Opening Night (Week): will there be boos?
Sandy Santra
sitting there in the audience, watching what some of us have waited 20
or 30 years for, and then stuff happens like:
The shape of the elven swords is wrong.
Some supporting characters are introduced too early in the story.
Frodo does something out-of-character at the Council of Elrond.
Gandalf bumps his head on a beam in Frodo's home.
A minor character has the wrong kind of name.
Tom B. never appears.
Arwen appears during the Flight to the Ford sequence.
I'm betting there *will* be boos--at least in places like New York and
San Francisco. Heh-heh...I can't wait!
Dave Mansell
(Sandy Santra) wrote:
Judging br the reaction of fans who have seen it already, I doubt it
somehow.
------------------------------------------------------------
The cast list of the new "Lord of the Rings" movie does
not include Samuel L. Jackson; it seems a curious omission,
since he is the man we need to stand on the bridge beside
Gandalf, take one look at the Balrog, and declare,
"That is one mean motherfucker." - The New Yorker
------------------------------------------------------------
chuck
Hopefully, I won't be seated next to tells-his-wife-what's-going-on guy like
I was at the Harry Potter premiere... "That's McGonagall" or "Look, it's the
dragon!"
"Sandy Santra" <san...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C0E10CD...@mindspring.com...
Edward J. Kloczko
>
> In article <3C0E10CD...@mindspring.com>, san...@mindspring.com
> (Sandy Santra) wrote:
>
> > What I'm really wondering is: will there be boos? I mean, you're
> > sitting there in the audience, watching what some of us have waited 20
> > or 30 years for, and then stuff happens like:
> >
> > The shape of the elven swords is wrong.
> > Some supporting characters are introduced too early in the story.
> > Frodo does something out-of-character at the Council of Elrond.
> > Gandalf bumps his head on a beam in Frodo's home.
> > A minor character has the wrong kind of name.
> > Tom B. never appears.
> > Arwen appears during the Flight to the Ford sequence.
> >
> > I'm betting there *will* be boos--at least in places like New York and
> > San Francisco. Heh-heh...I can't wait!
> >
>
> Judging br the reaction of fans who have seen it already, I doubt it
> somehow.
You forgot a word or two :
Judging by the reaction of fans *OF P. JACKSON* who have seen it already, I
doubt it somehow. Absolutly !
But those not braid-dead will boos.
I have been reading Tolkien for the past texenty years and will continue,
without having to watch the dam thing by PJ.
EJK
Raven Mac Andhru
>>Judging by the reaction of fans *OF P. JACKSON* who have seen it already,
I
>>doubt it somehow. Absolutly !
>>But those not braid-dead will boos.
>>I have been reading Tolkien for the past texenty years and will continue,
>>without having to watch the dam thing by PJ.
Well i'm not a fan of PJ as i've never seen his work...however i like what
i've seen so far and i cant wait to see the film.....by braid-dead do you
mean brain-dead?If so why write such pap!!I mean seriously,hardly an
intelligent statement is it?As for reading it twenty years,did you
understand any of it?Because you dont seem to have mastered writing too
well!I actually feel so sorry for people like yourself who
will,ultimately,go though life forever disappointed.Do yourself a favour
before its too late.....Get a life!!
Raven Mac Andhru
Raven Mac Andhru
LOL
>>>Tom B. never appears.
Hurrah!!!!!!............................................lol
;-)
Raven Mac Andhru
Newbie Tech
(During the Terminator. One audience member to another): "Did you hear
that?" He said I'll be back!!!!"
I will be watching it on opening day (just bought my ticket) and fear that I
will be seated next to someone that will make comments about the
authenticity of the swords or the pronunciation of the Elven language.
Sheeeesh. It really just amounts to people wanting attention focused on
them rather than the movie that everybody else paid to see. If you don't
like certain aspects of the movie, I respect that....but to make it overtly
and *audibly* known to the rest of the audience is beyond my comprehension.
"chuck" <m...@my.pad> wrote in message
news:4GpP7.157066$kf1.50...@news1.rdc1.ne.home.com...
SuperFrog
Tom Bombadil has never appeared in any production, not in Bakshi, or BBC
play or anywhere.
Tolkein himself had real problems writing Tom into the books.
Liv Tyler is a curvey woman, so why not give her a curvey sword :-)
Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance only of wise men.
Douglas Bader - WWII Spitfire ace
"Raven Mac Andhru" <raven...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gyvP7.4158$Fq6.4...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Sylver
Newbie Tech wrote:
>
> LOL. Man I seem to ATTRACT these people when I watch a movie.
>
> (During the Terminator. One audience member to another): "Did you hear
> that?" He said I'll be back!!!!"
>
> I will be watching it on opening day (just bought my ticket) and fear that I
> will be seated next to someone that will make comments about the
> authenticity of the swords or the pronunciation of the Elven language.
> Sheeeesh. It really just amounts to people wanting attention focused on
> them rather than the movie that everybody else paid to see. If you don't
> like certain aspects of the movie, I respect that....but to make it overtly
> and *audibly* known to the rest of the audience is beyond my comprehension.
>
I remember George Carlin saying something once about there being "Open
Season," on certain types of people. I think that people who can't shut
their mouths during a film should be included.
lazarus
wrote:
I've got a great advantage in that. 6'2", 260, picture Ron Perlman,
with a deep bass voice. I've intimidated a few folks in theatres
before.
Of course, if one of them ever got frisky, I'm screwed, as I'm
handicapped, you just can't tell. Oh, well. :-)
--
lazarus
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -- Ambrose Bierce
Flame of the West
chuck wrote:
> Hopefully, I won't be seated next to tells-his-wife-what's-going-on guy like
> I was at the Harry Potter premiere... "That's McGonagall" or "Look, it's the
> dragon!"
Or even worse, the spoiler-spewing little kid like the one my
daughters encountered at Phantom Menace: "She's the QUEEN!"
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Martin A. M. Featherstone
They will speak at their peril, though I imagine it will be hard to swing
punches with eyes fixed on the screen. Oh well, I can catch that bit the
next time I see it! :)
Lulu The Cow
<nos...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>chuck wrote:
>
>> Hopefully, I won't be seated next to tells-his-wife-what's-going-on guy like
>> I was at the Harry Potter premiere... "That's McGonagall" or "Look, it's the
>> dragon!"
>
>Or even worse, the spoiler-spewing little kid like the one my
>daughters encountered at Phantom Menace: "She's the QUEEN!"
Like anyone gave a damn. I have two words for Phantom Menace:
BORE ING.
Cheers,
Todd "two more: JAR JAR" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || NO ATTACHMENTS
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || NO STATIONERY
/ \ AND POSTINGS || NO GRAPHICS
James
>Like anyone gave a damn. I have two words for Phantom Menace:
>
>BORE ING.
Am I the only person who also found TPM horribly confusing? Maybe I'm
just being thick here, but I consider a great plot twist to be "Luke,
I am your father" or "Norman Bates' mother is dead", not "The queen
and her maidservant are actually switched around, sometimes, and one
or the other is called Padme." I'm still trying to puzzle out what
that whole thing was about.
James
Morgil Blackhope
Flame of the West kirjoitti viestissä <3C159671...@erols.com>...
>
>chuck wrote:
>
>> Hopefully, I won't be seated next to tells-his-wife-what's-going-on guy
like
>> I was at the Harry Potter premiere... "That's McGonagall" or "Look, it's
the
>> dragon!"
>
>Or even worse, the spoiler-spewing little kid like the one my
>daughters encountered at Phantom Menace: "She's the QUEEN!"
I may be remembering wrong, but wasn't that pretty obvious
all the time?
My all time favourite are the teenage guys who started yelling
"Incest, incest!" when Leia kissed Luke in ESB reruns. :-)
Morgil
Ronald O. Christian
Bring along a golf club.
Ron
www.europa.com/~ronc
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war,
it'd still be going on today."
lazarus
<ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:44:15 +1100, "Martin A. M. Featherstone"
><ele...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sandy Santra <san...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:3C0E10CD...@mindspring.com...
>>> What I'm really wondering is: will there be boos? I mean, you're
>>> sitting there in the audience, watching what some of us have waited 20
>>> or 30 years for, and then stuff happens like:
>>>
>>> The shape of the elven swords is wrong.
>>> Some supporting characters are introduced too early in the story.
>>> Frodo does something out-of-character at the Council of Elrond.
>>> Gandalf bumps his head on a beam in Frodo's home.
>>> A minor character has the wrong kind of name.
>>> Tom B. never appears.
>>> Arwen appears during the Flight to the Ford sequence.
>>>
>>> I'm betting there *will* be boos--at least in places like New York and
>>> San Francisco. Heh-heh...I can't wait!
>>
>>They will speak at their peril, though I imagine it will be hard to swing
>>punches with eyes fixed on the screen. Oh well, I can catch that bit the
>>next time I see it! :)
>>
>
>Bring along a golf club.
>
I'm very good friends with the local cinema manager. He's a huge fan,
too, so we work together on that sort of thing.
There will be much abuse if people are disruptive, I guarantee that.
Pitch Invasion
"lazarus" <lazaru...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ldhc1uk2cq5tus9im...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:09:41 GMT, Ronald O. Christian
> <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:44:15 +1100, "Martin A. M. Featherstone"
> ><ele...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Sandy Santra <san...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3C0E10CD...@mindspring.com
Frankly, the travesty of CHANGING the story, even in a seemingly innocuous
way is blasphemy and completely unforgiveable. I don't mind editing and
simply leaving out certain things which can be referenced or inferred later,
but actually changing the plot and story is a hideous, unforgiveable sin.
Even the small item of the wench Arwen appearing to lead them to the fords
is a total degradation of the story and makes me ill. She was in no way
heroic in the novel, why does this PC garbage have to infest one of the
greatest literary works of all time?
-PI
lazarus
It isn't, you silly person. They haven't edited the books, they've
made a film. Do try to keep that straight.
Pitch Invasion
I realize that, however there is no reason the story couldn't be followed
exactly. Portions left out because of time are understandable, changing the
story is not. This movie is not LOTR, it is simply someones personal
interpretation of the LOTR. Silly me, I actually believe that a decent
director could have followed the story and characters to the letter and made
exactly the same quality film. It's only the greatest fantasy story ever
written after all.
-Kevin
Bill Binkelman
Some suggestions:
One, don't go see the movie then. It's your choice.
Two, get a life. Books = movies is not the way it works and it never
has. If you do follow a book that closely what you wind up getting is
Harry Potter - a well-done but ultimately unimaginative film with no
heart. HEART is the one thing that almost EVERY review I have read so
far agrees FOTR has in spades.
Three, making Arwen a _slightly_ more prominent character and having
her aid Frodo in crossing the Ford _does not_ impact the story. Frodo
would have made it across the Ford anyway. Does it significantly
change the way people view Frodo? So far not a single reviewer,
including some self-professed fans of trilogy, have said shit about
this. They all say the minor change is well-handled. Indeed, the
consensus is that all this hubbub over Arwen's changed role is
ridiculous as she is still a _very_ minor character.
Four, Jackson and others have gone on record many times that this is
not a literal filming of the books (which is impossible). It's
Jackson's adaptation. The fact that nearly every review has stated
that Jackson has done an almost superhuman job of staying true to the
story makes your rather anal criticism somewhat supercilious.
Five, I suppose you're one of the faithful who believe that unless the
film is 100% faithful to the book, then it shouldn't even have been
attempted, right?
Six, YMMV, of course. Personally, I already have my tix for the 12:01
AM showing on Wednesday morning, the 19th, and I'm almost too excited
to work/play/eat/drink/sleep.
Bill B
Dave Mansell
(Pitch Invasion) wrote:
Silly you yes, I absolutely believe that no director on earth could make a
decent film out of Fellowship taking it exactly as written. In any case we
all interpret LOTR every time we read it, what we see in our minds, the
way we view the characters and their interactions are unique to us. No two
of us reads exactly the same book.
I'm with the dozens of fans who have now seen the film and tell me it is
Fellowship of the Rings in every important sense.
As to a 'decent' director, I suggest you read the critics reviewing the
film, terms like 'masterpiece' and 'visionary' are being handed out.
Dave
"Here is the important thing: The Story is not changed. It is not exactly
the same, but it is the same story. That has in no way been lost, or
weakened or polluted." - Balin Of The Mines
Pitch Invasion
"Dave Mansell" <nos...@cariad.net> wrote in message
news:memo.2001121...@dmansell.compulink.co.uk...
OK, riddle me this? Which changes in the story as it has been laid out in
the films make it so much more a cinematic masterpiece than simply leaving
it as it was in the book? What is the added interest?
-PI
>
>
Donald Shepherd
So don't go and see it. I fail to see the problem.
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
"Part of the secret of success in life is to eat what you like and let
the food fight it out inside." - Mark Twain (sourced from Usenet)
lazarus
<buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But it's not the greatest fantasy screenplay ever written. Of course
it's someone's interpretation, there's no other way to film it.
Witness the debates in AFT about Balrogs. Do they have wings? Do
they swim? Do they use water wings?
We have to interpret every time we read. It must be interpreted to be
filmed. If you don't like it, don't go.
How has the story been fundamentally changed, btw? Not minor changes
like Arwen at the Ford, fundamental changes.
Pitch Invasion
"Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16813e452...@news.cairns.net.au...
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:27:21 -0800, Pitch Invasion <buz...@yahoo.com>
> allegedly said the following...
> >
> > "lazarus" <lazaru...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:ldhc1uk2cq5tus9im...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:09:41 GMT, Ronald O. Christian
> > > <ro...@europa.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:44:15 +1100, "Martin A. M. Featherstone"
> > > ><ele...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>Sandy Santra <san...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:3C0E10CD...@mindspring.com
> >
> > Frankly, the travesty of CHANGING the story, even in a seemingly
innocuous
> > way is blasphemy and completely unforgiveable. I don't mind editing and
> > simply leaving out certain things which can be referenced or inferred
later,
> > but actually changing the plot and story is a hideous, unforgiveable
sin.
> > Even the small item of the wench Arwen appearing to lead them to the
fords
> > is a total degradation of the story and makes me ill. She was in no way
> > heroic in the novel, why does this PC garbage have to infest one of the
> > greatest literary works of all time?
>
> So don't go and see it. I fail to see the problem.
I don't see one either. I guess the fact that I have a critical, dissenting
opinion is your problem though, as you have given advice when none was asked
for. As for not going to see the movie? Right, like that'll happen. Of
course I'll see the movie and likely enjoy it. I still am of the opinion
that great literary works do not *need* to be changed, especially in such
ways that add nothing more than the original story.
-PI
Pitch Invasion
As you well know, what you consider fundamental changes are not part of the
story. However, you tell me what is gained in bastardizing the story by
eliminating Glorfindel and putting Arwen in his place? Perhaps it will all
flow seamlessly after all, but IMO a change just for the sake of change
isn't necessary. Your examples of Balrog wings and the like are totally up
to interpretation, as are pointy elf ears, Gollums, The Orcs and other
creatures appearance, etc... That has nothing to do with the storyline.
Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel and a few other changes do. I don't even
care about skipping Bombadil. That's not a change, it's an omission to keep
a movie flowing. I understand that, but I don't agree with changing the
actual plot or characters roles.
-PI
Dave Mansell
(Pitch Invasion) wrote:
Because if you leave it as in the books the audience would walk out after
an hour.
Some changes are needed to push Tolkien's story along at the faster pace
required to keep a cinema audience in their seats for 3 hours. When you
are reading a book, you can do so at your own pace, over a long period. A
film doesn't have that luxury
Dave
"For all its wonderful sets Potter looks, by comparison,
like it was filmed in a garden shed."
lazarus
<buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On the great Arwen at the Ford debate, it increases her role, so that
Aragorn's marrying her at the end doesn't come out of left field.
Any other changes you need help with, or shall we wait to actually see
the film and make our judgement then?
lazarus
<buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Having it be on film instead of paper.
Lulu The Cow
<buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I realize that, however there is no reason the story couldn't be followed
>exactly. Portions left out because of time are understandable, changing the
>story is not. This movie is not LOTR, it is simply someones personal
>interpretation of the LOTR. Silly me, I actually believe that a decent
>director could have followed the story and characters to the letter and made
>exactly the same quality film. It's only the greatest fantasy story ever
>written after all.
There are reasons:
1. It's Peter Jackson's movie. And Peter Jackson is the storyteller.
In your move, or Tolkien's movie, or my movie, the story may be told
differently.
2. Some things just don't freaking work on screen.
3. People have jobs to go to in the morning and can't be out all night
watching the 17 hour D&D marathon melodrama that the Tolkienista might
be inclined to make.
Cheers,
Todd "Movies are an art form all of their own" McNeeley
Lulu The Cow
Your problem is that your opinion is so absurdly uninformed, that you
are just getting hammered for it.
If you don't like the change, that's fine. You could probably pose a
dozen perfectly valid reasons for not liking this detail. But your
incorrect view of books as sacred tomes, never to be deviated from
isn't one of them.
Several reasonable arguments in favor have the change have been
posted. Your only beef seems to be that it is a change.
Cheers,
Todd "Free yourself from the bondage of zeal" McNeeley
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>We have to interpret every time we read. It must be interpreted to be
>filmed. If you don't like it, don't go.
>
>How has the story been fundamentally changed, btw? Not minor changes
>like Arwen at the Ford, fundamental changes.
Though I admit your general rule, there are some of us who do not think that
substituting Arwen for Glorfindel at the Ford is a minor change. The same
goes for the Orcs being bred from pods, as if they were escapees from the
"Aliens" films. Also, it seems that Peter Jackson simplified the general
background by letting the royal house of Gondor die out with Isildur.
So what do I regard as minor, quite understandable changes? Well, for
example, omitting the stay at Crickhollow, or the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil
and the Barrow Downs (though I love Tom), or letting the hole where Pippin
alarms the Orcs be in the Chamber of Mazarbul - though I think letting him
push a Dwarf skeleton into it instead of throwing a stone is silly.
Great quote under our sig, by the way.
Öjevind
Ronald O. Christian
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>lazarus wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>We have to interpret every time we read. It must be interpreted to be
>>filmed. If you don't like it, don't go.
>>
>>How has the story been fundamentally changed, btw? Not minor changes
>>like Arwen at the Ford, fundamental changes.
>
>
>Though I admit your general rule, there are some of us who do not think that
>substituting Arwen for Glorfindel at the Ford is a minor change.
There are some who do not think introducing Rosie Cotton near the
beginning of the story is a minor change. <shrug>
Pitch Invasion
"Lulu The Cow" <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message
news:kg2e1u42h0b9mv6sq...@4ax.com...
Oh, and your opinion is totally valid huh? Pretty smug. I've stated what is
my opinion, and I'm not getting "hammered" as you put it. What, 2-3 posters
are responding? Whew! I better watch what I think, or 2-3 people I don't
know, and likely will never meet might criticize me... Please. Get over
yourself. We just disagree on an issue, which means nothing in the real
world.
-PI
lazarus
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>lazarus wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>We have to interpret every time we read. It must be interpreted to be
>>filmed. If you don't like it, don't go.
>>
>>How has the story been fundamentally changed, btw? Not minor changes
>>like Arwen at the Ford, fundamental changes.
>
>
>Though I admit your general rule, there are some of us who do not think that
>substituting Arwen for Glorfindel at the Ford is a minor change. The same
>goes for the Orcs being bred from pods, as if they were escapees from the
>"Aliens" films. Also, it seems that Peter Jackson simplified the general
>background by letting the royal house of Gondor die out with Isildur.
> So what do I regard as minor, quite understandable changes? Well, for
>example, omitting the stay at Crickhollow, or the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil
>and the Barrow Downs (though I love Tom), or letting the hole where Pippin
>alarms the Orcs be in the Chamber of Mazarbul - though I think letting him
>push a Dwarf skeleton into it instead of throwing a stone is silly.
The orc/pod thing I have an issue with, but let's face it, JRRT never
really got specific, did he? :-D
The royal house of Gondor dying out is a mistake, I think.
Thanks for being open about this and not a flaming loon like some
we've had around here.
> Great quote under our sig, by the way.
>
I've gotten more positive comments on that quote than any other I've
sigged. I think I'm keeping it. :-D
--
lazarus
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -- Ambrose Bierce
Pitch Invasion
If you mean me, exactly what was the "flaming lunacy" in what I stated?
-PI
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>The royal house of Gondor dying out is a mistake, I think.
Do you mean that they were around for many generations, as in the book? Then
I have swallowed desinformation.
Öjevind
lazarus
Well, I didn't mean you. There have been others who think this is the
greatest abomination ever performed by men, a travesty that will lead
to the Final Battle. That's who I was talking about.
Pitch Invasion
I do have reservations about the integrity of the story being maintained,
but the bottom line is that I will see the movie, and I hope enjoy it.
-PI
lazarus
No, I meant if they died out in the film, then the decision to have
them die out was a mistake. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Lulu The Cow
<buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If you don't like the change, that's fine. You could probably pose a
>> dozen perfectly valid reasons for not liking this detail. But your
>> incorrect view of books as sacred tomes, never to be deviated from
>> isn't one of them.
>
>Oh, and your opinion is totally valid huh? Pretty smug. I've stated what is
>my opinion,
As I know what I'm talking about, I'd have to say, yes.
Cheers,
Todd "Movies are not just visual books" McNeeley
Pitch Invasion
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:47:59 -0800, "Pitch Invasion"
> <buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you don't like the change, that's fine. You could probably pose a
> >> dozen perfectly valid reasons for not liking this detail. But your
> >> incorrect view of books as sacred tomes, never to be deviated from
> >> isn't one of them.
> >
> >Oh, and your opinion is totally valid huh? Pretty smug. I've stated what
is
> >my opinion,
>
> As I know what I'm talking about, I'd have to say, yes.
What exactly are you talking about Pimple?
-PI
Martin A. M. Featherstone
> The orc/pod thing I have an issue with, but let's face it, JRRT never
> really got specific, did he? :-D
>
<snip>
Quoting from memory here... 'They reproduced after the manner of the
Children of Iluvatar'
Elves come from pods? Then again, let's face it JRRT never really got
specific, did he? :-)
James
>> The orc/pod thing I have an issue with, but let's face it, JRRT never
>> really got specific, did he? :-D
>Quoting from memory here... 'They reproduced after the manner of the
>Children of Iluvatar'
Well, I think the pod-orcs are Uruk-hai, which were produced with
Saruman's intervention, so who knows? :)
The orc pods are a bit silly, sure, but *technically* they could fit
with Tolkien's canon...
James
Smaug69
That nothing's sacred and there is no way any film could ever be made
exactly like the book.
Smaug "Did I get it right, Lulu?" 69
HY
<snip some other good points>
> 3. People have jobs to go to in the morning and can't be out all night
> watching the 17 hour D&D marathon melodrama that the Tolkienista might
> be inclined to make.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "Movies are an art form all of their own" McNeeley
> .
> email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
Hee. Tolkienista. That's easily the best descriptive term I've
heard. Thanks for the laugh.
For my two cents, movies are movies and books are books. I really
don't see why anyone has a problem with this. I mean, what are the
consequences of this movie anyway?
1) People who haven't read the books and like the movie might be
inclined to read them now.
2) People who haven't read the books and don't like the movie will be
a couple of bucks poorer.
3) People who have read the books and like the movie now have two
different media to enjoy the work.
4) People who have read the books and don't like the movie still get
to read their books.
I don't see any of these outcomes as terribly tragic.
Reading some of the rants about this subject, I'm beginning to think
that the only movie that some people would approve of is a simple
slide show projection of the book pages.
H.
lazarus
But, from memory myself, here, didn't Saruman pervert things, and do
something to create the Uruk-Hai? Again, it *could* be canon. I
doubt it, but this could be cinematic shorthand to show how evil
Saruman is.
Lulu The Cow
<buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Lulu The Cow" <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message
>news:4rsf1uopm839iplve...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 08:47:59 -0800, "Pitch Invasion"
>> <buz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If you don't like the change, that's fine. You could probably pose a
>> >> dozen perfectly valid reasons for not liking this detail. But your
>> >> incorrect view of books as sacred tomes, never to be deviated from
>> >> isn't one of them.
>> >
>> >Oh, and your opinion is totally valid huh? Pretty smug. I've stated what
>is
>> >my opinion,
>>
>> As I know what I'm talking about, I'd have to say, yes.
>
>What exactly are you talking about Pimple?
Pimple?
I will no respond to you until you learn to flame me properly. My
grandmother could come up with a better insult than that.
Cheers,
Todd "And you still don't know what you are talking about" McNeeley
Graeme
could come up with a better insult than that.
>>
For proper instruction on this, check out the original Curse of Monkey Island.
Brian C. Ross
>> 3. People have jobs to go to in the morning and can't be out all night
>> watching the 17 hour D&D marathon melodrama that the Tolkienista might
>> be inclined to make.
...
>Hee. Tolkienista. That's easily the best descriptive term I've
>heard. Thanks for the laugh.
>
I've heard us called "ringers"
lazarus
Would the young ones be called "ringlets"?
William H. Hsu
>Lulu The Cow <nos...@myserver.com> wrote in message news:<od1e1uop5gg4lol3a...@4ax.com>...
><snip some other good points>
>> 3. People have jobs to go to in the morning and can't be out all night
>> watching the 17 hour D&D marathon melodrama that the Tolkienista might
>> be inclined to make.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Todd "Movies are an art form all of their own" McNeeley
>> .
>> email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
>Hee. Tolkienista. That's easily the best descriptive term I've
>heard. Thanks for the laugh.
All together now...
"NO ADMITTANCE EXCEPT ON PARTY BUSINESS"
--
Banazir
(and they say PJ doesn't read the NGs?)
William H. Hsu
As in "the only goond Ringer..."? #-)
Of curse, "Ringers don't die..."
--
Banazir
(sometimes they just write themselves)
Ermanna
I like to refer to us as "Tolkienites".
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight, Lady of Rivendell,
Headmistress of the AFT/RABT Charm School,
Hug-Therapist, Queen of the Balrog Wingophiles
"Is Gandalf a Disturber of the Peace?" Me
"Dis-turb-ber of peece." My baby brother.
David Salo
<beatrice...@earthlink.com> wrote:
> > >Hee. Tolkienista. That's easily the best descriptive term I've
> > >heard. Thanks for the laugh.
> >
> > I've heard us called "ringers"
>
> I like to refer to us as "Tolkienites".
Outrageous! Everyone knows it's "Tolkienoids".
Er, "Tolkieners"...
Some people use "Tolkiendili", though...
DS
William H. Hsu
>> >Hee. Tolkienista. That's easily the best descriptive term I've
>> >heard. Thanks for the laugh.
>>
>> I've heard us called "ringers"
>I like to refer to us as "Tolkienites".
As long as they don't call us "Tolkienies" (pronounced like "daikinis"),
it's fine with me.
--
Banazir
David Salo
(William H. Hsu) wrote:
daikinis? dakinis? daiquiris? bikinis?
DS
Boris Badenov
|As he described the back of his hand, Brian C. Ross said:
|.
|> >Hee. Tolkienista. That's easily the best descriptive term I've
|> >heard. Thanks for the laugh.
|>
|> I've heard us called "ringers"
|
|I like to refer to us as "Tolkienites".
I'm one of the Tolkienista, and proud of it!