Darth Vader making a
>> decision, but it has never worked for me.
>
>You snipped the entire buildup to that scene above, where this intention is
>clearly built up.

Not for me. Not any time I have seen.

And I have seen it a lot -- first in the theater, and then
periodically on VHS/DVD, starting with the P&S VHS in 1986.

Perhaps its less clear what is going on in P&S. I would have watched
that relatively more often than the letterboxed versions simply
because I owned fewer videos then so they came around more frequently.

This is why I am willing to accept that the Tauriel/Kili story works
differently for me than for you: I know for a fact that different
people react differently to what they see on the silver screen.

>> > Sandman:
>> > That's how a change of mind is shown on screen. We go from a dark
>> > unfeeling and unrelentless villain to someone that does have
>> > compassion and wants redemption during the course of over one
>> > movie (it begins in the second). Not someone that changed their
>> > mind in the course of fifteen minutes in the end of one movie.
>>
>> In your opinion, anyway.
>
>I am describing it as objectively I can.

You are expressing your personal opinion. There is nothing "objective"
about it.

>> Other examples of much faster changes, no doubt, exist.
>
>The "change" in Return of the Jedi was fairly swift, really, but the reason
>*for* the change was built up during several scenes.

And now you are trying to weasel your way out of your "objective"
position by claiming that you weren't actually talking about Darth
Vader moving his head back and forth but about all the prior stuff.

>> An /objective/ statement would be something like "recent surveys of
>> movie-goers has shown that 60% of them believe ...". To be
>> objective, the alleged "fact" must be based on reality, not
>> ideology, not personal opinion.
>
>It is my opinion that my statements fit that description as best they
>could.

That they may do, but that is not the same as being objective. As I
understand the term, of course, that is, as an unbiased description of
reality. Opinions are, by nature, biased.

>> And Thranduil told her, in effect, that she was imagining things.
>> (Memory fades, but I believe that, more precisely, he told her that
>> she /must/ be fooling herself because Dwarfs are mortal, allowing PJ
>> & accomplices to recycle yet another bit from /LOTR/, in this case
>> the very similar speech of Elrond to Arwen on Aragorn's mortality.)
>
>Can't google it anywhere, so we'll put this down as a "?" for now.

You have forgotten Elrond's speech to Arwen in /ROTK/? It's toward the
start, either before or after the Second Sending-Forth of Arwen.

<snippo attempt to blame me for our mutual miscommunication>

<As to Tauriel and Kili, this is getting repititious on both sides and
I think we both have a reasonable understanding of what the other
person is saying. I agree that we are talking at cross-purposes, but
that happens sometimes>

<this, however, is so tasty I cannot ignore it>

First you give this alternative to the films dialog:

>> > Sandman:
>> > And it sounds just weird. Now remove the "real" part alltogether:
>>
>> > "If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does
>> > it hurt so much?"
>>
>> > "Because it is love"
>>
>> > And would have *the same problem* with it. The word "real", "deep"
>> > or "true" is irrelevant. It's a modifier that just gives it even
>> > more importance than the above. But the above is equally
>> > illogical to the relationship they've had thus far.
>>
>> And you might be correct -- had he said that.

And then you pretend that what I am saying is not worth considering.

>Sigh... *rolleye*

When I was, in fact, admitting that you might have a point -- had
Thranduil actually said that. But he didn't.

>> But that isn't what he said. You are trying to re-write the film to
>> suit your prior statements.
>
>No. I. Am. Not.

Now, this is a reaction I can understand. I still think I am correct,
however: you are rewriting "Because it is real" to be "Because it is
love" because you believe it will help you make your point.

>> This is quite common, actually: to discuss, not the film that was
>> seen, but the film the writer would have /preferred/ to see. This
>> can sometimes be useful, but it can never be mistaken for actually
>> discussing the film that was seen.
>
>I'll take your word for it - I am discussing the film I saw. Perhaps you
>should stop discussing the film you wanted to see?

The film you saw had Thranduil saying "Because it is real". You are
discussing an alternate film in which he says "Because it is love" or,
perhaps even, "Because it is true love", or "Because it is true".
These are all from different films from the one I saw, and you refuse
to consider the possibility that you saw a slightly different version.

>> You still appear to be applying "real" to the /quality/ or /type/ of
>> her feeling for Kili. This is not correct. The term "real" applies
>> to the /reality/ of her feelings, whatever other qualities they may
>> have.
>
>What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? *FORGET* the word
>"real", it is *IRRELEVANT* to what I am saying. Remove it altogether and my
>objection is exactly the same. The word "real" has no bearing at all to
>what I am saying. It does not factor in to the problem. It's the word
>"love" that I am objecting to.

A word which is not in the film (at least, not in this context) --
except, of course, to the extent that /you/ introduce it.

You cannot blame the film for misuse of a term that it does not use.

You can only blame yourself.

If you want to discuss the movie you saw, then discuss the movie you
saw, not the movie you thought you saw or the movie you wanted to see.

>> > > > Sandman:
>> > > > Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human
>> > > > classification, has nothing to do with it.
>> > >
>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > When applied to people, it has /everything/ to do with it.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Mayhaps. Tauriel and Kili aren't "people", however. They are
>> > fictional characters in a story.

<I am snipping the "race" parts because, really, I think I have made
my point>

>> > Sandman:
>> > See, you can't even answer why she would *like* him, let alone
>> > *love* him, yet you claim that her reaction was not unwarranted
>> > given the events leading up to it.
>>
>> Just because the filmmakers failed to make it clear why she is
>> attracted to him doesn't mean they failed to show her attraction.
>
>When did they supposedly show her love towards Kili? Care to be specific
>about this "love" she displays? I mean, other than in the end scene where
>she is weeping. When did she start to *love* him? In what scene, and based
>on what of her actions, did you realize that she *loves* him?

The attraction was shown in the dungeon.

Have you already forgotten conceding this point? At one time, you
even claimed to have noted it last year when the second film came out.

And I said nothing about "love". That is a term you are introducing
for no apparent reason, actually, except to create a psuedo-issue.

[Sandman]

In article <s4o7cadunlb2rjcfv...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Well, he looks from one side to the other. Or, rather, the
> > > helmet does. What he is looking at, or whether he is just
> > > scratching an itch, is not known.
> >
> > It is. You're being trollishly silly now.
>
> I just looked at it again. It is not as I remembered it, but such
> things happen sometimes; memory is a tricky thing.

> It still has never worked for me.

> And the actual decision now appears to be very quick. Most of the
> time he is merely observing his son or the Emperor or, in one part,
> apparently looking off to his right (Luke is in front of him and
> down, the Emperor is to his left), as if taking in the view. At
> times, in the distance shots, he appears to be rocking back and
> forth, as if listening to music in his iPod.

As I said, very trollish.

> > > Yes, it is no doubt /intended/ to show Darth Vader making a
> > > decision, but it has never worked for me.
> >
> > You snipped the entire buildup to that scene above, where this
> > intention is clearly built up.
>
> Not for me. Not any time I have seen.

Nevertheless, it is there.

> This is why I am willing to accept that the Tauriel/Kili story works
> differently for me than for you: I know for a fact that different
> people react differently to what they see on the silver screen.

That has never been in contention.

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > That's how a change of mind is shown on screen. We go
> > > > from a dark unfeeling and unrelentless villain to someone
> > > > that does have compassion and wants redemption during the
> > > > course of over one movie (it begins in the second). Not
> > > > someone that changed their mind in the course of fifteen
> > > > minutes in the end of one movie.
> > >
> > > In your opinion, anyway.
> >
> > I am describing it as objectively I can.
>
> You are expressing your personal opinion. There is nothing
> "objective" about it.

As I said, I am describing it as objectively as I can.

> > > Other examples of much faster changes, no doubt, exist.
> >
> > The "change" in Return of the Jedi was fairly swift, really, but
> > the reason *for* the change was built up during several scenes.
>
> And now you are trying to weasel your way out of your "objective"
> position by claiming that you weren't actually talking about Darth
> Vader moving his head back and forth but about all the prior stuff.

I wasn't. You snipped what I talked about to make it seem I hadn't
mentioned all those scenes.

> > > An /objective/ statement would be something like "recent surveys
> > > of movie-goers has shown that 60% of them believe ...". To be
> > > objective, the alleged "fact" must be based on reality, not
> > > ideology, not personal opinion.
> >
> > It is my opinion that my statements fit that description as best
> > they could.
>
> That they may do, but that is not the same as being objective. As I
> understand the term, of course, that is, as an unbiased description
> of reality. Opinions are, by nature, biased.

As I said, it is my opinion that my statements fit that description as best
they could.

> > > And Thranduil told her, in effect, that she was imagining
> > > things. (Memory fades, but I believe that, more precisely, he
> > > told her that she /must/ be fooling herself because Dwarfs are
> > > mortal, allowing PJ & accomplices to recycle yet another bit
> > > from /LOTR/, in this case the very similar speech of Elrond to
> > > Arwen on Aragorn's mortality.)
> >
> > Can't google it anywhere, so we'll put this down as a "?" for now.
>
> You have forgotten Elrond's speech to Arwen in /ROTK/?

Can't google what Thranduil told her.

<snip possibly intentional misunderstanding>

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > And it sounds just weird. Now remove the "real" part
> > > > alltogether:
> > >
> > > > "If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why
> > > > does it hurt so much?"
> > >
> > > > "Because it is love"
> > >
> > > > And would have *the same problem* with it. The word "real",
> > > > "deep" or "true" is irrelevant. It's a modifier that just
> > > > gives it even more importance than the above. But the above
> > > > is equally illogical to the relationship they've had thus
> > > > far.
> > >
> > > And you might be correct -- had he said that.
> >
> And then you pretend that what I am saying is not worth considering.

> > Sigh... *rolleye*
>
> When I was, in fact, admitting that you might have a point -- had
> Thranduil actually said that. But he didn't.

*whoosh*

> > > But that isn't what he said. You are trying to re-write the film
> > > to suit your prior statements.
> >
> > No. I. Am. Not.
>
> Now, this is a reaction I can understand. I still think I am
> correct, however

You're not, regardless of what you may "think".

> you are rewriting "Because it is real" to be "Because it is love" because
> you believe it will help you make your point.

Now you're lying again.

> > > This is quite common, actually: to discuss, not the film that
> > > was seen, but the film the writer would have /preferred/ to see.
> > > This can sometimes be useful, but it can never be mistaken for
> > > actually discussing the film that was seen.
> >
> > I'll take your word for it - I am discussing the film I saw.
> > Perhaps you should stop discussing the film you wanted to see?
>
> The film you saw had Thranduil saying "Because it is real". You are
> discussing an alternate film in which he says "Because it is love"

Sigh. Maybe you're just having problems understanding English?

Tauriel: If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does
it hurt so much?
Thranduil: Because it was real.

Thranduil isn't talking about "real elevators" or "real McNuggets", he is
adding a qualifier to the the supposed "love" that Tauriel talks about.

I am beginning to think that you're being deliberately dense because you
know I'm right.

> > > You still appear to be applying "real" to the /quality/ or
> > > /type/ of her feeling for Kili. This is not correct. The term
> > > "real" applies to the /reality/ of her feelings, whatever other
> > > qualities they may have.
> >
> > What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? *FORGET*
> > the word "real", it is *IRRELEVANT* to what I am saying. Remove
> > it altogether and my objection is exactly the same. The word
> > "real" has no bearing at all to what I am saying. It does not
> > factor in to the problem. It's the word "love" that I am
> > objecting to.
>
> A word which is not in the film (at least, not in this context) --
> except, of course, to the extent that /you/ introduce it.

Yes, it is. It is now clear that you never actually saw the film.

<snip trolling>

> > > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > > Racism, i.e. the derogatory way to look and human
> > > > > > classification, has nothing to do with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul S. Person:
> > > > > Paul S. Person: When applied to people, it has /everything/
> > > > > to do with it.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > Mayhaps. Tauriel and Kili aren't "people", however.
> > > > They are fictional characters in a story.
> > >
> <I am snipping the "race" parts because, really, I think I have made
> my point>

You haven't. I can't remember you making a single point, actually.

> > When did they supposedly show her love towards Kili? Care to be
> > specific about this "love" she displays? I mean, other than in
> > the end scene where she is weeping. When did she start to *love*
> > him? In what scene, and based on what of her actions, did you
> > realize that she *loves* him?
>
> The attraction was shown in the dungeon.

I didn't ask about any supposed attraction. Can't you read?

> Have you already forgotten conceding this point? At one time, you
> even claimed to have noted it last year when the second film came
> out.

Do we have an ETA for an answer to the actual question I asked?

> And I said nothing about "love". That is a term you are introducing
> for no apparent reason, actually, except to create a psuedo-issue.

No, *TAURIEL* said something about love. I claim that it is "over-the-top"
and you disagree, effectively saying that her feeling love towards Kili was
totally logical given their history. I am now asking you to show where she
displayed this supposed love.

You failed, of course.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 25 Jan 2015 12:57:09 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <s4o7cadunlb2rjcfv...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> > > Well, he looks from one side to the other. Or, rather, the
>> > > helmet does. What he is looking at, or whether he is just
>> > > scratching an itch, is not known.
>> >
>> > It is. You're being trollishly silly now.
>>
>> I just looked at it again. It is not as I remembered it, but such
>> things happen sometimes; memory is a tricky thing.
>
>> It still has never worked for me.
>
>> And the actual decision now appears to be very quick. Most of the
>> time he is merely observing his son or the Emperor or, in one part,
>> apparently looking off to his right (Luke is in front of him and
>> down, the Emperor is to his left), as if taking in the view. At
>> times, in the distance shots, he appears to be rocking back and
>> forth, as if listening to music in his iPod.
>
>As I said, very trollish.

That is what I saw when I looked at it yesterday.

How long has it been since /you/ looked at it?

It just doesn't work for me. Live with it.

>> This is why I am willing to accept that the Tauriel/Kili story works
>> differently for me than for you: I know for a fact that different
>> people react differently to what they see on the silver screen.
>
>That has never been in contention.

And yet you seem to feel that your reaction is the only correct
reaction. In every case, in every movie.

If you don't intend to appear that way, perhaps you should reconsider
how you put things.

>> > > > Sandman:
>> > > > That's how a change of mind is shown on screen. We go
>> > > > from a dark unfeeling and unrelentless villain to someone
>> > > > that does have compassion and wants redemption during the
>> > > > course of over one movie (it begins in the second). Not
>> > > > someone that changed their mind in the course of fifteen
>> > > > minutes in the end of one movie.
>> > >
>> > > In your opinion, anyway.
>> >
>> > I am describing it as objectively I can.
>>
>> You are expressing your personal opinion. There is nothing
>> "objective" about it.
>
>As I said, I am describing it as objectively as I can.

There is no objectivity in a personal opinion.

Please stop trying to be the sole determiner of everyone else's
reality.

If you don't intend to appear to be doing that, perhaps you should
reconsider how you put things.

>> > > Other examples of much faster changes, no doubt, exist.
>> >
>> > The "change" in Return of the Jedi was fairly swift, really, but
>> > the reason *for* the change was built up during several scenes.
>>
>> And now you are trying to weasel your way out of your "objective"
>> position by claiming that you weren't actually talking about Darth
>> Vader moving his head back and forth but about all the prior stuff.
>
>I wasn't. You snipped what I talked about to make it seem I hadn't
>mentioned all those scenes.

I did not snip what you talked about "to make it seem I hadn't
mentioned all those scenes"; I snipped them because they were filler.

Your claim was that we could see Darth deciding who to support by
watching his head move back and forth. That we have good reason, from
earlier in the films, to expect him to do this is not relevant to what
the movements of his helmet tells us.

Or, rather, doesn't tell us, at least in my case.

>> > > An /objective/ statement would be something like "recent surveys
>> > > of movie-goers has shown that 60% of them believe ...". To be
>> > > objective, the alleged "fact" must be based on reality, not
>> > > ideology, not personal opinion.
>> >
>> > It is my opinion that my statements fit that description as best
>> > they could.
>>
>> That they may do, but that is not the same as being objective. As I
>> understand the term, of course, that is, as an unbiased description
>> of reality. Opinions are, by nature, biased.
>
>As I said, it is my opinion that my statements fit that description as best
>they could.

Not good enough. If you claim objectivity, you need to /be/ objective,
not just make the best attempt you can. Opinions are never objective
(if they /were/ objective, they wouldn't be /opinions/, they would be
/facts/).

>> > > And Thranduil told her, in effect, that she was imagining
>> > > things. (Memory fades, but I believe that, more precisely, he
>> > > told her that she /must/ be fooling herself because Dwarfs are
>> > > mortal, allowing PJ & accomplices to recycle yet another bit
>> > > from /LOTR/, in this case the very similar speech of Elrond to
>> > > Arwen on Aragorn's mortality.)
>> >
>> > Can't google it anywhere, so we'll put this down as a "?" for now.
>>
>> You have forgotten Elrond's speech to Arwen in /ROTK/?
>
>Can't google what Thranduil told her.

You missed it? You missed an earlier scene which the scene of Tauriel
crying over Fili that one completes? Your analysis of Tauriel crying
as "over-the-top" does /not/ take the earlier scene into account? How
valid can that be?

<snip & concede the next point: apparently, I conveniently forgot
Tauriel's use of "love">

>> <I am snipping the "race" parts because, really, I think I have made
>> my point>
>
>You haven't. I can't remember you making a single point, actually.

It is not clear to you that my point is:

a) that "race" is not an official taxonomic term in biology?
b) that "race" is used, at best, of lower organisms, according to some
online research?
c) that "race" is used, in the way you have used it, by racists?

You did not notice those statements? Or did you find them hard to
understand? If you understood them, ,my point was made. You don't have
to accept them, if you wish to continue acting as a racist would act.

Please note that I do not say that you actually are a racist; only
that you have fallen into a racist mode of writing.

You know, you /could/ have let this topic die.

>> > When did they supposedly show her love towards Kili? Care to be
>> > specific about this "love" she displays? I mean, other than in
>> > the end scene where she is weeping. When did she start to *love*
>> > him? In what scene, and based on what of her actions, did you
>> > realize that she *loves* him?
>>
>> The attraction was shown in the dungeon.
>
>I didn't ask about any supposed attraction. Can't you read?
>
>> Have you already forgotten conceding this point? At one time, you
>> even claimed to have noted it last year when the second film came
>> out.
>
>Do we have an ETA for an answer to the actual question I asked?

No answer is needed. You have quoted yourself noting this from your
post on the second Hobbit film.

You /do/ remember posting that, don't you? You were trying to prove
that you /really had/ been paying attention to the film.

>> And I said nothing about "love". That is a term you are introducing
>> for no apparent reason, actually, except to create a psuedo-issue.
>
>No, *TAURIEL* said something about love. I claim that it is "over-the-top"
>and you disagree, effectively saying that her feeling love towards Kili was
>totally logical given their history. I am now asking you to show where she
>displayed this supposed love.

No, you asked me where she displayed this "attraction". I made no
assertion about "love", only about "attraction".

And you already quoted yourself answering that question -- in the
dungeon.

Live with it.

>You failed, of course.

Do I really have to quote you quoting yourself? Is your memory so bad
that you cannot even remember doing it?

[Sandman]

In article <5laaca5nk5aalclik...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > This is why I am willing to accept that the Tauriel/Kili story
> > > works differently for me than for you: I know for a fact that
> > > different people react differently to what they see on the
> > > silver screen.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > That has never been in contention.
>
> And yet you seem to feel that your reaction is the only correct
> reaction. In every case, in every movie.

Incorrect. I made a claim, which was based on my perception and opinion
about a series of events. I have supported that view by using examples, and
outlined why I think it's bad. You are free to disagree until your face is
blue, and you have yet to offer any form of reasonable argument for your
view.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > You are expressing your personal opinion. There is nothing
> > > "objective" about it.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > As I said, I am describing it as objectively as I can.
>
> There is no objectivity in a personal opinion.

My statement stands.

> Please stop trying to be the sole determiner of everyone else's
> reality.

Please stop beating your wife.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > And now you are trying to weasel your way out of your
> > > "objective" position by claiming that you weren't actually
> > > talking about Darth Vader moving his head back and forth but
> > > about all the prior stuff.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > I wasn't. You snipped what I talked about to make it seem I hadn't
> > mentioned all those scenes.
>
> I did not snip what you talked about "to make it seem I hadn't
> mentioned all those scenes"; I snipped them because they were
> filler.

Yes, you snipped it in your followup.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > That they may do, but that is not the same as being objective.
> > > As I understand the term, of course, that is, as an unbiased
> > > description of reality. Opinions are, by nature, biased.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > As I said, it is my opinion that my statements fit that
> > description as best they could.
>
> Not good enough.

Yes, good enough.

> If you claim objectivity

That's your "if". I have never claimed objectivity. You're fighting against
windmills again.

I have said, correctly, that my assesement of the situation was as objetive
as it could be. No one could claim I wasn't objective enough, is my point.

> > > > Can't google it anywhere, so we'll put this down as a "?" for
> > > > now.
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > You have forgotten Elrond's speech to Arwen in /ROTK/?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Can't google what Thranduil told her.
>
> You missed it? You missed an earlier scene which the scene of
> Tauriel crying over Fili that one completes?

No, I can't *GOOGLE* what Thranduil *SAYS* in that scene. You made a claim
about what Thranduil says, and since nothing you say can be taken at face
value, what he actually said is left as a question.

> Your analysis of Tauriel crying as "over-the-top" does /not/ take the
> earlier scene into account? How valid can that be?

Since it's a fabrication of your own mind, I am not an authority to answer
that question.

> <snip & concede the next point: apparently, I conveniently forgot
> Tauriel's use of "love">

See what I mean?

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > <I am snipping the "race" parts because, really, I think I have
> > > made my point>
> >

> > Sandman:

> > You haven't. I can't remember you making a single point, actually.
>
> It is not clear to you that my point is:

> a) that "race" is not an official taxonomic term in biology?

Which is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

> b) that "race" is used, at best, of lower organisms, according to some
> online research?

Irrelevant.

> c) that "race" is used, in the way you have used it, by
> racists?

Incorrect.

> You did not notice those statements?

I did not notice you having a point, no.

> > > > When did they supposedly show her love towards Kili? Care to
> > > > be specific about this "love" she displays? I mean, other
> > > > than in the end scene where she is weeping. When did she
> > > > start to *love* him? In what scene, and based on what of her
> > > > actions, did you realize that she *loves* him?
> > >

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > The attraction was shown in the dungeon.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > I didn't ask about any supposed attraction. Can't you read?

Well?

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Have you already forgotten conceding this point? At one time,
> > > you even claimed to have noted it last year when the second film
> > > came out.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Do we have an ETA for an answer to the actual question I asked?
>
> No answer is needed. You have quoted yourself noting this from your
> post on the second Hobbit film.

Incorrect.

> You /do/ remember posting that, don't you? You were trying to prove
> that you /really had/ been paying attention to the film.

As opposed to you, I have. I need you to answer where Tauriel showed the
audience that she loved Kili. You have now failed three posts in a row.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > And I said nothing about "love". That is a term you are
> > > introducing for no apparent reason, actually, except to create a
> > > psuedo-issue.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > No, *TAURIEL* said something about love. I claim that it is
> > "over-the-top" and you disagree, effectively saying that her
> > feeling love towards Kili was totally logical given their
> > history. I am now asking you to show where she displayed this
> > supposed love.
>
> No, you asked me where she displayed this "attraction". I made no
> assertion about "love", only about "attraction".

No, *TAURIEL* said love, please show this love that made that a logical
course of events.

Attraction != love.

If at the end, she was sad because Kili was killed, and Kili was someone
that she found interested, or even slightly attracted, then she wouldn't
have talked about love and wishing it to go away, and it wouldn't have been
over the top.

> And you already quoted yourself answering that question -- in the
> dungeon.

Incorrect.

> Live with it.

Answer the question.

> > Sandman:

> > You failed, of course.
>
> Do I really have to quote you quoting yourself? Is your memory so
> bad that you cannot even remember doing it?

Yes, please quote me saying that Tauriel displayed love towards Kili in any
scene. Please.

--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

On 26 Jan 2015 14:08:28 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>In article <5laaca5nk5aalclik...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > This is why I am willing to accept that the Tauriel/Kili story
>> > > works differently for me than for you: I know for a fact that
>> > > different people react differently to what they see on the
>> > > silver screen.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > That has never been in contention.
>>
>> And yet you seem to feel that your reaction is the only correct
>> reaction. In every case, in every movie.
>
>Incorrect. I made a claim, which was based on my perception and opinion
>about a series of events. I have supported that view by using examples, and
>outlined why I think it's bad. You are free to disagree until your face is
>blue, and you have yet to offer any form of reasonable argument for your
>view.

As I said, you seem to feel that your reaction is the only correct
reaction.

The problem isn't that a reasonable argument hasn't been offered; the
problem is that you reject any argument that supports any position
that differs from yours.

And I wouldn't be so sure that you have supported your claim, at least
not fully.

The real issue is: why do you need to support it? Is it not enough to
state it, allow me to state mine, and move on?

<snip-a-bit>

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > And now you are trying to weasel your way out of your
>> > > "objective" position by claiming that you weren't actually
>> > > talking about Darth Vader moving his head back and forth but
>> > > about all the prior stuff.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > I wasn't. You snipped what I talked about to make it seem I hadn't
>> > mentioned all those scenes.
>>
>> I did not snip what you talked about "to make it seem I hadn't
>> mentioned all those scenes"; I snipped them because they were
>> filler.
>
>Yes, you snipped it in your followup.

But not to make it seem you hadn't mentioned those scenes. I snipped
because it was not relevant to my poiint.

Apparently, you don't realize that when I snip and ignore most of your
argument and focus on only one part, that means that I agree with the
rest. There is no need to endless replicate agreed-upon matters.

<snip-a-bit-more>

>> > Sandman:
>> > Can't google what Thranduil told her.
>>
>> You missed it? You missed an earlier scene which the scene of
>> Tauriel crying over Fili that one completes?
>
>No, I can't *GOOGLE* what Thranduil *SAYS* in that scene. You made a claim
>about what Thranduil says, and since nothing you say can be taken at face
>value, what he actually said is left as a question.

Right. You /don't remember/ that scense. If you remembered it, you
wouldn't need to google it.

Googling it was a good idea, BTW. It's been more than a month since I
saw the film and my memory may well be getting a bit ... vague.

>> Your analysis of Tauriel crying as "over-the-top" does /not/ take the
>> earlier scene into account? How valid can that be?
>
>Since it's a fabrication of your own mind, I am not an authority to answer
>that question.

If you do not remember the earlier scene, your analysis of the later
scene cannot take it into account. You have to be aware of something
to make use of it in an analysis.

<snip again>

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > <I am snipping the "race" parts because, really, I think I have
>> > > made my point>
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > You haven't. I can't remember you making a single point, actually.
>>
>> It is not clear to you that my point is:
>
>> a) that "race" is not an official taxonomic term in biology?
>
>Which is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Read the article, this time noticing the word "informal". "Informal"
means "not an official taxonomic term".

Then read the talk. Some people apparently use "race" exactly as
stated next.

Where do you think I got that tidbit from.

>> b) that "race" is used, at best, of lower organisms, according to some
>> online research?

Not irrelevant. You are claiming to be using it in a non-racist
manner, and this is certainly a non-racist manner.

It also appears, according to the talk page of the article you cited,
to be the only context in which it used (informally) in biology.

Also note the first two notes on the article page, which apply to the
opening statement: both are about studies of lower organisms.

This is why talk includes some discussion of removing the article: it
appears to be deceptive, even after being cleaned up quite a bit.

>> c) that "race" is used, in the way you have used it, by
>> racists?
>
>Incorrect.

Fine, cite some undeniable non-racists using "race" in the way you
did.

Do you even remember how you used it? Perhaps you should check back
and see.

>> You did not notice those statements?
>
>I did not notice you having a point, no.

As I noted before, simply by stating them I made my point. This isn't
a sporting event; you don't have to admit their correctness, only
understand them.

And I think you understood them just fine. You just don't like them.

Still, all is not lost: I see from the last footnote that /Daedalus/
was in existence as late as December 2002.

<snippo per based on an error on my part>

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > And I said nothing about "love". That is a term you are
>> > > introducing for no apparent reason, actually, except to create a
>> > > psuedo-issue.
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > No, *TAURIEL* said something about love. I claim that it is
>> > "over-the-top" and you disagree, effectively saying that her
>> > feeling love towards Kili was totally logical given their
>> > history. I am now asking you to show where she displayed this
>> > supposed love.
>>
>> No, you asked me where she displayed this "attraction". I made no
>> assertion about "love", only about "attraction".
>
>No, *TAURIEL* said love, please show this love that made that a logical
>course of events.
>
>Attraction != love.

True, but I was talking about attraction.

>If at the end, she was sad because Kili was killed, and Kili was someone
>that she found interested, or even slightly attracted, then she wouldn't
>have talked about love and wishing it to go away, and it wouldn't have been
>over the top.

1) So the "over-the-top" part is her using the word "love" and not the
crying?
2) What she says is (this is actually copied from one of your posts)

"If this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does
it hurt so much?"

This is a question, not a statement. It can have several meanings:

1) Tauriel did indeed think it was love that she felt but now she is
not so sure, given the pain it is causing her.
2) Tauriel was never entirely sure it was love but, whatever it was,
it is hurting her now and she would like the pain to stop.

You can choose to interpret it as meaning that she actually did think
it was love if you wish. But it doesn't really matter because,
whatever it is, Thranduil is merely saying that it is real, not just
something she made up.

Oh, and it is seeing Tauriel weeping over a dead Dwarf that prompts
Thranduil's change of opinion.

<snip-to-end>

Note: it occurred to me last night that Darth Vader did not, in fact
"change his mind" -- the Jedi don't use their mind, they "search their
feelings".

All through the films, all six of them, this is a constant theme:
"search your feelings", "I have felt him", "are you sure your feelings
on this matter are clear?".

This is why Obi-Wan and Yoda are sure Darth cannot be turned: because
it is a matter of feelings and feelings are not under conscious
control. That is why Yoda does not want Anakim trained: because his
feelings cannot be consciously changed and will inevitably lead him to
the dark side.

What the long build up and final scene you detailed earlier were
intended to show is Darth Vader's feelings changing. What looking to
the left and the head-bobbing were supposed to be I have no idea
(which is why the scene does not work for me), but the moment Darth
achieves clarity in what his feelings truly are, he destroys his
Master, the man to whom he swore fealty so many years ago.

And that is why he tells Luke that Luke has saved him, and why he
appears at the end with Yoda and Obi-Wan: because his /feelings/
changed, not his mind, and so he returned from the dark side.

Well, that's how I see it, anyway. Whether the same can be said of
Thranduil (whether it was his feelings rather than his mind that
changed) is an interesting possibility.

[Wayne Brown]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:50:46 in article <e2tccalrmh0gvkfpj...@4ax.com> Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> What the long build up and final scene you detailed earlier were
> intended to show is Darth Vader's feelings changing. What looking to
> the left and the head-bobbing were supposed to be I have no idea
> (which is why the scene does not work for me), but the moment Darth
> achieves clarity in what his feelings truly are, he destroys his
> Master, the man to whom he swore fealty so many years ago.

The "head-bobbing" certainly works for me. What I see is the culmination
of the long slow buildup of Vader's conflicting feelings. He looks
down at Luke, who is on the floor suffering, and back at the Emperor who
stands over Luke and is sadistically enjoying the pain he is inflicting.
Back and forth: "Down THERE is my enemy, who must be defeated, yet he also
is my son whom I feel driven to protect. And over THERE is my master,
and I must serve him, yet I feel a growing hatred toward him for what he
is doing to my son." And after several of these back-and-forth moments
of tortured indecision he suddenly breaks free of the hold the Emperor
has had on him for so many years, and leaps forward to stop him and save
Luke in whatever way he can. We can't see his face behind that mask, but
I can see his fear, love, indecision and sudden resolve almost as clearly
as if the mask weren't there. I'm sorry you can't see that, as for me
it is one of the most powerful moments in any of the Star Wars films.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)

[Sandman]

In article <e2tccalrmh0gvkfpj...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > Incorrect. I made a claim, which was based on my perception and
> > opinion about a series of events. I have supported that view by
> > using examples, and outlined why I think it's bad. You are free
> > to disagree until your face is blue, and you have yet to offer
> > any form of reasonable argument for your view.
>
> As I said, you seem to feel that your reaction is the only correct
> reaction.

How things "seem" to you is of no importance to me.

> The problem isn't that a reasonable argument hasn't been offered;
> the problem is that you reject any argument that supports any
> position that differs from yours.

Incorrect.

> And I wouldn't be so sure that you have supported your claim, at
> least not fully.

Incorrect again.

> The real issue is: why do you need to support it? Is it not enough
> to state it, allow me to state mine, and move on?

We have different opinions, and I wanted to explain what I base my opinion
on. It's only reasonable.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > I did not snip what you talked about "to make it seem I hadn't
> > > mentioned all those scenes"; I snipped them because they were
> > > filler.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Yes, you snipped it in your followup.
>
> But not to make it seem you hadn't mentioned those scenes. I snipped
> because it was not relevant to my poiint.

You snipped and then said I "weaseled" and talked about the things you
snipped, which was what I was talking about.

> > Sandman:

> > No, I can't *GOOGLE* what Thranduil *SAYS* in that scene. You made
> > a claim about what Thranduil says, and since nothing you say can
> > be taken at face value, what he actually said is left as a
> > question.
>
> Right. You /don't remember/ that scense. If you remembered it, you
> wouldn't need to google it.

I remember the scene. I don't remember the dialogue verbatim, just like you
don't either, remember?

"And Thranduil told her, in effect, that she was imagining things."

That is not a quote of what Thranduil says, so you don't know, either.

> Googling it was a good idea, BTW. It's been more than a month since
> I saw the film and my memory may well be getting a bit ... vague.

I know.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Your analysis of Tauriel crying as "over-the-top" does /not/
> > > take the earlier scene into account? How valid can that be?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Since it's a fabrication of your own mind, I am not an authority
> > to answer that question.
>
> If you do not remember the earlier scene, your analysis of the later
> scene cannot take it into account. You have to be aware of something
> to make use of it in an analysis.

Indeed, but since that "if" only exists in your imagination, it is not
related to me in any way.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > c) that "race" is used, in the way you have used it, by
> > > racists?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Incorrect.
>
> Fine, cite some undeniable non-racists using "race" in the way you
> did.

Sure:

"Indeed, there were more buildup for Eowyn to love Aragorn,
more on-screen development of her feelings towards him,
more actual reason for her to fall in love with Aragorn,
and they were both human so no racial borders to defy logic
even!"

/ Sandman - 01/21/2015

> Do you even remember how you used it? Perhaps you should check back
> and see.

Of course I do.

> > Sandman:

> > No, *TAURIEL* said love, please show this love that made that a
> > logical course of events.
>
> > Attraction != love.
>
> True, but I was talking about attraction.

But Tauriel talked about love. Please show this love that made that comment
logical. Thanks in advance.

> > Sandman:

> > If at the end, she was sad because Kili was killed, and Kili was
> > someone that she found interested, or even slightly attracted,
> > then she wouldn't have talked about love and wishing it to go
> > away, and it wouldn't have been over the top.
>
> 1) So the "over-the-top" part is her using the word "love" and not
> the crying?

It's a combination, but it has been clear from the start that it's the
supposed "love" I am questioning.

> 2) What she says is (this is actually copied from one of your posts) "If
> this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does it hurt so
> much?"

> This is a question, not a statement. It can have several meanings:

> 1) Tauriel did indeed think it was love that she felt but now she is
> not so sure, given the pain it is causing her. 2) Tauriel was never
> entirely sure it was love but, whatever it was, it is hurting her
> now and she would like the pain to stop.

Sigh... It is clear to everyone that she has very strong feelings towards
Kili. It is my opinion that those feelings are unwarranted given the
exteremely few scenes they've shared.

It is also clear that she has never loved before, even though she was
interested in Legolas. She has a strong emotional reaction to Kili's death
that would only be logical if she *was* in love with him, which there isn't
enough scenes to develop prior to that.

And Thrnaduil acknowledges her love by calling it real.

> You can choose to interpret it as meaning that she actually did
> think it was love if you wish. But it doesn't really matter because,
> whatever it is, Thranduil is merely saying that it is real, not just
> something she made up.

That the *love* is real.

If *this* is love, I don't want it.... why does *IT* hurt so much.

> Oh, and it is seeing Tauriel weeping over a dead Dwarf that prompts
> Thranduil's change of opinion.

Why?

> Note: it occurred to me last night that Darth Vader did not, in fact
> "change his mind" -- the Jedi don't use their mind, they "search
> their feelings".

Wtf? Not only is Vader no longer a Jedi, nor does one exclude the other.
Are you intoxicated?

> All through the films, all six of them, this is a constant theme:
> "search your feelings", "I have felt him", "are you sure your
> feelings on this matter are clear?".

Ergo - Jedi's "don't use their mind". Haha!

<snip irrelevancy>


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <ma69b4$eq9$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote:

> > Paul S. Person:

> > What the long build up and final scene you detailed earlier were
> > intended to show is Darth Vader's feelings changing. What looking
> > to the left and the head-bobbing were supposed to be I have no
> > idea (which is why the scene does not work for me), but the moment
> > Darth achieves clarity in what his feelings truly are, he destroys
> > his Master, the man to whom he swore fealty so many years ago.
>
> The "head-bobbing" certainly works for me. What I see is the
> culmination of the long slow buildup of Vader's conflicting
> feelings.

Indeed.

> He looks down at Luke, who is on the floor suffering, and
> back at the Emperor who stands over Luke and is sadistically
> enjoying the pain he is inflicting. Back and forth: "Down THERE is
> my enemy, who must be defeated, yet he also is my son whom I feel
> driven to protect. And over THERE is my master, and I must serve
> him, yet I feel a growing hatred toward him for what he is doing to
> my son."

Also, with earlier scenes, Vader makes it clear that he will not turn from
the dark side because it is too powerful, *not* because he doesn't want to.

This change started in Empire Strikes Back, when he could have killed Luke
in Cloud City, easily. He is playing with him, effortlessly. And then he
tells Luke to join *him* and they *together* can rule the galaxy. At that
point in time, the audience can interprete that as a truick to capture Luke
for the emperor, but given the later events, this may be when Vader is
starting to see that there is a way to stand against the dark side, how
Luke chooses to sacrifice himself (as far as he knows) instead of being
captured - or joining his father.

After that scene, Vader is slowly becoming more of a character than en evil
sith. His calm conversation with Luke on Endor shows that he can be driven
by more than just anger and hatred.

> And after several of these back-and-forth moments of tortured indecision
> he suddenly breaks free of the hold the Emperor has had on him for so
> many years, and leaps forward to stop him and save Luke in whatever way
> he can. We can't see his face behind that mask, but I can see his fear,
> love, indecision and sudden resolve almost as clearly as if the mask
> weren't there. I'm sorry you can't see that, as for me it is one of the
> most powerful moments in any of the Star Wars films.

Absolutely. It was masterfully executed and meticulously built up.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Paul S. Person]

I don't doubt that you can.

There is just one problem: you left out the head-bobbing.

In the long shots, where you see Luke in the foreground and Darth and
the Emperor in the background, Darth is bobbing up and down. Actually,
"bending his body" or "bowing" might be better descriptions, so I may
have inadvertently misled you. This is not "back and forth"; this is
"up and down'. What is that all about? Is he nodding approval of the
Emperor's action? Is he praying? Who can say?

And there is also the look to the right (which is what I should have
said instead of "left" above, again, sorry for the confusion): he
looks to the right, away from the Emperor at one point. What is he
doing then? Turning away from a sight to awful to look at (which he
then looks at again)? Catching a glimpse of the ocean or a forest
glade which has somehow come into existence on that part of the Death
Star? Who can say?

I don't doubt what the scene was /intended/ to show; it just doesn't
work for me. But that doesn't mean it didn't work for anyone else.

[Paul S. Person]

On 27 Jan 2015 10:41:59 GMT, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:


>In article <e2tccalrmh0gvkfpj...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > Incorrect. I made a claim, which was based on my perception and
>> > opinion about a series of events. I have supported that view by
>> > using examples, and outlined why I think it's bad. You are free
>> > to disagree until your face is blue, and you have yet to offer
>> > any form of reasonable argument for your view.
>>
>> As I said, you seem to feel that your reaction is the only correct
>> reaction.
>
>How things "seem" to you is of no importance to me.
>
>> The problem isn't that a reasonable argument hasn't been offered;
>> the problem is that you reject any argument that supports any
>> position that differs from yours.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>> And I wouldn't be so sure that you have supported your claim, at
>> least not fully.
>
>Incorrect again.
>
>> The real issue is: why do you need to support it? Is it not enough
>> to state it, allow me to state mine, and move on?
>
>We have different opinions, and I wanted to explain what I base my opinion
>on. It's only reasonable.

Oh, so now, instead of "supporting" it, you wer merely "explaining"
it.

I guess you feel that "explain" is a better counter to my statements
than "support".

The explanations, unfortunately, were not clear.

<snip-a-bit>

>> > > Paul S. Person:
>> > > Your analysis of Tauriel crying as "over-the-top" does /not/
>> > > take the earlier scene into account? How valid can that be?
>> >
>> > Sandman:
>> > Since it's a fabrication of your own mind, I am not an authority
>> > to answer that question.
>>
>> If you do not remember the earlier scene, your analysis of the later
>> scene cannot take it into account. You have to be aware of something
>> to make use of it in an analysis.
>
>Indeed, but since that "if" only exists in your imagination, it is not
>related to me in any way.

You're the one who is googling it. Why would you need to do that if
you remembered it?

If you remembered it, we wouldn't be hearing about your problems
googling it to see if I am right; we would be hearing about what you
remembered.

<snip-some-more>

>> > Sandman:
>> > If at the end, she was sad because Kili was killed, and Kili was
>> > someone that she found interested, or even slightly attracted,
>> > then she wouldn't have talked about love and wishing it to go
>> > away, and it wouldn't have been over the top.
>>
>> 1) So the "over-the-top" part is her using the word "love" and not
>> the crying?
>
>It's a combination, but it has been clear from the start that it's the
>supposed "love" I am questioning.

Not to me.

I thought it was the crying.

I guess you weren't entirely clear.

But you can always quote yourself if I am wrong on that point.

>> 2) What she says is (this is actually copied from one of your posts) "If
>> this is love, I don't want it. Take it away, please! Why does it hurt so
>> much?"
>
>> This is a question, not a statement. It can have several meanings:
>
>> 1) Tauriel did indeed think it was love that she felt but now she is
>> not so sure, given the pain it is causing her. 2) Tauriel was never
>> entirely sure it was love but, whatever it was, it is hurting her
>> now and she would like the pain to stop.
>
>Sigh... It is clear to everyone that she has very strong feelings towards
>Kili. It is my opinion that those feelings are unwarranted given the
>exteremely few scenes they've shared.

Oh, so now it /isn't/ the use of the word "love" that's the problem.

Is this because it has turned out to be a two-edged sword?

And if, as you have said before, Thranduil cannot judge the depth of
Tauriel's love, what makes you believe you can? And, if you can't, how
can you conclude that she has "very strong feelings" for Kili.

I don't know that I would agree with the "very strong" bit. The
Parting at the Lake looks more like friendship or less strong feelings
to me.

>It is also clear that she has never loved before, even though she was
>interested in Legolas. She has a strong emotional reaction to Kili's death
>that would only be logical if she *was* in love with him, which there isn't
>enough scenes to develop prior to that.

Are you sure? Can you rule out the possibility that her feelings for
Kili are from a rebound following the denial to her of Legolas?

>And Thrnaduil acknowledges her love by calling it real.

He acknowledges that she is not fooling herself by calling it real. If
she feels love, then that love is real -- but if she feels friendship
and has mistaken it for love, that friendship is real.

<covered just above>

>> Oh, and it is seeing Tauriel weeping over a dead Dwarf that prompts
>> Thranduil's change of opinion.
>
>Why?

Why what?

Why did I say that?

Why would a male seeing a female weeping over a dead male and
wondering why it hurts so much /if/ it is love change his mind and
decide that, whatever she was feeling, it was "real".

Or did you have something else in mind?

And, as I noted toward the end of the long long bit you justly snipped
below, it is possible that it was more Thranduil's feelings than his
opinions that are involved.

For example, he may have told her "because it is real", not so much
because he believed it was real, but because he saw that she was in
pain and said what he said to help her grieve and so get over it.

>> Note: it occurred to me last night that Darth Vader did not, in fact
>> "change his mind" -- the Jedi don't use their mind, they "search
>> their feelings".
>
>Wtf? Not only is Vader no longer a Jedi, nor does one exclude the other.
>Are you intoxicated?

The Sith are Jedi who tread the Dark Side.

If you think the Emperor is any less governed by his feelings than
Yoda, you are mistaken. IMHO, of course.

>> All through the films, all six of them, this is a constant theme:
>> "search your feelings", "I have felt him", "are you sure your
>> feelings on this matter are clear?".
>
>Ergo - Jedi's "don't use their mind". Haha!

They don't act on what they think. They act on what they feel.

They don't ask their padi-wan learners to think, they ask them to
follow their feelings.

What does Obi-Wan tell Luke when he is practicing with his father's
light saber? This after he pulls the shield down over Luke's eyes so
he cannot see the drone attacking him. Something like "forget your
conscious self, and let your feelings guide you".

That is what the Jedi did, and the Sith as well. And possibly
Thranduil.

><snip irrelevancy>

Aptly put. That's why I stuck it at the end.

[Sandman]

In article <bcjfcal3jkj909dth...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> I don't doubt that you can.

> There is just one problem: you left out the head-bobbing.

> In the long shots, where you see Luke in the foreground and Darth
> and the Emperor in the background, Darth is bobbing up and down.
> Actually, "bending his body" or "bowing" might be better
> descriptions, so I may have inadvertently misled you. This is not
> "back and forth"; this is "up and down'. What is that all about? Is
> he nodding approval of the Emperor's action? Is he praying? Who can
> say?

There is no "bobbing", at best it could be descrtibed as Vader taking a
deep breath, or swaying after taking a lightsaber pummeling by an enraged
Luke. It is just after he has gotten up from the floor.

It's at 0:23 here:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOQI-LAEzM>

This is the original version, without the "No!" from Vader.

> And there is also the look to the right (which is what I should have
> said instead of "left" above, again, sorry for the confusion): he
> looks to the right, away from the Emperor at one point. What is he
> doing then?

Looking at his son, pleading for his help. Every closeup of Vader has him
looking either at his son or at the emperor.

> Turning away from a sight to awful to look at (which he
> then looks at again)? Catching a glimpse of the ocean or a forest
> glade which has somehow come into existence on that part of the
> Death Star? Who can say?

Everyone can say. Only you could miss this.

> I don't doubt what the scene was /intended/ to show; it just doesn't
> work for me. But that doesn't mean it didn't work for anyone else.

This explains so much.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <vojfcahfghgpqe8sc...@4ax.com>, Paul S. Person wrote:

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > The real issue is: why do you need to support it? Is it not
> > > enough to state it, allow me to state mine, and move on?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > We have different opinions, and I wanted to explain what I base my
> > opinion on. It's only reasonable.
>
> Oh, so now, instead of "supporting" it, you wer merely "explaining"
> it.

In this context, it serves the same purpose.

> I guess you feel that "explain" is a better counter to my statements
> than "support".

Both works.

> The explanations, unfortunately, were not clear.

Incorrect.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > If you do not remember the earlier scene, your analysis of the
> > > later scene cannot take it into account. You have to be aware of
> > > something to make use of it in an analysis.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Indeed, but since that "if" only exists in your imagination, it is
> > not related to me in any way.
>
> You're the one who is googling it. Why would you need to do that if
> you remembered it?

Why can't you read? I remember the *scene*, not the *dialogue* verbatim.
You know, like you don't either.

> If you remembered it, we wouldn't be hearing about your problems
> googling it to see if I am right; we would be hearing about what you
> remembered.

Rinse and repeat. Snip away my explanation and then just answer as if I
hadn't written what you snipped.

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > 1) So the "over-the-top" part is her using the word "love" and
> > > not the crying?
> >

> > Sandman:

> > It's a combination, but it has been clear from the start that it's
> > the supposed "love" I am questioning.
>
> Not to me.

I don't care. It was clear nonetheless, since that's what I've explicitly
been saying this entire time.

> I thought it was the crying.

Then you thought so based on nothing I said.

> I guess you weren't entirely clear.

I guess you can't read English.

> But you can always quote yourself if I am wrong on that point.

Of course. That is, after all, what I do. I make statement and then I
support them - unlike you.

"Tauriel and Kili While a love affair between an elf and a
dwarve is pretty outlandish to begin with, even if the
dwarf is as handsome as Kili, it is taken to unreasonable
heights in this movie. It was merely hinted at in the last
movie, which was, well "ok". Here it is outright "true love"
and when Kili is killed, Tauriel weeps. It's out of place
and they've met, what, three times? Please."
/ Sandman- 12/10/2014

I know you'll make a big thing about the word "true" here, but the point is
that from the very start - before you even started trolling me, I objected
to the idea of actual love between them. It has been very clear from the
start for anyone that can read English. That was my OP posted after I had
seen the movie. Not a reply to someone, my own thoughts directly after
having seen the movie.

See, this is what's called support.

> > Sandman:

> > Sigh... It is clear to everyone that she has very strong feelings
> > towards Kili. It is my opinion that those feelings are
> > unwarranted given the exteremely few scenes they've shared.
>
> Oh, so now it /isn't/ the use of the word "love" that's the problem.

Yes, it is.

> Is this because it has turned out to be a two-edged sword?

It hasn't.

> And if, as you have said before, Thranduil cannot judge the depth of
> Tauriel's love, what makes you believe you can? And, if you can't,
> how can you conclude that she has "very strong feelings" for Kili.

Because the depth of her emotions towards Kili is hurting her and she
doesn't want to feel it, and it makes her cry over him. It's unwarranted
based on the scenes they've had up until then.

> I don't know that I would agree with the "very strong" bit. The
> Parting at the Lake looks more like friendship or less strong
> feelings to me.

I know you can't show Tauriel displaying any type of love towards Kili - or
any type of emotions towards him that would lead to her weeping over
hisbody and wishing her emotions away. I've already asked you to do that
and you failed some fourt or five times in a row before you snipped that
part away.

> > Sandman:

> > It is also clear that she has never loved before, even though she
> > was interested in Legolas. She has a strong emotional reaction to
> > Kili's death that would only be logical if she *was* in love with
> > him, which there isn't enough scenes to develop prior to that.
>
> Are you sure?

Yup.

> Can you rule out the possibility that her feelings for
> Kili are from a rebound following the denial to her of Legolas?

Yup.

> > Sandman:

> > And Thrnaduil acknowledges her love by calling it real.
>
> He acknowledges that she is not fooling herself by calling it real.

He acknowledges the "it" in her sentence, which is in reference to the
supposed love.

> If she feels love, then that love is real -- but if she feels
> friendship and has mistaken it for love, that friendship is real.

Why didn't she feel this supposed weep-worthy "friendship" towards Fili?
Also, please describe the scenes in detail that laid the foundation for
this supposed emotionally wrecking friendship that Tauriel felt for Kili.
What did they do to develop this close friendship?

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > Oh, and it is seeing Tauriel weeping over a dead Dwarf that
> > > prompts Thranduil's change of opinion.
> >

> > Sandman:
> > Why?
>
> Why what?

You made a statement. "it is X that prompts". Why is it so?

> Why would a male seeing a female weeping over a dead male and
> wondering why it hurts so much /if/ it is love change his mind and
> decide that, whatever she was feeling, it was "real".

Why did "Tauriel weeping over a dead Dwarf" supposedly "prompt" Thranduil
to change his mind?

> > Sandman:

> > Wtf? Not only is Vader no longer a Jedi, nor does one exclude the
> > other. Are you intoxicated?
>
> The Sith are Jedi who tread the Dark Side.

Incorrect.

> If you think the Emperor is any less governed by his feelings than
> Yoda, you are mistaken. IMHO, of course.

You're the one that foolishly think that force-users don't "user their
mind".

> > > Paul S. Person:

> > > All through the films, all six of them, this is a constant
> > > theme: "search your feelings", "I have felt him", "are you sure
> > > your feelings on this matter are clear?".
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Ergo - Jedi's "don't use their mind". Haha!
>
> They don't act on what they think. They act on what they feel.

You need to tell both Yoda, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan that, given how many times
they urge other to be "mindful" of things.

> They don't ask their padi-wan learners to think, they ask them to
> follow their feelings.

Obi-Wan:
- "Master Yoda says I should be mindful of the future..."

Qui-Gon
- "Be mindful of the living Force, my young Padawan."

Mace Windu, to Anakin
- "Be mindful of your feelings..."

Yoda, to Anaking:
- "A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind."

Qui-Gon:
- "I want you to watch me and be mindful...always remember, your
focus determines your reality."

Etc etc. And that's just from one movie.

> What does Obi-Wan tell Luke when he is practicing with his father's
> light saber? This after he pulls the shield down over Luke's eyes so
> he cannot see the drone attacking him. Something like "forget your
> conscious self, and let your feelings guide you".

He's telling him to stretch out with his feeling, and that eyes can decieve
him. Also, that he should let go of his concious self and *act on
instinct*.

> That is what the Jedi did, and the Sith as well. And possibly
> Thranduil.

Haha!





--
Sandman[.net]

[Wayne Brown]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:46:31 in article <bcjfcal3jkj909dth...@4ax.com> Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> There is just one problem: you left out the head-bobbing.
>
> In the long shots, where you see Luke in the foreground and Darth and
> the Emperor in the background, Darth is bobbing up and down. Actually,
> "bending his body" or "bowing" might be better descriptions, so I may
> have inadvertently misled you. This is not "back and forth"; this is
> "up and down'. What is that all about? Is he nodding approval of the
> Emperor's action? Is he praying? Who can say?

It's been a long time since I saw it, so I'll have to take your word
for it. The only "up and down" I remember is Vader looking down at Luke
and up at the Emperor.