Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH!
Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #58760] Do, 09 Juni 2005 21:54
Louis Epstein  
In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
(Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.

Step by step the desecrations get demoted...

NO MAN (OR WOMAN) COMETH TO MIDDLE-EARTH SAVE THROUGH THE **BOOKS!!**

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #58948 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 04:59
Cheeze  
First jackson film? You mean Frighteners? :-)

Louis Epstein wrote:
> In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
> blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
> (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
> It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
> the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
> counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
>
> Step by step the desecrations get demoted...
>
> NO MAN (OR WOMAN) COMETH TO MIDDLE-EARTH SAVE THROUGH THE **BOOKS!!**
>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60091 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 21:34
Beeblebear  
"Cheeze" <csmarasigan [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118372370.032602.260790 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> First jackson film? You mean Frighteners? :-)
>
The first Jackson film was Bad Taste, followed by Meet the Feebles,
Braindead, Heavenly Creatures, then The Frighteners. After that he started
working on the fine and upstanding Lord of the Rings trilogy.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clythJFK [at] ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)

Jimi Hendrix's modem was a Purple Hayes.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60092 ] Fr, 10 Juni 2005 23:16
Flame of the West  
Louis Epstein wrote:

> In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
> blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
> (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
> It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
> the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
> counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
>
> Step by step the desecrations get demoted...

This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
series that will come close is Narnia.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60093 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 02:12
the softrat  
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:16:23 -0400, Flame of the West
<jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
>on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
>the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
>series that will come close is Narnia.
>
"So it shall be written! So it shall be done!" -- The Ten Commandments

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard. --
Steven Wright
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60094 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 02:55
Yuk Tang  
Louis Epstein <le [at] main.put.com> wrote in news:3tGdneXIFO4MAzXfRVn-
gQ [at] velocitywest.net:
>
> In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
> blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
> (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
> It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
> the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
> counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
>
> Step by step the desecrations get demoted...

NB. The same reviewer gave Ep I 9.5/10, and Ep II 8/10.

http://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyrealm/reviews/revengeofthe sith.html

'And so after nearly 30 years, the film saga that literally changed
the way movies were made and which has come to define the
entertainment lives of two generations finally finishes where it
began: with a menacing figure dressed in black, a boy named Luke, and
girl named Leia. Revenge of the Sith could justifiably be called the
most anticipated film of the past two decades, and it has indeed
earned much praise as a satisfying - and surprisingly violent -
conclusion to the series. No review of this film will matter to its
fan base, of course, but nevertheless, somebody has to call it like
it is: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith also happens to be
the single most expensive Grade Z movie ever made.

'I have to cling to such things, and all of the good karma the movie
automatically gets from a lifetime of fandom. George Lucas and
company haven't given me any choice in the matter but to treat the
movie as an exercise in enjoyable badness. Were one to hold Revenge
of the Sith up against standards such as quality of acting, quality
of screenplay, and quality of visual effects... at that point, one
would be forced to conclude that the movie's actually pretty bad, and
no fan wants to do that.

'On the one hand, Hayden Christensen does do a better job of acting
here than he did in Attack of the Clones. On the other hand, the laws
of probability essentially guarantee this as a matter of mathematical
certainty, for how could he possibly do any worse? As I'm sure is
apparent by now, "better" does not equal "good", for not only does
Christensen demonstrate that he remains incapable of acting his way
out of a paper bag, but he also goes out of his way to show that he
probably couldn't even act his way into one. Amazingly, it gets even
worse when he stops whining and goes into cold-and-deadly mode,
making some wonder if the aforementioned laws of probability are
truly unbreakable after all.

'Apparently, the will of Natalie Portman isn't, because she's given
up any pretense of "acting" here in favor of a continuous stream of
failed soap opera auditions. Not that the dialogue she's being forced
to spew is any help, of course - do I even need to bring up "Hold me
like you did on Naboo!"? What about the squealed "You're breaking my
heart!"?

'For all of its flaws - and they are almost countless - Revenge of
the Sith nevertheless is the movie that fans have been waiting for
all their lives. Is it a worthy closure to a saga that began with
such greatness? In the end, that's not a fair question to ask. What
matters is that we got to see how the bad guys won, how Vader got his
mask, and how 3P0 managed to conveniently have no idea who Obi-Wan
Kenobi was upon returning to Tattooine all those years later. Sure,
Revenge of the Sith is a bad movie - there is simply no way to
objectively deny the fact - but that doesn't take away from its
ability to be enjoyed in the right frame of mind, and that is the
very essence of Grade Z.'


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60098 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 03:40
Cheeze  
Lunch box sales should also be counted.

Does everyone here have high hopes for the Narnia movie? Will they do
all 7?


Flame of the West wrote:
> Louis Epstein wrote:
>
> > In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
> > blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
> > (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
> > It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
> > the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
> > counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
> >
> > Step by step the desecrations get demoted...
>
> This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
> on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
> the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
> series that will come close is Narnia.
>
>
> -- FotW
>
> Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60099 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 04:03
nanderson  
Louis Epstein wrote:
> In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
> blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
> (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
> It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
> the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
> counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
>
> Step by step the desecrations get demoted...
>
>

Get.

A.

Life.

Neil Anderson
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60100 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 04:58
the softrat  
On 10 Jun 2005 19:03:18 -0700, nanderson [at] transact.bm wrote:
>Louis Epstein wrote:
>> In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
>> blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
>> (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
>> It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
>> the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
>> counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
>>
>> Step by step the desecrations get demoted...
>
>Get.
>
>A.
>
>Life.
>
>Neil Anderson

How about you, Neil? Are you gonna get one too or are you gonna spend
eternity feeding trolls?

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60102 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 05:13
Morgil  
Beeblebear wrote:
> "Cheeze" <csmarasigan [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118372370.032602.260790 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>First jackson film? You mean Frighteners? :-)
>>
>
> The first Jackson film was Bad Taste, followed by Meet the Feebles,
> Braindead, Heavenly Creatures, then The Frighteners. After that he started
> working on the fine and upstanding Lord of the Rings trilogy.

When will that come out? <g>

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60103 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 05:32
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:

> http://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyrealm/reviews/revengeofthe sith.html

<snip>

> 'For all of its flaws - and they are almost countless - Revenge of
> the Sith nevertheless is the movie that fans have been waiting for
> all their lives. Is it a worthy closure to a saga that began with
> such greatness? In the end, that's not a fair question to ask. What
> matters is that we got to see how the bad guys won, how Vader got his
> mask, and how 3P0 managed to conveniently have no idea who Obi-Wan
> Kenobi was upon returning to Tattooine all those years later. Sure,
> Revenge of the Sith is a bad movie - there is simply no way to
> objectively deny the fact - but that doesn't take away from its
> ability to be enjoyed in the right frame of mind, and that is the
> very essence of Grade Z.'

Finally an explanation why Two Towers and Return of the King
were so popular!! Grade Z - what an excellent term. :)

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60104 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 05:52
Morgil  
Flame of the West wrote:

> This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
> on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
> the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
> series that will come close is Narnia.

So it doesn't matter how crappy the movie is, as long as it
managed to sell a lot of DVDs once? Talk about foolish...

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60105 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 09:40
Flame of the West  
Morgil wrote:

>> This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
>> on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
>> the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
>> series that will come close is Narnia.
>
>
> So it doesn't matter how crappy the movie is, as long as it
> managed to sell a lot of DVDs once? Talk about foolish...

I agree with you, but I was replying to Louis, whose
"Congratulations" posts are always about popularity
rather than quality.


-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60107 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 10:25
Morgil  
Flame of the West wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>>> This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
>>> on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
>>> the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
>>> series that will come close is Narnia.
>>
>>
>>
>> So it doesn't matter how crappy the movie is, as long as it
>> managed to sell a lot of DVDs once? Talk about foolish...
>
>
> I agree with you, but I was replying to Louis, whose
> "Congratulations" posts are always about popularity
> rather than quality.

But how do you figure you can determine long-time popularity
from short-time DVD sales? It makes no sense.

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60114 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 05:55
Louis Epstein  
In alt.fan.tolkien Flame of the West <jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote:
: Morgil wrote:
:
:>> This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
:>> on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
:>> the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
:>> series that will come close is Narnia.
:>
:>
:> So it doesn't matter how crappy the movie is, as long as it
:> managed to sell a lot of DVDs once? Talk about foolish...
:
: I agree with you, but I was replying to Louis, whose
: "Congratulations" posts are always about popularity
: rather than quality.

I love seeing certain items of insufficient quality
defeated in popularity contests.

: -- FotW
:
: Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.

Middle-Earth is encountered through books,not movies.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60115 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 09:06
Media Fiend  
You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty (for
modern cinema, anyway).

has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60117 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 13:31
Morgil  
Media Fiend wrote:
> You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty (for
> modern cinema, anyway).

Even the modern cinema is not at that bad state.

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60119 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 14:39
Yuk Tang  
Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d8h6ek$que$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Media Fiend wrote:
>
>> You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty
>> (for modern cinema, anyway).
>
> Even the modern cinema is not at that bad state.

Have you seen Revenge of the Sith?


--
Cheers, ymt.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60120 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 15:01
Morgil  
Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:d8h6ek$que$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>Media Fiend wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty
>>>(for modern cinema, anyway).
>>
>>Even the modern cinema is not at that bad state.
>
>
> Have you seen Revenge of the Sith?

Have you seen LotR?

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60121 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 15:54
samdekat  
Media Fiend wrote:
> You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty (for
> modern cinema, anyway).
>

"pure majesty?"

LOTR is a bit of light hearted fun to see on an evening when you can't
cope with something intellectually or emotionally challenging. A sort
of 'Pirates of the Caribbean" but set on land. Nothing wrong with that
as a genre or as a reason to see a movie. But if you choose to describe
movies such as those with superlatives like "pure majesty" what is left
for describing movies that are actually good or even excellent?
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60125 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 18:35
Louis Epstein  
In alt.fan.tolkien Media Fiend <media_fiend [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
: You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty (for
: modern cinema, anyway).

The book is pure majesty.
The film,however good it may be as a film,
is massively less than the book and destroys
all chance millions will ever have of learning
the story of the book FROM the book,the only
way anyone ever ought to.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60129 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 21:19
Christopher Kreuzer  
the softrat <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote:

<snip>

> How about you, Neil? Are you gonna get one too or are you gonna spend
> eternity feeding trolls?

Hmm. A new definition of hell:

"Stuck on a Usenet populated entirely by trolls".
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60131 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 21:34
Christopher Kreuzer  
Louis Epstein <le [at] main.put.com> wrote:
> In alt.fan.tolkien Media Fiend <media_fiend [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty
>> (for modern cinema, anyway).
>
> The book is pure majesty.
> The film,however good it may be as a film,
> is massively less than the book and destroys
> all chance millions will ever have of learning
> the story of the book FROM the book,the only
> way anyone ever ought to.

This seems to be one of your better arguments. But surely those who
would have read the books (without the films) will _still_ read the
books (even after seeing the films). What percentage of those who would
have read the books, do you think will watch the films and think "I'm
not going to read the books"?

I'm not interested in the weaker version of your argument that says that
the film will spoil the later reading experience. The film is so
different to the books, and misses out so much of the essence of the
books, that I don't think it will make that much difference (though
maybe a small difference).

I'm only interested in how many people you think will consciously decide
NOT to read the books, after seeing the films. Remembering to ignore
those who have forgotten what a book is.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60132 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 21:38
Christopher Kreuzer  
Sam's the little guy <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> LOTR is a bit of light hearted fun to see on an evening when you can't
> cope with something intellectually or emotionally challenging. A sort
> of 'Pirates of the Caribbean" but set on land. Nothing wrong with that
> as a genre or as a reason to see a movie. But if you choose to
> describe movies such as those with superlatives like "pure majesty"
> what is left for describing movies that are actually good or even
> excellent?

I agree with you about the LotR films, but now that you have set the
standard for your level of "light-hearted fun", what examples can you
give of "good" or "excellent" films? Within the fantasy genre, or giving
examples outside the fantasy genre if you think the whole fantasy film
genre is rubbish.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60133 ] So, 12 Juni 2005 21:40
Jette Goldie  
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cV%qe.49424$G8.14092 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> the softrat <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > How about you, Neil? Are you gonna get one too or are you gonna
spend
> > eternity feeding trolls?
>
> Hmm. A new definition of hell:
>
> "Stuck on a Usenet populated entirely by trolls".
>
>

Ah, alt.battlestar-galactica then?


--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60145 ] Mo, 13 Juni 2005 01:46
Beeblebear  
"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8hbng$thq$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:d8h6ek$que$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>>>Media Fiend wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty
>>>>(for modern cinema, anyway).
>>>
>>>Even the modern cinema is not at that bad state.
>>
>>
>> Have you seen Revenge of the Sith?
>
> Have you seen LotR?
>

Yes, it is a very good trilogy of films.
RotS on the other hand is a steaming pile of excrement.
--
--
Chris Lyth (clythJFK [at] ifis.org.uk - shoot the president to reply)

Old Age Comes at a Bad Time
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60147 ] Mo, 13 Juni 2005 03:28
samdekat  
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Sam's the little guy <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > LOTR is a bit of light hearted fun to see on an evening when you can't
> > cope with something intellectually or emotionally challenging. A sort
> > of 'Pirates of the Caribbean" but set on land. Nothing wrong with that
> > as a genre or as a reason to see a movie. But if you choose to
> > describe movies such as those with superlatives like "pure majesty"
> > what is left for describing movies that are actually good or even
> > excellent?
>
> I agree with you about the LotR films, but now that you have set the
> standard for your level of "light-hearted fun", what examples can you
> give of "good" or "excellent" films?

IMO Good films in the light-hearted fun style include "The Blues
Brothers", "The Dish" and "Strictly Ballroom". The last, in
particular, benefits from the ability to suspend a little disbelief in
favour of spectacle.

Pirates of the Caribbean is in itself a well made movie - it recognises
the limitations of it's own credibility and doesn't take itself too
seriously. I think that the LOTR series could well have benefitted from
a little more self deprecating humour - it appears to the viewer like
the director and script writer imagine they are telling a powerful
story with engaging characters, when in reality, it is simply
boilerplate hollywood fare, made as a CGI driven vehicle for selling
tickets. It is not a BAD example of it's kind (quite good, in fact, the
cast was reasonable and the directing capably done). But saying that is
like saying that the McFeast compares well to the Quarter Pounder With
Cheese. Hollywood boilerplate is hardly the place you go for good film
making.


> Within the fantasy genre, or giving
> examples outside the fantasy genre if you think the whole fantasy film
> genre is rubbish.
>

That is of course a complex and largely subjective question. Is LOTR
in the fantasy genre? The book doesn't seem to be, although it appears
there in the bookstore. But the movies may well be.

Speaking generally, I'd say a good film is one that engages the viewer
with empathetic characters, a story, and also tells us something about
the human condition. Beneath Clouds (ok, maybe a little apocalyptic,
but good), Till Sleeping Voices Wake Us, American Beauty, Donnie Darko
would probably class in my mind as fitting this description.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60148 ] Mo, 13 Juni 2005 03:51
samdekat  
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> This seems to be one of your better arguments. But surely those who
> would have read the books (without the films) will _still_ read the
> books (even after seeing the films). What percentage of those who would
> have read the books, do you think will watch the films and think "I'm
> not going to read the books"?
>

I suppose some people may think "Well, I've seen the movie and I know
what happens, so there's no need to read the book" but then:

a) I'd say LOTR is a book to read for the sake of enjoying it, not for
the sake of finding out the ending
b) Who couldn't guess the end from about the end of the 2nd chapter
anyway? I certainly knew roughly what would happen, though of course,
the details were a suprise.

The number of people who hadn't read the book (but intended to) before
seeing the movie and after seeing the movie decided not to is probably
lower than the number of people who saw the movies and after seeing it
decided to read the book (and were consequently delighted by the
story). But it's a chancy business making any certainty of the matter.

> I'm not interested in the weaker version of your argument that says that
> the film will spoil the later reading experience. The film is so
> different to the books, and misses out so much of the essence of the
> books, that I don't think it will make that much difference (though
> maybe a small difference).
>

My thoughts precisely. The movie doesn't capture the spirit or
intention of the book - but then, the script writers/director never set
out to do so. Therefore there is no criticism to level at anyone. And
we still have the book, and can read it and enjoy it as before. Happy
Reading.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #60154 ] Mo, 13 Juni 2005 08:13
Morgil  
Beeblebear wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8hbng$thq$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
>>Yuk Tang wrote:
>>
>>>Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:d8h6ek$que$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:

>>>>Even the modern cinema is not at that bad state.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you seen Revenge of the Sith?
>>
>>Have you seen LotR?
>>
>
>
> Yes, it is a very good trilogy of films.
> RotS on the other hand is a steaming pile of excrement.

Objectively speaking RotS does not quite reach the level of
FotR, but it is far better then the abysmal Two Towers, and
would seem about equal to the RotK. On the other hand, the
more I have actually thought about what goes on in the RotK,
the less I've grown to like it. Even though I have seen RotS
only two times so far, I got the feeling that it is going to
stand such scrutiny far better then the often ludicurous RotK.

Morgil
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #61007 ] Mo, 13 Juni 2005 20:49
Matthew Woodcraft  
In article <y70re.49436$G8.33560 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>I'm only interested in how many people you think will consciously decide
>NOT to read the books, after seeing the films. Remembering to ignore
>those who have forgotten what a book is.

Well, I've met two such people.

I've met many more who have seen the films and then gone on to read the
book, but of course there's a large selection effect.

-M-
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #61009 ] Mo, 13 Juni 2005 21:02
Jette Goldie  
"Matthew Woodcraft" <mattheww [at] chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Pov*pv3Qq [at] news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <y70re.49436$G8.33560 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >I'm only interested in how many people you think will consciously
decide
> >NOT to read the books, after seeing the films. Remembering to
ignore
> >those who have forgotten what a book is.
>
> Well, I've met two such people.
>
> I've met many more who have seen the films and then gone on to read
the
> book, but of course there's a large selection effect.
>

Chances are those two wouldn't have read the books anyway -
in fact they probably wouldn't even have been aware that the
books existed if it hadn't been for the movies - which means that
at least now they're *deliberately choosing* not to read them,
instead of just being ignorant of their existance.


--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #61022 ] Di, 14 Juni 2005 01:13
saint  
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:35:50 -0500, Louis Epstein <le [at] main.put.com>
wrote:


>The book is pure majesty.
>The film,however good it may be as a film,
>is massively less than the book and destroys
>all chance millions will ever have of learning
>the story of the book FROM the book,the only
>way anyone ever ought to.

You should have warned us when the Bakshi version came out which was a
steaming pile of shit. It colored my first reading of LOTR and it
wasn't pretty. Thankfully the books have since destroyed the scars
left by that abomination of celluliod.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #61025 ] Di, 14 Juni 2005 04:44
The American  
"Jette Goldie" <jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
news:fd0re.49444$G8.47748 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cV%qe.49424$G8.14092 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> the softrat <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > How about you, Neil? Are you gonna get one too or are you gonna
> spend
>> > eternity feeding trolls?
>>
>> Hmm. A new definition of hell:
>>
>> "Stuck on a Usenet populated entirely by trolls".
>>
>>
>
> Ah, alt.battlestar-galactica then?
>

I'm shocked that you would say something like that.
Totally shocked!
LOL!!
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #61588 ] Di, 14 Juni 2005 21:37
Matthew Woodcraft  
Jette Goldie <jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>Chances are those two wouldn't have read the books anyway -
>in fact they probably wouldn't even have been aware that the
>books existed if it hadn't been for the movies - which means that
>at least now they're *deliberately choosing* not to read them,
>instead of just being ignorant of their existance.

They certainly both knew that the book exists. One of them said that
she had been intending to read it one day, but the films changed her
mind. The other implied the same. They might change their minds again,
of course.

-M-
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #61593 ] Di, 14 Juni 2005 22:26
Gregg Cattanach  
Cheeze wrote:
> Lunch box sales should also be counted.
>
> Does everyone here have high hopes for the Narnia movie? Will they do
> all 7?
>

I saw a new extended trailer last weekend for this. It looks fabulous, with
really epic landscapes similar to the scale achieved LOTR. It looks like
they've done a great job.

If they make big bucks, they'll make another for sure, and it may go the
rout of HP where they can crank out the next one every 2 or 3 years.

--
Gregg C.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #62179 ] Sa, 11 Juni 2005 19:13
Jette Goldie  
"Flame of the West" <jsolinas [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LaidnYq2V8OJnjffRVn-pQ [at] comcast.com...
> Louis Epstein wrote:
>
> > In three weeks of domestic release,the new Star Wars movie has
> > blown past the first Jackson film in total box office receipts.
> > (Initial release AND the extended re-release of 2003).
> > It should pass the second in a couple of weeks and if it matches
> > the $64 million ATTACK OF THE CLONES had left at this point (not
> > counting its IMAX release) it would pass the third as well.
> >
> > Step by step the desecrations get demoted...
>
> This is foolish. The long-term popularity of a movie depends
> on its DVD sales, not its box office gross. In the long run,
> the PJ movies will eclipse both SW and Harry Potter. The only
> series that will come close is Narnia.

I must admit I did go to see RotS. Actually I like that abbreviation
- it fits the darn movie. Load of ROT.


--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #62184 ] Mi, 15 Juni 2005 18:05
Jette Goldie  
"Matthew Woodcraft" <mattheww [at] chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:kyk*3X8Qq [at] news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Jette Goldie <jet [at] blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >Chances are those two wouldn't have read the books anyway -
> >in fact they probably wouldn't even have been aware that the
> >books existed if it hadn't been for the movies - which means that
> >at least now they're *deliberately choosing* not to read them,
> >instead of just being ignorant of their existance.
>
> They certainly both knew that the book exists. One of them said that
> she had been intending to read it one day, but the films changed her
> mind. The other implied the same. They might change their minds
again,
> of course.

Well, I really doubt that the movies would have put them off
if they were *really* the kind of person to appreciate them.
More likely they'd have started the books and decided they
didn't like the story, never getting past FotR.



--
Jette Goldie
jette [at] blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #64210 ] Sa, 18 Juni 2005 06:26
Louis Epstein  
In alt.fan.tolkien Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
: Louis Epstein <le [at] main.put.com> wrote:
:> In alt.fan.tolkien Media Fiend <media_fiend [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
:>> You left out one minor detail. ROTS is crap. LOTR is pure majesty
:>> (for modern cinema, anyway).
:>
:> The book is pure majesty.
:> The film,however good it may be as a film,
:> is massively less than the book and destroys
:> all chance millions will ever have of learning
:> the story of the book FROM the book,the only
:> way anyone ever ought to.
:
: This seems to be one of your better arguments. But surely those who
: would have read the books (without the films) will _still_ read the
: books (even after seeing the films). What percentage of those who would
: have read the books, do you think will watch the films and think "I'm
: not going to read the books"?

There are certainly people who determined not to read
the books until after they had seen the films because
they didn't want the books to "spoil" the films for them.
An indeterminate number of those might have dispensed with
reading the books at all,whatever plans to eventually read
them they may have had.

: I'm not interested in the weaker version of your argument that says
: that the film will spoil the later reading experience. The film is so
: different to the books, and misses out so much of the essence of the
: books, that I don't think it will make that much difference (though
: maybe a small difference).

But that's the point...there should be NO alternative to
the essence of the books in ways to experience their content.

: I'm only interested in how many people you think will consciously decide
: NOT to read the books, after seeing the films. Remembering to ignore
: those who have forgotten what a book is.

Those who don't read books?...this dainty is not for them,
I say just that!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #64211 ] Sa, 18 Juni 2005 06:30
Louis Epstein  
In alt.fan.tolkien Sam's the little guy <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
: Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
:> This seems to be one of your better arguments. But surely those who
:> would have read the books (without the films) will _still_ read the
:> books (even after seeing the films). What percentage of those who would
:> have read the books, do you think will watch the films and think "I'm
:> not going to read the books"?
:>
:
: I suppose some people may think "Well, I've seen the movie and I know
: what happens, so there's no need to read the book" but then:
:
: a) I'd say LOTR is a book to read for the sake of enjoying it, not for
: the sake of finding out the ending
: b) Who couldn't guess the end from about the end of the 2nd chapter
: anyway? I certainly knew roughly what would happen, though of course,
: the details were a suprise.
:
: The number of people who hadn't read the book (but intended to) before
: seeing the movie and after seeing the movie decided not to is probably
: lower than the number of people who saw the movies and after seeing it
: decided to read the book (and were consequently delighted by the
: story).

But the movie tainted their experience of the book,
and if reading the book didn't make them angry the
movie was ever made they didn't get what they should
have out of the book.

There are even those who liked the movie BETTER than
the book,which is especially offensive.

: But it's a chancy business making any certainty of the matter.
:
:> I'm not interested in the weaker version of your argument that says that
:> the film will spoil the later reading experience. The film is so
:> different to the books, and misses out so much of the essence of the
:> books, that I don't think it will make that much difference (though
:> maybe a small difference).
:>
:
: My thoughts precisely. The movie doesn't capture the spirit or
: intention of the book - but then, the script writers/director never set
: out to do so. Therefore there is no criticism to level at anyone.

No,therefore they must be utterly despised
until their efforts are utterly forgotten.

: And we still have the book, and can read it and enjoy it as before.

No one who has seen the film first can enjoy the
books as someone who has escaped the films can.

: Happy Reading.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Re: Congratulations REVENGE OF THE SITH! [message #64212 ] Sa, 18 Juni 2005 06:32
Louis Epstein  
In alt.fan.tolkien saint <saint [at] comcast.com> wrote:
: On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:35:50 -0500, Louis Epstein <le [at] main.put.com>
: wrote:
:
:
:>The book is pure majesty.
:>The film,however good it may be as a film,
:>is massively less than the book and destroys
:>all chance millions will ever have of learning
:>the story of the book FROM the book,the only
:>way anyone ever ought to.
:
: You should have warned us when the Bakshi version came out which was a
: steaming pile of shit.

I did.I wrote an eight-page denunciation as soon as I got
back from watching a sneak preview.

: It colored my first reading of LOTR and it wasn't pretty.

(And Peter Jackson watched the Bakshi film before he read
the books).

: Thankfully the books have since destroyed the scars
: left by that abomination of celluliod.

May they do the same for the more numerous scars caused by Jackson.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Vorheriges Thema:Welcome! FAQs and important information.
Nächstes Thema:George Freeman - from Mrs. Softrat
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 11:16:11 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,14641 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered