Congratulations SPIDER-MAN!
Louis Epstein
The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
has done in more than five months!
Its lead is bound to grow substantially,as the STAR WARS
movie does its best to catch it and incidentally complete
the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
Meanwhile,the dwindling theaters still showing the Jackson
flick clearly won't enable it to catch the Potter movie...
it's still seven million dollars behind and at a level the
Potter film reached months ago.
When the name "The Lord of the Rings" is mentioned,only
the book should come to the mind of anyone who hears it...
much damage to this ideal has been done,and will continue
to be done for a while yet...but with the Jackson flick's
relentless descent down the rankings at last under way,
the healing has begun.:)
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Flame of the West
> The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> has done in more than five months!
Who cares?
> Its lead is bound to grow substantially,as the STAR WARS
> movie does its best to catch it and incidentally complete
> the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
Who cares?
> Meanwhile,the dwindling theaters still showing the Jackson
> flick clearly won't enable it to catch the Potter movie...
> it's still seven million dollars behind and at a level the
> Potter film reached months ago.
Who cares?
What counts in movies today is video sales. Expect all
three LotR movies to do very well, very likely better than
Star Wars, Spiderman, or Harry Potter.
> When the name "The Lord of the Rings" is mentioned,only
> the book should come to the mind of anyone who hears it...
> much damage to this ideal has been done,and will continue
> to be done for a while yet...but with the Jackson flick's
> relentless descent down the rankings at last under way,
> the healing has begun.:)
Don't be absurd. The film is a permanent addition to
the LotR legacy, just as the earlier animated ones were.
And a much finer addition, as everyone agrees. You are
kicking against the goad.
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Jette Goldie
"Flame of the West" <jsolina...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3CF14789...@erols.com...
Wonder if Spider-Man will still be in theatres in
five months time, as LotR is in some theatres?
--
Jette
(aka Vinyaduriel)
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://bosslady.tripod.com/fanfic.html
Aris Katsaris
"Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
news:BIcI8.9971$SJ.109...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Flame of the West" <jsolina...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF14789...@erols.com...
> > Louis Epstein wrote:
> >
> > > The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
> > > in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> > > has done in more than five months!
> >
> > Who cares?
> >
> > > Its lead is bound to grow substantially,as the STAR WARS
> > > movie does its best to catch it and incidentally complete
> > > the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
> >
> > Who cares?
> >
> > > Meanwhile,the dwindling theaters still showing the Jackson
> > > flick clearly won't enable it to catch the Potter movie...
> > > it's still seven million dollars behind and at a level the
> > > Potter film reached months ago.
> >
> > Who cares?
> >
>
> Wonder if Spider-Man will still be in theatres in
> five months time, as LotR is in some theatres?
Who cares? :-)
Seriously now, Spider-Man was a fine flick IMO and if it did well in
sales, more power to it! No need to be competitive here.
Aris Katsaris
rand mair fheal
> sales, more power to it! No need to be competitive here.
unlike some people
my dvd player is licensed to play more than one
so i can watch spiderman and harry pottr and fotr and dogma and spy kids
and clockwork orange and many others besides
Rotwang
> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> has done in more than five months!
Spiderman is an abomination !! They have defaced Stan Lee's work, nay, they
have mutlated it, took off their pants and collectively shat upon it while
singing taunting songs. They ripped the pages from the comic book and made
it a horrible parody of one of the greatest stories ever !!!
Nothing that made the comics great is in the movie, they blatantly
disregarded its rich history and changed so many details it is simply
revolting !!!
Since when did the Green Goblin wear powered armour ? What's that with those
organic webshooters ? Where is Gwen Stacy ? That old woman doesn't even look
remotely like Aunt May !
Spiderman just set comic books back 50 years ...
Pradera
Użytkownik Rotwang <Rotwang(del)@pandora.be> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:27dI8.2836$Ts.754...@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
> Since when did the Green Goblin wear powered armour ? What's that with
those
> organic webshooters ? Where is Gwen Stacy ? That old woman doesn't even
look
> remotely like Aunt May !
Yeah! And why did they cut Tom Bombadil?
You tell'em, bro...
--
Pradera
<working my way up to become a Tireless Rebutter ;>
Josep
> Don't be absurd. The film is a permanent addition to
> the LotR legacy, just as the earlier animated ones were.
> And a much finer addition, as everyone agrees.
Er... not everyone, if you don't mind. Unlike Mr. Epstein, I do not
believe that making a set of movies out of LOTR is such a bad idea.
However, IMO the Jackson film is poorly made, without any character
development, superficial, stereotyped, with a poor screenplay, lacking
rythm, and generally showing all signs of a BAD movie, so it not even a
fien addition. This is always to pity, but even more in this case
considering the material Jackson had to work on.
Oh, and about 50% of the people I know and have seen the movie do not
have a very good opinion of it, either. Being a Tolkien fan seems not to
be an issue here, since Tolkien fans and definitely not Tolkien fans are
found on both sides
PEp
Flame of the West
> > Don't be absurd. The film is a permanent addition to
> > the LotR legacy, just as the earlier animated ones were.
> > And a much finer addition, as everyone agrees.
>
> Er... not everyone, if you don't mind. Unlike Mr. Epstein, I do not
> believe that making a set of movies out of LOTR is such a bad idea.
> However, IMO the Jackson film is poorly made, without any character
> development, superficial, stereotyped, with a poor screenplay, lacking
> rythm, and generally showing all signs of a BAD movie, so it not even a
> fien addition. This is always to pity, but even more in this case
> considering the material Jackson had to work on.
But my point was that nobody except Bashki himself thinks
the animated one was better. Do you?
Flame of the West
Good thing nobody would mess with LotR when bringing it
to the screen! ;-)
Old One
> The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> has done in more than five months!
Spiderman, the son of Shelob.
--
Subtitles on the LOTR DVD Edition: "Why not try a holiday in Mor-
dor this year? See the lovely alkaline pools, and many interesting
slimy animals..."
Louis Epstein
: Josep wrote:
But "finer" is not a good choice of word for "less abominable".
: Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
The movie is for those who can't read Tolkien,
and they don't deserve even a glimpse.
kuei...@-remove-hotmail.com
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>"Flame of the West" <jsolina...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:3CF14789...@erols.com...
>> Louis Epstein wrote:
>>
Actually, apropos of Epstein's post, I just saw the new star wars
Yawn (last bit is good, although the super mario yoda is a bit odd)
LOTR is a much better film in terms of acting, writing, direction. I
may go to see it again.
--
Sindamor Pandaturion
[remove -remove- to reply]
Celebrimbor
intelligent enough to appreciate a true masterpiece when they see it. The
fact remains that you and those whom you know are very much in the minority
of opinions. The fact remains that 96% of mainstream reviewers liked the
film very much. (Just go to Rotten Tomatoes if you don't believe me. And
don't resort to the ludicrous conclusion that the 144 reviews are "all
biased" or "there's some conspiracy" or other such nonsense. And before
attacking critics, just remember that they are people just like you and me
with their own opinions, so as an *overall* guide the 96% fresh rate is
highly credible.)
And just accept that no one's opinon is "correct", but at the same time
your opinion is definitely IN THE MINORITY. You aren't afraid of that,
surely?
Pradera
Użytkownik Celebrimbor <be...@beleriand.com.me> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:01c20544$99aa8740$093d32d2@c-1...
Excuse me, but what kind of argument is that? 90% of young people all over
the world prefer Britney Spears to Mozart...
--
Pradera
<sig short version 2.0: no text>
Joy
> > The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
> > in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> > has done in more than five months!
>
> Spiderman is an abomination !! They have defaced Stan Lee's work, nay, they
Lighten up, people!
Oh, but nice use of "nay"... makes me giggle. ^_^
the softrat
wrote:
>
>Użytkownik Celebrimbor <be...@beleriand.com.me> w wiadomości do grup
>dyskusyjnych napisał:01c20544$99aa8740$093d32d2@c-1...
>>
>> And just accept that no one's opinon is "correct", but at the same time
>> your opinion is definitely IN THE MINORITY. You aren't afraid of that,
>> surely?
>
>Excuse me, but what kind of argument is that? 90% of young people all over
>the world prefer Britney Spears to Mozart...
GREAT counter-argument!
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Visualize using your turn signal.
anon
...but how many people who registered an opinion were "young people"?
...but how many people will remember Britney Spears 100 yrs after her death?
...but how many Jackson movie haters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
--
anon
------------------------------------------------------------
"I find some of the webbies to be very entertaining,
& they are most enjoyable when tossed by their tails
for distance."
Something I read on a newsgroup once
------------------------------------------------------------
Pradera
Użytkownik anon <an...@nowhere.com> w wiadomooci do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:3CF25A1F...@nowhere.com...
I will always stand against the simple majority argument, regardless of the
cause. Most people are stupid.
Andew Rilstone
<Rot...@pandora.be> writes
>> The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
>> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
>> has done in more than five months!
>
>Spiderman is an abomination !! They have defaced Stan Lee's work, nay, they
>have mutlated it, took off their pants and collectively shat upon it while
>singing taunting songs. They ripped the pages from the comic book and made
>it a horrible parody of one of the greatest stories ever !!!
Who is this Stan Lee of which you speak?
Spiderman, created by Steve Ditko. Or just possibly "Created by Steve
Ditko from an idea stolen from Jack Kirby by Joe Simon, or vice versa."
Its all very complicated. But do Green Goblins have wings?
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
************************************************************************
'Tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind
************************************************************************
Rotwang
over
> >the world prefer Britney Spears to Mozart...
>
> GREAT counter-argument!
Does Mozart stand a chance against this year's over-marketed
overly-eroticized over-pneumatic teenager who croaks like a frog when she
sings ?
And 30 years from now Britney will be that uncool music parents listen to
when they go all nostalgic ...
And in 80 years her music will be all but forgotten ...
Mozart will still sell records though ...
Pradera
Użytkownik Rotwang <Rotwang(del)@pandora.be> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:THxI8.1275$mQ2.16...@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
J M
> Spiderman, the son of Shelob.
> --
... the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, who walked
with God, and was not.
Oh... sorry... umm wrong story. ;-)
Gary E. Masters
This is sort of like "The Empire Strieks Back." I knew some ofthose
who hated the film would come back - but did not know what they could
use against such a money maker.
Check out the numbers. FOR is making much more than HP did in the
same week. It has bounced back intot he top 20 several times. If you
coult how much the films cost to make the six million or so dollar
difference vanishes. The overseas money is better for HP - but as so
many have pointed out "who cares?"
The point it that FOR is in the top ten films. That eans success not
failure.
So you don't like it?
Fine. There are many valid differences of opinion.
I loath Sweeney Todd.
People call it the best musical ever made.
Tolkien said it best in his introduction to LOTR.
But this "explanation" of the relative earnings of films is a total
distoration of the reality. Go to:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/data/lordoftherings/versus.htm
The truth can make you free.
Rotwang
> > over
> > > >the world prefer Britney Spears to Mozart...
> > >
> > > GREAT counter-argument!
> >
> > Does Mozart stand a chance against this year's over-marketed
> > overly-eroticized over-pneumatic teenager who croaks like a frog when
she
> > sings ?
> >
> > And 30 years from now Britney will be that uncool music parents listen
to
> > when they go all nostalgic ...
> >
> > And in 80 years her music will be all but forgotten ...
> >
> > Mozart will still sell records though ...
> >
> And your point is?
Given enough money I could make a cactus plant the next big teenage singing
sensation ...
Given enough hype everybody will buy a cactus plant as the next big teenage
singing sensation and will sell more records than anybody previously
Given enough time everybody is eventually forgotten, some will last a little
longer than others
And what if there is no point ?
nihil
> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> has done in more than five months!
Uh. Not to be overly redundant, but why do you care? Why should I
care? Why are you so obsessed.
> [blah, blah, blah] and incidentally complete
> the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
Why do people assign so much importance to groups of powers of 10? So
FotR drops to 11. Its still in good company. I've always found it to
be a sign of immaturity to celebrate such things.
> When the name "The Lord of the Rings" is mentioned,only
> the book should come to the mind of anyone who hears it...
Um. When "The Lord of the Rings" is mentioned, only the *story*
should come to the mind of anyone who hears it. That was a typo,
correct? I guess the whole point was that the story is the important
part here. Not the medium. Or do you mean to say that blind people
should never be able to know of the LoTR? In the real world (outside
r.a.b.t and a.f.t) when people hear "The Lord of the Rings" they first
think of Tolkien and the story, and certainly not the director (who
you seem to be so obsessed with).
> ...much damage to this ideal has been done,and will continue
> to be done for a while yet...but with the Jackson flick's
> relentless descent down the rankings at last under way,
> the healing has begun.:)
The healing has begun because it will drop to 11? What happens if
"The Two Towers" makes it up there? (as it seems easier and easier to
break into the "top ten" now).
I haven't decided if you are a troll or not. If I remember correctly,
you were the one who stated (something like) "No one should come to
Tolkien but through the books". I told my (Tolkien reading) friends
that. They laughed quite a bit. They thought I was joking. When I
said I wasnt they got upset.
They agreed with me. Some people like to keep the things they love
un-popular. It makes them feel distinct and special. They get to
feel that they are cultured and enlightened. Its basically literary
elitism. I haven't figured out why people respond quite like this.
People loved the movies. No matter what you claim, you cannot deny
that people loved them. But you would rather that they never existed,
because it makes you feel less unique. I find that selfish and silly.
Why does the story mean less to you now? Why do you wish to take
enjoyment from other people?
If you dont like the movie, fine. I doubt you have seen it. That's
fine too. But Bakshi didn't ruin LotR. Rankin-Bass didn't ruin the
Hobbit. "Fellowship of the Ring" caused many people to read the
books. *Before the movie*. The *story* is getting to more people.
Tolkien's story. Isn't that the point? Or do you not like "lay
people" understanding Tolkien? Have read the r.a.b.t archives?
In the end, if you ask many people around here you'll find that
without that silly cartoonish Hobbit movie, many of us would never
have even read the books. How many people are reading the books now
because of these movies?
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> I haven't decided if you are a troll or not. If I remember correctly,
> you were the one who stated (something like) "No one should come to
> Tolkien but through the books". I told my (Tolkien reading) friends
> that. They laughed quite a bit. They thought I was joking. When I
> said I wasnt they got upset.
And no wonder. Things like that should be broken gently to people.
Öjevind
"Yoda got into another fight at the roadhouse last night. Not for nothing do
they call him 'the Muppet from Hell.'"
(From "The Diary of a Redneck Jedi")
Pradera
Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
John Savard
<jsolina...@erols.com> wrote, in part:
>What counts in movies today is video sales. Expect all
>three LotR movies to do very well, very likely better than
>Star Wars, Spiderman, or Harry Potter.
I think DVD sales of Spiderman and Harry Potter may be limited. But
Attack of the Clones may well out-do the LotR movies, although they
too will do well.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
John Savard
>However, IMO the Jackson film is poorly made, without any character
>development, superficial, stereotyped, with a poor screenplay, lacking
>rythm, and generally showing all signs of a BAD movie, so it not even a
>fien addition. This is always to pity, but even more in this case
>considering the material Jackson had to work on.
It may not measure up to the books, but it doesn't have any jokes
about flatulence or stepping in excrement. It didn't need to rely on
giving its female characters costumes through which the shape of their
nipples was clearly deliniated. It did not make any of its characters
into buffoons as a means of providing comic relief.
Thus, despite its deficiencies, as blockbuster movies go, it's not all
that bad.
And I enjoyed the Star Wars movies... but compared to their faults,
Peter Jackson's effort is quite good.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
anon
> <snip>
>
> Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
> great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
In other words... no other opinion matters but your own? Well then...
don't bother replying to the MAJORITY since YOUR opinion doesn't
matter to us either.
Pradera
>Pradera wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
>> great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
>
>In other words... no other opinion matters but your own? Well then...
>don't bother replying to the MAJORITY since YOUR opinion doesn't
>matter to us either.
Complete misunderstanding. If you just don't like me, why don't you say so ;)
I don't think any simple 'opinion' like that should be used as an argument in
such discussion. It can be said, but not as an argument. There are many
criteria upon which a movie or a book can be judged good or bad, but the
majority vote is not one of them.
I don't see difference between below two statements, they're both rubbish:
'the movie is great because I like it'
'the movie is great because 10000 people liked it'
--
Pradera
"I could almost see the light at the end of the rainbow."
---
Pradera
>Pradera wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
>> great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
>
>In other words... no other opinion matters but your own? Well then...
>don't bother replying to the MAJORITY since YOUR opinion doesn't
>matter to us either.
Complete misunderstanding. If you just don't like me, why don't you say so ;)
Pradera
>Nastał dzień 28 maj 2002, gdy anon był łaskaw napisać:
>
>>Pradera wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
dang, sorry bout double-posting. Still can't get quite the hang of x-news.
Smaug69
> In article <27dI8.2836$Ts.754...@hestia.telenet-ops.be>, Rotwang
> <Rot...@pandora.be> writes
> >> The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
> >> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> >> has done in more than five months!
> >
> >Spiderman is an abomination !! They have defaced Stan Lee's work, nay, they
> >have mutlated it, took off their pants and collectively shat upon it while
> >singing taunting songs. They ripped the pages from the comic book and made
> >it a horrible parody of one of the greatest stories ever !!!
>
> Who is this Stan Lee of which you speak?
The one who gave Spidey all his lines. :-)
> Spiderman, created by Steve Ditko. Or just possibly "Created by Steve
> Ditko from an idea stolen from Jack Kirby by Joe Simon, or vice versa."
> Its all very complicated.
And no one really cares.
> But do Green Goblins have wings?
Nope.
Smaug69
Chris
> Louis Epstein <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message news:<pSaI8.32417$Gs.29...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
> > in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
> > has done in more than five months!
>
> Uh. Not to be overly redundant, but why do you care? Why should I
> care? Why are you so obsessed.
Psst! Being ignored turns _those_ kinda trolls into stone.
Chris.
Luis Solorzano
> three LotR movies to do very well, very likely better than
> Star Wars, Spiderman, or Harry Potter.
So, can somebody please tell me what happened to plot, acting, directing,
Artistic Design, and even special effects? Are our priorities so messed up
that we measure the quality of a movie by its grosses rather than by their
content???
Luis J. Solorzano
Jim Campbell
Luis.S...@uea.ac.uk wrote on 28/5/02 8:22 pm:
> So, can somebody please tell me what happened to plot, acting, directing,
> Artistic Design, and even special effects? Are our priorities so messed up
> that we measure the quality of a movie by its grosses rather than by their
> content???
Yup. 'Fraid so.
Cheers
Jim
Pradera
Well, in most cases it's easier to count one data, than a combination of
many. Usually the special effects/plot/acting/directing/artistic merit
stand behind the boxoffice numbers.
Usually, but not always.
Jeff George
>
>
> I haven't decided if you are a troll or not. If I remember correctly,
> you were the one who stated (something like) "No one should come to
> Tolkien but through the books". I told my (Tolkien reading) friends
> that. They laughed quite a bit. They thought I was joking. When I
> said I wasnt they got upset.
>
Don't forget to tell your friends about Louis Epstein's belief in divine
right monarchy and that we mere mortals should worship Queen Elizabeth
II as a god. If you don't believe me go see for yourself at
alt.talk.royalty, or look up some of his old posts on that forum. If he
wasn't so serious it would almost be funny. Instead it's just annoying.
--
Jeff George
Soy El Diablo Gringo Supremo (Loco)
anon
Yes... but *why* would people see it to the tune of $300million+?
If it wasn't good, why did it make so much money? Again, I stand
with the MAJORITY.
the softrat
>Pradera wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
>> great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
>
>In other words... no other opinion matters but your own? Well then...
>don't bother replying to the MAJORITY since YOUR opinion doesn't
>matter to us either.
There is a quote from Plato on this subject, and, if I am successful,
it will appear as part of my sig. Otherwise, make one up.
the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?
Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,
will think of these things truly as they happened."
-- Socrates to Crito, in "Crito"
Pradera
>On Tue, 28 May 2002 12:06:02 -0400, anon <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Pradera wrote:
>
>There is a quote from Plato on this subject, and, if I am successful,
>it will appear as part of my sig. Otherwise, make one up.
>--
>"But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?
>Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,
>will think of these things truly as they happened."
>-- Socrates to Crito, in "Crito"
And there I was thinking Socrates was just a boring old fart ;) I bet he
stole that sentence from the sophists.
Josep
news:3CF1739D...@erols.com:
>
> But my point was that nobody except Bashki himself thinks
> the animated one was better. Do you?
Er.. I do.
Pep
Josep
news:01c20544$99aa8740$093d32d2@c-1:
> Well then, evidently the type of people you associate with are not
> intelligent enough to appreciate a true masterpiece when they see it.
I would greatly appreciate you do not make public judgements of people
that do not take part in this forum. On the other hand, making ad hominem
attacks on people that are not even your antagonist in a discussion...
well, it is up to you, but it is not the most elegant argument
> The fact remains that you and those whom you know are very much in the
> minority of opinions. The fact remains that 96% of mainstream
> reviewers liked the film very much. (Just go to Rotten Tomatoes if you
> don't believe me. And don't resort to the ludicrous conclusion that
> the 144 reviews are "all biased" or "there's some conspiracy" or other
> such nonsense. And before attacking critics, just remember that they
> are people just like you and me with their own opinions, so as an
> *overall* guide the 96% fresh rate is highly credible.)
>
> And just accept that no one's opinon is "correct", but at the same
> time your opinion is definitely IN THE MINORITY. You aren't afraid of
> that, surely?
>
Negating evidence is an exrcise in sterility. Of course I admit that 96%
of mainstream viewers liked the film. But, curiously, in cinema
newsgroups I have visited, judgements are much more balanced.
And, yes, I have no problem being in the minorrity. If you take the pain
to read my post (something I am quite doubtful you have made) I state at
the very beginning that the contents of the post show my opinion,and I am
less than 0,0001% of the world's population, and they are definitely not
the Holy Word of God Revealed to Mankind. I would like to apologize in
case the former sentence offends religious people: I simply wanted to
make a clear point.
As for the majority argument, did you ever heard something like "eat
shit. 10000 billion flies cannot be wrong"? Not to be taken seriously at
all times, of course.
Pep
Josep
> about flatulence or stepping in excrement. It didn't need to rely on
> giving its female characters costumes through which the shape of their
> nipples was clearly deliniated. It did not make any of its characters
> into buffoons as a means of providing comic relief.
Er... have you seen the same movie I have? Then you will surely remember
two young hobbits: Merry and Pippin, and a certain grumpy dwarf, Gimli.
Yeah, the same dwarf that boasts about his keen eyesight and hearing and
almost impales himself with an elven arrow. If that is comic relief, I
cannot imagine what is. However, that does not make a bad movie. However,
when one makes a movie for the mass market, backed by some studio that has
payed an indecent amound of money to get the movie done, such cliches are a
conditio sine qua non. The problem is that there is nothing under them: the
Jackson movie is a carefully, beautifully decorated box with nothing inside
Pep
Josep
news:921CEC05Bprade...@130.133.1.4:
>>On Tue, 28 May 2002 12:06:02 -0400, anon <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>"But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?
>>Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,
>>will think of these things truly as they happened."
>>-- Socrates to Crito, in "Crito"
> And there I was thinking Socrates was just a boring old fart ;) I bet
> he stole that sentence from the sophists.
Those words are from Plato. He had a fancy to make Socrates - his former
master- appear in his works as a character. I, however, do not agree with
Plato's views (that is, that the wisest people are right): they cand
slide to become the ideas of a certain Bohemian corporal. However, I
never have considered majority as a sure sign of being right, even though
it insures that a decission is more widely accepted
Pep
Louis Epstein
: Pradera wrote:
:> Nasta dzie 28 maj 2002, gdy anon by askaw napisa:
:>
:> >Pradera wrote:
:> >
:> >> <snip>
:> >>
:> >> Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
:> >> great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
:> >
:> >In other words... no other opinion matters but your own? Well then...
:> >don't bother replying to the MAJORITY since YOUR opinion doesn't
:> >matter to us either.
:>
:> Complete misunderstanding. If you just don't like me, why don't you say so ;)
:> I don't think any simple 'opinion' like that should be used as an argument in
:> such discussion. It can be said, but not as an argument. There are many
:> criteria upon which a movie or a book can be judged good or bad, but the
:> majority vote is not one of them.
:> I don't see difference between below two statements, they're both rubbish:
:> 'the movie is great because I like it'
:> 'the movie is great because 10000 people liked it'
: Yes... but *why* would people see it to the tune of $300million+?
: If it wasn't good, why did it make so much money? Again, I stand
: with the MAJORITY.
As Anatole France said,"If fifty million people believe
a foolish thing,it is still a foolish thing."
Louis Epstein
: On 26 May 2002 22:37:42 GMT, Josep <f...@crlf.com> wrote, in part:
:>However, IMO the Jackson film is poorly made, without any character
:>development, superficial, stereotyped, with a poor screenplay, lacking
:>rythm, and generally showing all signs of a BAD movie, so it not even a
:>fien addition. This is always to pity, but even more in this case
:>considering the material Jackson had to work on.
: It may not measure up to the books, but it doesn't have any jokes
: about flatulence or stepping in excrement. It didn't need to rely on
: giving its female characters costumes through which the shape of their
: nipples was clearly deliniated. It did not make any of its characters
: into buffoons as a means of providing comic relief.
I have certainly seen strenuous disagreement here
about that last point!!!
: Thus, despite its deficiencies, as blockbuster movies go, it's not all
: that bad.
: And I enjoyed the Star Wars movies... but compared to their faults,
: Peter Jackson's effort is quite good.
TLotR is too good to be subjected
to dramatization.
Pradera
No, actually I think it can be dramatized quite well - cf. BBC radio
adaptations. Just not this time.
--
Andew Rilstone
<sma...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> Spiderman, created by Steve Ditko. Or just possibly "Created by Steve
>> Ditko from an idea stolen from Jack Kirby by Joe Simon, or vice versa."
>> Its all very complicated.
>
>And no one really cares.
I care. Profoundly. Ditko was a major talent, and Kirby was a genius.
Lee was, at best, an excellent producer who encouraged them to do good
work.
>
>> But do Green Goblins have wings?
>
>Nope.
>
In that case, am I right in thinking that Tom Bombadil is really Norman
Osborn?
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
************************************************************************
'Tis the time's plague when madmen lead the blind
************************************************************************
Smaug69
> In article <5fe774aa.0205...@posting.google.com>, Smaug69
> <sma...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >> Spiderman, created by Steve Ditko. Or just possibly "Created by Steve
> >> Ditko from an idea stolen from Jack Kirby by Joe Simon, or vice versa."
> >> Its all very complicated.
> >
> >And no one really cares.
>
> I care. Profoundly. Ditko was a major talent, and Kirby was a genius.
And they are recognized as such. Why should it matter where the ideas
came from as long as someone thought them up and we got to enjoy them?
Is it really that big a deal to find out who actually wrote all the
plays credited to Shakespeare? I agree that credit should be given
where it's due, but so many things have borrowed from what came before
that trying to unravel the origins might be impossible.
> Lee was, at best, an excellent producer who encouraged them to do good
> work.
So you don't appreciate any of his writing or any of his ideas? You
don't think he was creative in any capacity?
> >
> >> But do Green Goblins have wings?
> >
> >Nope.
> >
> In that case, am I right in thinking that Tom Bombadil is really Norman
> Osborn?
No. Tom doesn't have a split personality.
Smaug69
Rotwang
> a foolish thing,it is still a foolish thing."
Vox populi, vox dei ...
Jim Deutch
>dang, sorry bout double-posting. Still can't get quite the hang of x-news.
Ya keep on breaking threads, too (at least in my newsreader).
Hmm... I wonder if this post is going to break the thread again: the
"subject" line seems like it's planning to post as
"Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations SPIDER-MAN!"
That's two Odp:'s from you, one Re: from me...
Jim Deutch
--
"I'm giving up this defeatest attitude!"
Pradera
>
>Hmm... I wonder if this post is going to break the thread again: the
>"subject" line seems like it's planning to post as
>
>"Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations SPIDER-MAN!"
>
>That's two Odp:'s from you, one Re: from me...
>
>Jim Deutch
Everything's perfectly in thread now in my reader...it's all the same
thread...
nihil
> Still I see no relevance between this and a fact that stating 'LotR is a
> great movie because most people like it' is rubbish.
Rubbish? Perhaps I have forgotten. What was the purpose of LotR? I
dont remember Tolkien ever saying that he wrote it to create a piece
of fantasy-myth that would stand the test of time as a monument to
great writing, cherished only by elitist literary scholars and people
with the need to feel like they are part of a special club.
I seem to think its purpose was entertainment. The *book* was meant
for entertainment. Even just looking at the book you can see where
you are being silly. Now, when we are discussion which government is
good, or beliefs on a social issue, you're right: popular opinion may
not be correct. Or look at operating systems: lots of people use
Windows, but that doesn't mean that Windows isn't trash. However,
this is all meaningless in cases where things are designed to affect
or based solely on public opinion.
Imagine a nation choosing a flag. There are several different ways it
can be made. So, people hold a large (hypothetical, wont fit a nation
in a room will we) meeting. The people agree on a flag. Now, Pradera
stands up and says: "You're all dumb. Just because 80% want the flag
that way doesn't mean its right. I say that my way is right."
Now, extreme example, but keep following me. The book(s) for LotR are
designed to entertain. They were meant to be read and enjoyed.
Tolkien did not write it as an excercise in literature, and from what
I have seen, he cared little for awards that the Literary community
gave to authors. So far as I know, LotR didnt receive any (major)
awards while Tolkien was alive (I could be wrong, doesn't matter). I
suppose the book sucks too, huh? Or perhaps it was wildly successful
because millions of people have read it, and many of them enjoyed it.
How else do you propose to judge the quality of a piece of
entertainment?
And similarly with the movie. Its purpose was to entertain. And it
did entertain. By various estimates 80-95% of the people who saw it
found it entertaining. It exposed millions to the *story* that
Tolkien created to entertain people. How can you say that a movie,
whose purpose was to entertain, that entertained who knows how many
people (some multiple times) is a bad movie because you didn't like
it?
How do you propose we judge which movies are good?
(To all movie-judgers) The movie didn't entertain you? Fine. You
find (what you think) are flaws in it (not enough character
development, scenes acted in a different way than you imagined, slight
plot changes)? Fine. You feel that making a film of the book
prevents you from feeling elitist and special? Fine (creepy, but
fine). You're name is Louis Epstein and you are a raving looney?
Fine. None of that makes the movie bad.
The overwhelming numbers of people who were entertained by the movie
make it good.
Pradera
>Imagine a nation choosing a flag. There are several different ways it
>can be made. So, people hold a large (hypothetical, wont fit a nation
>in a room will we) meeting. The people agree on a flag. Now, Pradera
>stands up and says: "You're all dumb. Just because 80% want the flag
>that way doesn't mean its right. I say that my way is right."
>
Are we really going to discuss the absolutes and right and wrong again ;)
Do you refuse me a right to say that the flag is ugly just because it was
voted right? That's not very tolerant, is it.
There was this exhibition last year in a nearby gallery, made by two
russian painters, I think it was popular in some other countries as well.
They made a poll among citizens of various countries to choose many
different favourite characteristics of a painting they would like. The
results combined were altogether AWFUL. (except for Netherlands, who chose
a nice blue-yellow abstract sketch - another point for Dutch!) That's
majority vote for you.
I treat a movie, or a book, as a work of art. I don't care how many people
liked it or disliked it while judging it.
--
Pradera
"You're trying to move a mountain with a molehill."
---
Jim Deutch
>Nastał dzień 30 maj 2002, gdy Jim Deutch był łaskaw napisać:
>
>>
>>Hmm... I wonder if this post is going to break the thread again: the
>>"subject" line seems like it's planning to post as
>>
>>"Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations SPIDER-MAN!"
>>
>>That's two Odp:'s from you, one Re: from me...
>>
>>Jim Deutch
>
>Everything's perfectly in thread now in my reader...it's all the same
>thread...
It seems my newsreader just doesn't understand Polish.
The subject line now does seem to be "Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations
SPIDER-MAN!", but the addition of a "Re:" didn't break the thread for
me, while each addition of an "Odp:" does.
Jim Deutch
--
diet sig: 18 bytes
nihil
> Nastał dzień 31 maj 2002, gdy nihil był łaskaw napisać:
>
> >Imagine a nation choosing a flag. There are several different ways it
> >can be made. So, people hold a large (hypothetical, wont fit a nation
> >in a room will we) meeting. The people agree on a flag. Now, Pradera
> >stands up and says: "You're all dumb. Just because 80% want the flag
> >that way doesn't mean its right. I say that my way is right."
> >
>
> Are we really going to discuss the absolutes and right and wrong again ;)
> Do you refuse me a right to say that the flag is ugly just because it was
> voted right? That's not very tolerant, is it.
No, I'm saying something a bit different. I'm saying that you saying
it is ugly does not suddenly mean that the flag is bad. That is your
opinion. The choice of the flag is meant to make the most people
happy, which it did. Thus, the design has accomplished its goal and
is "good".
> There was this exhibition last year in a nearby gallery, made by two
> russian painters, I think it was popular in some other countries as well.
> They made a poll among citizens of various countries to choose many
> different favourite characteristics of a painting they would like. The
> results combined were altogether AWFUL. (except for Netherlands, who chose
> a nice blue-yellow abstract sketch - another point for Dutch!) That's
> majority vote for you.
When creating things such as art, buildings, software, planes, books
and even movies, taking the *average* of the desires of people
generally fails miserably. The "perfect woman" (an attempt to find
the middle ground of what all men find attractive) was generally
perceived as mediocre. There is a big difference between that, and
judging a specific instance.
> I treat a movie, or a book, as a work of art. I don't care how many people
> liked it or disliked it while judging it.
Yes. You are certainly allowed to say that as a piece of art, the
movie was bad in your opinion. Others can say it was good. But a
movie can be more than a piece of art. As *entertainment* the movie
has proven itself to be outstanding. You cannot deny that many, many
people have obtained a large amount of enjoyment from it. Many more
people than had no enjoyment from it. I dont know anyone it has harmed
(except Epstein).
Are you saying that the enjoyment it gave people is meaningless? How
are we to judge movies then? Based on technical execution? Or are
you arguing that nothing can ever be considered "good"? I challenge
you to find a single work of art that can be declared "good". I'm
sure we can always find someone who doesn't like something.
I guess, mostly I just wished you would have addressed my main points.
Wasn't the movie made to make people happy? Was it not very
successful at that?
I'm not saying that you have to say you enjoyed the movie. I'm not
saying you have to find it entertaining. But to tell other people
that it is bad in such absolutes is a bit dishonest. At least qualify
it with an "in my opinion". There are lots of movies that I find
boring, or even annoying, but after talking with other people who
loved them, I have no problem telling others they are good movies. I
dont want to see them, but they are good. Lynch's 'Dune' is a prime
example. I disliked the movie. I like it more as a piece of art. As
entertainment it simply didn't work for me at all. Others I've talked
to loved it. I'm not going to say its bad just because I didn't like
it.
Perhaps we are just thinking on different levels. I'm frankly getting
tired of people like Epstein (who I'm not comparing you to...I swear)
who see LotR as some divine work of art meant to be enlightening and
spiritual. (In my opinion) It was written as entertainment and little
more. When judged, we should see how well it does its job of
entertaining people. This is measured simply by the number of people
who found it entertaining. If you were judging it in the same manner
as one would judge a painting my picasso, you've missed the point of
both.
I hope you werent expecting anything more than entainment out of the
movie.
Pradera
>>Everything's perfectly in thread now in my reader...it's all the same
>>thread...
>
>It seems my newsreader just doesn't understand Polish.
>
>The subject line now does seem to be "Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations
>SPIDER-MAN!", but the addition of a "Re:" didn't break the thread for
>me, while each addition of an "Odp:" does.
>
Indeed that is the case, but when you were posting your last post I've
already switched to another reader that adds "Re:" instead of "Odp:" so now
everything should be AOK.
Pradera
> Are you saying that the enjoyment it gave people is meaningless? How
> are we to judge movies then? Based on technical execution? Or are
> you arguing that nothing can ever be considered "good"? I challenge
> you to find a single work of art that can be declared "good". I'm
> sure we can always find someone who doesn't like something.
Please, no more challenges at least until I finish the morality thread :)
There are many ways to judge a movie. I've no doubts that you've probably
read many critical reviews of various movies in your life, so I guess you
should know them.
As for your request about 'my opinion' I most surely agree. That was my
intention, but I got so used to discussing opinions with other people (in
which debates an opinion stated is always 'somebody's opinion') that I
didn't think it neccessary to point it out.
I just thought that it's obvious that if I state an opinion, it is just my
opinion...
Again, I wasn't talking about the movie itself, I was simply refering to an
argument of Majority, which I deeply despise (I despise it so much that
sometimes I have even hard times with things such as LotR, Star Wars etc.
because so many people in the world like it...fortunately I am able to get
over it :)
<snip all other irrelevant but no doubt serious debate that would surely
turn into a nice long thread if only I had time and will to pursue it>
>
>I hope you werent expecting anything more than entainment out of the
>movie.
>
Well yes, actually I was expecting a bit more than _that_ (tho to be frank
I didn't even find it very amusing, but maybe that's just me) I was hoping
for something as important to the art of cinema as LotR was to the art of
literature. Instead I got a mobile illustration to some arbitrarily chosen
excerpts of the book interwoven with comic relief that wasn't comic (to me)
and thrilling moments that weren't thrilling (again to me).
Well, there y'ave it, I wasn't going to state my opinion on the movie, as
it is now a subject long gone, and I don't think anybody really cares what
I think :) but you asked me.
Jim Deutch
>Nastał dzień 30 maj 2002, gdy Jim Deutch był łaskaw napisać:
>
>>
>>Hmm... I wonder if this post is going to break the thread again: the
>>"subject" line seems like it's planning to post as
>>
>>"Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations SPIDER-MAN!"
>>
>>That's two Odp:'s from you, one Re: from me...
>>
>>Jim Deutch
>
>Everything's perfectly in thread now in my reader...it's all the same
>thread...
I think my newsreader just doesn't understand Polish.
The subject is now "Re: Odp: Odp: Congratulations SPIDER-MAN!" but
that didn't break the thread for me. Each addition of an "Odp:"
though, does break the thread.
Jim Deutch
--
sig diet: 18 bytes
Troels Forchhammer
> pra...@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) wrote in message news:<921FAAFD5prade...@130.133.1.4>...
> > Nastał dzień 31 maj 2002, gdy nihil był łaskaw napisać:
<snip>
> Yes. You are certainly allowed to say that as a piece of art, the
> movie was bad in your opinion. Others can say it was good. But a
> movie can be more than a piece of art. As *entertainment* the movie
> has proven itself to be outstanding. You cannot deny that many, many
> people have obtained a large amount of enjoyment from it. Many more
> people than had no enjoyment from it. I dont know anyone it has harmed
> (except Epstein).
>
> Are you saying that the enjoyment it gave people is meaningless? How
> are we to judge movies then? Based on technical execution? Or are
> you arguing that nothing can ever be considered "good"? I challenge
> you to find a single work of art that can be declared "good". I'm
> sure we can always find someone who doesn't like something.
>
> I guess, mostly I just wished you would have addressed my main points.
> Wasn't the movie made to make people happy? Was it not very
> successful at that?
I would venture that success in this (measured - for movies - by financial
success) is not at very meaningful way to measure goodness.
Whether a movie is good or bad is a completely subjective - and thereby
personal - decision, while the financial success or the average audience
satisfaction are objective measures of success. Success may be a
separate quality - indeed it may for the shareholders in New Line (in this
case) be the primary quality in deciding goodness, but for the normal
moviegoer only his or her own personal - subjective - feelings are valid.
The argument that a movie is good *solely* because 'everybody liked
it' is - to me - invalid. In the way I understand and judge goodness in
a movie or another piece of art this is equivalent to saying "I don't care
- as long as I 'think' the same as everyone else".
To me the movie was good when seen as a random movie, because
I was entertained in a pleasant way and I enjoyed the experience.
As an adaptation of Tolkien's /The Lord of the Rings/ it was - again
in my opinion - less than mediocre; primarily because some of the
characters were portrayed in a way that was very different from the
way I've interpreted them and because some of the plot elements
that I consider most important for my understanding of the story
were either left out or changed significantly.
Neither of these opinions have anything to do with the financial
success of the movie, nor indeed what other persons said about
it.
> Lynch's 'Dune' is a prime
> example. I disliked the movie. I like it more as a piece of art. As
> entertainment it simply didn't work for me at all. Others I've talked
> to loved it. I'm not going to say its bad just because I didn't like
> it.
Why not?
If that's what you feel then say it.
If anyone asks you, they are entitled to *your* opinion - not what
you perceive to be the opinion of the masses. Neither do you need
to feel that your opinion is less valid just because the movie is
successful.
It may be that we interpret good and bad differently - more on
that below.
> When judged, we should see how well it does its job of
> entertaining people. This is measured simply by the number of people
> who found it entertaining. If you were judging it in the same manner
> as one would judge a painting my picasso, you've missed the point of
> both.
I don't agree here.
How good a job a movie does in entertaining people is a measure of
it's success - as I've explained I see that as an entirely different issue
from the question of whether it's a good movie. The latter is a question
of the movie's quality as a piece of art, while the former is a question
of the movie's quality as an investment.
There may (but I'm definitely not sure about it) be some objective
parameters one can use when judging a piece of art (innovation
might be one of those), but as I see it entertainment value is *not*
one such.
I hope I make clear that my response is based on the way I understand
goodness in a movie, which seems to differ from your understanding.
I think that we would actually agree far more if we could call it maybe
'art value' and 'entertainment value' - unless you would argue that
these are equivalent.
> I hope you werent expecting anything more than entainment out of the
> movie.
I think you touch on the sore point for many here.
I have come to expect more than entertainment from my rereadings of
LotR, and obviously I had hoped that at least some of this had made
the transition to the white screen - unfortunately I didn't find it so.
I don't know whether Tolkien intended his readers to find more than
entertainment (though if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that he
probably did intend that), but I know that I've found more than that,
and this is exactly what in my eyes raise the books to greatness -
a book that is merely entertaining is - in my view - at most mediocre.
I need something more to call it good.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)
"She complicates this whole business, and I don't like complications.
I like nice, simple situations and nice, easy solutions."
"Good and Evil?" Durnik suggested.
"That's a difficult one, Durnik. I prefer 'them and us.' That clears
away all the excess baggage and allows you to get right down to cases."
Kiltedjedi
$%y.31...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
> The movie is for those who can't read Tolkien,
> and they don't deserve even a glimpse.
Get off your high horse man. Some of us here read the book
many times before the film was even being talked about getting
made.
It is a fine addition to the mythos of lord of the rings, and
even thogh I will own the directors cut of the movie (4th
November woohoo) it will not stop me from taking my annual
pilgrimmage through middle earth as described by JRRT himself.
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in news:LpgI8.31638
: $%y.31...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
:> The movie is for those who can't read Tolkien,
:> and they don't deserve even a glimpse.
: Get off your high horse man. Some of us here read the book
: many times before the film was even being talked about getting
: made.
As of course have I.
: It is a fine addition to the mythos of lord of the rings,
No,the existence of filmed versions is unfortunate.
: and even thogh I will own the directors cut of the movie (4th
: November woohoo) it will not stop me from taking my annual
: pilgrimmage through middle earth as described by JRRT himself.
The only way anyone should.
Louis Epstein
:> As Anatole France said,"If fifty million people believe
:> a foolish thing,it is still a foolish thing."
: Vox populi, vox dei ...
If fifty million people believe the foolish saying "vox populi,
vox dei",the saying "vox populi,vox dei" is still foolish.:)
Louis Epstein
: Now, extreme example, but keep following me. The book(s) for LotR are
: designed to entertain. They were meant to be read and enjoyed.
: Tolkien did not write it as an excercise in literature, and from what
: I have seen, he cared little for awards that the Literary community
: gave to authors. So far as I know, LotR didnt receive any (major)
: awards while Tolkien was alive (I could be wrong, doesn't matter).
It got an International Fantasy Award in 1957.
: I suppose the book sucks too, huh? Or perhaps it was wildly successful
: because millions of people have read it, and many of them enjoyed it.
: How else do you propose to judge the quality of a piece of
: entertainment?
Quality is something that is there whatever the number
of people who see it.
: And similarly with the movie. Its purpose was to entertain. And it
: did entertain. By various estimates 80-95% of the people who saw it
: found it entertaining. It exposed millions to the *story* that
: Tolkien created to entertain people.
To an altered version of a story that should not
have been insulted by alteration.
: How can you say that a movie,
: whose purpose was to entertain, that entertained who knows how many
: people (some multiple times) is a bad movie because you didn't like
: it?
Because it must be judged by the standard
(the impossibly high standard) of the work
of which it is a sad adulteration.
NOT judged in isolation or against the
potential to do worse at something that
should never have been attempted.
: (To all movie-judgers) The movie didn't entertain you? Fine. You
: find (what you think) are flaws in it (not enough character
: development, scenes acted in a different way than you imagined, slight
: plot changes)? Fine. You feel that making a film of the book
: prevents you from feeling elitist and special? Fine (creepy, but
: fine). You're name is Louis Epstein and you are a raving looney?
You got one out of two on that last...
: Fine. None of that makes the movie bad.
: The overwhelming numbers of people who were entertained by the movie
: make it good.
Nonsense.
Dave Mansell
lep...@PUF.FCC.NET (Louis Epstein) wrote:
> Its lead is bound to grow substantially,as the STAR WARS
> movie does its best to catch it and incidentally complete
> the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
>
Just a postscript to this, given its precipitous fall of 57% in the 3rd
weekend, Brandon at Box Office Mojo is now prediction that Attack of The
Clones may not catch FOTR after all, thus leaving FOTR in the top 10 for a
while longer.
Dave
Gary E. Masters
should expect some disagreement. Perhaps they like this sort of
attention. If so, then so much the better.
Life is for striving and we should feel free to take on any work of
art that we want to aspire to. Perhaps some will have to change names
to avoid copyright laws, but there should be no limits set by those
who should not set rules.
I personally think most should take their own dreams and not borrow
the dreams of others, but I do not wish to limit them. I just think
they will do better with their own concepts.
Louis, be hush. We know already what your point is.
Louis Epstein
:> The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
:> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
:> has done in more than five months!
: Uh. Not to be overly redundant, but why do you care? Why should I
: care? Why are you so obsessed.
:> [blah, blah, blah] and incidentally complete
:> the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
: Why do people assign so much importance to groups of powers of 10? So
: FotR drops to 11. Its still in good company. I've always found it to
: be a sign of immaturity to celebrate such things.
:> When the name "The Lord of the Rings" is mentioned,only
:> the book should come to the mind of anyone who hears it...
: Um. When "The Lord of the Rings" is mentioned, only the *story*
: should come to the mind of anyone who hears it. That was a typo,
: correct? I guess the whole point was that the story is the important
: part here. Not the medium. Or do you mean to say that blind people
: should never be able to know of the LoTR? In the real world (outside
: r.a.b.t and a.f.t) when people hear "The Lord of the Rings" they first
: think of Tolkien and the story, and certainly not the director (who
: you seem to be so obsessed with).
The story AS TOLD BY J.R.R. TOLKIEN WITHOUT ALTERATION is what
people should know,to the total exclusion of any adaptation.
:> ...much damage to this ideal has been done,and will continue
:> to be done for a while yet...but with the Jackson flick's
:> relentless descent down the rankings at last under way,
:> the healing has begun.:)
: The healing has begun because it will drop to 11? What happens if
: "The Two Towers" makes it up there? (as it seems easier and easier to
: break into the "top ten" now).
I rather doubt that it will.
: I haven't decided if you are a troll or not. If I remember correctly,
: you were the one who stated (something like) "No one should come to
: Tolkien but through the books". I told my (Tolkien reading) friends
: that. They laughed quite a bit. They thought I was joking. When I
: said I wasnt they got upset.
: They agreed with me. Some people like to keep the things they love
: un-popular. It makes them feel distinct and special. They get to
: feel that they are cultured and enlightened. Its basically literary
: elitism. I haven't figured out why people respond quite like this.
: People loved the movies. No matter what you claim, you cannot deny
: that people loved them.
I am well aware,and deeply disturbed,
that people loved the movies.
The more people like other versions of
the story the more the "mindshare" of
Tolkien's own version suffers.
: But you would rather that they never existed,
: because it makes you feel less unique. I find that selfish and silly.
: Why does the story mean less to you now? Why do you wish to take
: enjoyment from other people?
I am not seeking to keep anyone from enjoying
the story AS TOLD BY TOLKIEN,I just think it
important that they have no other means of
encountering the story.
: If you dont like the movie, fine. I doubt you have seen it. That's
: fine too. But Bakshi didn't ruin LotR. Rankin-Bass didn't ruin the
: Hobbit. "Fellowship of the Ring" caused many people to read the
: books. *Before the movie*. The *story* is getting to more people.
: Tolkien's story. Isn't that the point? Or do you not like "lay
: people" understanding Tolkien? Have read the r.a.b.t archives?
I first posted here circa 1995 BTW...maybe late 1994.
: In the end, if you ask many people around here you'll find that
: without that silly cartoonish Hobbit movie, many of us would never
: have even read the books. How many people are reading the books now
: because of these movies?
I don't know.But there should never have been movies.
Aris Katsaris
> In alt.fan.tolkien nihil <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : They agreed with me. Some people like to keep the things they love
> : un-popular. It makes them feel distinct and special. They get to
> : feel that they are cultured and enlightened. Its basically literary
> : elitism. I haven't figured out why people respond quite like this.
> : People loved the movies. No matter what you claim, you cannot deny
> : that people loved them.
>
> I am well aware,and deeply disturbed,
> that people loved the movies.
> The more people like other versions of
> the story the more the "mindshare" of
> Tolkien's own version suffers.
The "mindshare" of Tolkien's version over the people who've seen any adaptation
of it?
Or the "mindshare" of it over the global population?
Aris Katsaris
Gary E. Masters
Just right. I also like the idea of showing it again a few weeks
before TT is released. Just so people can see it fresh. That could
push it up to $325 million.
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message news:<pSaI8.32417$Gs.29...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
:> The SPIDER-MAN movie,in less than four weeks,has now raked
:> in more money in domestic ticket sales than the Jackson flick
:> has done in more than five months!
:>
:> movie does its best to catch it and incidentally complete
:> the eviction of the Jackson flick from the top ten.
:> Meanwhile,the dwindling theaters still showing the Jackson
:> flick clearly won't enable it to catch the Potter movie...
:> it's still seven million dollars behind and at a level the
:> Potter film reached months ago.
:>
:> the book should come to the mind of anyone who hears it...
:> to be done for a while yet...but with the Jackson flick's
:> relentless descent down the rankings at last under way,
:> the healing has begun.:)
:>
:> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
: This is sort of like "The Empire Strieks Back." I knew some ofthose
: who hated the film would come back - but did not know what they could
: use against such a money maker.
: Check out the numbers. FOR is making much more than HP did in the
: same week.
It's easy to say that,that's been true for months...but it
will clearly never catch Potter overall.Spidey was the first
later-released movie to overtake the Jackson flick and won't
be the last.
: It has bounced back intot he top 20 several times. If you
: coult how much the films cost to make the six million or so dollar
: difference vanishes. The overseas money is better for HP - but as so
: many have pointed out "who cares?"
You only care about the stats in your favor.
: The point it that FOR is in the top ten films. That eans success not
: failure.
I look forward to its ejection from the top ten.
: So you don't like it?
: Fine. There are many valid differences of opinion.
: I loath Sweeney Todd.
: People call it the best musical ever made.
: Tolkien said it best in his introduction to LOTR.
: But this "explanation" of the relative earnings of films is a total
: distoration of the reality. Go to:
: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/data/lordoftherings/versus.htm
: The truth can make you free.
Let us be free of attempts to film TLotR.
Brian Rauchfuss
>: If you dont like the movie, fine. I doubt you have seen it. That's
>: fine too. But Bakshi didn't ruin LotR. Rankin-Bass didn't ruin the
>: Hobbit. "Fellowship of the Ring" caused many people to read the
>: books. *Before the movie*. The *story* is getting to more people.
>: Tolkien's story. Isn't that the point? Or do you not like "lay
>: people" understanding Tolkien? Have read the r.a.b.t archives?
Bakshi ruined LotR for some people - I had a friend some years ago who
wasn't interested in reading LotR , when I asked him why he said that he
had seen the movie and was not interested in reading the book! Nothing I
could say would convince him that the book was universes away from the
Bakshi movie. I wonder if the Jackson version has convinced him otherwise?
BDR
Brian Rauchfuss
news:5d5a7abb.02053...@posting.google.com:
> ... I
> suppose the book sucks too, huh? Or perhaps it was wildly successful
> because millions of people have read it, and many of them enjoyed it.
> How else do you propose to judge the quality of a piece of
> entertainment?
The same way the human race has always judged the quality of
entertainment - wait a hundred years and see if it is still
popular. If it hasn't vanished then it can be considered great.
Perhaps for movies we can use a less harsh criteria since they are
relatively new - wait 50 years and we can see if the LotR movies will
rate up there with Casablanca.
(There is a bit of tongue in cheek to this, but it seems that popular
fads of other generations seem in hind-sight to almost always be
totally silly. It is the few that do not seem to be silly in hind-sight
that have some quality)
BDR
Emilie Karr
it is/worthwhile it seems to humanity overall, not just a particular
society/particular era?
Actually I think there's quite a lot of merit to this idea.
Shakespeare's plays and Homer's epics are often considered great
because, though no one now has first-hand familiarity with Elizabethan
England or Ancient Greece, there are certain elements which are just as
true in the 21st century as they were then.
And I am very curious indeed about what movies and TV shows (if any)
will still interest people a century or two from now...film is an
entirely new art form and I really can't imagine how it's going to hold
up.
emilie
Pradera
>And I am very curious indeed about what movies and TV shows (if any)
>will still interest people a century or two from now...film is an
>entirely new art form and I really can't imagine how it's going to hold
>up.
>
Have you seen the Red Dwarf 'Casablanca' episode? ;)
--
Pradera
-please don't mention soccer in my presence-
---
Pradera
>
>Bakshi ruined LotR for some people - I had a friend some years ago who
>wasn't interested in reading LotR , when I asked him why he said that he
>had seen the movie and was not interested in reading the book! Nothing
>I could say would convince him that the book was universes away from the
>Bakshi movie. I wonder if the Jackson version has convinced him
>otherwise?
>
I know of at least one person who said the same after seeing PJ's
version...
nihil
> I know of at least one person who said the same after seeing PJ's
> version...
I know 2 people who said that. Basically, they said they didn't
really like the subject matter. They wanted it to be more realistic.
They wouldn't have read or enjoyed the books even if they hadn't seen
the movie.
I know around 20 or so people who wanted to read the books after
seeing the movie. A couple of my friends tried rather hard to get one
guy to read them because we knew he'd enjoy them. He wouldn't. He
said he didn't like fantasy books. After he saw the movie he went out
and bought himself a copy of LotR (and almost the Silm) and is trying
to finish them all before the next movie comes out.
Why were all the Barnes & Noble's around here sold out of the new
printings of LotR? It seems the movies made lots and lots of people
want to read the books.
I dont see how the "well, the movie ruined the books for a guy I know"
argument holds any weight at all.
Pradera
>> I know of at least one person who said the same after seeing PJ's
>> version...
>
>I know 2 people who said that. Basically, they said they didn't
>really like the subject matter. They wanted it to be more realistic.
>They wouldn't have read or enjoyed the books even if they hadn't seen
>the movie.
>
>
I dont' use it as an argument, just pointing it out: the man I'm talking
about is a film director and script-writer and he said that such a badly
done movie couldn't have been based on a good book, whatever the book was
about. Of course I managed to convince him eventually (giving examples of
other bad movies based on great books), but the movie opinion remains.
nihil
> The story AS TOLD BY J.R.R. TOLKIEN WITHOUT ALTERATION is what
> people should know,to the total exclusion of any adaptation.
Why? Even Tolkien was not as fanatical about this as you are. Do you
also claim the Bible should not be dramatized? Or the Illiad?
You are deifying the books. This is why people call you an idiot.
You look like you are trying to set up "The True Tolkien Fan Club",
where you can only enter if you haven't been tainted by the movies, so
that you can feel special and important. You dont want other people
to get enjoyment from the story. You want to be one of the "elite".
I find it to be a sign of emotional immaturity when people love (claim
to love) something so much that they actually want to prevent others
from receiving enjoyment from it.
> : The healing has begun because it will drop to 11? What happens if
> : "The Two Towers" makes it up there? (as it seems easier and easier to
> : break into the "top ten" now).
>
> I rather doubt that it will.
Why's that? It will suddenly bomb because people realized 6 months
after seeing it, that "No, I guess I didn't really like that movie. I
think it actually sucked". It is a sequel, so there are a decent
number of people who saw the first because of the hype, and wont see
the second part because they dont like the story. There will be a
decent number of people who skipped seeing the first part until it
comes out on video and will enjoy it enough to see the second part in
the theater.
I expect the turnout will be somewhere between slightly less to about
the same as the first part. And when it happens, I plan on making
sure that I keep tabs on all my friends who would never read the book
but did watch and enjoy the movie. I'll share them with you, and
enjoy the fact that you are so annoyed that other people are enjoying
Tolkien's story.
> I am well aware,and deeply disturbed,
> that people loved the movies.
> The more people like other versions of
> the story the more the "mindshare" of
> Tolkien's own version suffers.
Again. You are upset that other people enjoyed something? Should the
entire world only gain enjoyment from the things you like?
Wait... mindshare? As in, the number of people who see things the way
that Tolkien intended? Hell, MM thinks that the ring was talking on
Mount Doom. Its seems that even just reading the book leaves a
question about who is seeing things the way Tolkien intended. I would
say the movie is doing a great job of increasing the number of people
who read the books. I'd say that only a small part of the people who
read the books imagine only the movie. In this case, the movies are
increasing the "mindshare" of Tolkien's own version.
> : But you would rather that they never existed,
> : because it makes you feel less unique. I find that selfish and silly.
> : Why does the story mean less to you now? Why do you wish to take
> : enjoyment from other people?
>
> I am not seeking to keep anyone from enjoying
> the story AS TOLD BY TOLKIEN,I just think it
> important that they have no other means of
> encountering the story.
Why? Do you actually think there is any doubt about the source of the
movie? Why should someone have to read the book? Why aren't you
condemning the radio broadcasts?
> I first posted here circa 1995 BTW...maybe late 1994.
That wasn't the point, but I'll give you a "Oh, most deeply sorry sir,
I didn't realize you were a GOD." since you've been here so long.
If you've been around that long, you realize that the inconsistencies
in the movie are equal to (and sometimes pale to) the inconsistencies
in people's heads while reading the books. Upset about Arwen playing
a bigger role? How about people thinking Frodo and Sam are gay? Or
Gandalf being an elf (presumably a Noldo?). How about Sauron being,
physically, a great big eye. People have claimed a Balrog was
fighting at the Pelennor, that the Nazgul had wings, and that orcs
were funny lizard-creatures. I remember a post somewhere (not
a.f.t/r.a.b.t) where someone believed that the battle at Helm's Deep
was fought on the side of a (single) mountain. I've heard such a wide
variety of far ranging ideas of what Tolkien wrote, that I doubt there
is little the movie could do to confuse matters more.
Do you attack the illustrations on the front of the books the same
way? My version of "The Hobbit" shows Gollum as a black skinned
creature with a hooked nose. Kind of odd for a hobbit, wouldn't you
say? Why dont you fight against people creating, distributing, and
looking at illustrations for LotR/Silm?
> : In the end, if you ask many people around here you'll find that
> : without that silly cartoonish Hobbit movie, many of us would never
> : have even read the books. How many people are reading the books now
> : because of these movies?
>
> I don't know. But there should never have been movies.
And here we get to the main platform of your argument against creating
the movies:
They shouldn't be made.
...because you say so. I say "They should be made". I think we can
all agree that in those 4 words, I have successfully refuted your
"They shouldn't be made" argument.
nihil
> "Louis Epstein" <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
> news:CGTK8.111248$jm.10...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > that people loved the movies.
> > The more people like other versions of
> > the story the more the "mindshare" of
> > Tolkien's own version suffers.
>
> The "mindshare" of Tolkien's version over the people who've seen any adaptation
> of it?
> Or the "mindshare" of it over the global population?
Wait. You have a point. Epstein seems to be saying that he would
rather have (for example) 1 million people familiar with LotR through
the books and none through the movie than 4 million through the books
and 1 million through the movie. As if that 1 million is ruining
something. Anything.
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>I am well aware,and deeply disturbed,
>that people loved the movies.
>The more people like other versions of
>the story the more the "mindshare" of
>Tolkien's own version suffers.
After we burn the movie prints and posters, we'll also have to burn
all the calendars and cover art that ever existed. I don't know what
to do about the jewelry, head shop posters, and that Led Zeppelin
album. This could require an old-fashioned Inquisition. But after
the flames die down and the blood is shed, we'll all be free to enjoy
Tolkien's works unencumbered by anyone else's visualization.
Except...
Does Tolkien's original typewriter still exist? Future copies of the
book should be in that font only, with no kerning, non-JRRT editing,
or spell checking. In a single volume with plain white covers. The
binding should be loose-leaf, so that proponents of the "single
volume" theory can keep it all together, and proponents of the "six
book" theory can divide it up accordingly. Alternately, we could have
a conference, settle the issue once and for all, and force the
infidels to conform.
And...
As discussions of Tolkien's works will inevitably allow other people's
interpretations to creep into our heads, we'll have to stop doing that
also. This newsgroup would have to shift to announcements only, like
"The 127th printing of 'The Hobbit' is now available" and "A
renaissance faire in northern California was raided last weekend.
Thousands of contraband posters and other icons were destroyed."
Man, I feel more unencumbered already.
Ron
http://roc85.home.attbi.com
Did anyone ASK the Queen if she wanted a ROCK CONCERT for her
Golden Jubilee?
Pradera
>Does Tolkien's original typewriter still exist? Future copies of the
>book should be in that font only, with no kerning, non-JRRT editing,
>or spell checking. In a single volume with plain white covers.
I think in this one case we could go boldly further and realize Tolkien's
old dream - print everything in tengwar only.
nihil
> I dont' use it as an argument, just pointing it out: the man I'm talking
> about is a film director and script-writer and he said that such a badly
> done movie couldn't have been based on a good book, whatever the book was
> about.
In my experience film writers/directors make horrible judges of movie
quality. I suppose it goes back to our old argument. If you judge
FotR (movie) on technical merit according to film-critic standards its
mediocre at best. If you talk to someone walking out of the theater
it was great.
But I'm not cutting down writers/directors (I know a few of them,
too). It goes for almost any trade especially art or quasi-art
creation.
To make a point more critical of me: I have seen several pieces of
software that are horrible monstrosities of coding. Yet many people
love them. Some games I've played are designed in ways that scare me,
but they provide hours of enjoyment for me. In the end, I ignore my
feelings about the code, and focus on the purpose. I know too much
about the code. I understand the tricks and the flaws are glaring.
But the end product is useful or fun. The rest of the people in the
world dont see the things I do. They enjoy it for what it is. And so
do I. I seperate my feelings of technical merit from
entertainment/utility value.
But yeah. I hear you. And I can understand the guys feelings. A bit
rash, but it appears you thought so too. Hopefully we can both also
agree to say that while the movie may not have been a golden age in
the history of movie-making (to say the least) that it made lots of
people happy, and was worth making, if only to really annoy Epstein.
Öjevind Lång
[snip].
>
> After we burn the movie prints and posters, we'll also have to burn
> all the calendars and cover art that ever existed. I don't know what
> to do about the jewelry, head shop posters, and that Led Zeppelin
> album. This could require an old-fashioned Inquisition. But after
> the flames die down and the blood is shed, we'll all be free to enjoy
> Tolkien's works unencumbered by anyone else's visualization.
Don't forget Bo Hansson's record "The Lord of the Rings". Never mind that
some of the music is very suggestive and enjoyable. It is HERETICAL and must
be destroyed!
Öjevind
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
nihil <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>pra...@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) wrote in message
>news:<92249F849prade...@130.133.1.4>...
>> I dont' use it as an argument, just pointing it out: the man I'm talking
>> about is a film director and script-writer and he said that such a badly
>> done movie couldn't have been based on a good book, whatever the book was
>> about.
>
>In my experience film writers/directors make horrible judges of movie
>quality. I suppose it goes back to our old argument. If you judge
>FotR (movie) on technical merit according to film-critic standards its
>mediocre at best.
Huh. I could have sworn most of the film critics I've heard from on
the matter thought it was a pretty good movie. Sure it was a bit
clunky here and there but so is the original book (let's face
it, Tolkien gave us a number of plot holes we *really* shouldn't
spend too much time pondering, which we do anyway).
As for the statement that a badly done movie cannot be based on a good
book, I laugh in its general direction and suggest that it shows how
much *that* guy knows about this stuff.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Pradera
>As for the statement that a badly done movie cannot be based on a good
>book, I laugh in its general direction and suggest that it shows how
>much *that* guy knows about this stuff.
I wouldn't be bashing people who know more than you like that. He is a good
director and knows how to make screenplays out of the book. It just shows
how _badly_ the LotR was transcribed to movie script if someone like him
has made such an opinion.
And I think he was right, somehow. If I hadn't read the book before it
would be hard to convince me, after seeing PJ's work, that it is something
as great as people around claim it to be. Sure, it has some nice
scenography ideas, but what's all the fanatism about?
I think that despite all looneism, I can see what Epstein's on about here.
Think of all the bad impact that's been done to SF by bad or very bad SF
movies. Think of how people perceive fantasy because of stuff like Xena or
Hercules. Think of what the all _terrible_ adaptations did to Ph.K.Dick's
work.
I think a bad movie can do a lot of harm to the book it's based upon.
Fortunately, LotR didn't, but I guess that's because of the greatness of
the book itself that can not be spoiled by trifle like that.
--
Pradera
'They killed Aragorn, you know. Just because he didn't glitter.'
MegaHAL
---
Ronald O. Christian
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
>[snip].
>>
>> After we burn the movie prints and posters, we'll also have to burn
>> all the calendars and cover art that ever existed. I don't know what
>> to do about the jewelry, head shop posters, and that Led Zeppelin
>> album. This could require an old-fashioned Inquisition. But after
>> the flames die down and the blood is shed, we'll all be free to enjoy
>> Tolkien's works unencumbered by anyone else's visualization.
>
>Don't forget Bo Hansson's record "The Lord of the Rings".
...or Leonard Nemoy singing "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins".
Jeff Blanks
>The movie is for those who can't read Tolkien,
>and they don't deserve even a glimpse.
You are not a judge.
--
"Tradition is only valuable if it looks forward." --Christoph von Dohnányi
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Pradera <pra...@pradera.prv.pl> wrote:
>Nastał dzień 05 cze 2002, gdy Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y był łaskaw napisać:
>
>>As for the statement that a badly done movie cannot be based on a good
>>book, I laugh in its general direction and suggest that it shows how
>>much *that* guy knows about this stuff.
>
>I wouldn't be bashing people who know more than you like that.
I would, when they make totally freaking absurd statements like that one.
>He is a good
>director and knows how to make screenplays out of the book. It just shows
>how _badly_ the LotR was transcribed to movie script if someone like him
>has made such an opinion.
No, it doesn't; all he shows by expressing his opinion is what his
opinion is. It seems to be quite the minority opinion, also, even
among movie-making professionals, so what makes this particular guy
the final authority on the matter? I can understand someone not
liking a particular movie, even this one, but pontificating like
that is just plain silly.
>I think that despite all looneism, I can see what Epstein's on about here.
Epstein's a nutcase. Look in alt.talk.royalty.
>Think of all the bad impact that's been done to SF by bad or very bad SF
>movies. Think of how people perceive fantasy because of stuff like Xena or
>Hercules. Think of what the all _terrible_ adaptations did to Ph.K.Dick's
>work.
I can't say I've ever heard from anyone who have based their opinion
on Phil Dick's work on the quality (or lack of same) of movies based
on his stories.
Öjevind Lång
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 20:42:11 +0200, "Öjevind Lång"
> <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
[snip]
> >Don't forget Bo Hansson's record "The Lord of the Rings".
>
> ...or Leonard Nemoy singing "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins".
Leonard Nimoy has done that?
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
news:9224FC285prade...@130.133.1.4...
> Nastał dzień 05 cze 2002, gdy Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y był łaskaw napisać:
>
good
> director and knows how to make screenplays out of the book. It just shows
> how _badly_ the LotR was transcribed to movie script if someone like him
> has made such an opinion.
Is that an absolute "_badly_" ?
- Sorry, I couldn't help myself - I'm with you on the non-absoluteness of
morality, and I think good or bad for a movie is even more relative ...
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
Niels Bohr, to a young physicist
David Salo
> Louis Epstein <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
> news:<CGTK8.111248$jm.10...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>
> > that people loved the movies.
> > The more people like other versions of
> > the story the more the "mindshare" of
> > Tolkien's own version suffers.
Unlike a large number of people I have the misfortune to know, I am
not in posthumous telepathic contact with J.R.R. Tolkien and I don't
channel his deepest thoughts, wishes, and prophecies to the unwashed
multitude. Nonetheless I have a hard time imagining him using the word
"mindshare". Or caring about it. *shrug*
What I *do* wish I could get out of my mind is this little troop of
impostors dressing up in gilt and feathers and adorning themselves with
the unsightly victorian panoply of bad heraldry and redundant
pseudo-titles: http://www.ehsbr.org/faculty/houghtonj/jrrt/peers.htm, a
band which includes one H[is] S[acrosanct? mellie?] M[ajestie]
Tar-Morondil King of Rhovanion, aka Ludwig von Eppstein. Now there's a
travesty! Not that I mind people dressing up and playing games, but
this 19th-century claptrap of graded titles, precedence lists, and
'orders of chivalry' is at the furthest remove from the dark-age (or
very early medieval) milieu that Tolkien gave to Middle-earth. I
gather L.v.E. is not primarily responsible for this mess; but it shows
bad taste to be involved, and I am afraid that "Tolkien's own version"
*does* suffer from contact with this. I am forced to imagine Éowyn in
floor-length ruffled ballgowns and lorgnette and Éomer in epaulets,
medals, sash and monocle, sitting down to dinner with embossed
placecards followed by waltzing to An der schönen blauen Enzwasch!
*Argh! Get it out of my head!* :)
DS
Ronald O. Christian
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 20:42:11 +0200, "Öjevind Lång"
>> <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Don't forget Bo Hansson's record "The Lord of the Rings".
>>
>> ...or Leonard Nemoy singing "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins".
>
>Leonard Nimoy has done that?
Sadly, yes on his second album "Two Sides of Leonard Nemoy". (Think
about that for a moment. Nemoy. Singing. Gag reflex.) It came out
around 1968 and had one side of Nemoy singing as Spock, and one side
as "himself", singing such musical classics as Gentle On My Mind.
Imagine the horror.
Redshirt squids everywhere snapped it up when it came out. My Trekkie
college roommate in the <cough> early seventies had a copy, else I'd
never have heard of it. After the first time, we made him wear
headphones when he played it.
But really, Nemoy's a professional, how bad could "The Ballad of Bilbo
Baggins" be? Wellllllll, imagine in your mind the worst it could
possibly be. Keep in mind that he summarizes the entire plot of The
Hobbit in 2 minutes 18 seconds. Be mindful that Nemoy isn't a singer.
That the music sounds like that fake "pop" music used for teen dance
scenes in '70's sitcoms. That there's a bassoon solo. Now, imagine
how bad that could be.
It's worse.
The one redeeming factor of the album is it's rarity. And that the
remaining copies are collector's items that aging Redshirts buy and
never, ever play. And that it never came out on CD.
*That's* one bit of LotR merchandise I wouldn't mind seeing utterly
destroyed, but it'd be rather pointless, as you never see it outside
Trek conventions.
Ronald O. Christian
>[....] What I *do* wish I could get out of my mind is this little troop of
>impostors dressing up in gilt and feathers and adorning themselves with
>the unsightly victorian panoply of bad heraldry and redundant
>pseudo-titles: http://www.ehsbr.org/faculty/houghtonj/jrrt/peers.htm, a
>band which includes one H[is] S[acrosanct? mellie?] M[ajestie]
>Tar-Morondil King of Rhovanion, aka Ludwig von Eppstein.
The horror. The horror.
Ron (...the horror...)
Lauren
news:92249F849prade...@130.133.1.4:
Is he serious about this? Has he *seen* any of the recent 'adaptations' of
'The Three Musketeers'? Grrrr ... those things just really upset me. And
that's a good book. But maybe that's one of the examples you used already.
I also have a friend whom I have been trying for some time to convince that
he should read LOTR, because I really think he'd enjoy it. I thought maybe
the movie would help me in that endeavor, but it most certainly did not. I
think the movie focused too much on the action and adventure aspects of the
story for him (and for that matter, for me). He's just not interested by
that, and so I'm now trying to persuade him that there's more to the book
than the adventure story.
I still have hopes that the ending of the the Ring quest, the whole
Frodo/Gollum thing, will intrigue him. We'll see.
I'm not saying I wish the film hadn't been made. It was a good movie, I
think. I didn't love it, but I liked it.
Lauren
Not intimidated any more, but kind of busy
Ronald O. Christian
>I dont' use it as an argument, just pointing it out: the man I'm talking
>about is a film director and script-writer and he said that such a badly
>done movie couldn't have been based on a good book,
Wait a minute, I think I just sprained my suspension of disbelief.
Are you saying he's a *director*, and a *script-writer*, and he's
*never* even *heard* of a good book being made into a bad movie?
Like, where did he go to SCHOOL??
At best he sounds AWFULLY naive.
Ron
Pradera
>>I dont' use it as an argument, just pointing it out: the man I'm talking
>>about is a film director and script-writer and he said that such a badly
>>done movie couldn't have been based on a good book,
>
>Wait a minute, I think I just sprained my suspension of disbelief.
>Are you saying he's a *director*, and a *script-writer*, and he's
>*never* even *heard* of a good book being made into a bad movie?
>Like, where did he go to SCHOOL??
>
>At best he sounds AWFULLY naive.
>
Note: in reviews, all those really bad movies were reviewed as such, and as
having little or nothing to do with the books. Such wasn't the case with
LotR, however - it was widely praised by fans and repeatedly I heard quotes
like 'it couldn't have been done better' or 'it's just as I imagined'. That
could've been mistaking.
Troels Forchhammer
> I am forced to imagine Éowyn in
> floor-length ruffled ballgowns and lorgnette and Éomer in epaulets,
> medals, sash and monocle, sitting down to dinner with embossed
> placecards followed by waltzing to An der schönen blauen Enzwasch!
> *Argh! Get it out of my head!* :)
I'm sure that there's some UN convention or something against
torture. If someone force you in this way, I will be ready to support
you all the way should you choose to take legal action - I mean this
makes electroshock and cigarette butts look like kindergarten
activities ..
Actually this had me LOL - up until the picture started to take form
in my imagination too - horror!
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to t.f...@mail.dk
Gravity is a habit that is hard to shake off.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)