At the risk of being labelled a TROLL [Who? Me?] Jackson's lost the plot.
Michael O'Neill
plot.
The changes we are hearing about destroy the subtlety of the book
AFAICS.
For example, the morphing of Arwen. In this era of Xena, Warrior
Princess, do we really neeed another Xena clone? Far better to develop
the Elvish traits of the half-elven and the idea of her "watching over"
Aragorn from afar.
But perhaps that would require some actual acting talent.
Instead, we have a formulaic reliance on two boy/girl relationships
[Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Éowyn] and a story grossly simplified by the
omission of Denethor's death at the hands of the Lord of the Nazgul and
his avenging by Merry and Éowyn.
Where then are the depths of the story in the book, which states in bold
capitals that *all* ages contribute, from the youngest to the eldest in
overcoming evil; that *all* persons of whatever size, sex and type, can
offer themselves to great effect for the greater good; that co-operation
of the weak, opressed and the dismissed can overcome a mightly tyrant?
Those depths are gone. But is that all?
No. Bombadil's gone too. The long vision of history which occurs in his
house [and which sets the scene for Aragorn's introduction to the plot],
the Hobbits' dawning knowledge of the many evils in the world, of which
Sauron is only one, and the awareness of other influences for good
beyond the Hobbits rustic upbringing, all help the readers awareness
expand to encompass the world of Middle Earth. The filmgoer will not
have this expert guidance.
Thus the film has coarsened to a mere adventure story. Where once it
dealt with the many roles of different people, the flight of the Elves,
the nature of the Dwarves with the subtletapestry of it's own history
flowing behind, it now shocks us with special effects, with cgi scripts
and flaming swords.
But is *that* all? No.
Think, Tolkien fans.
If Gríma gets killed so early in the storey, what happens at Isengard -
is the Panantír written out too? Are the Ents gone as well? With no
Palantír, how can Aragorn challenge Sauron and see "a peril unlooked
for" coming from the South to threaten Gondor? What then is his
motivation for treading the paths of the dead. Some trite utterances
from the Warrior Tart Arwen? What of the desire of Éowyn for Aragorn, so
touchingly expressed at that last parting before the War.
Is even *that* all?
If Gríma is killed so early then who kills Saruman? Does the Scouring of
the Shire happen? Is it too "downbeat" an ending for the kiddies of
today to comprehend? Does Frodo's speech to Sam have nothing to say to
this so materialistic generation about self-sacrifice and the good of
the many outweighing the good of the few?
It seems not.
Mr. Jackson, come in, please. Your time is up. Please don't fuck up a
perfectly good story because of your own lack of directorial ability,
your scriptwriter's meagre story-writing ability or your lack of
appreciation of an excellent book.
At least we now understand exactly why actors who hadn't read the book
were chosen to play key roles. If they were Tolkien fans, you could
imagine a mass exodus right about now.
Have A Nice Day too. You've fucking made mine. Prat.
Warrior Princess indeed.
<SNAP!>
*That* for yer Warrior Princesses!
M.
Andomar
> [Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Éowyn] and a story grossly simplified by the
> omission of Denethor's death at the hands of the Lord of the Nazgul and
> his avenging by Merry and Éowyn.
>
About the changes in the story, I would have to agree.
The main storyline should be the Quest of the Ring and
how it is fulfilled beyond hope. Because in Tolkien, love
alone does not overcome evil. Hard toil, sacrifice,
pity, and hope unlooked for; those things led
to the downfall of Sauron. Arwen's sacrifice of her
mortality; Aragorn's years of toil without final hope;
Bilbo's pity on Gollum; Frodo's loss of life by carrying
the ring; Gandalf giving his life to rescue the others
in the Fellowship; Galadriel refusing the Ring and so
dooming Lorien.
But making a movie about these things is incomparably
harder than making a movie about two couples that overcome
Sauron with their love. So at least from a practical
viewpoint one can understand Mr. Jackson :)
Kevin Nelson
Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>While I extoll Michael Martinez' forbearance, I think Jackson's lost the
>plot.
>
>The changes we are hearing about destroy the subtlety of the book
>AFAICS.
Most of the changes I have heard about I would classify as
"tolerable." A few of them, on the other hand, I would have to
say are "terrible." I still hope that those latter are either
incorrect reports or can be explained in context. There is an
excellent chance that the movie will turn out to be garbage, but
I am still holding out hope.
>For example, the morphing of Arwen. In this era of Xena, Warrior
>Princess, do we really neeed another Xena clone? Far better to develop
>the Elvish traits of the half-elven and the idea of her "watching over"
>Aragorn from afar.
The idea of a "fighting Arwen" doesn't disturb me as much as
it does some people. Obviously Arwen doesn't fight in the book, but
I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
warriors.
It is possible, I repeat _possible_ that Jackson will handle
the character of Arwen with subtlety and restraint. Her role has
been expanded but it's still not clear how much. She won't be a
member of the fellowship, but she might or might not come south
with Elladan and Elrohir. The only confirmed fact is that she
will replace Glorfindel.
I suspect (and certainly hope) the below quote is a mistake.
"The dummy was standing in for the pint sized actor playing
Liv's hobbit sidekick Bilbo Baggins as they escaped from
a fearsome band of Ringwraiths, among the books'
eeriest bad guys."
>Instead, we have a formulaic reliance on two boy/girl relationships
>[Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Éowyn] and a story grossly simplified by the
>omission of Denethor's death at the hands of the Lord of the Nazgul and
>his avenging by Merry and Éowyn.
Denethor's death? I assume you mean Theoden's death. I am still
not clear as to what change has been made here. If Grima murders
Theoden or something like that and there is never a chance to develop
Theoden's character, then I would have to agree the change is
"terrible."
>No. Bombadil's gone too. The long vision of history which occurs in his
>house [and which sets the scene for Aragorn's introduction to the plot],
>the Hobbits' dawning knowledge of the many evils in the world, of which
>Sauron is only one, and the awareness of other influences for good
>beyond the Hobbits rustic upbringing, all help the readers awareness
>expand to encompass the world of Middle Earth. The filmgoer will not
>have this expert guidance.
I guess I'm just not an absolute Tolkien purist. I can't approve
of too many changes to the story, but I can see how Bombadil just isn't
very...cinematic. Movies aren't really well suited to giving a "long
vision of history."
>Thus the film has coarsened to a mere adventure story. Where once it
>dealt with the many roles of different people, the flight of the Elves,
>the nature of the Dwarves with the subtletapestry of it's own history
>flowing behind, it now shocks us with special effects, with cgi scripts
>and flaming swords.
Maybe. But without having read the entire script, I still think it's
too early to make a definite statement like that.
>But is *that* all? No.
>
>Think, Tolkien fans.
>
>If Gríma gets killed so early in the storey, what happens at Isengard -
>is the Panantír written out too? Are the Ents gone as well?
I very much doubt that the Palantir or the Ents have been cut out.
If I find out that they have, I tend to doubt I will go see the movie.
Gandalf and Aragorn can still get the Palantir some other way.
Some other servant of Saruman's might throw it at them, Saruman
might "drop" it, Gandalf might force him to surrender it, etc. None
of those possibilities sound very appealing, but to tell the truth
I always thought Grima's throwing the Palantir out of Orthanc was
something of a weak link in the story.
>If Gríma is killed so early then who kills Saruman? Does the Scouring of
>the Shire happen? Is it too "downbeat" an ending for the kiddies of
>today to comprehend?
On the other hand, I am almost sure that the Scouring of the Shire
will be cut out or severely compressed. One of the rules of modern
filmmaking is to end the movie shortly after the climax. The climax
of LOTR is the destruction of the Ring, and I don't expect more than
a few minutes of film time after that. Maybe there will be one
scene at the Field of Cormallen, then a scene of the hobbits returning
to the Shire, and then that's the end.
>Mr. Jackson, come in, please. Your time is up. Please don't fuck up a
>perfectly good story because of your own lack of directorial ability,
>your scriptwriter's meagre story-writing ability or your lack of
>appreciation of an excellent book.
Maybe a year from now I will second your opinion of his skills, but
I am prepared to wait to form any final judgment.
>
>Warrior Princess indeed.
>
>
>M.
Kevin
Michael O'Neill
>
> > Instead, we have a formulaic reliance on two boy/girl relationships
> > [Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Éowyn] and a story grossly simplified by the
> > omission of Denethor's death at the hands of the Lord of the Nazgul and
> > his avenging by Merry and Éowyn.
> >
Oops! Yes, sorry.
> About the changes in the story, I would have to agree.
> The main storyline should be the Quest of the Ring and
> how it is fulfilled beyond hope. Because in Tolkien, love
> alone does not overcome evil. Hard toil, sacrifice,
> pity, and hope unlooked for; those things led
> to the downfall of Sauron. Arwen's sacrifice of her
> mortality; Aragorn's years of toil without final hope;
> Bilbo's pity on Gollum; Frodo's loss of life by carrying
> the ring; Gandalf giving his life to rescue the others
> in the Fellowship; Galadriel refusing the Ring and so
> dooming Lorien.
Or saving it's memory untarnished, but yes, I take your point...
> But making a movie about these things is incomparably
> harder than making a movie about two couples that overcome
> Sauron with their love. So at least from a practical
> viewpoint one can understand Mr. Jackson :)
Understand him, yes; see he's taking an easy way out, yes; approve of
it, NO!
:-)
M.
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:38725CA1...@indigo.ie...
> While I extoll Michael Martinez' forbearance, I think Jackson's lost the
> plot.
[...]
Then don't go and see it. I won't. :-)
Craban.
dara...@my-deja.com
Dear Mike,
My sentiments as well. BTW, I'm suprised that 'Alan Graham' guy
hasn't already posted a note about how full of it you are and how no
one can dictate to an 'artist' (Jackson, supposedly) what is
an 'authentic' rendition of a book and what is not. Believe me, you'll
be hearing from him.
Cheers,
Paul
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ermanna
Kevin Nelson wrote:
> In article <38725CA1...@indigo.ie>,
> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> wrote:
<shnip>
> Obviously Arwen doesn't fight in the book, but
> I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
> princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
> warriors.
Where does Tolkien say this?
<shnip>
> Kevin
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
Ewoks are Hobbits!
Andomar
> > I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
> > princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
> > warriors.
>
>
there was no fighting.
Michael O'Neill
>
> (snip Mr O'Neill's lament)
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> My sentiments as well. BTW, I'm suprised that 'Alan Graham' guy
> hasn't already posted a note about how full of it you are and how no
> one can dictate to an 'artist' (Jackson, supposedly) what is
> an 'authentic' rendition of a book and what is not. Believe me,
> you'll be hearing from him.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
Thanks for the forewarning [you don't have a spare Palantír, do you?].
Alan fucking Graham's mine for breakfast.
Like most people who appreciate artistic endeavours, I'll give
"artistes" the benefit of the doubt where I think it's warranted, but
only up to a certain point.
I think that Jackson at this time has gone beyond interpretation and is
now well into the realms of a complete rewrite.
I'll be surprised if Saruman doesn't end up running an old folks home in
Bag End where a distraught Frodo marries Rosie Cotton and lives happily
ever after, lamenting the end of his pal Sam who pushed Gollum over the
edge in Orodruin's Crack of Doom, taking care of the Books dodgy Rings
End resolution.
Oh, wait. That would mean Aragorn doesn't get to push Gollum in,
wouldn't it?
Curses! Another rewrite!!!
I mean, come ON!
This fucker Jackson appears to be riding a coach and four through *the*
seminal Fantasy Book of this Century and we, the Tolkien Fans, are doing
N-O-T-H-I-N-G about it.
*Yes, I signed the friggin' Petition and a lot of good THAT has done.*
I think it's time some of the more high profile posters here, those with
influential contacts in the literary world, got a nice red hot poker and
shoved it up Jackson's arse - Michael Martinez and that John Whassname
that SuzieFlame thinks is some big knob in the states and Michael Scott
Rohan as well.
Come on guys, speak up!
Otherwise we'll end up with something more suited to a T.V. serial, and
I well remember the terminal boredom of Tolstoy's War and Peace
serialised for T.V., however it was well done.
Unfortunately that would only encourage Jackson to write more
blither-blather about Arwen's Warrior Princess upbringing and how it was
SHE and not Bard the Bowman who slew Smaug the Dragon, prompted by her
Elven Foresight, so distant lover Aragorn wouldn't have to defend his
arse as he faced Sauron alone in single combat on the slopes of Orodruin
[while Frodo pushes Sam, who had gotten sick of Frodo's wimping about
and taken the Ring for himself, into the Crack of Doom aided by a
reformed Gollum].
*Sorry. It just takes you over, this rewriting stuff.*
And as for Elvish languages, what of GLorfindels first utterance "Ai ne
vedui Dúnadan"? Sounds a bit butch for even a Warrior Princess, ehhhhh?
Treasured little snippets like this are going to be butchered left right
and centre to make way for Jackson's luuuurv angles.
How about "Beryl rocks, eh, Aragorn baby?" as Arwen lovingly crushes his
leather clad gonads while he bends over to pick up the Elvish token.
No doubt Orcs are going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad
versions of the Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time
Machine", with maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being
tormented by Orcs [if she's still with us].
Sheeesh! The more I hear about Jackson's "changes" the more I consider
him a complete and utter fuckwit who should never have been let near
interpreting a book which appears to be clearly beyond his talent. I am
right on the edge about this guy and his friggin' changes to the Book.
Either "interpret" or fuck off Jackson. "Interpreting" is not a
re-write!!! It does not completely change the fucken role of central
characters.
Because if you do that, it's no longer going to be a Film called
"The Lord of the Rings"
It's going to be a film calle
"Jackson's Crappy Fucken Re-Write of The Lord of The Rings"!!!
Fuck yer re-writes. You're making a film of a well-loved Book, not
rewriting the fucken thing. Who said you were free to do that? Some
snot-gobbling little actuary somewhere? I'll have 'im!!!
The real problem with Jackson is that he seems unable to understand the
basic structure of book itself. The things that *need* to happen, the
messages that are essential to understand and tell. If he's taking
advice on hhis omissions and changes, he's getting it from utter and
complete fuckwits who know nothing about Tolkien's work and care even
less.
I for one am getting sick and tired off all this bollox about changes
and I say it's time we made a stand on this issue!
Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
strikes included.
M.
Kevin Nelson
>
>
>Kevin Nelson wrote:
>
>> Obviously Arwen doesn't fight in the book, but
>> I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
>> princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
>> warriors.
>
>
It's in the original version of "The Fall of Gondolin," given
in volume two of the _Book of Lost Tales_. I know there's a debate
about canon, with some people looking on Tolkien's very early work
as so separate that it cannot be taken as a source of information
about the world portrayed in his later work. And undeniably, there
are major inconsistencies between the early and the later works.
But for myself, whenever there is some detail in the early works
that is _not_ contradicted anywhere in the later ones, I regard
that detail as valid. One could perhaps argue about details in
the early works that somehow "contradict the spirit" of the later
works, but I don't think Idril's fighting ability is arguable even
under that viewpoint. In any case there is not much material
on the fall of Gondolin in the later Silmarillion writings.
Kevin
dara...@my-deja.com
going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad versions of the
Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time Machine", with
maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being tormented by Orcs
[if she's still with us]."
Dear Mike,
Man, you really gave em hell!! The above quote unfortunately seems
to be right-on with what Jackson and his gang are doing. The Orcs will
have green scaly skin and will undoubtably look something like giant
gremlins (from movie of same name). Now all the inferences I have from
LOTR suggest that orcs, while a short, bowlegged, greasy, ugly lot
still looked like something humanoid (i.e. if you walked past one on a
street you might think 'God what an ugly little dude', but you wouldn't
immediately think the orc was some kind of extraterrestrial alien).
But this is just a symptom of what you were lamenting, that the movies
will be Hollywood schlock aimed at 12 year olds.
I just hope they don't fuck it up as much as they did with 'Dune'.
Ron Ploeg
Andomar wrote:
>
> > > Obviously Arwen doesn't fight in the book, but
> > > I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
> > > princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
> > > warriors.
> >
> > Where does Tolkien say this?
> >
> Arwen dwelt ever in Lorien or Rivendell, where
> there was no fighting.
Indeed. It is an intricate part of JRR Tolkien's story. As Bombadil is
for instance. Unfortunately we are not discussing JRR Tolkien's story.
We are discussing Peter Jackson's story. *Not* adaptation mind you.
Story.
Cheers, Ron
--
http://home.wxs.nl/~hobbiton
At your service!
Ron Ploeg
Michael O'Neill wrote:
(snip rest of Jackson-rant)
>
> Because if you do that, it's no longer going to be a Film called
>
> "The Lord of the Rings"
>
> It's going to be a film calle
>
> "Jackson's Crappy Fucken Re-Write of The Lord of The Rings"!!!
Precisely. And Jackson has been saying this all along. Artistic
interpretation.
>
> I for one am getting sick and tired off all this bollox about changes
> and I say it's time we made a stand on this issue!
>
> Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
> strikes included.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of artists..." ;^)
Perhaps you were to preoccupied with Hogey's and Bogey's before Michael,
but Öjevind, Michael Scott Rohan, your's truly and many others have
expressed their serious concerns on these ng's before. We can only hope
that the ng's are being monitored by co-operators of the movies, I would
find it quite odd if this were not the case.
Most discussions ended up in "give Jackson some credit" versus "no way!
not if he will be ...(fill in rumour)" or in vague (and sometimes
unwilling) discussions on vague terms as "the spirit" or "being true" to
Tolkien's creation.
I for one feel that any concern should be spoken out. Changes in
Tolkien's work will undoubtedly occur. Perhaps changes in Jackson's
script will occur as well. The film has not been made. Yet.
Ermanna
Andomar wrote:
> > > Obviously Arwen doesn't fight in the book, but
> > > I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
> > > princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
> > > warriors.
> >
> > Where does Tolkien say this?
> >
> Arwen dwelt ever in Lorien or Rivendell, where
> there was no fighting.
Actually, I was asking about Idril.
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
Ewoks are Hobbits!
Ermanna
Kevin Nelson wrote:
<shnip>Thank you, Kevin. I'm afraid I am one
of those who don't think that stuff's canon.
> Kevin
Alan Graham
Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3873AA19...@indigo.ie>...
>dara...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> (snip Mr O'Neill's lament)
>>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> My sentiments as well. BTW, I'm suprised that 'Alan Graham' guy
>> hasn't already posted a note about how full of it you are and how no
>> one can dictate to an 'artist' (Jackson, supposedly) what is
>> an 'authentic' rendition of a book and what is not. Believe me,
>> you'll be hearing from him.
Considering you still haven'y had the courtesy to even come close to
actually defining what a definitive version of LoTR is, that's a lousy
crack.
Al
Alan Graham
involved...
Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3873AA19...@indigo.ie>...
>
>Thanks for the forewarning [you don't have a spare Palantír, do you?].
>Alan fucking Graham's mine for breakfast.
In your wet dreams, pal.
>Like most people who appreciate artistic endeavours, I'll give
>"artistes" the benefit of the doubt where I think it's warranted, but
>only up to a certain point.
>
>I think that Jackson at this time has gone beyond interpretation and is
>now well into the realms of a complete rewrite.
Seen the film have you?
>I'll be surprised if Saruman doesn't end up running an old folks home in
>Bag End where a distraught Frodo marries Rosie Cotton and lives happily
>ever after, lamenting the end of his pal Sam who pushed Gollum over the
>edge in Orodruin's Crack of Doom, taking care of the Books dodgy Rings
>End resolution.
I must have missed the Jackson interview where this was outlined.
>Oh, wait. That would mean Aragorn doesn't get to push Gollum in,
>wouldn't it?
>
>Curses! Another rewrite!!!
>
>I mean, come ON!
>
>This fucker Jackson
...and so your critique of artistic endeavours begins...
> appears to be riding a coach and four through *the*
>seminal Fantasy Book of this Century and we, the Tolkien Fans, are
Tolkien fans, of course, having exactly the same feelings about everything.
> doing
>N-O-T-H-I-N-G about it.
Well, apart from swearing profusely.
>*Yes, I signed the friggin' Petition and a lot of good THAT has done.*
>
>I think it's time some of the more high profile posters here, those with
>influential contacts in the literary world, got a nice red hot poker and
>shoved it up Jackson's arse - Michael Martinez and that John Whassname
>that SuzieFlame thinks is some big knob in the states and Michael Scott
>Rohan as well.
Of course that'll do soooooo much more good than a petition.
>Come on guys, speak up!
Come on, relax. Take a deep breath, go get laid. Did Taxi Driver teach you
nothing about where these feelings lead?
>Otherwise we'll end up with something more suited to a T.V. serial, and
>I well remember the terminal boredom of Tolstoy's War and Peace
>serialised for T.V., however it was well done.
>Unfortunately that would only encourage Jackson to write more
>blither-blather about Arwen's Warrior Princess upbringing and how it was
>SHE and not Bard the Bowman who slew Smaug the Dragon, prompted by her
>Elven Foresight, so distant lover Aragorn wouldn't have to defend his
>arse as he faced Sauron alone in single combat on the slopes of Orodruin
>[while Frodo pushes Sam, who had gotten sick of Frodo's wimping about
>and taken the Ring for himself, into the Crack of Doom aided by a
>reformed Gollum].
>
>*Sorry. It just takes you over, this rewriting stuff.*
I'm just thankful you're not adapting it, if that's what you believe
adapting entails.
>And as for Elvish languages, what of GLorfindels first utterance "Ai ne
>vedui Dúnadan"? Sounds a bit butch for even a Warrior Princess, ehhhhh?
>
>Treasured little snippets like this are going to be butchered left right
>and centre to make way for Jackson's luuuurv angles.
What? Jackson is going to suggest Aragorn is in love with Arwen? The nerve
of the man.
>How about "Beryl rocks, eh, Aragorn baby?" as Arwen lovingly crushes his
>leather clad gonads while he bends over to pick up the Elvish token.
>
>No doubt Orcs are going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad
>versions of the Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time
>Machine", with maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being
>tormented by Orcs [if she's still with us].
Obviously.
>Sheeesh! The more I hear about Jackson's "changes" the more I consider
>him a complete and utter fuckwit who should never have been let near
>interpreting a book which appears to be clearly beyond his talent. I am
>right on the edge about this guy and his friggin' changes to the Book.
I take it, then from your illustrious career of movie making and/or
screenplay writing, that you're just the man who should have been given the
job.
Life's Unfair like that.
>Either "interpret" or fuck off Jackson. "Interpreting" is not a
>re-write!!! It does not completely change the fucken role of central
>characters.
Which this adaptation isn't doing...
>Because if you do that, it's no longer going to be a Film called
>
>"The Lord of the Rings"
>
>It's going to be a film calle
>
>"Jackson's Crappy Fucken Re-Write of The Lord of The Rings"!!!
>
>Fuck yer re-writes. You're making a film of a well-loved Book, not
>rewriting the fucken thing. Who said you were free to do that? Some
>snot-gobbling little actuary somewhere? I'll have 'im!!!
Of course, if you were adapting the books any changes you made would be
perfectly acceptable.
>The real problem with Jackson is that he seems unable to understand the
>basic structure of book itself. The things that *need* to happen, the
>messages that are essential to understand and tell.
Which are?
> If he's taking
>advice on hhis omissions and changes, he's getting it from utter and
>complete fuckwits who know nothing about Tolkien's work and care even
>less.
Yeah, that Tom Shippey eh? What does he know?
>I for one am getting sick and tired off all this bollox about changes
>and I say it's time we made a stand on this issue!
Yeah! I read about some changes on the internet so they must be true!
>Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
>strikes included.
How about calming down, reading some Tolkien and CHOOSING NOT TO GO SEE THE
FILM.
Al
Öjevind Lång
[snip] Now all the inferences I have from
>LOTR suggest that orcs, while a short, bowlegged, greasy, ugly lot
>still looked like something humanoid (i.e. if you walked past one on a
>street you might think 'God what an ugly little dude', but you wouldn't
>immediately think the orc was some kind of extraterrestrial alien).
>But this is just a symptom of what you were lamenting, that the movies
>will be Hollywood schlock aimed at 12 year olds.
Hello, Paul.
I don't entirely agree with you. I have always envisioned the Orcs as rather
apelike, with long arms. That means if I met one on the town I would be
quite frightened and think I had met a freak of nature.
Öjevind
grimgard
Andomar wrote:
> > > Obviously Arwen doesn't fight in the book, but
> > > I think she could have if the need arose. There were other elven
> > > princesses in JRRT's work, such as Idril Celebrindal, who were
> > > warriors.
> >
> > Where does Tolkien say this?
> >
> Arwen dwelt ever in Lorien or Rivendell, where
> there was no fighting.
Au contraire. I don't believe the fighting ever reached Rivendell, but
it certainly reached Lorien.
grimgard
Stan Brown
O'Neill) wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>a story grossly simplified by the
>omission of Denethor's death at the hands of the Lord of the Nazgul and
>his avenging by Merry and Éowyn.
I believe you meant "Théoden's death".
Théoden = King of Rohan
Denethor = Steward of Gondor
Confusing the two seems to be a curiously common error on this
newsgroup.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
Tolkien FAQs:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/TolkNgFaq.html (Jensen)
http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~gsl9286/aft/faq/ (Loos)
Inklings site list:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/GregorArlt/inklings_sites.html
more FAQs: http://www.mindspring.com/~brahms/faqget.htm
John Savard
>Like most people who appreciate artistic endeavours, I'll give
>"artistes" the benefit of the doubt where I think it's warranted, but
>only up to a certain point.
>I think that Jackson at this time has gone beyond interpretation and is
>now well into the realms of a complete rewrite.
>I'll be surprised if Saruman doesn't end up running an old folks home in
>Bag End where a distraught Frodo marries Rosie Cotton and lives happily
>ever after, lamenting the end of his pal Sam who pushed Gollum over the
>edge in Orodruin's Crack of Doom, taking care of the Books dodgy Rings
>End resolution.
Ah, but only if you believe all the rumors that have been flying
around. It may not be as bad as all that, for all we know.
While I certainly do strongly hope that the movie does remain as
faithful to the book as possible, I appreciate that even in the best
case, a little change is unavoidable. I will pass final judgement on
the movie, though, only after it comes out.
If, indeed, it is as transformed as the comments indicate, I will not
be happy.
John Savard (jsavard<at>ecn<dot>ab<dot>ca)
http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Jonathan White
Jackson's re-writes?
As far as I've heard, the only things that we *know* have been changed, are
the exculsion of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, and the "expansion" of
Arwen's character, which involves her taking Glorfindels role.
Now, there may be more details available that I haven't heard yet, but,
although I have concerns about the changes above, they hardly warrant the
ranting that this thread has brought about. Sure, *if* Arwen has become a
Xenia clone, then I agree that its gone too far. But does taking
Glorfindel's role really make her into a "warrior"? It might, but it doesn't
have to - it all depends how Jackson plays it.
I'm concerned too about the lack of Bombadil, but not enough to write the
film off as a dead loss just because of that. I agree an authentic Tolkien
film would be better, sure, but I'm loathe to write this film off as a dead
loss on the basis of a few items of un-supported rumour which are float
around the net atm.
Give the guy a chance people - making a successful film of LotR has to be
one of the hardest things any film could attempt. Its one thing to express
concerns in a hope that the film creators will read them and take them
seriously. But surely a rant like that (which, were it posted in response to
a post by Jackson, would be considered a flame) will have no affect other
than to persuade the film-makers (should they happen to be reading these
NGs) that all aft and rabt-ers are incapable of offering serious advice and
assistance in the film-making.
Jon
Andomar
> it certainly reached Lorien.
>
borders of Lorien, but not in Lorien itself.
If you have references to prove otherwise, please
share, that would be interesting!
dara...@my-deja.com
envisioned the Orcs as rather apelike, with long arms. That means if I
met one on the town I would be quite frightened and think I had met a
freak of nature."
Dear Öjevind,
Hello! Hope you have had a fine holiday season. I have no problem
with your ideas about Orcs (I myself think the bodies could be sort
of 'apelike', but the heads would be more 'human-looking'. Although
any human with their features would be considered pretty ghastly). I
guess my thoughts were an 'IMO' post and I should have put that in
there.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:38755CE9...@brotherrobot.org...
> In the Lord of the Rings there is fighting on the
> borders of Lorien, but not in Lorien itself.
> If you have references to prove otherwise, please
> share, that would be interesting!
"'Orophin has now gone in haste back to our dwellings to warn our
people. None of the Orcs will ever return out of Lorien."
FotR, Lothlorien
That's fairly clear, but you were likely thinking of;
"Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides
the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt
there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come
there himself. Though grievous harm was done to the fair woods on
the borders, the assaults were driven back..."
Appendix B
Grievous harm to the trees of Lorien implies that there was fighting
>inside< the borders rather than >outside< them.
Freaksaus
scribbled on a virtual piece of paper::
>That means if I met one on the town I would be
>quite frightened and think I had met a freak of nature.
He, what you mean with that huh?????
Freek
Andomar
> people. None of the Orcs will ever return out of Lorien."
> FotR, Lothlorien
>
> That's fairly clear, but you were likely thinking of;
Well, that was in the border of Lorien, even before
Gimli was blindfolded.
>
> Grievous harm to the trees of Lorien implies that there was fighting
> >inside< the borders rather than >outside< them.
Aha, although the borders is probably not where
Arwen dwelt. Your quotes do indeed prove there
was battle in Lorien, still it seems unlikely
that Arwen was involved.
Ermanna
grimgard wrote:
> Andomar wrote:
<shnip>
> > Arwen dwelt ever in Lorien or Rivendell, where
> > there was no fighting.
>
> Au contraire. I don't believe the fighting ever reached Rivendell, but
> it certainly reached Lorien.
Yeah, but she was in Rivendell.
> grimgard
Michael Martinez
>A question for you - what is the source of your "information" about
>Jackson's re-writes?
>
>As far as I've heard, the only things that we *know* have been changed, are
>the exculsion of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, and the "expansion" of
>Arwen's character, which involves her taking Glorfindels role.
Much of what people are discussing is derived from reviews of the original
two-film script that have been posted on a couple of Web sites. The reviewers
pointed out they don't know what would survive into the three-film version.
But then, as filming progresses, we're getting reports of what is happening in
New Zealand.
>Now, there may be more details available that I haven't heard yet, but,
>although I have concerns about the changes above, they hardly warrant the
>ranting that this thread has brought about. Sure, *if* Arwen has become a
>Xenia clone, then I agree that its gone too far. But does taking
>Glorfindel's role really make her into a "warrior"? It might, but it doesn't
>have to - it all depends how Jackson plays it.
People need to stop worrying about Arwen turning out like Xena. That is not
Jackson's intention. She will be a warrior princess but not a Warrior
Princess Clone.
--
\\ // Science Fiction and Fantasy in...@xenite.org
\\// LOTR Movie News: http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movie/
//\\ 1500+ Xena Links: http://www.xenite.org/xor/home.shtml
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Mia Kalogjera
> People need to stop worrying about Arwen turning out like Xena. That is not
> Jackson's intention. She will be a warrior princess but not a Warrior
> Princess Clone.
Well I'm bothered by the whole 'warrior' bit. Arwen is a noble lady, a princess, an
embodiment of courtly elegance etc. Eowyn is the warrior, Galadriel a strong leader,
and Rosie the idealised image of a family woman. Tolkien gave us the most important
profiles of a perfect woman, nearly symbols, in those four characters, and I don't see
why Jackson feels he needs to go combining and messing it all up.
--
http://TheOneRing.net - Lord of the Rings Movie news
and rumours: forged by and for FANS of J.R.R.Tolkien
Die Andere Seite: http://www.angelfire.com/ri/jereeza
e-mail: mia(at)theonering.net or jereeza(at)yahoo.com
Alan Graham
Mia Kalogjera wrote in message <3876BF...@theonering.net>...
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> People need to stop worrying about Arwen turning out like Xena. That is
not
>> Jackson's intention. She will be a warrior princess but not a Warrior
>> Princess Clone.
>
>Well I'm bothered by the whole 'warrior' bit. Arwen is a noble lady, a
princess, an
>embodiment of courtly elegance etc.
I for one disagree with this reading of Arwen from the book, let alone as
the benchmark for making an adaptation.
> Eowyn is the warrior, Galadriel a strong leader,
>and Rosie the idealised image of a family woman. Tolkien gave us the most
important
>profiles of a perfect woman, nearly symbols, in those four characters, and
I don't see
>why Jackson feels he needs to go combining and messing it all up.
Eowyn, Galadriel and Rosie are characters, not idealised personifications.
And none match my idea of a "perfect woman"
Al
...well maybe Arwen does, gotta love a woman with a big house and a rich
father who'll soon be leaving the country.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez wrote:
>
>> People need to stop worrying about Arwen turning out like Xena. That is not
>> Jackson's intention. She will be a warrior princess but not a Warrior
>> Princess Clone.
>
>Well I'm bothered by the whole 'warrior' bit. Arwen is a noble lady, a
>Galadriel a strong leader, and Rosie the idealised image of a family woman.
>Tolkien gave us the most important profiles of a perfect woman, nearly
>symbols, in those four characters, and I don't see why Jackson feels he
>needs to go combining and messing it all up.
"Courtly elegance"? Whose court was she elegantly a part of? Elrond was an
Elven lord but his house is hardly a "court".
Arwen is a very subtle character. I think Tolkien would have given her a
greater role if he could have, but he would have emphasized her relationship
with Aragorn outside of the Quest of the Ring.
Mia Kalogjera
> Eowyn, Galadriel and Rosie are characters, not idealised personifications.
They are idealised characters :) - and I always felt each of the major characters in
LotR could be 'described' with one word, without denying them three-dimensionality.
> And none match my idea of a "perfect woman"
Oh well. I wouldn't mind being Galadriel, or Eowyn...
> ...well maybe Arwen does, gotta love a woman with a big house and a rich
> father who'll soon be leaving the country.
LOL! :D
Mia Kalogjera
> "Courtly elegance"? Whose court was she elegantly a part of? Elrond was an
> Elven lord but his house is hardly a "court".
OK that was poetic exaggeration :)
> Arwen is a very subtle character. I think Tolkien would have given her a
> greater role if he could have, but he would have emphasized her relationship
> with Aragorn outside of the Quest of the Ring.
I agree with that - Aragorn does so much to be worthy of Arwen as his Queen, and all
we see in LotR are the glimpses of a deep relationship, save for the story in the
Appendices. Jackson's wish to emphasise their love story is perfectly understandable,
even desirable. I still remain against the idea of turning her into a warrior Elf,
even though my opinion doesn't matter 0 percent :)
Öjevind Lång
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, "Öjevind Lång" scribbled on a virtual piece of paper::
>
>
>>That means if I met one on the town I would be
>>quite frightened and think I had met a freak of nature.
>
>He, what you mean with that huh?????
>
>Freek
You my friend, are a freak of culture - very well read and educated.
Öjevind
Alan Graham
Mia Kalogjera wrote in message <3876CB...@theonering.net>...
>Alan Graham wrote:
>
>> Eowyn, Galadriel and Rosie are characters, not idealised
personifications.
>
>They are idealised characters :) - and I always felt each of the major
characters in
>LotR could be 'described' with one word, without denying them
three-dimensionality.
But I'm not sure that's the best place to start with a film adaptation,
though
ACTOR: What's the score with my character?
DIRECTOR: Honourable - now off you go and read your lines.
>
>> And none match my idea of a "perfect woman"
>
>Oh well. I wouldn't mind being Galadriel, or Eowyn...
>
Well, turning that around - wouldn't mind being Elrond, or maybe Gimli.
Al
grimgard
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> Andomar <and...@brotherrobot.org> wrote in message
> news:38755CE9...@brotherrobot.org...
>
> > In the Lord of the Rings there is fighting on the
> > borders of Lorien, but not in Lorien itself.
>
> > If you have references to prove otherwise, please
> > share, that would be interesting!
>
> "'Orophin has now gone in haste back to our dwellings to warn our
> people. None of the Orcs will ever return out of Lorien."
> FotR, Lothlorien
>
> That's fairly clear, but you were likely thinking of;
>
> "Three times Lorien had been assailed from Dol Guldur, but besides
> the valour of the elven people of that land, the power that dwelt
> there was too great for any to overcome, unless Sauron had come
> there himself. Though grievous harm was done to the fair woods on
> the borders, the assaults were driven back..."
> Appendix B
>
> Grievous harm to the trees of Lorien implies that there was fighting
> >inside< the borders rather than >outside< them.
That certainly is the passage I was thinking of, and thank goodness I
checked the responses already posted before running for my copy of The
Return of the King and scouring the appendices, then sitting here
laboriously typing out the entire passage, only to find thirty seconds
later that someone else had already done so. :)
grimgard
grimgard
Alan Graham wrote:
> And none match my idea of a "perfect woman"
>
> Al
> ...well maybe Arwen does, gotta love a woman with a big house and a rich
> father who'll soon be leaving the country.
Or, better yet, leaving the world. Of course, they couldn't get married until
he found a job.
grimgard
grimgard
Mia Kalogjera wrote:
>
> even though my opinion doesn't matter 0 percent :)
>
On the contrary, it certainly does. ;)
grimgard
Mark Wells
Martinez) wrote:
>Arwen is a very subtle character. I think Tolkien would have given her a
>greater role if he could have, but he would have emphasized her relationship
>with Aragorn outside of the Quest of the Ring.
I'd say she's more of a tragic character than anything else, but
Jackson will have a really hard time making that point. Tolkien took
three chapters of LOTR, one section of an appendix, and "Of Beren and
Lúthien" to show us just how tragic Arwen was.
Maia
>
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> > "Courtly elegance"? Whose court was she elegantly a part of? Elrond was an
> > Elven lord but his house is hardly a "court".
>
> OK that was poetic exaggeration :)
>
> > greater role if he could have, but he would have emphasized her relationship
> > with Aragorn outside of the Quest of the Ring.
>
> we see in LotR are the glimpses of a deep relationship, save for the story in the
> Appendices. Jackson's wish to emphasise their love story is perfectly understandable,
> even desirable. I still remain against the idea of turning her into a warrior Elf,
Well, I don't know. Was Luthien a "courtly lady" or a
"warrior princess"? Yet she managed to play a very descisive
role in the Quest for Silmarils. IMHO it is a pity and a
mistake (sacrilege, I know!) that Tolkien made Arwen such a
passive character. Despite appendices, etc., I find it very
hard to emphasize with her or with Aragorn's love for her.
YMMV.
Phil Fraering
really obvious casting decisions, like getting Al Pacino for
Denethor... or Sean Connery for Saruman.
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net ?Year00 error
/Will work for tape/ Harddrive meltdown sequencer initiated.
Ron Ploeg
grimgard wrote:
>
> Mia Kalogjera wrote:
>
> >
> > even though my opinion doesn't matter 0 percent :)
> >
>
> On the contrary, it certainly does. ;)
LOL
--
http://home.wxs.nl/~hobbiton
At your service!
Michael O'Neill
>
> Oh sod it, after an introduction like the one from "darat" I had to get
> involved...
Oh goodie...
> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3873AA19...@indigo.ie>...
>
> >
> >Thanks for the forewarning [you don't have a spare Palantír, do you?].
> >Alan fucking Graham's mine for breakfast.
>
> In your wet dreams, pal.
Still not got a girl, ehhhh? Us married types don't have wet dreams, we
get laid regular-like....still, saves on the starch I s'pose.
> >Like most people who appreciate artistic endeavours, I'll give
> >"artistes" the benefit of the doubt where I think it's warranted, but
> >only up to a certain point.
> >
> >I think that Jackson at this time has gone beyond interpretation and is
> >now well into the realms of a complete rewrite.
>
> Seen the film have you?
No. So? Are you his PRO or something? Seen the American flag on the moon
with your own eyes have you? No? Think the moon landings were all done
in a hanger in the American Rockies, ehhhhh? Keep your school debating
techniques where they belong.
> >I'll be surprised if Saruman doesn't end up running an old folks home in
> >Bag End where a distraught Frodo marries Rosie Cotton and lives happily
> >ever after, lamenting the end of his pal Sam who pushed Gollum over the
> >edge in Orodruin's Crack of Doom, taking care of the Books dodgy Rings
> >End resolution.
>
> I must have missed the Jackson interview where this was outlined.
I'd say you missed a lot in life. Like getting a clue.
> >Oh, wait. That would mean Aragorn doesn't get to push Gollum in,
> >wouldn't it?
> >
> >Curses! Another rewrite!!!
> >
> >I mean, come ON!
> >
> >This fucker Jackson
>
> ...and so your critique of artistic endeavours begins...
Artistic endeavours my arse. You appear not to have a clue about the way
big movie making screws original scripts, never mind works of fiction on
which scripts are based. Review these matters which are on record. Get a
clue. Then start posting with some authority instead of this
platitudinous waffle you're spewing.
> > appears to be riding a coach and four through *the*
> >seminal Fantasy Book of this Century and we, the Tolkien Fans, are
> Tolkien fans, of course, having exactly the same feelings about
> everything.
Sarcastic Prat. Or do you deny me what you appear to claim I deny
Jackson? Artistic license?
Never mind. There is enough fuel to keep both campfires burning. I'm
making sure my concerns are in the public eye. What are you doing? If I
can exhort others to speak out strongly, then I will. No more
pussy-footing around Mr. Jackson's "precious" ego.
> > doing
> >N-O-T-H-I-N-G about it.
>
> Well, apart from swearing profusely.
Mammy's boy, ehhhh? Fuck. Feck. Fart. Flute. Finger. Horn. Amazing how
context changes things, isn't it, you sanctimonious git?
> >*Yes, I signed the friggin' Petition and a lot of good THAT has done.*
> >
> >I think it's time some of the more high profile posters here, those with
> >influential contacts in the literary world, got a nice red hot poker and
> >shoved it up Jackson's arse - Michael Martinez and that John Whassname
> >that SuzieFlame thinks is some big knob in the states and Michael Scott
> >Rohan as well.
>
> Of course that'll do soooooo much more good than a petition.
Why not? People of Jackson's stature artistically [and I don't deny or
disparage the work he has previously done] *do* take notice of their
"peers" - you'd know that even if you glanced cursorily at "Hello" from
time to time, but you're probably too busy to bother.
> >Come on guys, speak up!
>
> Come on, relax. Take a deep breath, go get laid.
I've just gotten laid again, as I did before I posted my rant. I feel as
strongly about Jacksons apparent mishandling of the Film now as I did
then.
Are you some twit who believes males of the species can be controlled or
pacified by satisfying their sexual urges, or by playing sweet music to
them? Get a grip. The time for waffling is wayyy past.
This git Jackson meeds a poker up the arse to wake him up. I don't want
my appreciation of the Book re-written in reverse by the corroding,
eroding effect of a no doubt well-publicised Film which is at variance
with the plot with significant differences in major characters, their
roles and functions.
> Did Taxi Driver teach
> you nothing about where these feelings lead?
What drugs are you ON, sonny? Haven't you ever gotten passionate about
something? Are you unwell or something? Do you relate to the world by
remote control? Get the fucking lead out, or it'll be too fucking late!
> >Otherwise we'll end up with something more suited to a T.V. serial, and
> >I well remember the terminal boredom of Tolstoy's War and Peace
> >serialised for T.V., however it was well done.
>
> >Unfortunately that would only encourage Jackson to write more
> >blither-blather about Arwen's Warrior Princess upbringing and how it was
> >SHE and not Bard the Bowman who slew Smaug the Dragon, prompted by her
> >Elven Foresight, so distant lover Aragorn wouldn't have to defend his
> >arse as he faced Sauron alone in single combat on the slopes of Orodruin
> >[while Frodo pushes Sam, who had gotten sick of Frodo's wimping about
> >and taken the Ring for himself, into the Crack of Doom aided by a
> >reformed Gollum].
> >
> >*Sorry. It just takes you over, this rewriting stuff.*
>
> I'm just thankful you're not adapting it, if that's what you believe
> adapting entails.
Maybe you *do* need <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags all over my posts to
make sense of them for you, but I couldn't be arsed explaining any
further; either you understand what's being posted, or you'll be left
behind.
> >And as for Elvish languages, what of GLorfindels first utterance "Ai ne
> >vedui Dúnadan"? Sounds a bit butch for even a Warrior Princess, ehhhhh?
> >
> >Treasured little snippets like this are going to be butchered left
> >right and centre to make way for Jackson's luuuurv angles.
> What? Jackson is going to suggest Aragorn is in love with Arwen? The
> nerve of the man.
Are you some new category of DENSE or what? The Book is _far_ more
complex than the releases of the film suggest it will be. My point was
that in simplifying and paring away, Jackson has lost the essential
message of Tolkien's work, the principle theme of the Music; that the
discordant themes of the great and vainglorious Morgoth and his
followers are turned and rebound to the greater glory of Ilúvatar
because of the roles and parts played by many [relatively powerless]
factions and people acting together.
Not just the great and the Wise, nor the valiant and the beautiful in
love, those Jackson appears to be concentrating on [and caricaturing the
book over], but_all_persons have their part to play. This for me was the
essential Tolkien message - evil can be overcome by Good, if all people
play their parts.
As it stands at present, matters appear to have been chopped and changed
for expediency's sake, for the sake of what his marketing people have
said will appeal to the Audience of TODAY (!), with no understanding of
the parts they've suggested be removed or altered.
Don't bother to patronise me with your allegations of presumption on my
part. Fuckers like you would still be malingering during the viewing of
the rushes, when it was clear to everyone else there was a disaster in
the making.
<KNOCK!KNOCK!>
Is this PC working? Anyone there with a clue?
> >How about "Beryl rocks, eh, Aragorn baby?" as Arwen lovingly crushes his
> >leather clad gonads while he bends over to pick up the Elvish token.
> >
> >No doubt Orcs are going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad
> >versions of the Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time
> >Machine", with maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being
> >tormented by Orcs [if she's still with us].
>
> Obviously.
Well, why not!!?? Warrior fucking Princess indeed!
> >Sheeesh! The more I hear about Jackson's "changes" the more I consider
> >him a complete and utter fuckwit who should never have been let near
> >interpreting a book which appears to be clearly beyond his talent. I am
> >right on the edge about this guy and his friggin' changes to the Book.
>
> I take it, then from your illustrious career of movie making and/or
> screenplay writing, that you're just the man who should have been
> given the job.
No, prat. I'm just one of the people in life who doesn't take shit being
shovelled in his direction beyond a certain point; after that point is
reached, I act. You can stay there getting surrounded by the smelly
stuff for all I care.
You probably won't notice too much.
> Life's Unfair like that.
You said it.
> >Either "interpret" or fuck off Jackson. "Interpreting" is not a
> >re-write!!! It does not completely change the fucken role of central
> >characters.
>
> Which this adaptation isn't doing...
<KNOCK!KNOCK!>
*Damn. This thing must be off!*
> >Because if you do that, it's no longer going to be a Film called
> >
> >"The Lord of the Rings"
> >
> >It's going to be a film calle
> >
> >"Jackson's Crappy Fucken Re-Write of The Lord of The Rings"!!!
> >
> >Fuck yer re-writes. You're making a film of a well-loved Book, not
> >rewriting the fucken thing. Who said you were free to do that? Some
> >snot-gobbling little actuary somewhere? I'll have 'im!!!
>
> Of course, if you were adapting the books any changes you made would
> be perfectly acceptable.
WHAT FUCKING CHANGES!!??? Who said I would have made any at all? I
didn't think *any* changes were a good idea. It's the format of the film
medium which requires to be reviewed to see how best to accomodate the
structure of the book, not vice versa. I'm sire a *good* directorcould
sort it out.
> >The real problem with Jackson is that he seems unable to understand the
> >basic structure of book itself. The things that *need* to happen, the
> >messages that are essential to understand and tell.
>
> Which are?
Aer you deaf, stupid or a TROLL? Read my fucking post above. Surely none
of my statements of clarification have come as a surprise. I don't
accept the premise of bastardising a seminal work of fiction to
accomodate a popular media format like film.
You owe it to such a work of fiction to stretch the Film medium, you
push your limits as a director, not butcher the book because you're not
up to the job. What ARE you Graham, an apologist for Jackson? Maybe you
ARE his fucking PRO...
> > If he's taking
> >advice on hhis omissions and changes, he's getting it from utter and
> >complete fuckwits who know nothing about Tolkien's work and care even
> >less.
>
> Yeah, that Tom Shippey eh? What does he know?
Yes? Tell us? WHAT!!?? What does he fucking know? What?
> >I for one am getting sick and tired off all this bollox about changes
> >and I say it's time we made a stand on this issue!
>
> Yeah! I read about some changes on the internet so they must be true!
Don't fucking patronise ME arsewipe. Retards in school debates may have
been impressed by your "get your facts perfectly straight before you
dare argue a point with me" attitude, but all I see is a fuckwit who's
afraid to open his mouth.
Haven't you learnt that basic lesson in life yet;
If you wait until you have all the facts, it too fucking late to act!
> >Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
> >strikes included.
>
> How about calming down, reading some Tolkien and CHOOSING NOT TO GO
> SEE THE FILM.
Alan, if you think THAT sort of attitude actually accomplishes anything
in this life, you need to take a deep breath, bend over, and put your
head back up your arse.
Thanks.
As for me, I want this fucker to do his best, not take the easy option,
as he *is* doing. I'll do what I can to to make that happen. I won't be
sitting disconsolately about after seeing the film thinking "I could
have said something."
> Al
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> One of Mr O'Neill's many hilarious kvetches: "No doubt Orcs are
> going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad versions of the
> Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time Machine", with
> maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being tormented by Orcs
> [if she's still with us]."
>
>
> Man, you really gave em hell!! The above quote unfortunately seems
> to be right-on with what Jackson and his gang are doing. The Orcs will
> have green scaly skin and will undoubtably look something like giant
> gremlins (from movie of same name). Now all the inferences I have from
> LOTR suggest that orcs, while a short, bowlegged, greasy, ugly lot
> still looked like something humanoid (i.e. if you walked past one on a
> street you might think 'God what an ugly little dude', but you wouldn't
> immediately think the orc was some kind of extraterrestrial alien).
> But this is just a symptom of what you were lamenting, that the movies
> will be Hollywood schlock aimed at 12 year olds.
>
> I just hope they don't fuck it up as much as they did with 'Dune'.
If I see Gimli with a fucking "wierding module" instead of an axe
[because the Dwarves were made by Aule the Technocrat GOd], I'll spew!
Hope the lurkers who matter see this and take note of it, that's all.
M.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> A question for you - what is the source of your "information" about
> Jackson's re-writes?
>
> As far as I've heard, the only things that we *know* have been changed, are
> the exculsion of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, and the "expansion" of
> Arwen's character, which involves her taking Glorfindels role.
>
> although I have concerns about the changes above, they hardly warrant the
> ranting that this thread has brought about. Sure, *if* Arwen has become a
> Xenia clone, then I agree that its gone too far. But does taking
> Glorfindel's role really make her into a "warrior"? It might, but it doesn't
> have to - it all depends how Jackson plays it.
>
> film off as a dead loss just because of that. I agree an authentic Tolkien
> film would be better, sure, but I'm loathe to write this film off as a dead
> loss on the basis of a few items of un-supported rumour which are float
> around the net atm.
>
> Give the guy a chance people - making a successful film of LotR has to be
> one of the hardest things any film could attempt. Its one thing to express
> concerns in a hope that the film creators will read them and take them
> seriously. But surely a rant like that (which, were it posted in response to
> a post by Jackson, would be considered a flame) will have no affect other
> than to persuade the film-makers (should they happen to be reading these
> NGs) that all aft and rabt-ers are incapable of offering serious advice and
> assistance in the film-making.
>
> Jon
As usual Jon, you are the sweet voice of reason pouring oil on troubled
waters and a good job you make of it too.
I however, am one voice in a well-populated NG who dares to think he can
make a difference agains the desires of corporate film-making and teh
questionable advices of its lackeys.
You are of course perfectly right in implying I am presumptious and
jumping the gun a little. I admit I have a jaundiced view of Film-makers
adaptations of Books in general. I also admit to being pre-emptive with
my comments. I do not however, feel that this is unjustified.
Now, given that "someone" of influence might read these, and report ot
to Jackson, do you think he might consider again the effects of his
reported changes? Possibly. I for one don't believe that it will stop
with Arwen [of ALL people!] assuming Glorfindels role.
Where for example, is her fixed feminine balance to Aragorns wandering
male presence in Middle Earth? Her long planning and preparing to his
long doing and acting? The internal beauty of the book has been ravaged
and all you can see is a possible problem *if* Arwen becomes as strongly
written as Xena.
Do you imply there is no strength in silence? Do not we serve who only
stand and wait? Is this not part of the rich heritage that Tolkien
brought to fantasy? Where then has all this gone by the "mere"
adaptation of Arwens role to include Glorfindel's?
I thing Jackson is a lazy bugger who couldn't figure out how to make
arwen relevant to teh story as her part was written in the Book. He
could have easily expanded her mentoring from afar. Ian Lumley has done
as much with his heroine in the Cthulhu mythos spinoff books. I would
find a bit of Elvish ESP a lot easir to take than what has been
suggested [had the Noldor not got powers of sight and mind,
understandign and foretelling to develop to allow Arwen to become more
present in the film] without taking a physical part.
She is the ultimate brood mare, trophy wife and holy grail all rolled
into one. The book times her revelation in Gondor perfectly, hinting at
it before. What's wrong with that? Why cannot the frisson between
Aragorn and Éowyn be played up if you want to create a complex adult
love interest. Geez! Her unrequited love for Aragorn and her deeds of
valour prompted by her despair are an excellent exemplar of the thems
behind the work.
As for you last comments, again I disagree. It's possible some clueless
cretin might take the impression away that Regulkars cannot criticize
constructively, but I don't think so. Comments here are mature and
balanced on the whole, but too hushed to get much notice. You, RLV, Ron
Ploeg, Ojevind, Michael martinez, and many, many others ahve all got
excellent things to say, but no one will hear the unless yo uattract
attention.
Surely you know a flag being waved when you see it?
Ehhhhhh?
Apart from that, Arwen is not Galdriel, and she is the one and only
"Warrior" Elf-lady we have in the story, born of the noldor in their
youth, a match for their scholars and athletes. What happens to her in
Jackson's simplistic re-write?
Oh. Another piece of a puzzle he doesn't understand. Well, sure she can
run that guest house in Lorien the Company rest in after the IMPORTANT
SCENE with the friggin' Balrog. I'm telling you Jon. I can hear the way
this fucker's mind is working... and it's clueless.
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> With about a year left in the millennium, o...@indigo.ie (Michael
> O'Neill) wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >a story grossly simplified by the
> >omission of Denethor's death at the hands of the Lord of the Nazgul and
> >his avenging by Merry and Éowyn.
>
> I believe you meant "Théoden's death".
>
> Théoden = King of Rohan
> Denethor = Steward of Gondor
>
> Confusing the two seems to be a curiously common error on this
> newsgroup.
Sorry. I stand corrected. You're perfectly correct.
*knocks head against PC*
Sorry I took so long to spot your correction and respond to it too.
M.
William H. Hsu
>If I see Gimli with a fucking "wierding module" instead of an axe
>[because the Dwarves were made by Aule the Technocrat GOd], I'll spew!
LOL! Yes!
I don't know *how* I managed to pass over (I know... huh, hunnh-huh-huh,
I said "pass over") this one in my "Tolkien Lit Mix" and "Tolkien Meets
Hollywood" compositions:
A DUNADAN RANGER steps in front of ARAGORN and lifts his weirding module.
RANGER: Estel... Estel EstelESTELESTELESTEL--!
STONE OF ERECH explodes.
ARAGORN (voice-over): My name is a killing word.
GANDALF: Yet how can this be?! For he IS Elessar, Isildur's Heir!
"But the fear of death grew ever darker upon them, and they delayed it
by all means that they could; and they began to build great houses for
their dead, while their wise men laboured unceasingly to discover if
they might the secret of recalling life, or at least of the prolonging
of Men's days. Yet they achieved only the art of producing gholas
from the dead flesh of Men using axolotl tanks, and they filled all
the land with clones that were as hollow mockeries of the friends and
kin they knew before."
"Why, I thought it was only a kind of worm caca, such as the Fremen
prepare for their journey into the desert."
"So it is," laughed the blue-eyed Elves, "but we call it /melange/ or
Spice, and it is more addictive by far than worm excrement, by all
accounts."
Ai, ai, a Shai-Hulud, a Shai-Hulud is come,
Bill
>Hope the lurkers who matter see this and take note of it, that's all.
>M.
>M.
Bene Gesserit: the *ORIGINAL* Spice Girls
=======================================================
William H. Hsu ICQ: 28651394
bh...@cis.uiuc.edu
Lightsaber Resources: Humor, Games, Discussions
http://lightsaber.ncsa.uiuc.edu
=======================================================
Michael O'Neill
I'm sending you the bill [sic] for a new shirt ..ehrm, Bill.
<still laughing, and covered in coffee>
M.
Ian Galbraith
:Personally, I started to get disappointed when he passed up some
:really obvious casting decisions, like getting Al Pacino for
:Denethor... or Sean Connery for Saruman.
In that case I'm glad he didn't. In the case of both those actors we would
have been watching Pacino and Connery rather than Denethor and Saruman.
They would overshadow the characters.
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination
is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world." - Albert Einstein
Alan Graham
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Thanks for the forewarning [you don't have a spare Palantír, do you?].
>>> >Alan fucking Graham's mine for breakfast.
>>>
>>> In your wet dreams, pal.
>>
>>Still not got a girl, ehhhh? Us married types don't have wet dreams, we
>>get laid regular-like....still, saves on the starch I s'pose.
>>
Married types don't get bored?
Hahahahahahaha - you have become your parents already.
<<snip O'Neill admitting he hasn't actually seen the film, or read the
screenplay or anything>>
>>> >Oh, wait. That would mean Aragorn doesn't get to push Gollum in,
>>> >wouldn't it?
>>> >
>>> >Curses! Another rewrite!!!
>>> >
>>> >I mean, come ON!
>>> >
>>> >This fucker Jackson
>>>
>>> ...and so your critique of artistic endeavours begins...
>>
>>Artistic endeavours my arse. You appear not to have a clue about the way
>>big movie making screws original scripts, never mind works of fiction on
>>which scripts are based. Review these matters which are on record. Get a
>>clue. Then start posting with some authority instead of this
>>platitudinous waffle you're spewing.
Coming from someone who takes internet rumour as gospel, that's rich
>>> > appears to be riding a coach and four through *the*
>>> >seminal Fantasy Book of this Century and we, the Tolkien Fans, are
>>
>>> Tolkien fans, of course, having exactly the same feelings about
>>> everything.
>>
>>Sarcastic Prat. Or do you deny me what you appear to claim I deny
>>Jackson? Artistic license?
Huh? Does that statement have any relevance to my point, or did you just say
it because you felt it made you look clever?
Tolkien fans do not have the same mind on this. Ask Tolkien fans what they
feel should be in the film and how it should be portrayed, and you'll get as
many different replies as there are posters on this newsgroup.
Don't think because you have a viewpoint, it's the only viewpoint any *pure*
Tolkien fan can have.
<<snip some more of O'Neils hilarious swearing>>
>>> >*Yes, I signed the friggin' Petition and a lot of good THAT has done.*
>>> >
>>> >I think it's time some of the more high profile posters here, those
with
>>> >influential contacts in the literary world, got a nice red hot poker
and
>>> >shoved it up Jackson's arse - Michael Martinez and that John Whassname
>>> >that SuzieFlame thinks is some big knob in the states and Michael Scott
>>> >Rohan as well.
>>>
>>> Of course that'll do soooooo much more good than a petition.
>>
>>Why not? People of Jackson's stature artistically [and I don't deny or
>>disparage the work he has previously done] *do* take notice of their
>>"peers" - you'd know that even if you glanced cursorily at "Hello" from
>>time to time, but you're probably too busy to bother.
Yes, I must of missed the issue where Jackson hung around on AFT and RABT to
get pointers on how to make the film.
>>> >Come on guys, speak up!
>>>
>>> Come on, relax. Take a deep breath, go get laid.
>>
>>I've just gotten laid again,
Aren't you the grown-up...
> as I did before I posted my rant. I feel as
>>strongly about Jacksons apparent mishandling of the Film now as I did
>>then.
>>Are you some twit who believes males of the species can be controlled or
>>pacified by satisfying their sexual urges, or by playing sweet music to
>>them? Get a grip.
Get a grip? From a man who indulges post-coital fantasies about sticking a
poker up a movie directors arse on the internet.
>>This git Jackson meeds a poker up the arse to wake him up. I don't want
>>my appreciation of the Book re-written in reverse by the corroding,
>>eroding effect of a no doubt well-publicised Film which is at variance
>>with the plot with significant differences in major characters, their
>>roles and functions.
Which is, of course, exactly what Jackson said he's going to do with the
film.
>>> Did Taxi Driver teach
>>> you nothing about where these feelings lead?
>>
>>What drugs are you ON, sonny? Haven't you ever gotten passionate about
>>something? Are you unwell or something? Do you relate to the world by
>>remote control? Get the fucking lead out, or it'll be too fucking late!
Internet rumours are so worth getting het up about. Try walking out the
front door for a change and finding something genuine to get angry about.
Heck, wait till they release the film and rant about it then, but to rant on
the grounds of internet rumour is sadness of the highest order.
I bet your one of those people who send abusive e-mails to the BBC when
rumours fly that a black actor's going to be cast as Doctor Who - pitiful -
truly pitiful
<<snip some more of O'Neils vacuous sarcasm>>
>>> >And as for Elvish languages, what of GLorfindels first utterance "Ai ne
>>> >vedui Dúnadan"? Sounds a bit butch for even a Warrior Princess, ehhhhh?
>>> >
>>> >Treasured little snippets like this are going to be butchered left
>>> >right and centre to make way for Jackson's luuuurv angles.
>>
>>> What? Jackson is going to suggest Aragorn is in love with Arwen? The
>>> nerve of the man.
>>
>>Are you some new category of DENSE or what?
What was wrong with the old one?
>> The Book is _far_ more
>>complex than the releases of the film suggest it will be. My point was
>>that in simplifying and paring away, Jackson has lost the essential
>>message of Tolkien's work, the principle theme of the Music; that the
>>discordant themes of the great and vainglorious Morgoth and his
>>followers are turned and rebound to the greater glory of Ilúvatar
>>because of the roles and parts played by many [relatively powerless]
>>factions and people acting together.
At fucking last, you make a point. An interpretation of the Ring and one,
surprisingly, not contradicted by anything that's come out about the film.
Nearly everybook is more complex that the eventual adaptation. What matters
when someone is adapting the book is he has to take the themes he finds
important and translate them effective to the big screen. That requires a
level of personal interpretation that is bound to annoy others who have
taken a different personal interpretation when they read the book.
On top of that, there are the consideration of the medium. Not everything in
LoTR that works in the text can be effectively translated onto the screen,
especially given the limits of time and budget, and that the text in many
respects was written to deliberately leave images to the readers
imagination. Again, a good director needs to work according to those
strictures as he sees fit, and how he addresses those limitations is bound
to piss off some people who believe it should be done differently.
So how do you address the above concerns? "Arwen - Warrior Princess" - Not
in MY fucking movie, fuckwit. Wake up! A director shouldn't make any film
according to the dictates of anyone else - let alone an ill-informed idiot
such as yourself. You can rant and rave all you like but its a pointless
exercise - if the director hasn't cottoned on to your interpretation of the
book, too bad.
Now, this morning, I have been mostly watching tapes of the forthcoming BBC
series GORMENGHAST for reviewing purposes. Does is have every scene from the
book? Does it preserve dialogue from the books intact? Are all the
characters as they are described in book? In all cases, No. It's still a
fucking amazing adaptation because the makes have had the guts to make it
how they see fit, not how the many hordes of snide snipers would wish them
to do it.
>>Not just the great and the Wise, nor the valiant and the beautiful in
>>love, those Jackson appears to be concentrating on [and caricaturing the
>>book over], but_all_persons have their part to play. This for me was the
>>essential Tolkien message - evil can be overcome by Good, if all people
>>play their parts.
There isn't time to include all the characters. A judgement call must be
made as to whether the likes of Ioreth, Prince Imrahil or Fatty Bolger
should be in there.
If you can't accept that, then don't go see the film - because NO film
version by anyone is going to include all the characters for the simple
reason of time and budgetary restraints.
>>Don't bother to patronise me with your allegations of presumption on my
>>part. Fuckers like you would still be malingering during the viewing of
>>the rushes, when it was clear to everyone else there was a disaster in
>>the making.
If the films going to be a disaster, it'll be a disaster - whatever you say
or do now. Jackson has a screenplay he want to make. He's persueded someone
to give him the cash to make it. It's not even a case of its out of your
hands now, because it was never in your hands to begin with.
>>> >How about "Beryl rocks, eh, Aragorn baby?" as Arwen lovingly crushes
his
>>> >leather clad gonads while he bends over to pick up the Elvish token.
>>> >
>>> >No doubt Orcs are going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad
>>> >versions of the Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time
>>> >Machine", with maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being
>>> >tormented by Orcs [if she's still with us].
>>>
>>> Obviously.
>>
>>Well, why not!!?? Warrior fucking Princess indeed!
It was reported in the UK press that Liv Tyler had been cast in LoTR as
"Queen Of The Fairies" - no doubt you can now regale us all with your
hilarious sarcasm as to why Jackson is a fuckwit because Arwen is no Queen
of the fairies - completely missing the rather obvious point that the UK
press, like the internet, spout a lot of rubbish
>>> >Sheeesh! The more I hear about Jackson's "changes" the more I consider
>>> >him a complete and utter fuckwit who should never have been let near
>>> >interpreting a book which appears to be clearly beyond his talent. I am
>>> >right on the edge about this guy and his friggin' changes to the Book.
>>>
>>> I take it, then from your illustrious career of movie making and/or
>>> screenplay writing, that you're just the man who should have been
>>> given the job.
>>
>>No, prat. I'm just one of the people in life who doesn't take shit being
>>shovelled in his direction beyond a certain point; after that point is
>>reached, I act.
And what a decisive man you are. A clueless rant on the internet about
sticking a red hot poker up someone's arse.
<<snip>>
>>WHAT FUCKING CHANGES!!??? Who said I would have made any at all?
You can't make a film adaptation of any book without making changes.
>> I
>>didn't think *any* changes were a good idea.
The O'Neill Cut - 40 hours of scrolling text containing the whole of the
LoTR, unchanged and pure for all pure Tolkien fans
<<snip stuff where O'Neill assumed I was psychic by not getting his themes
of the book when, in fact he's only just written them>>
>>You owe it to such a work of fiction to stretch the Film medium, you
>>push your limits as a director, not butcher the book because you're not
>>up to the job. What ARE you Graham, an apologist for Jackson? Maybe you
>>ARE his fucking PRO...
I'm not a an apologist for anyone - just pointing out that devoid of
sarcasm, swearing and bogus facts from the internet - you are saying
absolutely nothing - let alone anything relevant to how a director would go
about adapting the LoTR to make the most of the endless artistic
possibilites film has to offer while remaining true to the themes and
characters of the book.
<<sip some more arsewipery about the internet facts, and O'Neill not knowing
who the advisors on the film are>>
>>> >Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
>>> >strikes included.
>>>
>>> How about calming down, reading some Tolkien and CHOOSING NOT TO GO
>>> SEE THE FILM.
>>
>>Alan, if you think THAT sort of attitude actually accomplishes anything
>>in this life, you need to take a deep breath, bend over, and put your
>>head back up your arse.
>>
>>Thanks.
God, you really are a tosser, aren't you.
>>As for me, I want this fucker to do his best, not take the easy option,
>>as he *is* doing.
Yeah right, he must be having a whale of time, slacking around New Zealand,
living the easy life.
>> I'll do what I can to to make that happen. I won't be
>>sitting disconsolately about after seeing the film thinking "I could
>>have said something."
Well, you've said it now. Fine lot of difference that'll make to the final
look of the film.
Al
Jonathan White
"Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:38794DCD...@indigo.ie...
(snip)
> You are of course perfectly right in implying I am presumptious and
> jumping the gun a little. I admit I have a jaundiced view of Film-makers
> adaptations of Books in general. I also admit to being pre-emptive with
> my comments. I do not however, feel that this is unjustified.
As it happens, I also have experienced a fair number of bad film adaptions.
But, the optimist in me keeps on hoping that one day, the skeptic in me will
be proved wrong... I assure you, if these films are released and they are a
poor adaption, then I will be most outspoken in my comments. However,
responding so forcefully to what amounts to little more than rumour is
surely counter-productive.
> Now, given that "someone" of influence might read these, and report ot
> to Jackson, do you think he might consider again the effects of his
> reported changes? Possibly. I for one don't believe that it will stop
> with Arwen [of ALL people!] assuming Glorfindels role.
>
> Where for example, is her fixed feminine balance to Aragorns wandering
> male presence in Middle Earth? Her long planning and preparing to his
> long doing and acting? The internal beauty of the book has been ravaged
> and all you can see is a possible problem *if* Arwen becomes as strongly
> written as Xena.
I still say wait and see. I can see ways of re-writing the role of Arwen and
Glorfindel into one without *necessarily* changing the basis of Arwen's
character. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that Jackson isn't
going to get it wrong, or that the changes already made won't be a mistake,
*but* I am saying that IMHO the rumours we've heard on the 'net are not
enough to justify writing off the film totally yet.
> I thing Jackson is a lazy bugger who couldn't figure out how to make
> arwen relevant to teh story as her part was written in the Book. He
> could have easily expanded her mentoring from afar. Ian Lumley has done
> as much with his heroine in the Cthulhu mythos spinoff books. I would
> find a bit of Elvish ESP a lot easir to take than what has been
> suggested [had the Noldor not got powers of sight and mind,
> understandign and foretelling to develop to allow Arwen to become more
> present in the film] without taking a physical part.
You might well be right - I hope you're not and that Jackson will surprise
you with a clever, well worked re-write which manages to keep the character
of Arwen intact, but we will only know when the film is released.
> Oh. Another piece of a puzzle he doesn't understand. Well, sure she can
> run that guest house in Lorien the Company rest in after the IMPORTANT
> SCENE with the friggin' Balrog. I'm telling you Jon. I can hear the way
> this fucker's mind is working... and it's clueless.
>
> M.
I can't answer the individual points about the film, because I *don't know*
what's going through Jackson's mind. But, despite your claims, how can you
really say you know? You've picked up onmany of the internet rumours,
expanded them beyond anything that has actually been said and drawn the
worst possible conclusions from that.
You've done a very good job of raising the issues, sure - your flag-waving
achieved that much. But you've not offered any positive advice or
alternative to Jackson (or any other "important" person reading this). And
its that which makes your rant counter-productive, as its that which will
lead people reading it to dismiss the posting as a rant from a Tolkien fan
unable to accept the need for any changes.
Jon
Mia Kalogjera
> In that case I'm glad he didn't. In the case of both those actors we would
> have been watching Pacino and Connery rather than Denethor and Saruman.
> They would overshadow the characters.
I can never watch too much Pacino or Connery! And besides, I think they would've given
very credible performances.
Michael O'Neill
>
> >>> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3873AA19...@indigo.ie>...
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks for the forewarning [you don't have a spare Palantír, do you?].
> >>> >Alan fucking Graham's mine for breakfast.
> >>>
> >>> In your wet dreams, pal.
> >>
> >>Still not got a girl, ehhhh? Us married types don't have wet dreams, we
> >>get laid regular-like....still, saves on the starch I s'pose.
> >>
>
> Married types don't get bored?
> Hahahahahahaha - you have become your parents already.
*cut cut cut cut cut-hsssssst!!*
<waves steam away>
Now let's see what Graham has for a brain.
<looks in. Looks around>
Hallo!?
*halloo... hallooo... hallooo... *
Ah. Hollow. Just as I thought.
<stitch stitch stitch stitch - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip!>
There. No one would spot the difference. Good as new.
*Tap! Tap!*
Wake up, Graham. Graham? Ahhh there you are.
Now Graham, what does this mean - "Married types don't get bored?"
What in the name of fuck were you thinking whee you posted that? Ehhhh?
I took the piss out of you for suggesting I neither got laid regularly
not knew how to wank [i.e *still* had wet dreams] and you respond with
"Married types don't get bored?"
Looks like Coverdale's not the only KooK in this group. No surprises
there...
> <<snip O'Neill admitting he hasn't actually seen the film, or read the
> screenplay or anything>>
Why would I be commenting s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-v-e-l-y [I'll make it easy
for you this time] if the film were already made? Ehhhhh, wonder boy?
And why would you thing me not having seen it means you somehow score a
point? THe wnole point[sic] at this time in the proceedings is that
*no-one* not even Jackson himself has SEEN it, you twit, but that a lot
of VERY DISTURBING rumours are flying around.
GIVEN that they are rumours
GIVEN that the film is not finished yet
GIVEN that I've no faith in big budget movies respecting source material
I made my feelings VERY CLEAR on this matter. So what's your fucking
problem? Think we sould all slurp to Jackson or something? He's a man
and like any human can make mistakes.
IF these runours of cuts are true
IF certain logical follow ons occur
IF the suggested character revisions occur
THEN I think Jacksone will make an unholy dog's dinner of it.
Got a problem with any of THOSE qualifications? Ehhhhhhh? Thought not.
> >>> >Oh, wait. That would mean Aragorn doesn't get to push Gollum in,
> >>> >wouldn't it?
> >>> >
> >>> >Curses! Another rewrite!!!
> >>> >
> >>> >I mean, come ON!
> >>> >
> >>> >This fucker Jackson
> >>>
> >>> ...and so your critique of artistic endeavours begins...
> >>
> >>Artistic endeavours my arse. You appear not to have a clue about the way
> >>big movie making screws original scripts, never mind works of fiction on
> >>which scripts are based. Review these matters which are on record. Get a
> >>clue. Then start posting with some authority instead of this
> >>platitudinous waffle you're spewing.
>
> Coming from someone who takes internet rumour as gospel, that's rich
Read above and start looking for reverse, Jackson-slurper.
> >>> > appears to be riding a coach and four through *the*
> >>> >seminal Fantasy Book of this Century and we, the Tolkien Fans, are
> >>
> >>> Tolkien fans, of course, having exactly the same feelings about
> >>> everything.
> >>
> >>Sarcastic Prat. Or do you deny me what you appear to claim I deny
> >>Jackson? Artistic license?
>
> Huh? Does that statement have any relevance to my point, or did you just say
> it because you felt it made you look clever?
>
> Tolkien fans do not have the same mind on this. Ask Tolkien fans what they
> feel should be in the film and how it should be portrayed, and you'll get as
> many different replies as there are posters on this newsgroup.
No you won't. Tolkien fans have tended to polarise along the lines of
"Let him at it" and "Respect the Book".
You know this, yet you vainly try to present the opinions as a broad
spectrum, a multiplicity of choice and shading and colour when in fact
you know it just is not so. What'll you try next?
Newly recovered from his brain operation, Graham tries to take some of
his favourite exercise, Jumping At Conclusions
> Don't think because you have a viewpoint, it's the only viewpoint any
> *pure* Tolkien fan can have.
<THUD!>
*As he falls back to earth*
And exactly *where* did I say I thought *my* viewpoint was the only
*true* viewpoint? Ehhhhhhh?
As opposed to me stating C-L-E-A-R-L-Y than my viewpoint espoused the
Film staying as *true* to the Book as possible?
You must travel 'round in reverse a lot Graham ... no wonder you keep
making these unforced errors and bumping into well signposted objects.
> <<snip some more of O'Neils hilarious swearing>>
Good you got a giggle out of it. You need to loosen your shorts a bit.
> >>> >*Yes, I signed the friggin' Petition and a lot of good THAT has done.*
> >>> >
> >>> >I think it's time some of the more high profile posters here, those
> with
> >>> >influential contacts in the literary world, got a nice red hot poker
> and
> >>> >shoved it up Jackson's arse - Michael Martinez and that John Whassname
> >>> >that SuzieFlame thinks is some big knob in the states and Michael Scott
> >>> >Rohan as well.
> >>>
> >>> Of course that'll do soooooo much more good than a petition.
> >>
> >>Why not? People of Jackson's stature artistically [and I don't deny or
> >>disparage the work he has previously done] *do* take notice of their
> >>"peers" - you'd know that even if you glanced cursorily at "Hello" from
> >>time to time, but you're probably too busy to bother.
>
> Yes, I must of missed the issue where Jackson hung around on AFT and
> RABT to get pointers on how to make the film.
One out of your massive "Hello" collection went missing?
BWAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Jackson is an Director. Not an artist. Just a director. They don't write
the script. They interpret it for the screen. Unless he has a clear
vision of what the book is about, his interpretation, however
well-financed, will be flawed, even if it were to remain true to the
book as is possible.
However Jackson is not interpreting the Book. He appears to have
re-written large tracts of it. If news of arwen has leaked out, what
other news has not. Perhaps I'm being unduly pessimistic. I hope I am. I
fear I am not.
My very real fear is that he has cast about for a suitable money-making
vehicle and found, in this era of Epic Remakes, The Lord of the Rings. A
challenge and a potential rainbow's end to beat them all.
Not good for the book.
Ergo, not good the fans.
Possibly it *is* good for this new generation of role playing fuckwits
who've never read a fantasy book in their lives and understand
characters only as point-scoring entities with "powers" who do nothing
all day but fight each other for world domination.
> >>> >Come on guys, speak up!
> >>>
> >>> Come on, relax. Take a deep breath, go get laid.
> >>
> >>I've just gotten laid again,
>
> Aren't you the grown-up...
I'm the well-laid grown-up.
Or newly the newly-laid grown up.
Or even the re-laid grown up. Or whatever.
I'll let you in on a secrit shall I.....?
I'm not stuck to the fucking sheets each morning, like you!!!
BWAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
> > as I did before I posted my rant. I feel as
> >>strongly about Jacksons apparent mishandling of the Film now as I did
> >>then.
>
> >>Are you some twit who believes males of the species can be controlled or
> >>pacified by satisfying their sexual urges, or by playing sweet music to
> >>them? Get a grip.
>
> Get a grip? From a man who indulges post-coital fantasies about
> sticking a poker up a movie directors arse on the internet.
Variety adds the spice, BDSM the cutting edge...
<snicker>
You need to experience a bit of life son, before you get too set in your
ways.
> >>This git Jackson meeds a poker up the arse to wake him up. I don't want
> >>my appreciation of the Book re-written in reverse by the corroding,
> >>eroding effect of a no doubt well-publicised Film which is at variance
> >>with the plot with significant differences in major characters, their
> >>roles and functions.
>
> Which is, of course, exactly what Jackson said he's going to do with
> the film.
You are dense. I'm surprised the whole of Usenet hasn't turned into a
singularity centered on your collected posts to date. and now, a message
ffrom your sponsor, Jacksonmania;-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! JACKSON HASN'T FINISHED THE FILM YET! HE'S AN
ARTISTE! WWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! WEE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THE RUMOURS
ARE ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE OR TRUE!!!WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!YOU CAN'T CRITICISE
AN ARTISTE!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wanna Bet!? I just did that. Let it stimulate debate at the VERY LEAST!
> >>> Did Taxi Driver teach
> >>> you nothing about where these feelings lead?
> >>
> >>What drugs are you ON, sonny? Haven't you ever gotten passionate about
> >>something? Are you unwell or something? Do you relate to the world by
> >>remote control? Get the fucking lead out, or it'll be too fucking late!
>
> Internet rumours are so worth getting het up about. Try walking out the
> front door for a change and finding something genuine to get angry about.
> Heck, wait till they release the film and rant about it then, but to rant on
> the grounds of internet rumour is sadness of the highest order.
Ever hear the term "Pre-Emptive Strike?"
Let me explain.
It's a bit like having a wet dream before you actually shag someone...
> I bet your one of those people who send abusive e-mails to the BBC when
> rumours fly that a black actor's going to be cast as Doctor Who - pitiful -
> truly pitiful
And exactly WHERE have I ever shown ANY racist or bigoted traits
ANYWHERE on the entire USENET?
Ehhhhh? Post proof of your allegations or retract!
Nowhere.
And you're now approaching Mach I, travelling backwards, sonny.
> <<snip some more of O'Neils vacuous sarcasm>>
More snip-and-droll, from the bed-wetter.
> >>> >And as for Elvish languages, what of GLorfindels first utterance "Ai ne
> >>> >vedui Dúnadan"? Sounds a bit butch for even a Warrior Princess, ehhhhh?
> >>> >
> >>> >Treasured little snippets like this are going to be butchered left
> >>> >right and centre to make way for Jackson's luuuurv angles.
> >>
> >>> What? Jackson is going to suggest Aragorn is in love with Arwen? The
> >>> nerve of the man.
> >>
> >>Are you some new category of DENSE or what?
>
> What was wrong with the old one?
You tell me. You seemed pretty dense to me back then, but you seem to
want to aspire to lower things.
> >> The Book is _far_ more
> >>complex than the releases of the film suggest it will be. My point was
> >>that in simplifying and paring away, Jackson has lost the essential
> >>message of Tolkien's work, the principle theme of the Music; that the
> >>discordant themes of the great and vainglorious Morgoth and his
> >>followers are turned and rebound to the greater glory of Ilúvatar
> >>because of the roles and parts played by many [relatively powerless]
> >>factions and people acting together.
>
> At fucking last, you make a point. An interpretation of the Ring and one,
> surprisingly, not contradicted by anything that's come out about the film.
What "interpretation of the Ring"?
I *stated* the main theme of Tolkien's work. The Music of the Ainur. It
has remained virtually unchanged in essence since Lost Tales I through
the Silmarillion.
I made NO *interpretation*, which proves just how utterly clueless you
are.
> Nearly everybook is more complex that the eventual adaptation.
No it's not. It uses the different language of a very limited medium to
portray at some length any given subject a multimedia presentation like
film can do far more quickly.
> What matters
> when someone is adapting the book is he has to take the themes he finds
> important and translate them effective to the big screen.
Not with a Film of a "classic" work of fiction. No way. THAT requires
genius. Something Jacksons reliance on CGI scripts for that most complex
of central characters, Gollum, shows he clearly does not possess in any
great abundance. Maybe John Hurt could do Gollum Justice, or Dustin
Hoffman, but few others.
> That requires a
> level of personal interpretation that is bound to annoy others who have
> taken a different personal interpretation when they read the book.
Look Graham, I don't deny your generalised waffle has some merit, but
not in this particular case. Your argument is just too fluffy to
constitute a serious input.
> On top of that, there are the consideration of the medium. Not everything in
> LoTR that works in the text can be effectively translated onto the screen,
> especially given the limits of time and budget, and that the text in many
> respects was written to deliberately leave images to the readers
> imagination. Again, a good director needs to work according to those
> strictures as he sees fit, and how he addresses those limitations is bound
> to piss off some people who believe it should be done differently.
Again, apologetic waffle. And full of huge assumptions based on your own
inability to see the possibilities of this book AS IT IS WRITTEN.
> So how do you address the above concerns? "Arwen - Warrior Princess" - Not
> in MY fucking movie, fuckwit. Wake up! A director shouldn't make any film
> according to the dictates of anyone else - let alone an ill-informed idiot
> such as yourself. You can rant and rave all you like but its a pointless
> exercise - if the director hasn't cottoned on to your interpretation of the
> book, too bad.
"Ill-informed idiot". Well, I suspect that as well as pedaling backwards
at upward of Mach I, you'll soon be eating whatever headgear you're
wearing.
As to your comment that "A director shouldn't make any film according to
the dictates of anyone else" how little you know about big-budget
movies. Clueless barely scratches the surface of how dense you are. Let
me explain something to you.
Low-budget private films are usually much sought after at Cannes, the
Palm d'Ór never having being won by a major blockbuster-type film in my
recollection. Thus artistic excellence is usually given free creative
rein in smaller productions and therein the Director can adopt the role
of Artiste very well.
Not so in big budget movies. I can see a distraught Jackson in my mind's
eye, camera angles and storeyboards worked out for the most *amazing*
true-to-the-book version imaginable, when he's asked to attend a board
meeting of the film's backers.
"Very n-i-c-e. Very A-r-t-i-s-t-i-c. Sorry Jackson. Here's the
re-write."
At least, I'd like to think that's how it happened, but I don't think it
did.
> Now, this morning, I have been mostly watching tapes of the forthcoming BBC
> series GORMENGHAST for reviewing purposes.
Aha! So you got unstuck from the sheets after all...
> Does is have every scene from the
> book? Does it preserve dialogue from the books intact? Are all the
> characters as they are described in book?
Who cares? It must be the most turgid, convoluted piece of text ever
written.
> In all cases, No.
You noticed? Waitasecond. That means you actually waded through Titus
Groan, Titus Alone, and Gormenghast? Geez, you sure enjoy suffering
don't you? I mean, after that, I'm sure you were delighted at any
gutting of those three tormentors that took place!
> It's still a
> fucking amazing adaptation because the makes have had the guts to make it
> how they see fit, not how the many hordes of snide snipers would wish them
> to do it.
And how many "snide snipers" were there? Ehhhh? Fucking none.
No reported sniping incidents. Not one. No-one else will even admit to
having read the friggin books, except you!
> >>Not just the great and the Wise, nor the valiant and the beautiful in
> >>love, those Jackson appears to be concentrating on [and caricaturing the
> >>book over], but_all_persons have their part to play. This for me was the
> >>essential Tolkien message - evil can be overcome by Good, if all people
> >>play their parts.
>
> There isn't time to include all the characters. A judgement call must be
> made as to whether the likes of Ioreth, Prince Imrahil or Fatty Bolger
> should be in there.
Ioreth? No Ioreth???!!!! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!
> If you can't accept that, then don't go see the film - because NO film
> version by anyone is going to include all the characters for the simple
> reason of time and budgetary restraints.
You're *still* not with me.
<sigh>
I chose to act before the film came out for many reasons, not least
bercause I seek to make others re-think their positions and the reasons
for those positions. If and when the axe falls and the dastardly deed is
done, I'll see what's what. Not until then. I sat through Ralph fuggin'
Bakshi's crap when it came out as well, Rotoscoping and all. Wasn't
impressed by it. Kind of suspected I mightn't be. Still went and saw it
though.
> >>Don't bother to patronise me with your allegations of presumption on my
> >>part. Fuckers like you would still be malingering during the viewing of
> >>the rushes, when it was clear to everyone else there was a disaster in
> >>the making.
>
> If the films going to be a disaster, it'll be a disaster - whatever you say
> or do now.
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
You defeatist fuck! Crawl back up a uterus or something. You haven't a
clue of what life is about! You don't just lie there playing dead! You
*do* something about it!
> Jackson has a screenplay he want to make. He's persueded someone
> to give him the cash to make it. It's not even a case of its out of your
> hands now, because it was never in your hands to begin with.
I NEVERSAID IT WAS *IN* MY HANDS!!! How can you be this clueless?
Mach II backwards coming up.
> >>> >How about "Beryl rocks, eh, Aragorn baby?" as Arwen lovingly crushes
> his
> >>> >leather clad gonads while he bends over to pick up the Elvish token.
> >>> >
> >>> >No doubt Orcs are going to get "infra red" vision and look like bad
> >>> >versions of the Morlocks in the film adaptation of H.G. Wells "The Time
> >>> >Machine", with maybe a cameo of Yvette Mimeux as arwens mother being
> >>> >tormented by Orcs [if she's still with us].
> >>>
> >>> Obviously.
> >>
> >>Well, why not!!?? Warrior fucking Princess indeed!
>
> It was reported in the UK press that Liv Tyler had been cast in LoTR as
> "Queen Of The Fairies" - no doubt you can now regale us all with your
> hilarious sarcasm as to why Jackson is a fuckwit because Arwen is no Queen
> of the fairies - completely missing the rather obvious point that the UK
> press, like the internet, spout a lot of rubbish
*Did* I make such a comment? No. Why? I *do* understand the foibles of
the UK press. Run your thought sequence in reverse and you'll arive at
teh correct conclusion. How you can be *this* ass-backwards and yet can
take your next breath is beyond me.
> >>> >Sheeesh! The more I hear about Jackson's "changes" the more I consider
> >>> >him a complete and utter fuckwit who should never have been let near
> >>> >interpreting a book which appears to be clearly beyond his talent. I am
> >>> >right on the edge about this guy and his friggin' changes to the Book.
> >>>
> >>> I take it, then from your illustrious career of movie making and/or
> >>> screenplay writing, that you're just the man who should have been
> >>> given the job.
> >>
> >>No, prat. I'm just one of the people in life who doesn't take shit being
> >>shovelled in his direction beyond a certain point; after that point is
> >>reached, I act.
>
> And what a decisive man you are. A clueless rant on the internet about
> sticking a red hot poker up someone's arse.
I acted. I didn't sit there mewling like a lost kitty like you. I didn't
sit there whinging at everyone who says "we must act" like you have.
Have you no balls at all/
No. Wait. Don't tell me. You do, but they're empty and you're still
stuck to the sheets.
> <<snip>>
>
> >>WHAT FUCKING CHANGES!!??? Who said I would have made any at all?
>
> You can't make a film adaptation of any book without making changes.
[eyeroll] And why not? Because you've sucked up every apology every
Directors PRO has ever uttered in the name of expediency for so long now
that you BELIEVE them? Ehhh?
> >> I
> >>didn't think *any* changes were a good idea.
>
> The O'Neill Cut - 40 hours of scrolling text containing the whole of the
> LoTR, unchanged and pure for all pure Tolkien fans
>
> <<snip stuff where O'Neill assumed I was psychic by not getting his
> themes of the book when, in fact he's only just written them>>
More lame snipping and drolling.
> >>You owe it to such a work of fiction to stretch the Film medium, you
> >>push your limits as a director, not butcher the book because you're not
> >>up to the job. What ARE you Graham, an apologist for Jackson? Maybe you
> >>ARE his fucking PRO...
>
> I'm not a an apologist for anyone - just pointing out that devoid of
> sarcasm, swearing and bogus facts from the internet - you are saying
> absolutely nothing - let alone anything relevant to how a director would go
> about adapting the LoTR to make the most of the endless artistic
> possibilites film has to offer while remaining true to the themes and
> characters of the book.
No I *am* saying something. Anyone with a clue [as opposed to a prick
trying out his secondary school level debating skills] would have
immediately copped on to my points. Here I'll make it simple again for
you;-
1. Understand the Book - its complexity is one of its strengths. Don't
sacrifice that strength to Mass Marketing Strategies.
2. Respect the Book -it's been around in draft form a lot longer than
you have.
3. Adapt the Book - cut if you must, but understand what you're doing
4. Don't re-write the plot of the Book
5. Don't re-write or re-invent the Author's characters in the Book
6. Don't ignore the fans of this Book - they are legion and educated.
> <<sip some more arsewipery about the internet facts, and O'Neill not knowing
> who the advisors on the film are>>
"Sip some more arsewipery"?
Yeah, I'd say you're a good buttsucker. You'd put a smile on any
DIrectors cheeks - mind you, which *set* is unclear at this time...
<snicker>
> >>> >Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
> >>> >strikes included.
> >>>
> >>> How about calming down, reading some Tolkien and CHOOSING NOT TO GO
> >>> SEE THE FILM.
> >>
> >>Alan, if you think THAT sort of attitude actually accomplishes anything
> >>in this life, you need to take a deep breath, bend over, and put your
> >>head back up your arse.
> >>
> >>Thanks.
>
> God, you really are a tosser, aren't you.
"Tosser"? Moi?
<heh>
You're the one having all the wet dreams pal. Better get back to your
regularly scheduled wank. The hairs on your palms might dry out.
> >>As for me, I want this fucker to do his best, not take the easy option,
> >>as he *is* doing.
>
> Yeah right, he must be having a whale of time, slacking around New
> Zealand, living the easy life.
You think he went there for penance? Get a grip!
> >> I'll do what I can to to make that happen. I won't be
> >>sitting disconsolately about after seeing the film thinking "I could
> >>have said something."
>
> Well, you've said it now. Fine lot of difference that'll make to the
> final look of the film.
What *I've* said may make "some" difference. It may not. This is not
clear at this time.
What *is* clear at this time is that what *you've* said will make NO
fucking difference, you sad, lame, cretinous, apologist of a
butt-sucker.
> Al
M.
Michael O'Neill
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <o...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:38794DCD...@indigo.ie...
>
> (snip)
>
> > You are of course perfectly right in implying I am presumptious and
> > jumping the gun a little. I admit I have a jaundiced view of Film-makers
> > adaptations of Books in general. I also admit to being pre-emptive with
> > my comments. I do not however, feel that this is unjustified.
>
> As it happens, I also have experienced a fair number of bad film adaptions.
> But, the optimist in me keeps on hoping that one day, the skeptic in me will
> be proved wrong... I assure you, if these films are released and they are a
> poor adaption, then I will be most outspoken in my comments. However,
> responding so forcefully to what amounts to little more than rumour is
> surely counter-productive.
I keep having to point this out to people. It'll be too late to
"respond" when the rushes are in or, Eru forbid, when it's screened! The
only opportunity of making the Director question his strategy exists
NOW.
> > Now, given that "someone" of influence might read these, and report ot
> > to Jackson, do you think he might consider again the effects of his
> > reported changes? Possibly. I for one don't believe that it will stop
> > with Arwen [of ALL people!] assuming Glorfindels role.
> >
> > Where for example, is her fixed feminine balance to Aragorns wandering
> > male presence in Middle Earth? Her long planning and preparing to his
> > long doing and acting? The internal beauty of the book has been ravaged
> > and all you can see is a possible problem *if* Arwen becomes as strongly
> > written as Xena.
>
> I still say wait and see.
Well, Jon, that's a rather specious argument.
Of *course* we'll ALL have to wait and see, now won't we? There's going
to be nothing to see until there's something to see and all that strand
of logic...
Nothing says you can't for a few broadsides tho'...
I can see ways of re-writing the role of Arwen and
> Glorfindel into one without *necessarily* changing the basis of Arwen's
> character. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that Jackson isn't
> going to get it wrong, or that the changes already made won't be a mistake,
> *but* I am saying that IMHO the rumours we've heard on the 'net are not
> enough to justify writing off the film totally yet.
Correct.
If I *had* written it off, would I be spending so much time promoting
debate on the matter and raising the very serious concerns shared by
many of the fans at what's been revealed to date? Even those who are of
the wait-and-see-school, such as youtself, have admitted they have such
concerns.
> > I thing Jackson is a lazy bugger who couldn't figure out how to make
> > arwen relevant to teh story as her part was written in the Book. He
> > could have easily expanded her mentoring from afar. Ian Lumley has done
> > as much with his heroine in the Cthulhu mythos spinoff books. I would
> > find a bit of Elvish ESP a lot easir to take than what has been
> > suggested [had the Noldor not got powers of sight and mind,
> > understandign and foretelling to develop to allow Arwen to become more
> > present in the film] without taking a physical part.
>
> You might well be right - I hope you're not and that Jackson will surprise
> you with a clever, well worked re-write which manages to keep the character
> of Arwen intact, but we will only know when the film is released.
Correct again [this could bet monotonous!]
On the other hand, if I'm right, at least admit a broadside can't hurt.
> > Oh. Another piece of a puzzle he doesn't understand. Well, sure she can
> > run that guest house in Lorien the Company rest in after the IMPORTANT
> > SCENE with the friggin' Balrog. I'm telling you Jon. I can hear the way
> > this fucker's mind is working... and it's clueless.
> >
> > M.
>
> I can't answer the individual points about the film, because I *don't know*
> what's going through Jackson's mind. But, despite your claims, how can you
> really say you know? You've picked up onmany of the internet rumours,
> expanded them beyond anything that has actually been said and drawn the
> worst possible conclusions from that.
Expect the worst. Hope for the best. Works for me. :-)
> You've done a very good job of raising the issues, sure - your flag-waving
> achieved that much. But you've not offered any positive advice or
> alternative to Jackson (or any other "important" person reading this).
Nor do I see it as my function to do so. I'm not getting paid a penny
for my input. I'm not seeking to do Jackson's job for him. I'm raising
serious issues he ignores at his peril.
And
> its that which makes your rant counter-productive, as its that which will
> lead people reading it to dismiss the posting as a rant from a Tolkien fan
> unable to accept the need for any changes.
>
> Jon
I cannot agree - here's a little parable for you to explain why;-
Here is the reasonable man.
And here is the unreasonable man.
The reasonable man accepts things the way they are.
The unreasonable man does not and seeks to change the conditions which
govern his situation.
Therefore progress depends on the unreasonable man...
:-)
Call me unreasonable, so.
M.
GROG
presents an adaptation of Mr. Michael O'Neill's response to Mr. Alan
Graham <387A7D4F...@indigo.ie>.
This adaptation was written & produced by Mr. Mick O'Sniveill.
Copyright 2000 Good Ubddy Birtbathts Ltd. All rights (and the 5
O'Clock window seat at Floogys) reserved.
"Alan Graham" <a...@kuhl-graham.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <3873AA19...@indigo.ie>...
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Thanks for the forewarning [you don't have a spare Palantír, do you?].
>>>> >Alan fucking Graham's mine for breakfast.
>>>>
>>>> In your wet dreams, pal.
>>>
>>>Still not got a girl, ehhhh? Us married types don't have wet dreams, we
>>>get laid regular-like....still, saves on the starch I s'pose.
>>>
>
>Married types don't get bored?
>Hahahahahahaha - you have become your parents already.
Heh. Where did I leve that jkachammer?
*Gzinga-Doom Gzzinga Gzzinga Dooommm.....Whoooosshhhh!!!!
<Pulls goopy jello oto f the way>
'Anybody Home? Hllo?"
Gaggle. Empty as my box of arkytecht cridentials. Hehe. Just as I
expectrated. Might as well closer up real tight 'n such.
<Tape tape t ape tapetape tape......cachingalooba!>
*Knockity-knock-konck.*
Rise 'n shine, Graham crackerhead. Quit hidin in turnip fields 'n
such.
Now what is Goshgum blue blazeng heck do you mean with city slckr
ninsense like 'Married types dont get bored?" Comes on, geeseling.
What fricking planet where you beaming zongarays from when you typed
tht utter claptruck, nyyyyyyyyyah?
Are you tood blind to see I was knockin yer knees for implying thats I
don't get to dip little willy in nest of love every nown gin? It might
intrest you to knows that I just finished knackering up the old spoap
hole this *vrey* minute. And don't you even *thick* of trying to tell
me tht I can't tiggle the old marster sergeant with the best of im. I
could write a flecking manule, dung beetle.
Looks lke wer got's another Kook on our hand,s boyos. Big diddly
surprise.l
><<snip O'Neill admitting he hasn't actually seen the film, or read the
>screenplay or anything>>
Whoa, neldy. Hold right the fleck up on egghead assumptions, branaic.
Why in world would I be G-U-E-S-S-S-I-N-G (try n follow, dripster) ifn
film wars already out n I had seen it n' such? Nyyyyyyyyah, humpty?
And how in name of holy potater do you tink that me not seekng
unfinished move makes you some kin dof college puke winner, sunbeams?
Crimny, my entired point is that no-one has seen movie, cause
SHLUGGINER MOVIE aint' made year, hamhead! But I hears that unmade
movie may be made badly, like a freaking UNMADE BESD!!!
FRACT: tjhere are rumors about unmade mo ie
FACT: unmade move isn even finsihed yet!!
FACT: I haev complete lack of faith in unmade big budget moves and
theyr chainswawr chopjobs.
I do BELIEVE I have made it ferpectly PLAIN hows I feel on subject of
unmade movies. So what in flecks sakes is your major pileup, carwarsh?
Jacksons just simple man, very simple likes me and my ubddies. Ain't
no WAY I'm gonna try 'n jerk his jackson. Counton it.
HOWVERE:
SUPPOSE these runours about unmade movei become made?
SUPPROSE certain marshed potaters are boiled?
SUPPOSE the mangling of hot elven wimens into warryer princessens n'
such comes to be made as WELL>!
WELL< IF THAT BE THE CASEm you cann bet your Aunt Sallys Dogdish Im
gonna be right tickled wrongly and think that Jackson is GRADE A
HAmhead!!!!
Any disagreements with above logci? Nyyyyyyyah? Didn';t think so,
egghaed.
>>>> >Oh, wait. That would mean Aragorn doesn't get to push Gollum in,
>>>> >wouldn't it?
>>>> >
>>>> >Curses! Another rewrite!!!
>>>> >
>>>> >I mean, come ON!
>>>> >
>>>> >This fucker Jackson
>>>>
>>>> ...and so your critique of artistic endeavours begins...
>>>
>>>Artistic endeavours my arse. You appear not to have a clue about the way
>>>big movie making screws original scripts, never mind works of fiction on
>>>which scripts are based. Review these matters which are on record. Get a
>>>clue. Then start posting with some authority instead of this
>>>platitudinous waffle you're spewing.
>
>
>Coming from someone who takes internet rumour as gospel, that's rich
Hoho! Read above, tearjerkin Sallyann and then start pedling your
cheaparse bike bakwards, Jackson Lubbin Tub Thumper!
>>>> > appears to be riding a coach and four through *the*
>>>> >seminal Fantasy Book of this Century and we, the Tolkien Fans, are
>>>
>>>> Tolkien fans, of course, having exactly the same feelings about
>>>> everything.
>>>
>>>Sarcastic Prat. Or do you deny me what you appear to claim I deny
>>>Jackson? Artistic license?
>
>
>Huh? Does that statement have any relevance to my point, or did you just say
>it because you felt it made you look clever?
>
>Tolkien fans do not have the same mind on this. Ask Tolkien fans what they
>feel should be in the film and how it should be portrayed, and you'll get as
>many different replies as there are posters on this newsgroup.
Not on mh watch, moonbeam. Tolkien fans are quite clealy divided into
two campsites:
"Those that don't care ifn Jackson changes it" n' "Those that do care
ifn Jackson changes it."
Fer jumping crimny cricketsa, tapewormhead, this should be bvious. Yet
here you are, in your jumpedup barbesr chair, singling and a doodling
about a multicity of choice n shades of grey n' other university
coffeesluper nonsense. But you knows it's a big flecking lie n' such.
What;s your next trick, ponypants? Hopscotchn?
Freshly relessed from frontal brainlobotomy in hospital, turkey tossed
sald Graham eggplant tries his favorite leap; leaping to ansers n'
such.
>Don't think because you have a viewpoint, it's the only viewpoint any *pure*
>Tolkien fan can have.
<KATHUMPTY!>
"High flyin turkeybird lands in the mud.*
Can you, flecking dingleberry, show me exatcly *WHAT PLACE* I saidn
that I thought my viewpoint was pure n' such? HUhms? Nyyyyyyyyyahh?
That is, as aginst me saying very O-B-V-i-O-U-S-L-Y thatn' my vision
was to haven the Film come out just liken book. Just liken book to the
last fleckn nickel?
Gawrsh, you jumped up bladderbutt, you must get real tired of pedallin
your chepa bike backwrds n' such. Heehehe....not wonder you keep
backing that bike inot well-made birdbahts and running over cardboard
shacks 'n such...heheheh.
><<snip some more of O'Neils hilarious swearing>>
I jest happy to say that my little letting loose with some of that
'cretive cursing' broght a smile to your face, collgeboy. Sheepers!
You need to touch yerselfn more, I do believe. It's good medicine n'
such.
>>>> >*Yes, I signed the friggin' Petition and a lot of good THAT has done.*
>>>> >
>>>> >I think it's time some of the more high profile posters here, those
>with
>>>> >influential contacts in the literary world, got a nice red hot poker
>and
>>>> >shoved it up Jackson's arse - Michael Martinez and that John Whassname
>>>> >that SuzieFlame thinks is some big knob in the states and Michael Scott
>>>> >Rohan as well.
>>>>
>>>> Of course that'll do soooooo much more good than a petition.
>>>
>>>Why not? People of Jackson's stature artistically [and I don't deny or
>>>disparage the work he has previously done] *do* take notice of their
>>>"peers" - you'd know that even if you glanced cursorily at "Hello" from
>>>time to time, but you're probably too busy to bother.
>
>
>Yes, I must of missed the issue where Jackson hung around on AFT and RABT to
>get pointers on how to make the film.
Hoohoo! What happened, jughandle? One of your 'hellos' jump outn door
and go missing n such?
HNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAH!!!!!!
Jackson is justn dirty ass director. NOt a flecking artist. Justn
director poreheaded creampie! All director does is take the flecing
screenplay and makes movie from it? HELLO! Andybodady hojme today
Uncle Blubber? Ifn he *don't* know what he wantsn from movie, however
much dinero he's got in back pockets n[ such, then he won't maken good
movie. Even ifn he tried to make good movie. Holy Smokes, can I
possbly make it any clerar?
But he don't even want to make good movie. The hopped up tweiddle
paddle snot cockerbug is trying to make epic, make *importrant* movie
that makes lot sof money. The biggun to end all bigguns.
Not lookin to special fer the book.
And PARTICULARILY not lookin to special fer teh fans.
Exceptn mayb e those jerkin D&D fleckheads, whart with their fancy
dicen n; never read good book n' thaeir coffeeslurping lives. Heck,
they only knows about 'power' 'n such n beating people up. Flecing
BULLY BOYS!!!!!JEs likes Hogwarsh and SUZIE-Bitch-WHORE ANBD
WHOPPTYFUCKING DOOPTY!!!!!ARGH< I HATES THEM BULLY_BOY BARSTARD
MUNGPONIES!!!!!!!!!
Scuse me n' such. I gort a little hotheaded. HEHEhe.
>>>> >Come on guys, speak up!
>>>>
>>>> Come on, relax. Take a deep breath, go get laid.
>>>
>>>I've just gotten laid again,
>
>Aren't you the grown-up...
Heh. I'm the getting lots of Action, Jackson, egghead.
Or maybe the getting hots of Action Jaskson, eghplant.
Or possibly even the petting hots of Acton Jackson, eggsalad.
Pssst.......want to hearn great piece of confridential advice,
hipster?........
Giggle.
I don't sllep in cunstains, Jibbidy Do! I makes sure to aim on the
floor!
HNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAHHNYAH!!!!!!
>> as I did before I posted my rant. I feel as
>>>strongly about Jacksons apparent mishandling of the Film now as I did
>>>then.
>
>>>Are you some twit who believes males of the species can be controlled or
>>>pacified by satisfying their sexual urges, or by playing sweet music to
>>>them? Get a grip.
>
>Get a grip? From a man who indulges post-coital fantasies about sticking a
>poker up a movie directors arse on the internet.
Hot poikers upn the bum adds the mystery, mousetraps on my dinkum
provide the 'snap', ifn you will.
<giggly goo>
You need to try some weir shit out in them that bedroom, chippy,
before you get all stuck on jerkin off in your tub! Scartch it,
wackadoo!!!!
>>>This git Jackson meeds a poker up the arse to wake him up. I don't want
>>>my appreciation of the Book re-written in reverse by the corroding,
>>>eroding effect of a no doubt well-publicised Film which is at variance
>>>with the plot with significant differences in major characters, their
>>>roles and functions.
>
>
>Which is, of course, exactly what Jackson said he's going to do with the
>film.
Cripes ahoy, but yer as thickn as a noodle, lopsterhead. Amzin that
yoou hain't turned all of this whole usenet into blarck hole sucking
up all postings n' such wtih your posts, posterbed. WHOOPS! And here's
a little somthing from your ubddy, JacksonFive:
########################################3333
BOOOHOOOBLUBBER. UNMADE MOVIE ISN'T MADE YET!!! HE'S NO JUSTN
DIRECTOR!BOHOOHOODODYHOOO!UNCONFIRMED RUMORS OF UNMADE MOVIE ARN'T
TRUE!!!!HOODODODODOASMIPPLYPOOOO!!!!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@2
i bet that *that* cleaned out yer pipes, eh snarffles? Im jest hoping
to get even more broing posts outer my holler. Junebug.
>>>> Did Taxi Driver teach
>>>> you nothing about where these feelings lead?
>>>
>>>What drugs are you ON, sonny? Haven't you ever gotten passionate about
>>>something? Are you unwell or something? Do you relate to the world by
>>>remote control? Get the fucking lead out, or it'll be too fucking late!
>
>
>Internet rumours are so worth getting het up about. Try walking out the
>front door for a change and finding something genuine to get angry about.
>Heck, wait till they release the film and rant about it then, but to rant on
>the grounds of internet rumour is sadness of the highest order.
Tell me, smatrypants, ever been told about 'Kickn balls *before* you
turn and run?"
Sit back n listen to expert.
I find it passably familiar with buggring fancy collge broads when
ther passed out on yer couchn stuff......('N *don't ask how they got
there n; such! Sheesh!)
>I bet your one of those people who send abusive e-mails to the BBC when
>rumours fly that a black actor's going to be cast as Doctor Who - pitiful -
>truly pitiful
Hold the PRESSES 'n pick up the phone, JIM JIMMINY CREEPERS! Where has
I EVER looked likn' racists or rednecked bigot n' such? HUh, college
whitewarsher? Where?
Nyyyyyyyyyaah? You'd better be able to prove it, by thumpity, or fleck
to Petering Pickle I'll call you a fib-faced liar n' such!
N' you can't.
Cause I'm only bigotted against bully-boys n' such, like Hogmonkey or
SUZE-WHore-BitchQUEEN!
Giggle. But jest look at you, cityslciker. Your pedalling taht bike
backwards so lickety fast I think yer gonna crash inot that heap of
rubber bands in my front yard. HEhehe!!!
><<snip some more of O'Neils vacuous sarcasm>>
MOre snipadoodle form the eggheaded bed wetting little splurgy. Emnjoy
sleelping in wet sheets, piddlepants? Heheh.
>>>> >And as for Elvish languages, what of GLorfindels first utterance "Ai ne
>>>> >vedui Dúnadan"? Sounds a bit butch for even a Warrior Princess, ehhhhh?
>>>> >
>>>> >Treasured little snippets like this are going to be butchered left
>>>> >right and centre to make way for Jackson's luuuurv angles.
>>>
>>>> What? Jackson is going to suggest Aragorn is in love with Arwen? The
>>>> nerve of the man.
>>>
>>>Are you some new category of DENSE or what?
>
>What was wrong with the old one?
Well, hows n about you do the explaining for once, prickly pete?
Gawrsh, I thought you was one *cementheaded* sproggle brained dandy
befor3e, bnut not, HOLY SMOKES< you seem to want to be *the*
fleckingest cementheaeded cockatoo in whole wide world.
>>> The Book is _far_ more
>>>complex than the releases of the film suggest it will be. My point was
>>>that in simplifying and paring away, Jackson has lost the essential
>>>message of Tolkien's work, the principle theme of the Music; that the
>>>discordant themes of the great and vainglorious Morgoth and his
>>>followers are turned and rebound to the greater glory of Ilúvatar
>>>because of the roles and parts played by many [relatively powerless]
>>>factions and people acting together.
>
>
>At fucking last, you make a point. An interpretation of the Ring and one,
>surprisingly, not contradicted by anything that's come out about the film.
Well, I'm lookin left, right and cetral and I don't see no flecking
'interpretations."
I said 'Muscial Chairs of Eru' whas the point. Them music, so sweet n
pretty, n it stays the smae, just liken book. Just liken movie should
be, twisted sheet!
I say, once more for your benefit GreatHam, No Iterpretations. Just
the farcts, puss.
>Nearly everybook is more complex that the eventual adaptation.
HOLD the flecking mayonnaise, wicklebutter!!! Hoopers croopser, but
ain't you one dense danish! Let's try this S-L-O_W-LY.....books have
to using words n' such nonsense to try n' gets idears across. That's
whyn I prefer easy readin like Green Eggs n Ham, n even THAT's almust
tooo long by a graded gumball! Now them there film thingies, well holy
flecking flour, they got real pictures, n sound, n explosions n lots
of shot s of buildings n such. Think IDa become arkytecht ifn there
was only stupid wordy books? HELO!!!!!
>What matters
>when someone is adapting the book is he has to take the themes he finds
>important and translate them effective to the big screen.
Yooure fibbing again Grahump. The only people who can do filsms of
GREAT OLD WONDER books is genieus, like that Norman Einstein
feller...or was his name Albert Rockefellers? Well, anywho, it needs
someone likes *him* to maken genius work n such. And that Gollum
character, who he's one right flecking hardun. And I says, fleck, I
says fleck them compyutor stuff....let great actors like Bob Saget get
the role n' such. Can you follow this, greaspole???>
>That requires a
>level of personal interpretation that is bound to annoy others who have
>taken a different personal interpretation when they read the book.
Hokey smokey, espersso breath, I'll admit thta your high-pitched
chriping is probly true. In fac,t I'll even goes to most likerly. But
dadgumajimaboo, not this time Peonut. It seems to me that your
arguments is way too much like my wifes jello....it's right ugly to
looks at, won't sit easy in belly n' such, and just smacks of having
too many walnuts inner mix and all that.
>On top of that, there are the consideration of the medium. Not everything in
>LoTR that works in the text can be effectively translated onto the screen,
>especially given the limits of time and budget, and that the text in many
>respects was written to deliberately leave images to the readers
>imagination. Again, a good director needs to work according to those
>strictures as he sees fit, and how he addresses those limitations is bound
>to piss off some people who believe it should be done differently.
Surprise, surprisd, byt old backpedaling college smarties is throwing
waffles against the wall. Why can't you jsut come clean and admit
unmade move should be made with book, n' not girlie warrours and
compuyter stuff n' such?
>So how do you address the above concerns? "Arwen - Warrior Princess" - Not
>in MY fucking movie, fuckwit. Wake up! A director shouldn't make any film
>according to the dictates of anyone else - let alone an ill-informed idiot
>such as yourself. You can rant and rave all you like but its a pointless
>exercise - if the director hasn't cottoned on to your interpretation of the
>book, too bad.
'Ill-informed idiot">. Well lah-der-flecking dah! I's been called an
idiot *PLENTY* of times in my life, but ill-informed! Keep on
backpedalling that girlie bike down the street, pussums, and your
shorts will jump outn yer pants and into yer mouth. Trust me, I seen
it happen before.,....but not to me, no. hee.e..m,
And how much do your know about high-faluting movies anywhayu, curious
gorge? It i took a nail file and scrartched at yer uselness noggin, I
bet I'd find clumps of goopystuff under yer hair! Thick flecker!
Only cheap movies win cool awards n' such like that at Cans, the
Plama'dor n such hain't never been gotten by big COLLEGE EDCATED
COFFEEBEAB YOYOS like Jackson. It's usually artiste movies, even
though directors arnen't artitstes n' such, flollow me here, but
artistes win awards. And adoptive artistes as well. You still with me,
four-eyed smartypants?
Not the way witn BIGGUNS> BIGGUNS tryinng tech stuf n such and angles
and lenses and...and pencils n paper, but some guy in suit with big
mug of voffee says, 'Nope, laddie, put in some titties n couple more
jugs of beers n make sweet elfmaiden n' warryer princess.''
At least, that's what I think happnes, cause I heard it in Floogys.
>Now, this morning, I have been mostly watching tapes of the forthcoming BBC
>series GORMENGHAST for reviewing purposes.
Hohoho!!!!! So you managed to turn on telly after unrapping yer silly
cumstarched gum wrapper sheets, eh shooting birdy? Hehee, easy on the
fireman routine, wiggle wick. Hehe.
>Does is have every scene from the
>book? Does it preserve dialogue from the books intact? Are all the
>characters as they are described in book?
Who cares? Does it haven sweet elfen maiden princess? Musical chairs
form heaven? They it's crapola, lemonbelly.
>In all cases, No.
You read that pile of trash, en Titsup Alone, n' Titsup Groan, n
Hoagenmeisterhash? Whackadoo, skipero, you must be on e masochristic
little four-eyed coolege boy. I;m waiting for the XXX rated bersion
myself.....an now laughing now, slicker, me and the missus somethimes
need to kickstart the little fellar.....hehehe.
>It's still a
>fucking amazing adaptation because the makes have had the guts to make it
>how they see fit, not how the many hordes of snide snipers would wish them
>to do it.
I heard nothing on nnews about any 'snide snipers', jellytot.
Nyyyyyyyah? No sniding, no sniping, and definitely no flecking sniddly
sniping of my ham sandwich!!!!!>!> ANd admit it,...you jsut made up
Gorgeonhash because i nver new anyone who read big books..
>>>Not just the great and the Wise, nor the valiant and the beautiful in
>>>love, those Jackson appears to be concentrating on [and caricaturing the
>>>book over], but_all_persons have their part to play. This for me was the
>>>essential Tolkien message - evil can be overcome by Good, if all people
>>>play their parts.
>
>
>There isn't time to include all the characters. A judgement call must be
>made as to whether the likes of Ioreth, Prince Imrahil or Fatty Bolger
>should be in there.
Swiss Cheese? Swishs Cheese!????
ARgggleleblarlrlrallbelelele.......that'll ruin my arple
pie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>If you can't accept that, then don't go see the film - because NO film
>version by anyone is going to include all the characters for the simple
>reason of time and budgetary restraints.
Hwish. Yer still five steps behind my bulging arse, knucklduster.
(flooosh)
Lookit, limperoo, I'm babbling and wailing and flubbling around and
generally making a big silly stinkeroo becasue I flecking care aobut
good toldkien vomie and such, n by gus it, I'll try and flugging
change the undmade wackeroo by all the chkens in my freezer! No
shittin, sherlock, but the Bakshite movie, warl it was too dark for me
to make much outn such, and I worked six hard works colleciintg lint
to get money for that movie, and I still fels upset n such.
>>>Don't bother to patronise me with your allegations of presumption on my
>>>part. Fuckers like you would still be malingering during the viewing of
>>>the rushes, when it was clear to everyone else there was a disaster in
>>>the making.
UGH! ARG! UGHUGUGUGUGUGUG LYA!!!
Typical draft doging college behemian cowardly fleck!!!! Why don't you
try and find some manhgy dog and climnb into her vagina you wet
blanket (n' no wrigglin about how it carn't be done...trust me!!)
You're stumbling through life missing all the apple dropping on yer
head you numb nelly.....you don't just take the chpped beef from the
butcher, yellerbelly....you asks for prime cut!!!!!
>If the films going to be a disaster, it'll be a disaster - whatever you say
>or do now. Jackson has a screenplay he want to make. He's persueded someone
>to give him the cash to make it. It's not even a case of its out of your
>hands now, because it was never in your hands to begin with.
DANGNABBIT HUDFLECKING MUDHUMP, I *AIN'T* SAID I COULD DO JACKSHIT
AOBUT IT N' SUCH!!!!!! How can yer be so clumpheavy?
I can barely make out yer legs, yer pedaling yer Nancy bike bakewards
so fast......holy scoops, watch out for that pile of braed crumbs.
Don't knock flecking poker till you *try* it uinimgainative college
turd. You don't find me sittin gdown playing silly kittens, do you?
I'm not the one thorwing clumps of shite at every silly jackass who
brays 'Jackson reads group lets do somethign!". My only question is,
since ye've obiously no stones woman face, where do you park yer short
n' curlies?
No, hold on, mocha hjava. I know. I've been thre myself. Flagged the
little bugger so hard yyer plum down to shooitng pastlets, right?
Fairs enogu.
><<snip>>
>
>>>WHAT FUCKING CHANGES!!??? Who said I would have made any at all?
>
>You can't make a film adaptation of any book without making changes.
[Blow my nose. Loudly. HOOONKKK] Oh, good lordy, whyeven in flecks
dsake not? Cuase you been suckling at tits of bigshot directors
bigshot mouths of saurons n' take juicy flecking milk in like greddy
chick in the woods? Can't you seprate the fact from teh unmade
rumours? Nyyyyyyyyah?
>>> I
>>>didn't think *any* changes were a good idea.
>
>The O'Neill Cut - 40 hours of scrolling text containing the whole of the
>LoTR, unchanged and pure for all pure Tolkien fans
>
><<snip stuff where O'Neill assumed I was psychic by not getting his themes
>of the book when, in fact he's only just written them>>
More pathetich drool and snipping and drooling from drolling college
boy. You are one pathetic, drooling snipper, droolsnip.
>>>You owe it to such a work of fiction to stretch the Film medium, you
>>>push your limits as a director, not butcher the book because you're not
>>>up to the job. What ARE you Graham, an apologist for Jackson? Maybe you
>>>ARE his fucking PRO...
>I'm not a an apologist for anyone - just pointing out that devoid of
>sarcasm, swearing and bogus facts from the internet - you are saying
>absolutely nothing - let alone anything relevant to how a director would go
>about adapting the LoTR to make the most of the endless artistic
>possibilites film has to offer while remaining true to the themes and
>characters of the book.
Hly baloney, You think I make these gigantic, long-winded balthering
shecklesplints for no POINT at all? Sheesh mareesh! I thought that
anyone with one good eye not poke out witn sharp stick (and I say this
against city slicker eggheads with irish cream stains on fancy shirts)
would have figgered out what I been saying from getgo. I'll try and
make it simple n' suchn, jes for you tunamelt:
1. Learn about book. It's all there in book.
2. Treat teh book nice. Okay, I may have thrown mine in box in attic
for last twenty years, but you know what iMean. It's a nice book.
Treat it nice.(I guess NOT like me,..,gring)
3. Use the book....criminy, it's got all them there words!!! Might as
well use dsome words, stead of compyutors n warroir princess.!
4. Dn't mess with the book. The words in the books are good wordw.
5. Don't mess with the books people. I like them and they make me
laught. Especially crazy Pippin, whowheenn he is a card, ain't he?
6. Don't ignore tge people who read the books....cuase if we all
breathin at same time, we'll suck up all the worlds oxygen and fancy
pants artitst directosr will suffrocate.
><<sip some more arsewipery about the internet facts, and O'Neill not knowing
>who the advisors on the film are>>
"Sip some more arsewipery"?
Heheh..learn to spell you ignoranus!!!! Hoohoomagoo, I'd say your sure
like putting them rosy red college lips to Jacksons ass and suck out
unmade shite!!!! HEHEHEhhe....problem is, which cheek do your restr
your chin on sipper.....(I prefer the right, myserlf, but that is
*not& relevant.)
(Hynssah)
>>>> >Ehrm... Anyone know *how*? All ideas welcome, T.E.U.N.C. tactical
>>>> >strikes included.
>>>>
>>>> How about calming down, reading some Tolkien and CHOOSING NOT TO GO
>>>> SEE THE FILM.
>>>
>>>Alan, if you think THAT sort of attitude actually accomplishes anything
>>>in this life, you need to take a deep breath, bend over, and put your
>>>head back up your arse.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>
>God, you really are a tosser, aren't you.
Tosser? This lil ol bunny?
Giggle.
Well, seems to me I'm the one taking off my blasses to look at
gum-wrapped sheet boy pedaling backwards like sixty on nancy bike and
about the run into pile of leaves!!!!!!>!>?
>>>As for me, I want this fucker to do his best, not take the easy option,
>>>as he *is* doing.
>
>Yeah right, he must be having a whale of time, slacking around New Zealand,
>living the easy life.
Holy cripes, wackadoo! You think he's gotten it tough or somehting?
Them New Zealand Island women walk round with naked boobies all day!
>>> I'll do what I can to to make that happen. I won't be
>>>sitting disconsolately about after seeing the film thinking "I could
>>>have said something."
>
>
>Well, you've said it now. Fine lot of difference that'll make to the final
>look of the film.
Well, it comes down to this , college beanhead mug holder:
The secrete spies of artiste director may rad group, see what
marvelous sense I've made, n' make changes for better n' such.
In your case, though, batboy, you're cleaning up the gutters, pulling
out the moldy leaves. Whatever you say won't help mak e the unmade,
you hogswiliing, cornhogging, salami0shoveling gtratuitous hunk of
snot flem from a donkeys right elbow.
MOS.
(If you like this adaptation, please send encouraging remarks to
in...@vlasic.com. Vlasics. It's the *best* pickle you've ever heard.
Alan Graham
Michael O'Neill wrote in message <387A7D4F...@indigo.ie>...
<<snip O'Neil's rather unhealthy married obsession with the wank habits of
others>>
>> <<snip O'Neill admitting he hasn't actually seen the film, or read the
>> screenplay or anything>>
>
>Why would I be commenting s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-v-e-l-y [I'll make it easy
>for you this time] if the film were already made? Ehhhhh, wonder boy?
>And why would you thing me not having seen it means you somehow score a
>point? THe wnole point[sic] at this time in the proceedings is that
>*no-one* not even Jackson himself has SEEN it, you twit, but that a lot
>of VERY DISTURBING rumours are flying around.
>
>GIVEN that they are rumours
>
>GIVEN that the film is not finished yet
>
>GIVEN that I've no faith in big budget movies respecting source material
>
>I made my feelings VERY CLEAR on this matter. So what's your fucking
>problem? Think we sould all slurp to Jackson or something? He's a man
>and like any human can make mistakes.
>
>IF these runours of cuts are true
>
>IF certain logical follow ons occur
>
>IF the suggested character revisions occur
>
>THEN I think Jacksone will make an unholy dog's dinner of it.
>
>Got a problem with any of THOSE qualifications? Ehhhhhhh? Thought not.
Christ, you get so worried about so many Ifs? IF they cast Jim Carrey as
Boromir? IF they turn it into a musical? IF it turns out worse that The
Phantom Menace, then I won't like it.
Can't see the relevance of basing a sustained tirade of abuse on internet
rumour
>> Coming from someone who takes internet rumour as gospel, that's rich
>
>
>Read above and start looking for reverse, Jackson-slurper.
Your entire rant is BASED on reading internet rumours as credible.
>No you won't. Tolkien fans have tended to polarise along the lines of
>
>"Let him at it" and "Respect the Book".
Yes, with completely different definitions of what respect the book means.
>>You know this, yet you vainly try to present the opinions as a broad
>spectrum, a multiplicity of choice and shading and colour when in fact
>you know it just is not so. What'll you try next?
It is a difference of opinion. From those who think, like Tolkien did, that
you should never make a film of the book - to those who believe that
Bombadil HAS to be in it, to those who think you should cut the beginning
and end off, to those who think it should concentrate wholly on Frodo and
Sam.
What's stupid is taking your view, and your inpretation and saying "This is
how a Tolkien film should be made that is true to the book"
>As opposed to me stating C-L-E-A-R-L-Y than my viewpoint espoused the
>Film staying as *true* to the Book as possible?
*true* to the book - another meaningless expression. Try defining what it
IS, not another hilarious barrage of sarcastic comments about what it isn't
>
>Jackson is an Director. Not an artist. Just a director. They don't write
>the script.
Huh?
>They interpret it for the screen. Unless he has a clear
>vision of what the book is about, his interpretation, however
>well-financed, will be flawed, even if it were to remain true to the
>book as is possible.
God is this all that left of your argment now. "If Jackson doesn't interpret
the books well, he will make a bad film"?
Do you specialise in the mind-numbingly obvious?
If, however, you do not like the interpretation then its only fawed by YOUR
standards. I he has a different interpretation why should he listen to you
anyway?
>However Jackson is not interpreting the Book. He appears to have
>re-written large tracts of it.
Yes it's called a screenplay. They tend to be different from the source
text. It's why a play is different from a 'reading'
<<snip O'Neill getting scared because he believes internet rumours>>
>> >>> >Come on guys, speak up!
>> >>>
>> >>> Come on, relax. Take a deep breath, go get laid.
>> >>
>> >>I've just gotten laid again,
>>
>> Aren't you the grown-up...
>
>I'm the well-laid grown-up.
>
>Or newly the newly-laid grown up.
>
>Or even the re-laid grown up. Or whatever.
>
>I'll let you in on a secrit shall I.....?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I'm not stuck to the fucking sheets each morning, like you!!!
>
>BWAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Get over this unhealthy obsession.
>> I bet your one of those people who send abusive e-mails to the BBC when
>> rumours fly that a black actor's going to be cast as Doctor Who -
pitiful -
>> truly pitiful
>
>And exactly WHERE have I ever shown ANY racist or bigoted traits
>ANYWHERE on the entire USENET?
It's EXACTLY the same thinking as yours. A misguided attempt to lambast
anyone who doesn't match your own thinking of what's *pure*.
<<snip more of O'Neils obsession>>
>> >> The Book is _far_ more
>> >>complex than the releases of the film suggest it will be. My point was
>> >>that in simplifying and paring away, Jackson has lost the essential
>> >>message of Tolkien's work, the principle theme of the Music; that the
>> >>discordant themes of the great and vainglorious Morgoth and his
>> >>followers are turned and rebound to the greater glory of Ilúvatar
>> >>because of the roles and parts played by many [relatively powerless]
>> >>factions and people acting together.
>>
>> At fucking last, you make a point. An interpretation of the Ring and one,
>> surprisingly, not contradicted by anything that's come out about the
film.
>
>What "interpretation of the Ring"?
Because not everyone who reads the LoTR does so using the Silmarillion as a
benchmark.
>> Nearly everybook is more complex that the eventual adaptation.
>
>No it's not. It uses the different language of a very limited medium to
>portray at some length any given subject a multimedia presentation like
>film can do far more quickly.
Novels are a "very limited medium"
You really are full of rubbish.
>> What matters
>> when someone is adapting the book is he has to take the themes he finds
>> important and translate them effective to the big screen.
>
>Not with a Film of a "classic" work of fiction. No way. THAT requires
>genius.
Yes, moron. A genius in taking those themes and translating them to the big
screen.
Not a genius in taking the orders and dictate over the whims and wishes of
O'Neil
>Something Jacksons reliance on CGI scripts for that most complex
>of central characters, Gollum, shows he clearly does not possess in any
>great abundance. Maybe John Hurt could do Gollum Justice, or Dustin
>Hoffman, but few others.
At last, another point. Keepy this up, you might have an actual coherent
criticism by the end of the decade.
>> That requires a
>> level of personal interpretation that is bound to annoy others who have
>> taken a different personal interpretation when they read the book.
>
>Look Graham, I don't deny your generalised waffle has some merit, but
>not in this particular case. Your argument is just too fluffy to
>constitute a serious input.
Rather than your which is if Jackson doesn't agree with your interpretation
then he's a fuckwit, no sorry, reading your posts back, he's already a
fuckwit.
That is not serious input.
>> On top of that, there are the consideration of the medium. Not everything
in
>> LoTR that works in the text can be effectively translated onto the
screen,
>> especially given the limits of time and budget, and that the text in many
>> respects was written to deliberately leave images to the readers
>> imagination. Again, a good director needs to work according to those
>> strictures as he sees fit, and how he addresses those limitations is
bound
>> to piss off some people who believe it should be done differently.
>
>Again, apologetic waffle. And full of huge assumptions based on your own
>inability to see the possibilities of this book AS IT IS WRITTEN.
Not waffle. Fact. How every single film or TV adaptation of every book has
come about.
>> So how do you address the above concerns? "Arwen - Warrior Princess" -
Not
>> in MY fucking movie, fuckwit. Wake up! A director shouldn't make any film
>> according to the dictates of anyone else - let alone an ill-informed
idiot
>> such as yourself. You can rant and rave all you like but its a pointless
>> exercise - if the director hasn't cottoned on to your interpretation of
the
>> book, too bad.
>As to your comment that "A director shouldn't make any film according to
>the dictates of anyone else" how little you know about big-budget
>movies. Clueless barely scratches the surface of how dense you are. Let
>me explain something to you.
>
>Low-budget private films are usually much sought after at Cannes, the
>Palm d'Ór never having being won by a major blockbuster-type film in my
>recollection.
O'Neills Laws
Small film = good
Large film = bad
You know nothing, absolutely nothing about film.
>> Now, this morning, I have been mostly watching tapes of the forthcoming
BBC
>> series GORMENGHAST for reviewing purposes.
>
>Aha! So you got unstuck from the sheets after all...
God Micheal - Quit this obsession with my bodilyfluids.
>> Does is have every scene from the
>> book? Does it preserve dialogue from the books intact? Are all the
>> characters as they are described in book?
>
>Who cares? It must be the most turgid, convoluted piece of text ever
>written.
Oh, yeah I forgot O'Neills opinion in all things is fact, and those that
disagree are fuckwits.
>> If you can't accept that, then don't go see the film - because NO film
>> version by anyone is going to include all the characters for the simple
>> reason of time and budgetary restraints.
>
>You're *still* not with me.
>
><sigh>
>
>I chose to act before the film came out for many reasons, not least
>bercause I seek to make others re-think their positions and the reasons
>for those positions. If and when the axe falls and the dastardly deed is
>done, I'll see what's what. Not until then. I sat through Ralph fuggin'
>Bakshi's crap when it came out as well, Rotoscoping and all. Wasn't
>impressed by it. Kind of suspected I mightn't be. Still went and saw it
>though.
Address the point. NO film adaptation is ever going to include ALL the
characters and scenes in the book.
If you can't handle that, don't go see the film.
>> >>Don't bother to patronise me with your allegations of presumption on my
>> >>part. Fuckers like you would still be malingering during the viewing of
>> >>the rushes, when it was clear to everyone else there was a disaster in
>> >>the making.
>>
>> If the films going to be a disaster, it'll be a disaster - whatever you
say
>> or do now.
>
>NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
>
>You defeatist fuck! Crawl back up a uterus or something. You haven't a
>clue of what life is about! You don't just lie there playing dead! You
>*do* something about it!
What. Rant andswear and obsess about bodily fliuds on the internet. Is this
your ultimate idea of doing something?
>> Jackson has a screenplay he want to make. He's persueded someone
>> to give him the cash to make it. It's not even a case of its out of your
>> hands now, because it was never in your hands to begin with.
>
>I NEVERSAID IT WAS *IN* MY HANDS!!!
Then why the fuck are you trying to change it. you don't have that power.
you're railing at nothing. Get a life.
>How can you be this clueless?
Years of practice
>> It was reported in the UK press that Liv Tyler had been cast in LoTR as
>> "Queen Of The Fairies" - no doubt you can now regale us all with your
>> hilarious sarcasm as to why Jackson is a fuckwit because Arwen is no
Queen
>> of the fairies - completely missing the rather obvious point that the UK
>> press, like the internet, spout a lot of rubbish
>
>*Did* I make such a comment? No. Why? I *do* understand the foibles of
>the UK press.
But clearly not the internet.
Your entire rant is based on believing rumours from a source that is the one
thing on God's Earth less reliable than the UK press.
Your whole rant is based on IF the internet is true.
NO different from if your rant was based on taking the UK as gospel
IF Arwen is portrayed as Queen of The Fairies, the Jackson is a fuck-wit
That's IT. That is your ENTIRE argument.
>>
>> >>WHAT FUCKING CHANGES!!??? Who said I would have made any at all?
>>
>> You can't make a film adaptation of any book without making changes.
>
>[eyeroll] And why not? Because you've sucked up every apology every
>Directors PRO has ever uttered in the name of expediency for so long now
>that you BELIEVE them? Ehhh?
No, but every brilliant film adaptation I have ever seen of every book ever
made has made changes and interpreted the text.
Otherwise we're just left with the O'Neill Cut.
>> The O'Neill Cut - 40 hours of scrolling text containing the whole of the
>> LoTR, unchanged and pure for all pure Tolkien fans
>> >>You owe it to such a work of fiction to stretch the Film medium, you
>> >>push your limits as a director, not butcher the book because you're not
>> >>up to the job. What ARE you Graham, an apologist for Jackson? Maybe you
>> >>ARE his fucking PRO...
>>
>> I'm not a an apologist for anyone - just pointing out that devoid of
>> sarcasm, swearing and bogus facts from the internet - you are saying
>> absolutely nothing - let alone anything relevant to how a director would
go
>> about adapting the LoTR to make the most of the endless artistic
>> possibilites film has to offer while remaining true to the themes and
>> characters of the book.
>
>No I *am* saying something. Anyone with a clue [as opposed to a prick
>trying out his secondary school level debating skills] would have
>immediately copped on to my points. Here I'll make it simple again for
>you;-
>
>1. Understand the Book - its complexity is one of its strengths. Don't
>sacrifice that strength to Mass Marketing Strategies.
There is no one single way to "understand" a book. Moron.
>2. Respect the Book -it's been around in draft form a lot longer than
>you have.
God, you accuse me of waffle and talk undefinable rubbish like 'respect the
book'
>3. Adapt the Book - cut if you must, but understand what you're doing
See 1
>4. Don't re-write the plot of the Book
...which isn't happening
>5. Don't re-write or re-invent the Author's characters in the Book
...which isn't happening
>6. Don't ignore the fans of this Book - they are legion and educated.
And they also have DIFFERENT opinions on what from the book should be in the
film and how it should be portrayed.
Only you are such a sanctimonous wanker that you think your views on what
you want to see from a film represents the only way to "respect" a book or
be "true" to it.
>What *I've* said may make "some" difference. It may not. This is not
>clear at this time.
No, Idiot. Jackson is filming this thing NOW. He didn't even start filming
until he had all three films completed as an animated storyboard. He only
gotbacking for the film after completeing much of the screen play.
Your ranting will make NO difference. Only a sad, lonely computer obsessed
guy would think posting to AFT and RABT will have any consideration on the
film. Let alone a cretin such as yourself that has such an ill-defined
useless point as yours.
>What *is* clear at this time is that what *you've* said will make NO
>fucking difference, you sad, lame, cretinous, apologist of a
>butt-sucker.
You really believe you matter in all this.
Sad
Al
William H. Hsu
>William H. Hsu wrote:
>>
>> Michael O'Neill <o...@indigo.ie> writes:
>>
>> >If I see Gimli with a fucking "wierding module" instead of an axe
>> >[because the Dwarves were made by Aule the Technocrat GOd], I'll spew!
>>
>> LOL! Yes!
>>
[snip my original Dune LOTR-isms]
>>
>> Bene Gesserit: the *ORIGINAL* Spice Girls
>I'm sending you the bill [sic] for a new shirt ..ehrm, Bill.
><still laughing, and covered in coffee>
Send it to:
Mayor Stillgar Gamgee
216 Main Street
Michel Delving, Shire
I believe he's got a mithril stillsuit in the mathom-house that he
might be able to send you, along with that crysknife that Frodo left behind
when he went off into retirement. Don't forget to mention Pippin's
sacreligious water-wasting at Crickhollow!
"And Tar-Atanamir went out into the wastes of Far Harad and lay down
in the dunes, but though he got sand all inside his doublet, the creatures
that crawled all over his mail availed not to prolong his life."
- God Emperor of Numenor... Not
LEGOLAS THE MENTAT:
It is by lembas alone I set my mind in motion.
The ears acquire points, the points become a warning.
It is by lembas alone I set my mind in motion.
-Bill
>M.
Ron Ploeg
Alan Graham wrote:
>
> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <387A7D4F...@indigo.ie>...
(BIG snip)
>
> >What *I've* said may make "some" difference. It may not. This is not
> >clear at this time.
>
> No, Idiot. Jackson is filming this thing NOW. He didn't even start filming
> until he had all three films completed as an animated storyboard. He only
> gotbacking for the film after completeing much of the screen play.
>
> Your ranting will make NO difference. Only a sad, lonely computer obsessed
> guy would think posting to AFT and RABT will have any consideration on the
> film. Let alone a cretin such as yourself that has such an ill-defined
> useless point as yours.
>
> >What *is* clear at this time is that what *you've* said will make NO
> >fucking difference, you sad, lame, cretinous, apologist of a
> >butt-sucker.
>
> You really believe you matter in all this.
>
> Sad
>
> Al
The *fucking* product is not yet *fucking* finished, so any *fucking*
changes can *fucking* yet be *fucking* made in my *fucking* humble
*fucking* opinion.
Just my *fucking* farthing. *fucking* Cheers, Ron
--
http://home.wxs.nl/~hobbiton
At your *fucking* service!
Alan Graham
Ron Ploeg wrote in message <387CAC6A...@wxs.nl>...
>
>
>Alan Graham wrote:
>>
>> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <387A7D4F...@indigo.ie>...
>
>(BIG snip)
>>
>> >What *I've* said may make "some" difference. It may not. This is not
>> >clear at this time.
>>
>> No, Idiot. Jackson is filming this thing NOW. He didn't even start
filming
>> until he had all three films completed as an animated storyboard. He only
>> gotbacking for the film after completeing much of the screen play.
>>
>> Your ranting will make NO difference. Only a sad, lonely computer
obsessed
>> guy would think posting to AFT and RABT will have any consideration on
the
>> film. Let alone a cretin such as yourself that has such an ill-defined
>> useless point as yours.
>>
>> >What *is* clear at this time is that what *you've* said will make NO
>> >fucking difference, you sad, lame, cretinous, apologist of a
>> >butt-sucker.
>>
>> You really believe you matter in all this.
>>
>> Sad
>>
>> Al
>
>changes can *fucking* yet be *fucking* made in my *fucking* humble
>*fucking* opinion.
>
>Just my *fucking* farthing. *fucking* Cheers, Ron
Honestly, don't you start swearing too.
In an interview Jackson said he wouldn't even film one shot until he had an
animated storyboard for all three films.
Given that he's already filming, it's safe to say that there'd have to be a
pretty good case before you ditch an established storyboard - especially
given the need to plan the budget carefully.
O'Neill hasn't but a good case - he just swears
Al
Russ
>Alan Graham wrote:
>>
>> Michael O'Neill wrote in message <387A7D4F...@indigo.ie>...
>
>(BIG snip)
>>
>> >What *I've* said may make "some" difference. It may not. This is not
>> >clear at this time.
>>
>> No, Idiot. Jackson is filming this thing NOW. He didn't even start filming
>> until he had all three films completed as an animated storyboard. He only
>> gotbacking for the film after completeing much of the screen play.
>>
>> Your ranting will make NO difference. Only a sad, lonely computer obsessed
>> guy would think posting to AFT and RABT will have any consideration on the
>> film. Let alone a cretin such as yourself that has such an ill-defined
>> useless point as yours.
>>
>> >What *is* clear at this time is that what *you've* said will make NO
>> >fucking difference, you sad, lame, cretinous, apologist of a
>> >butt-sucker.
>>
>> You really believe you matter in all this.
>>
>> Sad
>>
>> Al
>
>The *fucking* product is not yet *fucking* finished, so any *fucking*
>changes can *fucking* yet be *fucking* made in my *fucking* humble
>*fucking* opinion.
>
>Just my *fucking* farthing. *fucking* Cheers, Ron
>
You have to remember, some Irish use "fuck" as a comma.
Fuckin' A
Russ
Ron Ploeg
Alan Graham wrote:
>
> Ron Ploeg wrote in message <387CAC6A...@wxs.nl>...
> >
> >The *fucking* product is not yet *fucking* finished, so any *fucking*
> >changes can *fucking* yet be *fucking* made in my *fucking* humble
> >*fucking* opinion.
> >
> >Just my *fucking* farthing. *fucking* Cheers, Ron
>
> Honestly, don't you start swearing too.
I was trying to blend in in your cosy little chat.
>
> In an interview Jackson said he wouldn't even film one shot until he had an
> animated storyboard for all three films.
>
> Given that he's already filming, it's safe to say that there'd have to be a
> pretty good case before you ditch an established storyboard - especially
> given the need to plan the budget carefully.
No doubt. All I am saying is that it's not Written in Stone. Yet.
Changes can be made.
>
> O'Neill hasn't but a good case - he just swears
O'Neill has made his points. In his own typical way, yes.
Cheers, Ron
--
http://home.wxs.nl/~hobbiton
At your service!
Jeff Blanks
> In an interview Jackson said he wouldn't even film one shot until he had an
> animated storyboard for all three films.
>
> Given that he's already filming, it's safe to say that there'd have to be a
> pretty good case before you ditch an established storyboard - especially
> given the need to plan the budget carefully.
Sometimes, an advance screening of a rough cut of a film will be made for
a public audience. Occasionally, scenes which get a negative reception
are re-shot, reworked, or even rewritten. If you ever wanted to influence
the making of a film, that would be the time to do it. So if you're
afraid of something PJ might do, try to make a friend at New Line Cinema!
;-)
--
"There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
strangeness in the proportion." --Francis Bacon