Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

LotR movie -- Disappointing

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Werebat

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 9:55:02 AM12/22/01
to
I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I
have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.

Don't get me wrong -- it was an adequate movie and all, the special
effects were generally good, the acting fair to average, and the story,
well, we all know that... But as far as being a "jumpstart" movie to get
modern producers thinking seriously about fantasy films, I found it to be
a bit of a disappointment when compared to the recent "Dungeons and
Dragons" movie.

I know that this may not be a popular opinion amongst Tolkein grognards,
but the fact is that the D&D Movie was a superior piece of filmcraft in
almost every regard. I think the future will bear me out on this one.

Consider -- Tolkein's work itself was never written for the masses. The
script of the D&D Movie is masterfully written to be accessible to all
walks of humanity. Meanwhile, Tolkein's story is reserved for the ivory
towers of an arrogant minority of English teachers and Anglophiles.

Speaking of Anglophiles, it is clear that the LotR movie is inherently
racist, while the D&D movie is certainly not. Tolkein himself was an
admitted racist, as evidenced by the completely caucasian ethnicity of
his characters (with the possible exception of the orcs and goblins, and
we all know what races of humanity THEY are intended to represent --
degenerate, fecund, barbaric, and stupid -- pretty thin veil, Mr.
Tolkein). Sure, LotR has Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits, but they are all
White. The D&D movie boldly broke racial barriers by having a Black Elf
(not a "Drow" but a good Elven woman who happened to be Black), as well
as the lovable and masterfully played Snails. Meanwhile LotR has
Galadriel actually *TURNING* *INTO* *A* *BLACK* *WOMAN* when she is
tempted by the Ring -- but only for a moment, then she "recovers" her
Whiteness when she overcomes her base emotions. If I were a Black woman
watching this movie I would be highly offended!

As far as characters are concerned, the thing about LotR that really
jumped out at me was how inefficient and one-sided the characters really
were. For example, it took LotR over THREE characters -- Samwise, Merry,
Pippin, and at times Boromir -- to portray mere facets of what was
masterfully interwoven in the D&D movie as the character of Snails.
Samwise is the loyal sidekick of the main hero, while Merry and Pippin
are there mainly for comic relief. Snails did all of this, and he did it
better! His loyalty was greater than that of Samwise, yet he was much
more willing to express his autonomy and disagree with his partner -- and
his comic relief bits were more overblown and frankly funnier to a modern
audience. Of course, his redemption from his flaws -- his heroic death
after overcoming his cowardice -- is ultimately more powerfully moving
than the death of Boromir, due to the audience's greater identification
with him. I cried when Snails died -- I shed nary a tear for Boromir,
who was really an evil person and would have killed Frodo for the ring if
he'd had the chance. This sort of glorification of the antihero in our
movies is what is ruining the fabric of our society today.

The D&D movie has it over LotR when it comes to actors, as well. LotR
actors consist mainly of has-been actors and never-was actors; in fact,
the only actor I remembered in LotR was that puffing guy who played
Indiana Jones' sidekick (what was his name?) as the Dwarf, Legolas. And
even then they made him up so much that he was impossible to recognize.
Meanwhile the D&D movie has JEREMY IRONS doing a masterful performance as
an intensely evil overlord of magic -- the intense fury flashing in his
eyes as he delivers his dire soliloquies is enough to rivet an audience
in its seats, while in LotR we never even SEE Sauron except as some
flaming vagina in the sky (an obvious Freudian slip on the part of the
director).

As for special effects, they were -- OK -- in the LotR movie. Some have
already mentioned the "Gimli the Elf on the Rock Troll's Back" example of
LotR's CGI blundering. However a simple comparision of, say, the orcs in
both movies, leaves one wondering how it is that LotR (which was made
years AFTER the D&D Movie) could have been so far behind in the FX
department. The D&D Movie's orcs were *monsters* -- shambling brutes in
spiked armor who drank grog and carried black maces -- while LotR orcs
looked more like humans in bad make-up with funny teeth. Meanwhile the
much-vaunted "Rock Troll" looked like someone had stolen some files from
the Harry Potter movie's FX CGI computer. The creeching "ring-wraitgs"
looked like men in black sheets, stage blood on their horse's hooves
notwithstanding. And speaking of horses, that ridiculous scene with the
horses rising up out of the river at Ariel the Elf's "prayer" really
broke my suspension of disbelief -- fair CGI it may have been, and a
fantasy movie LotR may profess to be, but some things are so over the top
that they break one's immersion in the film.

Meanwhile, The D&D movie contains the famous "Beholder scene", which was
just long enough to whet our apetites for more skillful FX mastery (an
astute decision on the part of the director). Never mind the big
things -- an entire flight of dragons where LotR contained only one
dragon, which wasn't even supposed to be real but a fireworks illusion
(nice copout on the part of the director, who SHOULD have been showing
us at least ONE image of Smaug during the intro) -- it was the
multitude of LITTLE things that impressed the audiences of the D&D
Movie. The blinking of the exotic three-eyed thief looked completely
fluid and lifelike, for example, and that was something that audiences
took home with them. When Snails steals a cat from the marketplace, it
moves just like a real cat would. The Dark Overlord's lieutenant, when
infected with the magical parasite, exhibits blue veins and other
symptoms that don't just look spirit-gummed on at all -- they look like
they are really a part of his body. And let's not forget the magic --
real blue bolts from staves and wands, none of this "telekinesis" crap
which the LotR movie expects audiences to not notice are being used as an
excuse to not have to put in rays, lightning, and other effects. How
cheap could the director get?

Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
antics of the lovable Snails? I rest my case.

- Ron ^*^

Tim Scoff

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 10:38:22 AM12/22/01
to
I haven't seen LOTR yet. However I had to endure the D&D movie and I
wish that I hadn't wasted the $3 to rent it. It may have had some good
qualities, but it was not an entertaining movie and I was bored half way
through.

Should I see LOTR or should I give it a miss until it comes out in
the rental stores?

In article <3C24C9...@earthlink.net>,
Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:m

--
Tim Scoff
t...@scoff.net
http://www.scoff.net/Tim

Robert Herbig

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 10:47:51 AM12/22/01
to
In article <3C24C9...@earthlink.net> , Werebat
<ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I
> have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- it was an adequate movie and all, the special
> effects were generally good, the acting fair to average, and the story,
> well, we all know that... But as far as being a "jumpstart" movie to get
> modern producers thinking seriously about fantasy films, I found it to be
> a bit of a disappointment when compared to the recent "Dungeons and
> Dragons" movie.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, D&D was a total waste. I much
preferred the Fellowship of the Ring, but perhaps that is because I actually
*play* D&D, AD&D, etc, and the movie made all of that into a joke.

> I know that this may not be a popular opinion amongst Tolkein grognards,
> but the fact is that the D&D Movie was a superior piece of filmcraft in
> almost every regard. I think the future will bear me out on this one.

IMHO the plot of D&D was horrible.

> Consider -- Tolkein's work itself was never written for the masses. The
> script of the D&D Movie is masterfully written to be accessible to all
> walks of humanity. Meanwhile, Tolkein's story is reserved for the ivory
> towers of an arrogant minority of English teachers and Anglophiles.
>
> Speaking of Anglophiles, it is clear that the LotR movie is inherently
> racist, while the D&D movie is certainly not. Tolkein himself was an
> admitted racist, as evidenced by the completely caucasian ethnicity of
> his characters

I don't recall ever seeing that, and I don't remember anywhere in any of his
books any of the characters specifically being called "caucasian". Perhaps
the elves were described as "fair-skinned", but that is hardly racist.

> (with the possible exception of the orcs and goblins, and
> we all know what races of humanity THEY are intended to represent --
> degenerate, fecund, barbaric, and stupid -- pretty thin veil, Mr.
> Tolkein).

So just because Tolkien decided to make the evil race barbaric, you assume
that it is a subtle slur against a certain race?

> Sure, LotR has Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits, but they are all
> White.

You *MUST* realize the difference in the movie and the books. As far as I
know, Tolkien NEVER specifically says that the dwarf is white, the elf is
white, the hobbits are white, etc. The MOVIEMAKER(S) decided to make the
cast white. But I really don't see how that is racist: if they had made
Boromir black, for instance, they would be flamed for portraying the black
person as a traitor. If they had made a hobbit black, for instance, they
would be accused of being racist because the hobbits were small, or for some
other reason. A twisted mind can perceive ANYTHING as an injustice if it
looks hard enough.

> The D&D movie boldly broke racial barriers by having a Black Elf
> (not a "Drow" but a good Elven woman who happened to be Black), as well
> as the lovable and masterfully played Snails.

Lovable? Masterfully played? He served no real point in the movie that I can
remember...

> Meanwhile LotR has
> Galadriel actually *TURNING* *INTO* *A* *BLACK* *WOMAN* when she is
> tempted by the Ring -- but only for a moment, then she "recovers" her
> Whiteness when she overcomes her base emotions. If I were a Black woman
> watching this movie I would be highly offended!

Galadriel never "*TURNS* *INTO* *A* *BLACK* *WOMAN*" when she is tempted, I
believe that they simple reversed the colors in the image. If you notice,
ALL COLORS are reversed, not just her skin. This is a simple lighting
effect, done to increase the drama of the situation, not to provide a racial
slur against a certain race.

> As far as characters are concerned, the thing about LotR that really
> jumped out at me was how inefficient and one-sided the characters really
> were. For example, it took LotR over THREE characters -- Samwise, Merry,
> Pippin, and at times Boromir -- to portray mere facets of what was
> masterfully interwoven in the D&D movie as the character of Snails.
> Samwise is the loyal sidekick of the main hero, while Merry and Pippin
> are there mainly for comic relief.

Have you even read the LotR books? Do you have ANY idea of the point of the
characters in the storyline? As far as I could tell, Snails did nothing
important in the D&D movie. On the other hand, Sam, Merry, and Pippin each
have a specific role to play, as does Boromir. The three (or four)
characters are so different, that each has his own facets and personalities.
Could you honestly identify with Snails if he had enough personality changes
to play the roles of three (or four) characters?

> Snails did all of this, and he did it
> better! His loyalty was greater than that of Samwise, yet he was much
> more willing to express his autonomy and disagree with his partner -- and
> his comic relief bits were more overblown and frankly funnier to a modern
> audience.

Loyalty was greater? Would Snails have followed his friend to the Pit of
Doom and back? While facing orcs, goblins, wargs, Uruk-Hai, and more?

> Of course, his redemption from his flaws -- his heroic death
> after overcoming his cowardice -- is ultimately more powerfully moving
> than the death of Boromir, due to the audience's greater identification
> with him. I cried when Snails died -- I shed nary a tear for Boromir,
> who was really an evil person and would have killed Frodo for the ring if
> he'd had the chance. This sort of glorification of the antihero in our
> movies is what is ruining the fabric of our society today.

Do you have ANY idea of who Boromir was, and why he acted like he did? You
above statement suggests that you don't. Boromir was a complicated person.
He came from a kingdom that was being threatened by evil. His land had not
had a king in a LONG time, and yet Aragorn showed up and claimed to be the
heir to the throne. His way of life was being threatened, and suddenly the
Ring showed up, a possible way to save his kingdom and become a hero at the
same time. He was not an evil person, he was just being affected by the
Ring's power and corruptive effect. Yes, he might have killed Frodo, but so
would Gandalf if the Ring had continued to effect him, or possibly Galadriel
if she had been affected more, etc. Such is the power of the incredible
artifact, the One Ring.

> The D&D movie has it over LotR when it comes to actors, as well. LotR
> actors consist mainly of has-been actors and never-was actors; in fact,
> the only actor I remembered in LotR was that puffing guy who played
> Indiana Jones' sidekick (what was his name?) as the Dwarf, Legolas.

I found the actors in the Fellowship of the Ring to be, on average, better
than those of the D&D movie. And BTW, the Dwarf is Gimli, the Elf is
Legolas. Argh...

> And
> even then they made him up so much that he was impossible to recognize.

What are you complaining about here? That you can't recognize him? So what?
I still can't tell if you're talking about the elf or the dwarf...

> Meanwhile the D&D movie has JEREMY IRONS doing a masterful performance as
> an intensely evil overlord of magic -- the intense fury flashing in his
> eyes as he delivers his dire soliloquies is enough to rivet an audience
> in its seats, while in LotR we never even SEE Sauron except as some
> flaming vagina in the sky (an obvious Freudian slip on the part of the
> director).

What are you talking about? In the Fellowship of the Ring, we see Sauron
plenty. In the beginning we see him in all his armor, commanding his armies
and then coming down and beating up the human/elven/dwarven armies.

BTW, that was an EYE, exactly as its supposed to be. An eye without a lid,
and with flames around the edges. Hence, it is called the Lidless Eye.

> As for special effects, they were -- OK -- in the LotR movie. Some have
> already mentioned the "Gimli the Elf on the Rock Troll's Back" example of
> LotR's CGI blundering.

Like I said above, Gimli is the Dwarf, Legolas is the Elf.

> However a simple comparision of, say, the orcs in
> both movies, leaves one wondering how it is that LotR (which was made
> years AFTER the D&D Movie) could have been so far behind in the FX
> department. The D&D Movie's orcs were *monsters* -- shambling brutes in
> spiked armor who drank grog and carried black maces -- while LotR orcs
> looked more like humans in bad make-up with funny teeth.

Like I said above, have you ever read the LotR books, or ever played a
D&D/AD&D game? There are two different perspectives of orcs.

> Meanwhile the
> much-vaunted "Rock Troll" looked like someone had stolen some files from
> the Harry Potter movie's FX CGI computer. The creeching "ring-wraitgs"
> looked like men in black sheets, stage blood on their horse's hooves
> notwithstanding. And speaking of horses, that ridiculous scene with the
> horses rising up out of the river at Ariel the Elf's "prayer" really
> broke my suspension of disbelief -- fair CGI it may have been, and a
> fantasy movie LotR may profess to be, but some things are so over the top
> that they break one's immersion in the film.

Have you ever read any of the LotR books? Specifically, The Fellowship of
the Ring. There are SUPPOSED TO BE HORSES IN THE WATER. If I remember right,
she isn't praying, she's summoning the spirits of elves (since the river is
a "holy"ish elven river) to come and beat the wraiths. The horses are
spirits of the elves. (And btw, it is Arwen the elf, I believe)

> Meanwhile, The D&D movie contains the famous "Beholder scene", which was
> just long enough to whet our apetites for more skillful FX mastery (an
> astute decision on the part of the director). Never mind the big
> things -- an entire flight of dragons where LotR contained only one
> dragon, which wasn't even supposed to be real but a fireworks illusion
> (nice copout on the part of the director, who SHOULD have been showing
> us at least ONE image of Smaug during the intro) -- it was the
> multitude of LITTLE things that impressed the audiences of the D&D
> Movie.

Umm... LotR *shouldn't* have any dragons in it. Smaug was killed in the
Hobbit, and Smaug wasn't important to the rest of the storyline except as a
reason for Bilbo to be adventuring, and thus find the ring. Why bother
showing him?

If you have EVER played D&D/AD&D, you would know that dragons are POWERFUL,
and VERY RARE. There should be no reason one would find "huge flights" of
dragons except with divine powering. Gandalf was well known in the hobbit
community as, aside from being strange and the adventuring type, very good
at fireworks displays. The dragon firework was intended to be a reference to
Bilbo's adventure with Smaug.

> The blinking of the exotic three-eyed thief looked completely
> fluid and lifelike, for example, and that was something that audiences
> took home with them. When Snails steals a cat from the marketplace, it
> moves just like a real cat would. The Dark Overlord's lieutenant, when
> infected with the magical parasite, exhibits blue veins and other
> symptoms that don't just look spirit-gummed on at all -- they look like
> they are really a part of his body. And let's not forget the magic --
> real blue bolts from staves and wands, none of this "telekinesis" crap
> which the LotR movie expects audiences to not notice are being used as an
> excuse to not have to put in rays, lightning, and other effects. How
> cheap could the director get?

There are two different perspectives on magic in the movies. Some of
Gandalf's magic is visible, his staff's light, etc, but some is not. The
battle between Gandalf and Saruman is more of power versus power. The D&D
magic is usually much much more visible. But like I said, D&D and LotR use
two different views of how magic works.

> Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
> summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
> audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
> counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
> action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
> antics of the lovable Snails? I rest my case.
>
> - Ron ^*^

I think I can best sum it up in the following: please realize the points of
each movie.

-Robert

--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to
anger."
-Gildor, The Fellowship of the Ring


--
"If I had a dollar for every casino in the world, I'd probably lose it all
gambling."
輝aul Bartunek

Jackhammer John

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 10:49:33 AM12/22/01
to
Please tell me you are baiting us or at worst, a troll in a reviewer's
clothing? If you truly believe all that you wrote, please get out of the game.
You are making the rest of us look bad.


========================================
Jackhammer John

"Sometimes the question is more important than the answer."

Bill Silvey

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 11:19:26 AM12/22/01
to

"Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C24C9...@earthlink.net...

> Speaking of Anglophiles, it is clear that the LotR movie is inherently
> racist, while the D&D movie is certainly not.

<snip>

> Meanwhile LotR has
> Galadriel actually *TURNING* *INTO* *A* *BLACK* *WOMAN* when she is
> tempted by the Ring -- but only for a moment, then she "recovers" her
> Whiteness when she overcomes her base emotions. If I were a Black woman
> watching this movie I would be highly offended!

(inasmuch as I hated "Chasing Amy", I've got to do this. Ron, thanks for
the opportunity):

Isn't it true though? Don't all black people really want to be white?

-Bill, who is sad that this isn't IRL so Ron could scream "BLACK R A G E!"
and whip out a pistol and shoot at me.

All kidding aside, how'd you like the movie?

--

Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac.
> The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages
> are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded
> 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford
NOTE: xganon Anon posts are *filtered out*. I will not see your posts if
they originate from xganon.com!

GreatLich

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 12:09:45 PM12/22/01
to

"Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C24C9...@earthlink.net...
[snip rest of obvious troll]

Snails died...

You get points for subtlety on this one, Werebat. Nice...

GreatLich


incrdbil

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 12:44:42 PM12/22/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:55:02 GMT, Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>I know that this may not be a popular opinion amongst Tolkein grognards,
>but the fact is that the D&D Movie was a superior piece of filmcraft in
>almost every regard. I think the future will bear me out on this one.
>

Hmm good troll start.

>Consider -- Tolkein's work itself was never written for the masses. The
>script of the D&D Movie is masterfully written to be accessible to all
>walks of humanity.

Lol, now that's some spin doctoring :)

Meanwhile, Tolkein's story is reserved for the ivory
>towers of an arrogant minority of English teachers and Anglophiles.

wow..talk about some issues:)


>
>Speaking of Anglophiles, it is clear that the LotR movie is inherently
>racist, while the D&D movie is certainly not. Tolkein himself was an
>admitted racist, as evidenced by the completely caucasian ethnicity of
>his characters (with the possible exception of the orcs and goblins, and
>we all know what races of humanity THEY are intended to represent --
>degenerate, fecund, barbaric, and stupid -- pretty thin veil, Mr.
>Tolkein). Sure, LotR has Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits, but they are all
>White.

Ah, the crippled PC review. so far I rate this troll at a 6 out of
10--bringing up the old racism in fantasy card is a bit old.

The D&D movie boldly broke racial barriers by having a Black Elf
>(not a "Drow" but a good Elven woman who happened to be Black), as well
>as the lovable and masterfully played Snails.


But hey, anyone who can type that phrase without convulsions of
laughter deserves an extra troll point.

> I cried when Snails died

So did others, but mostly it was tears of joy by others.


-- I shed nary a tear for Boromir,
>who was really an evil person and would have killed Frodo for the ring if
>he'd had the chance. This sort of glorification of the antihero in our
>movies is what is ruining the fabric of our society today.

Woohoo, now weaving in a grand societal threat to the troll review.
Very Ambitious. 7.5

>Meanwhile the D&D movie has JEREMY IRONS doing a masterful performance as
>an intensely evil overlord of magic -- the intense fury flashing in his
>eyes as he delivers his dire soliloquies is enough to rivet an audience
>in its seats, while in LotR we never even SEE Sauron except as some
>flaming vagina in the sky (an obvious Freudian slip on the part of the
>director).

Flaming Vagina deserves another 1 point.


>
>As for special effects, they were -- OK -- in the LotR movie. Some have
>already mentioned the "Gimli the Elf on the Rock Troll's Back" example of
>LotR's CGI blundering. However a simple comparision of, say, the orcs in
>both movies, leaves one wondering how it is that LotR (which was made
>years AFTER the D&D Movie) could have been so far behind in the FX
>department. The D&D Movie's orcs were *monsters* -- shambling brutes in
>spiked armor who drank grog and carried black maces -- while LotR orcs
>looked more like humans in bad make-up with funny teeth.

Hmm the FX quibble falls apart though--you really can't pull of that
part. -.5 point for that.

And speaking of horses, that ridiculous scene with the
>horses rising up out of the river at Ariel the Elf's "prayer" really
>broke my suspension of disbelief -- fair CGI it may have been, and a
>fantasy movie LotR may profess to be, but some things are so over the top
>that they break one's immersion in the film.

So you say the effect was good, but a magical effect broke suspension
of disbelief? Hmm really bad troll form--you shyoudl have worked in
some sort of PC violation reference. -1 troll point.

>
>Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
>summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
>audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
>counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
>action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
>antics of the lovable Snails? I rest my case.


Good wrap up, giving you a solid 7.5 on the troll-o-meter--more done
to offend the tolkein purists would have worked, but trying to pass
yourself off as a devoted fan of the D&D movie was a bit amusing.

R. Call

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 2:29:41 PM12/22/01
to
ronpo...@earthlink.net (Werebat) wrote in <3C24C9...@earthlink.net>:

This is by far the most skillful troll I have read all week. Well played,
clerks.

Gordon

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 3:19:42 PM12/22/01
to
"Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C24C9...@earthlink.net...
> I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I
> have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.
>
(snipping like a mohel full of Red Bull)

*wipes away a tear*

Oh, dear. Well done, Ron.

--

Gordon

"I have as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."


Stephenls

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 3:40:43 PM12/22/01
to
DUDE!

That rocked. I wonder how long it will last?
--
Stephenls
Geek
We wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for your stupid evil.
--Jhonen Vasquez

Varl

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 4:18:13 PM12/22/01
to
Werebat wrote:
>
> I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I
> have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.

Heh. Now that was subtle! Everyone bow to the Master.

--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.

C. Baize

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 4:28:04 PM12/22/01
to
Werebat wrote:

Please tell me you're kidding... You cried when Snails died? I laughed
uproariously.

>
> who was really an evil person and would have killed Frodo for the ring if
> he'd had the chance. This sort of glorification of the antihero in our
> movies is what is ruining the fabric of our society today.

Uhh....

>
>
> The D&D movie has it over LotR when it comes to actors, as well. LotR
> actors consist mainly of has-been actors and never-was actors; in fact,
> the only actor I remembered in LotR was that puffing guy who played
> Indiana Jones' sidekick (what was his name?) as the Dwarf, Legolas. And

By all that is holy, and most of what is not... Please tell me you did NOT
just call Legolas a dwarf...

>
> even then they made him up so much that he was impossible to recognize.
> Meanwhile the D&D movie has JEREMY IRONS doing a masterful performance as
> an intensely evil overlord of magic -- the intense fury flashing in his
> eyes as he delivers his dire soliloquies is enough to rivet an audience
> in its seats, while in LotR we never even SEE Sauron except as some
> flaming vagina in the sky (an obvious Freudian slip on the part of the
> director).

I'll go out on a limb here, and say that Peter Jackson could NOT POSSIBLY
have strayed that far from the story, no matter how idiotic he is... It was
an unblinking eye, I'll warrant.

>
>
> As for special effects, they were -- OK -- in the LotR movie. Some have
> already mentioned the "Gimli the Elf on the Rock Troll's Back" example of

Again I say, By all that is holy, and most of what is not please tell me you
did NOT just call Gimli an Elf.

>
> LotR's CGI blundering. However a simple comparision of, say, the orcs in
> both movies, leaves one wondering how it is that LotR (which was made
> years AFTER the D&D Movie) could have been so far behind in the FX
> department. The D&D Movie's orcs were *monsters* -- shambling brutes in
> spiked armor who drank grog and carried black maces -- while LotR orcs

D&D Orcs have always looked stupid... I've never used that version of the
Orcs... THEY SUCK.

>
> looked more like humans in bad make-up with funny teeth. Meanwhile the
> much-vaunted "Rock Troll" looked like someone had stolen some files from
> the Harry Potter movie's FX CGI computer. The creeching "ring-wraitgs"
> looked like men in black sheets, stage blood on their horse's hooves
> notwithstanding. And speaking of horses, that ridiculous scene with the
> horses rising up out of the river at Ariel the Elf's "prayer" really

*sigh* Arwen. Dolt.

>
> broke my suspension of disbelief -- fair CGI it may have been, and a
> fantasy movie LotR may profess to be, but some things are so over the top
> that they break one's immersion in the film.

Other than it being Arwen instead of Glorfindel, that is right out of the
book.

>
>
> Meanwhile, The D&D movie contains the famous "Beholder scene", which was

Senseless eyecandy. If they are not going to do anything with the Beholders,
why have them in the story?

>
> just long enough to whet our apetites for more skillful FX mastery (an
> astute decision on the part of the director). Never mind the big

Idiotic.

>
> things -- an entire flight of dragons where LotR contained only one
> dragon, which wasn't even supposed to be real but a fireworks illusion
> (nice copout on the part of the director, who SHOULD have been showing
> us at least ONE image of Smaug during the intro) -- it was the

Why would there be an image of Smaug? Wrong story...

>
> multitude of LITTLE things that impressed the audiences of the D&D
> Movie. The blinking of the exotic three-eyed thief looked completely
> fluid and lifelike, for example, and that was something that audiences

By the Gods... You can't be serious...

>
> took home with them. When Snails steals a cat from the marketplace, it
> moves just like a real cat would. The Dark Overlord's lieutenant, when
> infected with the magical parasite, exhibits blue veins and other
> symptoms that don't just look spirit-gummed on at all -- they look like
> they are really a part of his body. And let's not forget the magic --
> real blue bolts from staves and wands, none of this "telekinesis" crap
> which the LotR movie expects audiences to not notice are being used as an
> excuse to not have to put in rays, lightning, and other effects. How
> cheap could the director get?
>
> Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
> summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
> audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
> counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
> action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
> antics of the lovable Snails? I rest my case.
>
> - Ron ^*^

Oh... Ron...
That explains it....

C. Baize

Werebat

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 4:38:45 PM12/22/01
to
Bill Silvey wrote:
>
> "Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> > If I were a Black woman


> > watching this movie I would be highly offended!
>
> (inasmuch as I hated "Chasing Amy", I've got to do this. Ron, thanks for
> the opportunity):
>
> Isn't it true though? Don't all black people really want to be white?

Not the ones I know...


> -Bill, who is sad that this isn't IRL so Ron could scream "BLACK R A G E!"
> and whip out a pistol and shoot at me.

I never saw "Chasing Amy", so this is lost on me...


> All kidding aside, how'd you like the movie?

I liked it. It had a nice ass.

- Ron ^*^

Werebat

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 4:44:06 PM12/22/01
to
C. Baize wrote:
>
> Werebat wrote:

> > Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
> > summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
> > audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
> > counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
> > action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
> > antics of the lovable Snails? I rest my case.
> >
> > - Ron ^*^
>
> Oh... Ron...
> That explains it....

Yes, well... You should have looked at the header, shouldn't you have?

:^)

- Ron ^*^

C. Baize

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 4:50:23 PM12/22/01
to
Werebat wrote:

My bad. Knee-Jerk reaction...

C. Baize

Guard Cdr

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 5:13:17 PM12/22/01
to
Looking at Werebat's post it makes me wonder why it isn't April 1.

Somehow when the queen is shown as a negative image, it somehow means she was
turned into a Black woman, meaning African ancestry. Truly absurd.

John Reyst

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 5:46:53 PM12/22/01
to
Can you say TROLL???


Bill Silvey

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 6:14:35 PM12/22/01
to

"Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C2528...@earthlink.net...

> Bill Silvey wrote:
> >
> > "Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > > If I were a Black woman
> > > watching this movie I would be highly offended!
> >
> > (inasmuch as I hated "Chasing Amy", I've got to do this. Ron, thanks
for
> > the opportunity):
> >
> > Isn't it true though? Don't all black people really want to be white?
>
> Not the ones I know...
>
>
> > -Bill, who is sad that this isn't IRL so Ron could scream "BLACK R A G
E!"
> > and whip out a pistol and shoot at me.
>
> I never saw "Chasing Amy", so this is lost on me...

LSS: there's a scene in the movie where two of the main characters attend a
discussion panel at a comic book convention. On the panel is a (black)
friend of theirs who draws a comic who's central character is a militant
black-panther type. Their friend isn't like that at all but it makes for
great sales...

So during the course of the panel discussion, they start bombarding him with
stupid questions like "Don't they?" when he raises the topic of black people
wanting to be white. As part of the "act", he flies off the handle at them,
screams "BLACK RAGE!" and whips out a .45 (loaded with blanks) and "shoots"
at them.

> > All kidding aside, how'd you like the movie?
>
> I liked it. It had a nice ass.

Ass shcmass, did you see the rack on it?

Stephenls

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 6:25:04 PM12/22/01
to
John Reyst wrote:

> Can you say TROLL???

Of course we can. We can also say BRAVO. It was a very /good/ troll.

No doubt it will be ensnaring idiots for weeks.

Mad Hamish

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 6:59:33 PM12/22/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 22:46:53 GMT, "John Reyst" <jre...@home.com>
wrote:

>Can you say TROLL???
>
The next D&D campaign I make will include Ron, the god of trolls
--
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the
people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com

Kim Robin Holm

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 7:29:00 PM12/22/01
to
You must have been joking when you wrote this crap, but anyways, here's a
reply.

> I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I
> have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- it was an adequate movie and all, the special
> effects were generally good, the acting fair to average, and the story,
> well, we all know that... But as far as being a "jumpstart" movie to get
> modern producers thinking seriously about fantasy films, I found it to be
> a bit of a disappointment when compared to the recent "Dungeons and
> Dragons" movie.

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!

> I know that this may not be a popular opinion amongst Tolkein grognards,
> but the fact is that the D&D Movie was a superior piece of filmcraft in
> almost every regard. I think the future will bear me out on this one.

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!

> Consider -- Tolkein's work itself was never written for the masses. The
> script of the D&D Movie is masterfully written to be accessible to all
> walks of humanity. Meanwhile, Tolkein's story is reserved for the ivory
> towers of an arrogant minority of English teachers and Anglophiles.

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!

> Speaking of Anglophiles, it is clear that the LotR movie is inherently
> racist, while the D&D movie is certainly not. Tolkein himself was an
> admitted racist, as evidenced by the completely caucasian ethnicity of
> his characters (with the possible exception of the orcs and goblins, and
> we all know what races of humanity THEY are intended to represent --
> degenerate, fecund, barbaric, and stupid -- pretty thin veil, Mr.
> Tolkein). Sure, LotR has Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits, but they are all
> White. The D&D movie boldly broke racial barriers by having a Black Elf
> (not a "Drow" but a good Elven woman who happened to be Black), as well
> as the lovable and masterfully played Snails. Meanwhile LotR has
> Galadriel actually *TURNING* *INTO* *A* *BLACK* *WOMAN* when she is
> tempted by the Ring -- but only for a moment, then she "recovers" her
> Whiteness when she overcomes her base emotions. If I were a Black woman
> watching this movie I would be highly offended!

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! Has anyone here ever heard of a
black elf? No one? I think not.

> As far as characters are concerned, the thing about LotR that really
> jumped out at me was how inefficient and one-sided the characters really
> were. For example, it took LotR over THREE characters -- Samwise, Merry,
> Pippin, and at times Boromir -- to portray mere facets of what was
> masterfully interwoven in the D&D movie as the character of Snails.
> Samwise is the loyal sidekick of the main hero, while Merry and Pippin
> are there mainly for comic relief. Snails did all of this, and he did it
> better! His loyalty was greater than that of Samwise, yet he was much
> more willing to express his autonomy and disagree with his partner -- and
> his comic relief bits were more overblown and frankly funnier to a modern
> audience. Of course, his redemption from his flaws -- his heroic death
> after overcoming his cowardice -- is ultimately more powerfully moving
> than the death of Boromir, due to the audience's greater identification
> with him. I cried when Snails died -- I shed nary a tear for Boromir,
> who was really an evil person and would have killed Frodo for the ring if
> he'd had the chance. This sort of glorification of the antihero in our
> movies is what is ruining the fabric of our society today.

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!

> The D&D movie has it over LotR when it comes to actors, as well. LotR
> actors consist mainly of has-been actors and never-was actors; in fact,
> the only actor I remembered in LotR was that puffing guy who played
> Indiana Jones' sidekick (what was his name?) as the Dwarf, Legolas. And
> even then they made him up so much that he was impossible to recognize.
> Meanwhile the D&D movie has JEREMY IRONS doing a masterful performance as
> an intensely evil overlord of magic -- the intense fury flashing in his
> eyes as he delivers his dire soliloquies is enough to rivet an audience
> in its seats, while in LotR we never even SEE Sauron except as some
> flaming vagina in the sky (an obvious Freudian slip on the part of the
> director).

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! The dwarfs name was Gimli. Legolas
was the elf. The reason you don't see Sauron, is that he can not obtain a
fysical form without the ring.

> As for special effects, they were -- OK -- in the LotR movie. Some have
> already mentioned the "Gimli the Elf on the Rock Troll's Back" example of
> LotR's CGI blundering. However a simple comparision of, say, the orcs in
> both movies, leaves one wondering how it is that LotR (which was made
> years AFTER the D&D Movie) could have been so far behind in the FX
> department. The D&D Movie's orcs were *monsters* -- shambling brutes in
> spiked armor who drank grog and carried black maces -- while LotR orcs
> looked more like humans in bad make-up with funny teeth. Meanwhile the
> much-vaunted "Rock Troll" looked like someone had stolen some files from
> the Harry Potter movie's FX CGI computer. The creeching "ring-wraitgs"
> looked like men in black sheets, stage blood on their horse's hooves
> notwithstanding. And speaking of horses, that ridiculous scene with the
> horses rising up out of the river at Ariel the Elf's "prayer" really
> broke my suspension of disbelief -- fair CGI it may have been, and a
> fantasy movie LotR may profess to be, but some things are so over the top
> that they break one's immersion in the film.

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! That's Legolas the elf, cave troll,
cave troll and Arwen the Elf.

> Meanwhile, The D&D movie contains the famous "Beholder scene", which was
> just long enough to whet our apetites for more skillful FX mastery (an
> astute decision on the part of the director). Never mind the big
> things -- an entire flight of dragons where LotR contained only one
> dragon, which wasn't even supposed to be real but a fireworks illusion
> (nice copout on the part of the director, who SHOULD have been showing
> us at least ONE image of Smaug during the intro) -- it was the
> multitude of LITTLE things that impressed the audiences of the D&D
> Movie. The blinking of the exotic three-eyed thief looked completely
> fluid and lifelike, for example, and that was something that audiences
> took home with them. When Snails steals a cat from the marketplace, it
> moves just like a real cat would. The Dark Overlord's lieutenant, when
> infected with the magical parasite, exhibits blue veins and other
> symptoms that don't just look spirit-gummed on at all -- they look like
> they are really a part of his body. And let's not forget the magic --
> real blue bolts from staves and wands, none of this "telekinesis" crap
> which the LotR movie expects audiences to not notice are being used as an
> excuse to not have to put in rays, lightning, and other effects. How
> cheap could the director get?

The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!

> Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
> summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
> audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
> counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
> action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
> antics of the lovable Snails? I rest my case.

My general argument against this post is: The Dungeons and Dragons movie
sucked!!!

PS. You can't possibly have been of sane mind while posting this thread. I
forgive you though, as you I'm sure you are joking. You have to be. This is
some sort of twisted joke to piss people of right?

Kim Robin Holm


Sea Wasp

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 7:30:50 PM12/22/01
to
Kim Robin Holm wrote:

> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! Has anyone here ever heard of a
> black elf? No one? I think not.

Record of Lodoss Wars. Pirotess.


>
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! The dwarfs name was Gimli. Legolas
> was the elf. The reason you don't see Sauron, is that he can not obtain a
> fysical form without the ring.

Untrue. He most certainly CAN assume physical form without the Ring (in
the book, he apparently grilled Gollum in person about the whereabouts
of "Precious".). What he cannot do any more (since the last time his
butt got whipped) is assume a fair form -- one that doesn't reveal in
its external appearance the nastiness that lies within.


>
> PS. You can't possibly have been of sane mind while posting this thread.

He certainly was.

I
> forgive you though, as you I'm sure you are joking. You have to be. This is
> some sort of twisted joke to piss people of right?

Yes. That's called a "troll", and Ron/Werebat is the living God of
Trolls.

By responding in an even half-serious manner, you have become part of
the Catch of the Day.

--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html

Jeff Heikkinen

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 7:53:20 PM12/22/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:38:45 GMT, ronpo...@earthlink.net said...
> Bill Silvey wrote:

>
> > All kidding aside, how'd you like the movie?
>
> I liked it. It had a nice ass.

Anyone's in paticular?

Jeff Heikkinen

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 7:54:00 PM12/22/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:55:02 GMT, ronpo...@earthlink.net said...

<One of Ron's best trolls yet>

ROTFLMAO! For about two paragraphs, you actually had me going!

William Lessard

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 9:27:26 PM12/22/01
to
Kim Robin Holm wrote:

> black elf? No one? I think not.

Can you say Drow? I knew you could that is why the D&D movie sucked as
well.

Bramage


--
Fraternally
William Lessard
Ezekiel Bates Lodge AF&AM Attleboro Mass
Wayne Lodge #112 F&AM Michigan
Master Mason
Royal Arch Mason
Humble (usually) student of life
Do one good selfless act for a fellow human every day
Taoist
Federal Law allows for compensation of upto $500 per unsolicited E-mail.
Any person or company sending me e-mail soliciting any service or
product agrees
to this per e-mail charge of $500.

Steve Jaros

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 10:38:36 PM12/22/01
to
Well werebat, you sure caught a netfull...

--
Robert Waltz, Mr. "Rational", on how to fix women's tennis:

"I say the WTA should hold a player's height and racquet length to
some constant. Davenport and Venus would have to play with shorter
racquets than Hingis or Coetzer or ASV".


"Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:3C24C9...@earthlink.net...

Thubb Chubo

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 11:19:24 PM12/22/01
to
Steve Jaros wrote:
>
> Well werebat, you sure caught a netfull...

I can't believe that in all of this "best fantasy film" conversation,
no one has cited that fine piece of celluloid "Troll," not to mention
"The Dungeon Master"--both by the same company, if memory serves.

Thubb

Malachias Invictus

unread,
Dec 22, 2001, 11:33:28 PM12/22/01
to

"Kim Robin Holm" <cara...@darkisp.net> wrote in message
news:rx9V7.7979$KQ3....@news1.oke.nextra.no...

> You must have been joking when you wrote this crap, but anyways, here's a
> reply.
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! Has anyone here ever heard of a
> black elf? No one? I think not.
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! The dwarfs name was Gimli.
Legolas
> was the elf. The reason you don't see Sauron, is that he can not obtain a
> fysical form without the ring.
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! That's Legolas the elf, cave
troll,
> cave troll and Arwen the Elf.
> The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!
> My general argument against this post is: The Dungeons and Dragons movie
> sucked!!!
>
> PS. You can't possibly have been of sane mind while posting this thread. I
> forgive you though, as you I'm sure you are joking. You have to be. This
is
> some sort of twisted joke to piss people of right?

So, Kim, what did you think of the Dungeons and Dragons movie? By that way,
kewl points to you for your spelling of "physical."

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley


Hekate Trismegista

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 12:12:10 AM12/23/01
to

Werebat wrote:
>
> > Oh... Ron...
> > That explains it....
>
> Yes, well... You should have looked at the header, shouldn't you have?

See, I'm impressed with his willingness to go ahead and post after
reaching the very end and realizing what was up.

Unless he was trolling your troll.

--
Watch This Space | res0...@verizon.net | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "No turning on the lights in the evil room,
dammit!" | -- http://www.sluggy.com

Hekate Trismegista

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 12:13:20 AM12/23/01
to

Stephenls wrote:
>
> John Reyst wrote:
>
> > Can you say TROLL???
>
> Of course we can. We can also say BRAVO. It was a very /good/ troll.
>
> No doubt it will be ensnaring idiots for weeks.

In six months, someone will find it laying around on their news server
and post a lovingly crafted yet barely literate flame with dozens of
exclamation marks and unintentional homages to B1ff. Mark my words.

Hong Ooi

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 12:43:11 AM12/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 05:12:10 GMT, Hekate Trismegista <res0...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Werebat wrote:
>>
>> > Oh... Ron...
>> > That explains it....
>>
>> Yes, well... You should have looked at the header, shouldn't you have?
>
>See, I'm impressed with his willingness to go ahead and post after
>reaching the very end and realizing what was up.
>
>Unless he was trolling your troll.

Personally, I just think Baize's backspace key is broken.


Hong "better than his CAPS LOCK key, I guess" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "Usually you're a funny guy Hong. Here
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | you're just being petty and trollish."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- BWS
Sydney, Australia |

Lizard

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 1:27:40 AM12/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:25:04 -0800, Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>John Reyst wrote:
>
>> Can you say TROLL???
>
>Of course we can. We can also say BRAVO. It was a very /good/ troll.
>

Bah.

Am I the only person on the planet who finds Ron's trolls puerile and
obvious?

Apparently so.

We had real trolls back in my day, Sonny...pass me the metamucil...
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com

Lizard

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 2:30:18 AM12/23/01
to
Well, so much for my theory that Ron's troll was so obvious and
blatant that no one would fall for it.

PT Barnum had too lofty a view of humanity.

Ed Chauvin IV

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 2:49:37 AM12/23/01
to
Mere moments before death, Hekate Trismegista hastily scrawled:
>-n-s-x-m-n-h-,-s-m-o-e-w-l- -i-d-i- -a-i-g-a-o-n- -n-t-e-r-n-w- -e-v-r
>-n- -o-t-a-l-v-n-l- -r-f-e- -e- -a-e-y-l-t-r-t- -l-m- -i-h-d-z-n- -f
>-x-l-m-t-o- -a-k- -n- -n-n-e-t-o-a- -o-a-e- -o-B-f-.-M-r- -y-w-r-s-

OK, consider your words marked.

Ed Chauvin IV

--

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

Hekate Trismegista

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 3:26:03 AM12/23/01
to

Lizard wrote:
>
> Well, so much for my theory that Ron's troll was so obvious and
> blatant that no one would fall for it.
> PT Barnum had too lofty a view of humanity.

Ron could post his message under the name and title "This is a troll,
don't even bother to read," and he'd net more than his fair share.

Bokman7757

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 3:32:28 AM12/23/01
to
>From: Lizard liz...@mrlizard.com

>Bah.
>
>Am I the only person on the planet who finds Ron's trolls puerile and
>obvious?
>
>Apparently so.
>
>We had real trolls back in my day, Sonny...pass me the metamucil...
>*-----------------------------------------

You can't argue with results, at least as far as trolls go...

Chop Suey Fiend

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 4:41:19 AM12/23/01
to
i agree the LotR movie was a dissapointment. i understand they are making a
movie for every book but that is one long movie to set through with no closure
what so ever. but i also found the D&D movie to be lacking it was entirely too
cliche and i found it to be rather disturbing, the plot was weak and full of
wholes, and the acting was terrible. i feel both movies could use some work,
but then again i doubt ne movie of the fantasy roleplaying or fanasty world
setting will ever live up to my standards.

Jacob Coughlan

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 5:30:46 AM12/23/01
to
I was considering critiqueing this "review" point by point, but it is
undeserving of my time.

Two things are obvious:

1) You haven't read the Lord of the Rings books.

Otherwise you might understand the reason for all these silly plot devices,
they're straight from the book.
For example the choice of design for the orcs was made because that's how
they are described by Tolkien.
BTW: Tolkien was NOT a racist and your superficial view of black and white
makes you seem a lot more racist
to me. The fact that the characters all have white skin is just because it
was written as an archetypal fantasy world,
one that doesn't have Africans, Asians OR Caucasians, they're just Hobbits,
Elves etc. There are no black heroes
in LOTR because racial issues were not on Tolkien's mind when he wrote the
books: it's just fantasy.

2) You haven't seen the D&D movie.

Otherwise you would surely have seen that the acting was woeful (the great
Jeremy Irons, and I am a fan, didn't
put in any effort, just enough to get paid), the scripting was laughable (oh
look, the most powerful artefact in the
world is guarded by... nothing) and the "amazing" special effects were
wasted. These Beholders you rave about,
what did they do? Bobbed around a bit.... oooh! A few dragons fighting,
big whoop!
The D&D movie was crap. Hollywood tripe that didn't appeal to fans and
didn't appeal to a mass market either.
Crap.


Jacob Coughlan

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 5:37:29 AM12/23/01
to
Hmm.... That's the last time I reply to a message without expanding and
reading the replies first. There are trolls under the bridge.


Rob Bruce

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:08:32 AM12/23/01
to
Good Lord Ron (which can be read at least 2 ways....)

I assume you are upset at the lack of a troll in LotR and are applying for
the position.

Rob


<snip a masterful summary from Ron praising everything people hated about
DnD the Movie, playing up every criticism people have of LotR and throwing
in every other controversy short of the grassy gnoll (yes, with a g not a
k)>


Kaos

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:37:17 AM12/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 03:38:36 GMT, "Steve Jaros" <sja...@home.com>
wrote:

>Well werebat, you sure caught a netfull...

Riiiiiiggggghhhhht.

Put the hero worship aside, he panned this one.
The script was good, but he should have used a sockpuppet for the
delivery. Werebat was *too* obvous.
--
Can't tell one side from the other...
they're all jerks.

Kaos

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:37:16 AM12/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 22:46:53 GMT, "John Reyst" <jre...@home.com>
wrote:

>Can you say TROLL???

No. Can you give me a pronounciation guide?

Preferably in two syllable chunks, I have difficulty with some of the
monosyllabic variants.

Kaos

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 6:37:16 AM12/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:55:02 GMT, Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>The D&D movie has it over LotR when it comes to actors, as well. LotR
>actors consist mainly of has-been actors and never-was actors; in fact,
>the only actor I remembered in LotR was that puffing guy who played
>Indiana Jones' sidekick (what was his name?) as the Dwarf, Legolas. And
>even then they made him up so much that he was impossible to recognize.

Rule #1:
Do Not Pick On the Dwarf. Unless you want to be a halfling
yourself...

And on that note you missed the biggest flaw in the movie. Everyone
kept getting his name wrong, they were all calling him Saruman. No
dwarf would have stood for that.

gent

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 7:20:49 AM12/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:55:02 GMT, Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I

>have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.

> - Ron ^*^

Nice troll :)

Kim Robin Holm

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 7:33:10 AM12/23/01
to

"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:3C2526...@wizvax.net...

> Kim Robin Holm wrote:
>
> > The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! Has anyone here ever heard of a
> > black elf? No one? I think not.
>
> Record of Lodoss Wars. Pirotess.

Never head about that. Sorry.

>
> >
> > The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!! The dwarfs name was Gimli.
Legolas
> > was the elf. The reason you don't see Sauron, is that he can not obtain
a
> > fysical form without the ring.
>
> Untrue. He most certainly CAN assume physical form without the Ring (in
> the book, he apparently grilled Gollum in person about the whereabouts
> of "Precious".). What he cannot do any more (since the last time his
> butt got whipped) is assume a fair form -- one that doesn't reveal in
> its external appearance the nastiness that lies within.

I guess you might be right, but I still think this can be read in different
ways. Might be my bad memory, but I can not remember Sauron himself grilled
Gollum. Wasn't that his orcs or something?

>
> >
> > PS. You can't possibly have been of sane mind while posting this thread.
>
> He certainly was.
>
> I
> > forgive you though, as you I'm sure you are joking. You have to be. This
is
> > some sort of twisted joke to piss people of right?
>
> Yes. That's called a "troll", and Ron/Werebat is the living God of
> Trolls.

Ok, he's a troll.

> By responding in an even half-serious manner, you have become part of
> the Catch of the Day.

I have no clue as to what "the Catch of the Day" is, but either I'm sure I'm
honored. At least I think so.....

Kim Robin Holm

Kim Robin Holm

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 7:36:20 AM12/23/01
to

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%3dV7.358$Ze5....@news.abs.net...

Hehe, I really wasn't joking when I said that the Dungeons and Dragon movie
sucked, so I say: The Dungeons and Dragons movie sucked!!!
As for my spellign of physical, I may have in more of Norwegian matter.
Without knowing it myself, surely.... Yeah that's right.

Kim Robin Holm

Horsepool

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 7:59:03 AM12/23/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:55:02 GMT, Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
*snip*

>I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I
>have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.
>
>Don't get me wrong -- it was an adequate movie and all, the special
>effects were generally good, the acting fair to average, and the story,
>well, we all know that... But as far as being a "jumpstart" movie to get
>modern producers thinking seriously about fantasy films, I found it to be
>a bit of a disappointment when compared to the recent...
*snip*

Good post untill that point. i was really disapointed when i continued
and saw,

*snip*
>..."Dungeons and Dragons" movie.
*snip*

at that percise point i knew it was a troll. quite a shame. it looked
so promising...

Horsepool
"You open the box, contained within is a larger box."

Steve Jaros

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 9:27:46 AM12/23/01
to
I ain't saying it was a good fish, but you can't argue with the results.

"Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:kgfb2uskmi61o651s...@4ax.com...

Werebat

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 10:14:08 AM12/23/01
to
Rob Bruce wrote:
>
> Good Lord Ron (which can be read at least 2 ways....)
>
> I assume you are upset at the lack of a troll in LotR and are applying for
> the position.

Actually there was a cave troll...

- Ron ^*^

(Who loved Boromir's line, "They've got a cave troll (Great! What
next?))

Varl

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 10:47:21 AM12/23/01
to
Jacob Coughlan wrote:
>
> Hmm.... That's the last time I reply to a message without expanding and
> reading the replies first. There are trolls under the bridge.

Heh heh...

--
The best interpretation of a rule is the one you make yourself.

Varl

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 10:51:47 AM12/23/01
to
Werebat wrote:

> Actually there was a cave troll...
>
> - Ron ^*^
>
> (Who loved Boromir's line, "They've got a cave troll (Great! What
> next?))

I did. I liked how he said it as a matter of factly while barring the
door...with a rolling eyes, sarcastic "this is perfect", kind of
reaction. His voiced changed several octaves which helped enhances his
thoughts on the matter. Classic. :)

David Trimboli

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 11:01:27 AM12/23/01
to
"Werebat" <ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C261F...@earthlink.net...

They also showed two of the three stone trolls that Bilbo had encountered,
though they're pretty hard to see.

David
Stardate 1978.6


Sarah Strutz

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 12:33:42 PM12/23/01
to
We are ALL Ron


Sarah
loooong time no posty
"I mock you with my monkey pants!" -Oz

Werebat

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 1:20:13 PM12/23/01
to
Varl wrote:
>
> Werebat wrote:
>
> > Actually there was a cave troll...
> >
> > - Ron ^*^
> >
> > (Who loved Boromir's line, "They've got a cave troll (Great! What
> > next?))
>
> I did. I liked how he said it as a matter of factly while barring the
> door...with a rolling eyes, sarcastic "this is perfect", kind of
> reaction. His voiced changed several octaves which helped enhances his
> thoughts on the matter. Classic. :)

Exactly. That one line was more D&D than the D&D movie ever was.

- Ron ^*^

Lizard

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 2:17:33 PM12/23/01
to
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:14:08 GMT, Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Rob Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Good Lord Ron (which can be read at least 2 ways....)
>>
>> I assume you are upset at the lack of a troll in LotR and are applying for
>> the position.
>
>Actually there was a cave troll...
>

Hm. I think YHBT. HAND.

Hekate Trismegista

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 3:20:43 PM12/23/01
to

Steve Jaros wrote:
>
> I ain't saying it was a good fish, but you can't argue with the results.

Kaos' post aside, Ron's best trolls are those where he *doesn't* use
sockpuppets...and still nets a few.

C. Baize

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 4:38:56 PM12/23/01
to
Malachias Invictus wrote:

>
> So, Kim, what did you think of the Dungeons and Dragons movie? By that way,
> kewl points to you for your spelling of "physical."
>

> --
> ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
>
> It matters not how strait the gate,
> How charged with punishments the scroll,
> I am the Master of my fate:
> I am the Captain of my soul.
>
> from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

She spelled it funetikle.

C. Baize

Rob Mitchell

unread,
Dec 23, 2001, 8:53:25 PM12/23/01
to
In article <3C24C9...@earthlink.net>, Werebat
<ronpo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Well, the list goes on and on, but in the end I think it can be best
> summed up but the following: which movie is going to impress the modern
> audience more, the 3-hour monstrosity that will have most of the people
> counting down the minutes until they can use the toilet, or the fun,
> action-packed fantasy romp which includes Jeremy Irons AND the hilarious
> antics of the lovable Snails?

Hmmm, unusually for me in a movie theater, I didn't look at my watch once
during the entire film. And I did indeed need to go to the bathroom
rather badly during the last hour of it, but I didn't leave my seat. ;-)

Rob

Kaos

unread,
Dec 25, 2001, 4:16:24 AM12/25/01
to

A troll should actually fool people. Not get a thousand responses of
"nice one, Ron."

Unless, of course, he was being completely serious... and relying on
his reputation to make it appear as though he was spouting bullshit.

Kaos

unread,
Dec 25, 2001, 4:16:24 AM12/25/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 23:30:18 -0800, Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com>
wrote:

>Well, so much for my theory that Ron's troll was so obvious and
>blatant that no one would fall for it.

This is in response to what?

Bokman7757

unread,
Dec 25, 2001, 11:40:20 PM12/25/01
to
>From: Kaos ka...@ecn.ab.ca

>>>Bah.
>>>
>>>Am I the only person on the planet who finds Ron's trolls puerile and
>>>obvious?
>>>
>>>Apparently so.
>>>
>>>We had real trolls back in my day, Sonny...pass me the metamucil...
>>>*-----------------------------------------
>>
>>You can't argue with results, at least as far as trolls go...
>
>A troll should actually fool people. Not get a thousand responses of
>"nice one, Ron."

But he has fooled people. Several times. Look at that "Why I Have Given Up D&D"
thread. To a lot of regulars, a patently obvious troll, he even signed his name
to it- but it still snared plenty of rubes.

Kaos

unread,
Dec 26, 2001, 3:19:36 AM12/26/01
to
On 26 Dec 2001 04:40:20 GMT, bokma...@aol.com (Bokman7757) wrote:

>>From: Kaos ka...@ecn.ab.ca
>
>>>>Bah.
>>>>
>>>>Am I the only person on the planet who finds Ron's trolls puerile and
>>>>obvious?
>>>>
>>>>Apparently so.
>>>>
>>>>We had real trolls back in my day, Sonny...pass me the metamucil...
>>>>*-----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>You can't argue with results, at least as far as trolls go...
>>
>>A troll should actually fool people. Not get a thousand responses of
>>"nice one, Ron."
>
>But he has fooled people. Several times.

But this time?

>Look at that "Why I Have Given Up D&D"
>thread.

Yes, *that* one was well-done. Compared to that, this one was...
well, not up to standard.

Robert Baldwin

unread,
Dec 27, 2001, 5:08:48 PM12/27/01
to
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 14:55:02 GMT, Werebat <ronpo...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>I saw the much-hyped "Lord of the Rings" movie on opening night, and I

>have to say that I did find it to be a bit disappointing.

<snip, cut the line>

Disappointed? With such an opportunity for trolling? :-)

--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"So here we are going into battle, butt freaking naked.
What's wrong with this picture?"
Nene Romanova
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply

0 new messages