Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

why did Scabbers bite goyle, fuldataler mineralwasser, bikemate fahrradcomputer t52434 anleitung, frank zappa iq 172 liam gallagher 164, "heartbroke kid" "previous episode references", bikemate t52434 anleitung, marietta edgecombe cop out, kaufland autobatterie, nasi goreng in dosen kaufen, micromaxx mm 3544 universalfernbedienung

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-02-28 05:42:04 by tan2002

Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
books!

Thanks!
Cyn

--
********************************************
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

My eBay items for sale:
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ay3gl" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/ay3gl</a>

Amazon Affiliate:
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7wde9" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/7wde9</a>

Report this message

#2: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-02-28 06:03:43 by Tar-Elenion

In article &lt;otQMf.41637$<a href="mailto:UD1.36164&#64;bignews2.bellsouth.net" target="_blank">UD1.36164&#64;bignews2.bellsouth.net</a>&gt;,
<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a> says...
&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?

Aman, the Blessed Realm.

&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??

No, &quot;Atlantis&quot; (Numenor, Atalante) sunk more than 3000 years before the
War of the Ring.

&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
&gt; books!

--
Tar-Elenion

He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.

Report this message

#3: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-02-28 11:21:33 by Stan Brown

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:42:04 -0500 from &lt;<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?

Gandalf's country, called Aman or Valinor. (Those two are not exactly
the same thing, but close enough to answer your question.)

Actually they're stopping first at Tol Eressëa or Elvenhome, an
island near the east coast of Valinor.

The key to this is Arwen's remark to Frodo, &quot;If your hurts grieve you
still and the memory of your burden is heavy, then you may pass into
the West, until all your wounds and weariness are healed.&quot;

What is that West? Sam talks about it in the pub, all the way back in
Book I Chapter II: &quot;'They are sailing, sailing, sailing over the Sea,
they are going into the West and leaving us,' said Sam, half chanting
the words, shaking his head sadly and solemnly.&quot;

Long ago in the Elder Days, thousands of years before the War of the
Ring, the Valar invited the Elves to leave Middle-earth where they
were born and move to Valinor, the Blessed Realm. Some later returned
to Middle-earth and fought in the wars with the first Enemy, Morgoth.
(Strider talks and sings about this in &quot;A Knife in the Dark&quot;.) The
invitation is still open to their descendants at the time of /The
Lord of the Rings/.

All these matters are explained fully in /The Silmarillion/.I don't
want to say too much for fear of spoiling your enjoyment of that
book.

&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??

No.

(There was an Atlantis-like island in Tolkien's legendarium, but it
was called Numenor and was inhabited by Men. The first part of
Appendix A talks about Numenor, and there's more material in
/Unfinished Tales/ and in the &quot;Akallabeth&quot; portion of /The
Silmarillion/.)

&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get
&gt; into the books!

Well, you're much larger than they are, aren't you? :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#4: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-02-28 13:34:06 by tan2002

&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1e6dee375a0cbb4798a160&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1e6dee375a0cbb4798a160&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:42:04 -0500 from &lt;<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt;
&gt; Gandalf's country, called Aman or Valinor. (Those two are not exactly
&gt; the same thing, but close enough to answer your question.)
&gt;
&gt; Actually they're stopping first at Tol Eressëa or Elvenhome, an
&gt; island near the east coast of Valinor.
&gt;
&gt; The key to this is Arwen's remark to Frodo, &quot;If your hurts grieve you
&gt; still and the memory of your burden is heavy, then you may pass into
&gt; the West, until all your wounds and weariness are healed.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; What is that West? Sam talks about it in the pub, all the way back in
&gt; Book I Chapter II: &quot;'They are sailing, sailing, sailing over the Sea,
&gt; they are going into the West and leaving us,' said Sam, half chanting
&gt; the words, shaking his head sadly and solemnly.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Long ago in the Elder Days, thousands of years before the War of the
&gt; Ring, the Valar invited the Elves to leave Middle-earth where they
&gt; were born and move to Valinor, the Blessed Realm. Some later returned
&gt; to Middle-earth and fought in the wars with the first Enemy, Morgoth.
&gt; (Strider talks and sings about this in &quot;A Knife in the Dark&quot;.) The
&gt; invitation is still open to their descendants at the time of /The
&gt; Lord of the Rings/.
&gt;
&gt; All these matters are explained fully in /The Silmarillion/.I don't
&gt; want to say too much for fear of spoiling your enjoyment of that
&gt; book.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
&gt;
&gt; No.
&gt;
&gt; (There was an Atlantis-like island in Tolkien's legendarium, but it
&gt; was called Numenor and was inhabited by Men. The first part of
&gt; Appendix A talks about Numenor, and there's more material in
&gt; /Unfinished Tales/ and in the &quot;Akallabeth&quot; portion of /The
&gt; Silmarillion/.)
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get
&gt;&gt; into the books!
&gt;
&gt; Well, you're much larger than they are, aren't you? :-)
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
&gt; <a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
&gt; Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
&gt; Tolkien letters FAQ:
&gt; <a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
&gt; FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
&gt; Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
&gt; more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Thanks so much for your explanations Stan...I truly appreciate it!

Cyn

********************************************
&quot;Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.&quot;
- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

My eBay items for sale:
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ay3gl" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/ay3gl</a>

Amazon Affiliate:
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7wde9" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/7wde9</a>

Report this message

#5: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-02-28 19:40:29 by Stan Brown

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:34:06 -0500 from &lt;<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt;:

&gt; Thanks so much for your explanations Stan...I truly appreciate it!

You're welcome, and welcome to the group. You might like to read the
first section of Steuard's FAQ (URL below), &quot;Newsgroups and
Netiqette&quot;.

&gt;&quot;Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.&quot;
&gt;- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Your signature is your own prerogative, but you may not be aware that
you're waving a red flag for many of us by ascribing to Galadriel
something that in fact she did not say in LotR. The movies are on
topic here, but most of us are careful to distinguish between Peter
Jackson's version of /The Lord of the Rings/ and Tolkien's.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#6: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-01 03:56:55 by Flame of the West

Stan Brown wrote:

&gt;&gt; &quot;Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.&quot;
&gt;&gt; - Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
&gt;
&gt; Your signature is your own prerogative, but you may not be aware that
&gt; you're waving a red flag for many of us by ascribing to Galadriel
&gt; something that in fact she did not say in LotR.

What?! Next you'll be telling us that Gimli never said
&quot;Nobody tosses a Dwarf!&quot; or that Gollum's fall into the
Crack of Doom wasn't a result of struggling with Frodo.


-- FotW

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

Report this message

#7: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-01 10:16:26 by gp.skinner

&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
&gt; books!

I find it difficult to get into DVDs as the plastic wrappers are so fiddly
;-)

Graeme

Report this message

#8: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-01 18:17:37 by Robinsons

<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a> wrote:

&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
&gt; books!

Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?

Report this message

#9: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-01 20:42:41 by urban

In article &lt;<a href="mailto:4405D759.EB25CA97&#64;erols.com" target="_blank">4405D759.EB25CA97&#64;erols.com</a>&gt;, Robinsons &lt;<a href="mailto:wrob&#64;erols.com" target="_blank">wrob&#64;erols.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt;&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
&gt;&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
&gt;&gt; books!
&gt;
&gt;Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?

No worse, I think, than when people read the book for the first
time. A new reader might, with considerable effort, be able to
sort out all the references to Valinor, Elvenhome, Numenor, and
the rest, but not easily, and especially not without the appendices.
Without the appendices, it is easy enough to confuse Numenor and the
Undying Lands (Aragorn is a Dunadan, a 'Man of the West'. 'The
West' is where the Elves are sailing to, right?)

It is worth noting that, before The Silmarillion, many fans of the
book had wrongly inferred that the Undying Lands were, in effect,
heaven and the afterlife (some even supposed that Eru dwelt there).
Lord of the Rings, all by itself, is open to a variety of
interpretations of these aspects of the story. Even Jackson's
'botch job' of Gandalf describing the afterlife with the words
describing Frodo's first glimpse of Tol Eressea is no worse than
this, though of course Jackson and Walsh should have known better!

Report this message

#10: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-01 21:12:15 by Derek Broughton

Robinsons wrote:

&gt; <a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a> wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt;&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
&gt;&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
&gt;&gt; books!
&gt;
&gt; Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?

This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens are
barely described in the book.
--
derek

Report this message

#11: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-01 23:50:01 by Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt; Robinsons wrote:

&gt;&gt;Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens are
&gt; barely described in the book.

What does the book have got to do with it?

In any case, Grey Havens was one on the series of repeating
anticlimax fadeouts at the end, so it makes no difference
if they botched it or not. It was screwed up anyway.

Morgil

Report this message

#12: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 08:18:43 by morgothscurse2002

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:12:15 -0400, Derek Broughton
&lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Robinsons wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; <a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a> wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt;&gt;&gt; Is Tolkien alluding to Atlantis??
&gt;&gt;&gt; Does it say in the books, I've tried and tried...I never can get into the
&gt;&gt;&gt; books!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
&gt;
&gt;This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens are
&gt;barely described in the book.

You forgot Louis Epstein again. ;-)


Morgoth's Curse

Report this message

#13: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 15:02:39 by Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

&gt; Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt;&gt; Robinsons wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens
&gt;&gt; are barely described in the book.
&gt;
&gt; What does the book have got to do with it?

I don't see how you can &quot;botch&quot; the representation of the Grey Havens, if
they were never really described in the first place.
&gt;
&gt; In any case, Grey Havens was one on the series of repeating
&gt; anticlimax fadeouts at the end,

as opposed to the book where it was one of a series of anticlimactic
fadeouts at the end... I never did like the ending of LOTR.

&gt; so it makes no difference
&gt; if they botched it or not. It was screwed up anyway.

As expected...
--
derek

Report this message

#14: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 16:16:05 by Morgil

Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt; Morgil wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Robinsons wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Is it jsut me, or did the movie do a really botch job of the Grey Havens?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;This time it would be just you (and Morgil, probably). The Grey Havens
&gt;&gt;&gt;are barely described in the book.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;What does the book have got to do with it?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I don't see how you can &quot;botch&quot; the representation of the Grey Havens, if
&gt; they were never really described in the first place.

It can be botched on its own merits as well. There was nothing
in the book about Frodo and Sam in Osgiliath either, and yet
that segment was completely botched.

&gt;&gt;In any case, Grey Havens was one on the series of repeating
&gt;&gt;anticlimax fadeouts at the end,
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; as opposed to the book where it was one of a series of anticlimactic
&gt; fadeouts at the end... I never did like the ending of LOTR.

Did you forget already that books and movies are different
media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
the excuse &quot;it was like that in the book&quot; is never valid.

&gt;&gt;so it makes no difference
&gt;&gt;if they botched it or not. It was screwed up anyway.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; As expected...

As expected what? I have not said anything about my opinion
of Grey Havens being botch job or not. Stop putting words
in my mouth. It's not good conduct on debate.

Morgil

Report this message

#15: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 16:45:31 by Kreme

&gt; Did you forget already that books and movies are different
&gt; media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
&gt; movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
&gt; no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
&gt; the excuse &quot;it was like that in the book&quot; is never valid.

OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
that PJ &quot;felt absolutely no obligation&quot; is horribly unfair.

In my estimation, PJ was far more faithful to the book than
anyone had a right to expect. DId he transcribe the book,
word for word, onto the screen? Of course not, that would
have been horrible. Did he leave out things I would have
liked to see? Of course. Did he have reasons for doing
so? Yes, I think he did. He had to be worried about pacing,
visuals, and overwhelming the audience.

Sure, he did some things that a lot of fans didn't especially
like, but I at least can see why he did them, and though I
would have done things differently, I think the films stand up
rather well on their own. That is to say, I still read the books,
but I still watch the DVDs too.

And, though the movies are all very long, they still were not
long enough to have gotten everything in.

Report this message

#16: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 17:04:36 by Tamim

In alt.fan.tolkien Kreme &lt;<a href="mailto:gkreme&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">gkreme&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; Did you forget already that books and movies are different
&gt;&gt; media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
&gt;&gt; movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
&gt;&gt; no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
&gt;&gt; the excuse &quot;it was like that in the book&quot; is never valid.

&gt; OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
&gt; have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
&gt; that PJ &quot;felt absolutely no obligation&quot; is horribly unfair.

&gt; In my estimation, PJ was far more faithful to the book than
&gt; anyone had a right to expect. DId he transcribe the book,
&gt; word for word, onto the screen? Of course not, that would
&gt; have been horrible. Did he leave out things I would have
&gt; liked to see? Of course. Did he have reasons for doing
&gt; so? Yes, I think he did. He had to be worried about pacing,
&gt; visuals, and overwhelming the audience.

&gt; Sure, he did some things that a lot of fans didn't especially
&gt; like, but I at least can see why he did them, and though I
&gt; would have done things differently, I think the films stand up
&gt; rather well on their own. That is to say, I still read the books,
&gt; but I still watch the DVDs too.

I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
the movies better. I wasn't even
disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
understandable. Young Frodo likewise. But he did portray some characters and
events in a way that to me was almost unbearable to watch.

The greatest mistake IMO was the way in which he portrayed Gondor's
defence ie. as almost absent. The battle of pelennor fields was in the
movies fought almost excusively by the riders of Rohan and the
superninjaghosts. That is not only at odds with the books, but is
internally inconsistent. How could Gondor defend againts the might of
Mordor and Morgul for centuries if it only had a few hunred soldiers?

The other thing that specially pissed me off was Denethor as a senile
glutton not interested in the defence of Gondor, when in the books the man was the epitome of old Gondorian
discipline still sleeping in his armour so as to not grow soft. He
despaired when Faramir appaered but before that he was in control of his
faculties and of the nation.

Of course the appearance of elven warriors from Rivendell led by some
hippi from lorien was also a bit strange.


&gt; And, though the movies are all very long, they still were not
&gt; long enough to have gotten everything in.


--

Report this message

#17: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 17:19:58 by stephen

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim &lt;<a href="mailto:hallaril&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">hallaril&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
&gt; the movies better. I wasn't even
&gt; disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
&gt; understandable. Young Frodo likewise.

Frodo was supposed to look young.
&quot;As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
of his tweens.&quot;

Stephen

Report this message

#18: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 17:39:59 by Morgil

Kreme wrote:
&gt;&gt;Did you forget already that books and movies are different
&gt;&gt;media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
&gt;&gt;movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
&gt;&gt;no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
&gt;&gt;the excuse &quot;it was like that in the book&quot; is never valid.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
&gt; have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
&gt; that PJ &quot;felt absolutely no obligation&quot; is horribly unfair.

Unfair or not, that is my opinion, and it is based on the
fact that PJ more then often deviated, and in some cases
went completely against the themes and spirit of the book,
altered the plot and characters to fit his own ideas,
and did it for no acceptable or even credible reasons.

Morgil

Report this message

#19: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 19:31:25 by Tamim

In rec.arts.books.tolkien <a href="mailto:stephen&#64;nomail.com" target="_blank">stephen&#64;nomail.com</a> wrote:
&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim &lt;<a href="mailto:hallaril&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">hallaril&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
&gt;&gt; the movies better. I wasn't even
&gt;&gt; disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
&gt;&gt; understandable. Young Frodo likewise.

&gt; Frodo was supposed to look young.
&gt; &quot;As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
&gt; showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
&gt; the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
&gt; of his tweens.&quot;


He behaves young in the movies. He is not portrayed as an middle aged
bachelor.

&gt; Stephen

--

Report this message

#20: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 19:35:11 by Stan Brown

Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:39:59 +0200 from Morgil &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt;:
&gt; Kreme wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;Did you forget already that books and movies are different
&gt; &gt;&gt;media? What is okay in a book, might not work at all in a
&gt; &gt;&gt;movie. PJ has showed very clearly that he felt absloutely
&gt; &gt;&gt;no obligation whatsoever to be faithful to the book, so
&gt; &gt;&gt;the excuse &quot;it was like that in the book&quot; is never valid.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; OK, now hold on a second here. I'm a huge fan of LotR and
&gt; &gt; have been since I first read it over 20 years ago. But to say
&gt; &gt; that PJ &quot;felt absolutely no obligation&quot; is horribly unfair.
&gt;
&gt; Unfair or not, that is my opinion, and it is based on the
&gt; fact that PJ more then often deviated, and in some cases
&gt; went completely against the themes and spirit of the book,
&gt; altered the plot and characters to fit his own ideas,
&gt; and did it for no acceptable or even credible reasons.

I have to weigh in with Morgil here -- not that anyone's mind is
going to be changed on this oft-discussed topic.

The way to tell what a man _feels_ is to watch what he _does_, not
what he _says_. Jackson made all the right noises about being
faithful to the books, and so did some of the actors.

But what he actually did was to change a tale of deep moral ambiguity
into yet another sword-and-sorcery action flick, albeit one with a
huge budget and really professional-looking scenery and costumes and
makeup.

I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
Saruman's duel. Then read about it in &quot;The Shadow of the Past&quot;. (I'm
not even counting the &quot;rescue moth&quot;.) Then try to reconcile that with
Jackson's talk of being faithful to the book.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#21: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 19:54:56 by stephen

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim &lt;<a href="mailto:hallaril&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">hallaril&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien <a href="mailto:stephen&#64;nomail.com" target="_blank">stephen&#64;nomail.com</a> wrote:
&gt;&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim &lt;<a href="mailto:hallaril&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">hallaril&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
&gt;&gt;&gt; the movies better. I wasn't even
&gt;&gt;&gt; disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
&gt;&gt;&gt; understandable. Young Frodo likewise.

&gt;&gt; Frodo was supposed to look young.
&gt;&gt; &quot;As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
&gt;&gt; showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
&gt;&gt; the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
&gt;&gt; of his tweens.&quot;


&gt; He behaves young in the movies. He is not portrayed as an middle aged
&gt; bachelor.

How do middle aged bachelors behave? Do they dance and sing
on table tops?

Stephen

Report this message

#22: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 20:42:18 by Tamim

In alt.fan.tolkien <a href="mailto:stephen&#64;nomail.com" target="_blank">stephen&#64;nomail.com</a> wrote:


&gt; How do middle aged bachelors behave? Do they dance and sing
&gt; on table tops?

You got me there ;)

Well I can't help it, the Movies do give me a different image of Frodo
than the books.

Report this message

#23: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 22:08:42 by Troels Forchhammer

In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1e7104ebc4185bf598a18a&#64;news.individual.net" target="_blank">MPG.1e7104ebc4185bf598a18a&#64;news.individual.net</a>&gt;
Stan Brown &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;
&gt; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:39:59 +0200 from Morgil
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Unfair or not, that is my opinion, and it is based on the
&gt;&gt; fact that PJ more then often deviated, and in some cases
&gt;&gt; went completely against the themes and spirit of the book,
&gt;&gt; altered the plot and characters to fit his own ideas, and did it
&gt;&gt; for no acceptable or even credible reasons.
&gt;
&gt; I have to weigh in with Morgil here -- not that anyone's mind is
&gt; going to be changed on this oft-discussed topic.

True words.

I can appreciate what Jackson did for the films -- I think they are
very good films, even if I have to consciously calm myself in a few
places due to the rape of Tolkien's themes and characters.

&gt; The way to tell what a man _feels_ is to watch what he _does_, not
&gt; what he _says_. Jackson made all the right noises about being
&gt; faithful to the books, and so did some of the actors.

Extended 'The Fellowship of the Ring' DVD set.
DVD #3 - From Book to Idea, 'J. R. R. Tolkien - Creator of
Middle-earth'
Starting 10' 30&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&quot;The themes of Tolkien are another way of honouring the
book, because, you know, as we were saying, there's /so/
much detail that you ultimately can't - ... you can't
recreate the world of 'The Lord of the Rings', you know,
with everything in the books, but the _thematic_ material
is obivously critically important to translate that from
book to film, because the themes are (automatically?) at
the heart of any book, and Tolkien's themes in particular
were in his heart.&quot;


Starting 22' 4&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&quot; As filmmakers and writers we had no interest whatsoever
in putting our judgement, our baggage into these movies. We
just thought we should take what Tolkien cared about
clearly, that we should take those and we should put them
into the film.
This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it
shouldn't be ours.&quot;

One has to admit that he was good at saying the right things . . .

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
&gt; Saruman's duel. Then read about it in &quot;The Shadow of the Past&quot;.

That might be a bit difficult, but 'The Council of Elrond' might help
;-)

My one example would be when Frodo rejects Sam and sends Sam away
from him during the climb of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. That is one
scene where I can understand why Jackson did as he did, but I can't
watch it without feeling a flicker of outrage.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time
of payment draws near.
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)

Report this message

#24: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 22:19:32 by mhaines

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;
&gt; My one example would be when Frodo rejects Sam and sends Sam away
&gt; from him during the climb of the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. That is one
&gt; scene where I can understand why Jackson did as he did, but I can't
&gt; watch it without feeling a flicker of outrage.

Denethor is the change I can't get past.

I understand why they went that direction with Frodo and Sam, because
they set it up with this &quot;Saving a drug addict from himself&quot; feel. I
don't know that it's the best executed maneuver, but I get why they
did it.

Michelle
Flutist

Report this message

#25: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 22:29:40 by Robinsons

Stan Brown wrote:

&gt; I have to weigh in with Morgil here -- not that anyone's mind is
&gt; going to be changed on this oft-discussed topic.
&gt;
&gt; The way to tell what a man _feels_ is to watch what he _does_, not
&gt; what he _says_. Jackson made all the right noises about being
&gt; faithful to the books, and so did some of the actors.
&gt;
&gt; But what he actually did was to change a tale of deep moral ambiguity
&gt; into yet another sword-and-sorcery action flick, albeit one with a
&gt; huge budget and really professional-looking scenery and costumes and
&gt; makeup.
&gt;
&gt; I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
&gt; Saruman's duel. Then read about it in &quot;The Shadow of the Past&quot;. (I'm
&gt; not even counting the &quot;rescue moth&quot;.) Then try to reconcile that with
&gt; Jackson's talk of being faithful to the book.

I would not go that far. Thematically, the movies began to go downhill
in the middle of TTT with the increasing emphasis on battle and disturbing
non-Tolkien themes. But in terms of plot, pacing and characterization
they remain superior throughout. Until you get to the Grey Havens
&quot;Happy Ending&quot; with the sun shining, birds singing and pan-flute music
playing. UGH!!!

Thematically, the achilles heel of the TTT and ROTK is the

(in TTT especially) Manichean (or perhaps Republican) emphasis
on physical battle between absolute good and evil; and
(in ROTK)

the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a &quot;physical antagonist&quot;.

Totally against Tolkien's themes, IMO.

This leaves FOTR as the all-around best movie, with TTT the best in terms of
plot and pacing, and ROTK the best in terms of visuals and characterization
(but NOT OF ARAGORN, Viggo phones in the entire third movie, why???)

--Brian

Report this message

#26: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 22:49:55 by Stan Brown

2 Mar 2006 21:08:42 GMT from Troels Forchhammer
&lt;<a href="mailto:Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid" target="_blank">Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid</a>&gt;:
&gt; &gt; Peter Jackson says:
&gt; &quot;The themes of Tolkien are another way of honouring the
&gt; book, because, you know, as we were saying, there's /so/
&gt; much detail that you ultimately can't - ... you can't
&gt; recreate the world of 'The Lord of the Rings', you know,
&gt; with everything in the books, but the _thematic_ material
&gt; is obivously critically important to translate that from
&gt; book to film, because the themes are (automatically?) at
&gt; the heart of any book, and Tolkien's themes in particular
&gt; were in his heart.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; One has to admit that he was good at saying the right things . . .

Yes, he says the right things. But (and I know you know this) his
statement that there's not time for all the details from the book,
while true, makes it even crazier that he made up and added so many
things.

&gt; In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1e7104ebc4185bf598a18a&#64;news.individual.net" target="_blank">MPG.1e7104ebc4185bf598a18a&#64;news.individual.net</a>&gt;
&gt; Stan Brown &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt; &gt; I'll give just _one_ example. In /Fellowship/ watch Gandalf and
&gt; &gt; Saruman's duel. Then read about it in &quot;The Shadow of the Past&quot;.
&gt;
&gt; That might be a bit difficult, but 'The Council of Elrond' might help
&gt; ;-)

Oops -- thank you for the correction!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#27: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 23:04:19 by stephen

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim &lt;<a href="mailto:hallaril&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">hallaril&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; In alt.fan.tolkien <a href="mailto:stephen&#64;nomail.com" target="_blank">stephen&#64;nomail.com</a> wrote:


&gt;&gt; How do middle aged bachelors behave? Do they dance and sing
&gt;&gt; on table tops?

&gt; You got me there ;)

&gt; Well I can't help it, the Movies do give me a different image of Frodo
&gt; than the books.

I am sure the books give different people different images of
Frodo as well. Is Frodo actually written as a middle aged
bachelor in the books? Yes, I know that the book says that,
but does the book show that?

Stephen

Report this message

#28: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 23:09:51 by Robinsons

Stan Brown wrote:

&gt; Yes, he says the right things. But (and I know you know this) his
&gt; statement that there's not time for all the details from the book,
&gt; while true, makes it even crazier that he made up and added so many
&gt; things.

See my reply (4:29 PM EST) to your previous message on the subject of
the Grey Havens and &quot;accuracy&quot;. Ber

Report this message

#29: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 23:47:06 by Derek Broughton

Tamim wrote:

&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien <a href="mailto:stephen&#64;nomail.com" target="_blank">stephen&#64;nomail.com</a> wrote:
&gt;&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien Tamim &lt;<a href="mailto:hallaril&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">hallaril&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
&gt;&gt;&gt; the movies better. I wasn't even
&gt;&gt;&gt; disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
&gt;&gt;&gt; understandable. Young Frodo likewise.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Frodo was supposed to look young.
&gt;&gt; &quot;As time went on, people began to notice that Frodo also
&gt;&gt; showed signs of good 'preservation': outwardly he retained
&gt;&gt; the appearance of a robust and energetic hobbit just out
&gt;&gt; of his tweens.&quot;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; He behaves young in the movies. He is not portrayed as an middle aged
&gt; bachelor.

He's never a middle-aged bachelor (well, actually, I don't know what
happened to him in Valinor). He was 33 at at Bilbo's Birthday Party, which
means he had just come of age. He was 50 when he left for Rivendell - like
early 30's in modern European society (perhaps less if you want to consider
&quot;coming of age&quot; to be the fairly common 18 of today - but it was 21 in
Tolkien's day). He is age is fine in the films. I've known more mature
looking 35 year olds - but I've known some who still get asked for ID in
bars (I'm pleased to say it happened to me - once - at 35).
--
derek

Report this message

#30: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-02 23:51:49 by Derek Broughton

Robinsons wrote:

&gt; the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a &quot;physical antagonist&quot;.

Wow. How was he demonized? In the book, he _did_ deliver Frodo up to
Shelob. The conflict with Sam was overplayed, but the conflict was always
there.

The problem character in ROTK was Denethor. I don't have a big problem with
it, but Morgil is mostly right about PJ's treatment of him.
--
derek

Report this message

#31: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 03:07:46 by Dave Stallard

Tamim wrote:

&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and made
&gt; the movies better. I wasn't even
&gt; disappointed about Arwen's role. Gimli as a comical sidekick was
&gt; understandable. Young Frodo likewise. But he did portray some characters and
&gt; events in a way that to me was almost unbearable to watch.
&gt;
&gt; The greatest mistake IMO was the way in which he portrayed Gondor's
&gt; defence ie. as almost absent. The battle of pelennor fields was in the
&gt; movies fought almost excusively by the riders of Rohan and the
&gt; superninjaghosts. That is not only at odds with the books, but is
&gt; internally inconsistent. How could Gondor defend againts the might of
&gt; Mordor and Morgul for centuries if it only had a few hunred soldiers?

I hated this scene as well; it looked just like a bloody Star Wars movie.

&gt; The other thing that specially pissed me off was Denethor as a senile
&gt; glutton not interested in the defence of Gondor, when in the books the man was the epitome of old Gondorian
&gt; discipline still sleeping in his armour so as to not grow soft. He
&gt; despaired when Faramir appaered but before that he was in control of his
&gt; faculties and of the nation.

Yes, this was actively offensive. A boor with pathologically bad table
manners. What was the point of that?
&gt;
&gt; Of course the appearance of elven warriors from Rivendell led by some
&gt; hippi from lorien was also a bit strange.

As was Frodo sending Sam away in Mordor, as was Elrond bringing Anduril
to Aragorn at Minas Tirith. As was Arwen on the brink of dying because
of ... whatever. T

I think the whole Aragorn/Arwen thing could have been better handled by
depicting a scene from the Appendices where Elrond tells Aragorn
(paraphrasing) &quot;My daughter will not give up her eternal life for anyone
less than the king of Gondor and Arnor&quot;. Plus some other similar scenes
from the tale or Aragorn and Arwen, portrayed contemporaneously or in
flashbacks.

I liked the FotR movie OK, loved the TT one, and the HATED the RotK movie.

Dave
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; And, though the movies are all very long, they still were not
&gt;&gt; long enough to have gotten everything in.
&gt;
&gt;

Report this message

#32: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 04:18:08 by Brego

Tamin Wrote
I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and
made

Hi Tamin, I agree with you... Dont bother with our friend Morgil - He
is bitter and Twisted re PJ and the whole Magnificent mess that he
thinks the LOR's film are. You will never win this discussion with
him. After all he is a &quot;Star Wars Fanatic&quot;! who cant seem to realise
the embaressment in that he can quote George Lucus amazingly deep
scripts and put it next to the deep and meaningful scripts of PJ and
friends. I too believe that PJ kept as close to Tolkien as humanly
possible.
By the way I like Star Wars, but absolutly no conparison should ever be
made with LOR.

Report this message

#33: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 09:36:25 by notv

&quot;Brego&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:shooper&#64;auspinners.com.au" target="_blank">shooper&#64;auspinners.com.au</a>&gt; wrote in news:1141355888.518995.199390
@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

&gt; Tamin Wrote
&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and
&gt; made
&gt;
&gt; Hi Tamin, I agree with you... Dont bother with our friend Morgil - He
&gt; is bitter and Twisted re PJ and the whole Magnificent mess that he
&gt; thinks the LOR's film are. You will never win this discussion with
&gt; him. After all he is a &quot;Star Wars Fanatic&quot;! who cant seem to realise
&gt; the embaressment in that he can quote George Lucus amazingly deep
&gt; scripts and put it next to the deep and meaningful scripts of PJ and
&gt; friends. I too believe that PJ kept as close to Tolkien as humanly
&gt; possible.

You're being sarcastic, right?
The LOTR films are juvenile, internally inconsistent and full of stupid
cliches that are not in the books.


C

Report this message

#34: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 10:23:30 by Robinsons

Derek Broughton wrote:

&gt; Robinsons wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a &quot;physical antagonist&quot;.
&gt;
&gt; Wow. How was he demonized? In the book, he _did_ deliver Frodo up to
&gt; Shelob. The conflict with Sam was overplayed, but the conflict was always
&gt; there.

Yes, and Frodo _did_ almost deliver them all to Sauron. The difference is,
they played up Gollum's Villainy (actual chapter title on the DVD!) to give
the audience someone to &quot;root against&quot; which goes against the entire thrust
of the story. In fact, the entire thrust of PJ's story was going to be
Frodo &quot;redeems himself by pushing Gollum inmto the fire&quot;. A grave misinterpretation
that was fortunately corrected by some fast talking quick thinker (Fran, I think.)

They deliberately cut out references that would humanize Gollum in
the third movie (saying rather fatuously &quot;been there, one that&quot;) such as
Frodo's admission that they should forgive Gollum (!) and his actual near
repentance, which comes in Movie III chronologically. Similar to how they
demonized Sauron's human allies &quot;who are these guys? and PJ told us the book
said they were 'wicked men' so we portrayed them as such.&quot; and omitting any
remotely anti-war statements from the mouth of Faramir lest they be seen as
Soft on Swarthy Infidels. As for Gollum, all that's missing in ROTK is a
wispy moustache for him to twirl.

&gt; The problem character in ROTK was Denethor. I don't have a big problem with
&gt; it, but Morgil is mostly right about PJ's treatment of him.

Yawn... Denethor was fleshed out differently in the movies, but not
inconsistently with the portrayal of his sons in the movie versions.
The changes flowed from the humanization of Boromir in film 1.

Altho we don't get any hints of the proud Denethor except in the EE,
he DOES wear a suit of mail, Morgil's protestations to the contrary
(John Noble jokes about it -- it was an actual suit of mail.)

--Ber

Report this message

#35: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 11:00:33 by Yuk Tang

&quot;Seymour C. Moore&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:notv&#64;al.id" target="_blank">notv&#64;al.id</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:Xns977B61B81E06Fr4t6y7&#64;140.99.99.130" target="_blank">Xns977B61B81E06Fr4t6y7&#64;140.99.99.130</a>:
&gt;
&gt; You're being sarcastic, right?
&gt; The LOTR films are juvenile, internally inconsistent and full of
&gt; stupid cliches that are not in the books.

Still better than the Star Wars prequels though. Admittedly, that's
like saying a punch in the face is preferable to a kick in the nuts.


--
Cheers, ymt.

Report this message

#36: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 11:21:21 by notv

Yuk Tang &lt;<a href="mailto:jim.laker2&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">jim.laker2&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:Xns977B65DEDDC0Ejimlaker2yahoocom&#64;130.133.1.4" target="_blank">Xns977B65DEDDC0Ejimlaker2yahoocom&#64;130.133.1.4</a>:

&gt; &quot;Seymour C. Moore&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:notv&#64;al.id" target="_blank">notv&#64;al.id</a>&gt; wrote in
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:Xns977B61B81E06Fr4t6y7&#64;140.99.99.130" target="_blank">Xns977B61B81E06Fr4t6y7&#64;140.99.99.130</a>:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; You're being sarcastic, right?
&gt;&gt; The LOTR films are juvenile, internally inconsistent and full of
&gt;&gt; stupid cliches that are not in the books.
&gt;
&gt; Still better than the Star Wars prequels though.

Much better. Especially Phantom Menace is a painful experience...


C

Report this message

#37: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 15:59:17 by Derek Broughton

Robinsons wrote:

&gt; Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Robinsons wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; the demonization of Gollum in order to provide a &quot;physical antagonist&quot;.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Wow. How was he demonized? In the book, he _did_ deliver Frodo up to
&gt;&gt; Shelob. The conflict with Sam was overplayed, but the conflict was
&gt;&gt; always there.
&gt;
&gt; Yes, and Frodo _did_ almost deliver them all to Sauron. The difference
&gt; is, they played up Gollum's Villainy (actual chapter title on the DVD!) to
&gt; give the audience someone to &quot;root against&quot; which goes against the entire
&gt; thrust
&gt; of the story. In fact, the entire thrust of PJ's story was going to be
&gt; Frodo &quot;redeems himself by pushing Gollum inmto the fire&quot;. A grave
&gt; misinterpretation that was fortunately corrected by some fast talking
&gt; quick thinker (Fran, I think.)
&gt;
&gt; They deliberately cut out references that would humanize Gollum in
&gt; the third movie (saying rather fatuously &quot;been there, one that&quot;) such as
&gt; Frodo's admission that they should forgive Gollum (!) and his actual near
&gt; repentance, which comes in Movie III chronologically.

The scene in which Smeagol tells Gollum to go away, and is overjoyed to find
that it works, sounds like &quot;near repentance&quot; to me. I guess you're telling
me that's in TTT (they all run into one another :-) ), but I just see that
as a matter of pacing. In the books (which all run into one another...) he
has a near-repentance, but it goes steadily downhill the closer he gets to
Mordor.

&gt; Similar to how they
&gt; demonized Sauron's human allies &quot;who are these guys? and PJ told us the
&gt; book said they were 'wicked men' so we portrayed them as such.&quot; and
&gt; omitting any remotely anti-war statements from the mouth of Faramir

Not so at all. Faramir's character was botched only slightly less than
Denethor's, and yet after the battle at the crossroads, when he looks down
at the young soldier who died right next to them, he comments about how he
probably wasn't evil, just doing what he thought was right. That covers
both anti-war sentiments and is far from demonizing the human allies.

&gt; lest they be seen as Soft on Swarthy Infidels.

I don't think that's fair at all. Jackson is stuck between a rock and a
hard place, here. You can't portray them as any demonstrable 20th-century
Earth race, or everyone will scream &quot;Bigotry!&quot;, so he kept them well
armoured, of essentially neutral skin tone.

&gt;&gt; The problem character in ROTK was Denethor. I don't have a big problem
&gt;&gt; with it, but Morgil is mostly right about PJ's treatment of him.
&gt;
&gt; Yawn... Denethor was fleshed out differently in the movies, but not
&gt; inconsistently with the portrayal of his sons in the movie versions.
&gt; The changes flowed from the humanization of Boromir in film 1.

It's the gluttony part that annoys me. It's just not in keeping - or
necessary. I presume it's supposed to be like Nero fiddling while Rome
burns, but that was never the sort of madness Denethor suffered. Nero (at
least in popular history) just viewed the destruction as a great
entertainment, Denethor had surrendered to despair. If anything, he should
have stopped eating altogether - depression ruins the appetite.
--
derek

Report this message

#38: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 16:26:27 by notv

Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in
news:<a href="mailto:572md3-kq2.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">572md3-kq2.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca</a>:
&gt; depression ruins the appetite.

That's highly individual and depends on degree and form of depression.

C

Report this message

#39: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 17:16:40 by Morgil

Robinsons wrote:

&gt; Altho we don't get any hints of the proud Denethor except in the EE,
&gt; he DOES wear a suit of mail, Morgil's protestations to the contrary
&gt; (John Noble jokes about it -- it was an actual suit of mail.)

Not my protestations.

Morgil

Report this message

#40: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 18:24:16 by Taemon

Derek Broughton wrote:

&gt; The problem character in ROTK was Denethor.

It didn't bother me one bit. I disliked him anyway and I don't think
you're necessarily a glutton if you eat something.

No, the dwarf. Gimli ruined it all for me. What happened to the
Council of Elrond, one of my favourite chapters, hurt. Luckily, it had
Sean Bean in it :-)

T.

Report this message

#41: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 18:29:21 by Morgil

Brego wrote:
&gt; Tamin Wrote
&gt; I wasn't disapponted about leaving things out, it was necessary and
&gt; made
&gt;
&gt; Hi Tamin, I agree with you... Dont bother with our friend Morgil - He
&gt; is bitter and Twisted re PJ and the whole Magnificent mess that he
&gt; thinks the LOR's film are. You will never win this discussion with
&gt; him. After all he is a &quot;Star Wars Fanatic&quot;! who cant seem to realise
&gt; the embaressment in that he can quote George Lucus amazingly deep
&gt; scripts and put it next to the deep and meaningful scripts of PJ and
&gt; friends. I too believe that PJ kept as close to Tolkien as humanly
&gt; possible.

Oh great. Another movie fanatic who can't handle criticism
for his Preciousss without resorting to the same old tired
red herring arguments. Has anyone said PJ should not have
left things out - no. It's no wonder you believe PJ kept
close to Tolkien if your reading comprehension is that level.

Morgil

Report this message

#42: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-03 21:27:28 by Derek Broughton

Taemon wrote:

&gt; Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; The problem character in ROTK was Denethor.
&gt;
&gt; It didn't bother me one bit. I disliked him anyway and I don't think
&gt; you're necessarily a glutton if you eat something.

No you're not, but the gluttony part is implied by stuffing food into your
face faster than you can actually swallow it.

--
derek

Report this message

#43: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-04 12:15:23 by Taemon

Derek Broughton wrote:

&gt; Taemon wrote:
&gt;&gt; Derek Broughton wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; The problem character in ROTK was Denethor.
&gt;&gt; It didn't bother me one bit. I disliked him anyway and I don't
&gt;&gt; think you're necessarily a glutton if you eat something.
&gt; No you're not, but the gluttony part is implied by stuffing food
&gt; into your face faster than you can actually swallow it.

Maybe he was hungry.

T.

Report this message

#44: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-04 19:58:04 by Sean

Stan Brown wrote:

&gt; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:42:04 -0500 from &lt;<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; &gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt;
&gt; Gandalf's country, called Aman or Valinor. (Those two are not exactly
&gt; the same thing, but close enough to answer your question.)
&gt;
&gt; Actually they're stopping first at Tol Eressëa or Elvenhome, an
&gt; island near the east coast of Valinor.

I have information that Tol Eressëa is actually Newfoundland.
Don't ask for my source, though.

Sean_Q_

Report this message

#45: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-04 20:49:11 by Derek Broughton

Sean wrote:

&gt; Stan Brown wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:42:04 -0500 from &lt;<a href="mailto:tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net" target="_blank">tan2002&#64;bellsouth.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; &gt; Just where do the Elves sail off to with Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Gandalf's country, called Aman or Valinor. (Those two are not exactly
&gt;&gt; the same thing, but close enough to answer your question.)
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Actually they're stopping first at Tol Eressëa or Elvenhome, an
&gt;&gt; island near the east coast of Valinor.
&gt;
&gt; I have information that Tol Eressëa is actually Newfoundland.
&gt; Don't ask for my source, though.

Makes sense - that would make Nova Scotia the home of the gods.
--
derek (in Nova Scotia)

Report this message

#46: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-05 13:42:43 by Tamf Moo

Taemon wrote:
&gt; Derek Broughton wrote:

&gt;&gt; No you're not, but the gluttony part is implied by stuffing food
&gt;&gt; into your face faster than you can actually swallow it.

&gt; Maybe he was hungry.

bha, a hungry dude doesn't waste delicious blood by letting it run down
his chin! no, movie-Denethor was bulimic, and he used young Pippin as an
incentive to purge afterwards.

PJ has a thing about food, as the carrot scene from Bree clearly reveals.

tamf
hobbyt psychologist

Report this message

#47: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-07 00:09:10 by Robinsons

Morgil wrote:

&gt; Robinsons wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; Altho we don't get any hints of the proud Denethor except in the EE,
&gt; &gt; he DOES wear a suit of mail, Morgil's protestations to the contrary
&gt; &gt; (John Noble jokes about it -- it was an actual suit of mail.)
&gt;
&gt; Not my protestations.

Prepare to receive my protestations in the mail, then.

--Ber :-)

Report this message

#48: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-07 00:12:53 by Robinsons

Tamf Moo wrote:

&gt; bha, a hungry dude doesn't waste delicious blood by letting it run down
&gt; his chin!

Where have I heard that before?


&gt; PJ has a thing about food, as the carrot scene from Bree clearly reveals.
&gt;
&gt; tamf
&gt; hobbyt psychologist

&quot;How many did *you* eat?&quot;

Report this message

#49: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-07 15:11:53 by Tamf Moo

Robinsons wrote:

&gt;&gt; hobbyt psychologist
&gt;
&gt; &quot;How many did *you* eat?&quot;

whuht, hobbits?

tamf
*trying to remember any recent hairy meals*

Report this message

#50: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-07 19:40:56 by Raven

&quot;Tamf Moo&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; skrev i en meddelelse
news:<a href="mailto:475ijmFe15udU2&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">475ijmFe15udU2&#64;individual.net...</a>

&gt; Robinsons wrote:

&gt; &gt;&gt; hobbyt psychologist

&gt; &gt; &quot;How many did *you* eat?&quot;

&gt; whuht, hobbits?

Hobbit figurines of CHOKLIT, like marzipan pigs.

Ramn.

Report this message

#51: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-03-22 10:42:40 by nystulc

<a href="mailto:stephen&#64;nomail.com" target="_blank">stephen&#64;nomail.com</a> wrote:
&gt; I am sure the books give different people different images of
&gt; Frodo as well. Is Frodo actually written as a middle aged
&gt; bachelor in the books? Yes, I know that the book says that,
&gt; but does the book show that?

BILBO was written as a middle-aged bachelor (aged 50, equivalent
perhaps to a human in his mide-to-late 30s). After he obtains the
Ring, he pretty much remains a middle-aged bachelor for the next 60
years.

FRODO, on the other hand, was written as a young hobbit of 33
(equivalent to about 22 for a human, perhaps). After he obtains the
Ring, he pretty much remains the same young hobbit (and remains a
bachelor) for the next 17 years. By the time he leaves the shire, he
is 50 years old, which WOULD have been middle aged had he changed in
the normal fashion. Note that he retains no friends his own age. All
his current friends are young hobbits like he was 17 years prior.

Report this message

#52: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-05-30 17:23:50 by morgothscurse2002

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:59:17 -0400, Derek Broughton
&lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; lest they be seen as Soft on Swarthy Infidels.
&gt;
&gt;I don't think that's fair at all. Jackson is stuck between a rock and a
&gt;hard place, here. You can't portray them as any demonstrable 20th-century
&gt;Earth race, or everyone will scream &quot;Bigotry!&quot;, so he kept them well
&gt;armoured, of essentially neutral skin tone.

But, according to none other than Peter Jackson himself, he had no
option in how he _should_ have filmed this scene:

Starting 22' 4&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&quot; As filmmakers and writers we had no interest whatsoever
in putting our judgement, our baggage into these movies. We
just thought we should take what Tolkien cared about
clearly, that we should take those and we should put them
into the film.
This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it
shouldn't be ours.&quot;

&quot;Modern&quot; sensitivities therefore have no place in this film. The
criticism of racism is _our_ problem, &quot;our baggage.&quot; Tolkien wrote a
tale which subtly and not-so-subtly denounces racism. That we are
outraged by certain elements of it is as it should be. I don't think
that Jackson ever quite grasped or at least appreciated this point.

Morgoth's Curse

Report this message

#53: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-05-31 02:28:31 by Stan Brown

Tue, 30 May 2006 15:23:50 GMT from Morgoth's Curse &lt;morgothscurse2002
@nospam.yahoo.com&gt;:
&gt; Starting 22' 4&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&gt; &quot; As filmmakers and writers we had no interest whatsoever
&gt; in putting our judgement, our baggage into these movies. We
&gt; just thought we should take what Tolkien cared about
&gt; clearly, that we should take those and we should put them
&gt; into the film.
&gt; This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it
&gt; shouldn't be ours.&quot;

Too bad he didn't take his own advice.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#54: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-05-31 12:44:45 by Troels Forchhammer

In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1ee6ad37866b302898a4ff&#64;news.individual.net" target="_blank">MPG.1ee6ad37866b302898a4ff&#64;news.individual.net</a>&gt; Stan
Brown &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; enriched us with:

&gt; Tue, 30 May 2006 15:23:50 GMT from Morgoth's Curse &lt;morgothscurse2002
&gt; @nospam.yahoo.com&gt;:
&gt;&gt; Starting 22' 4&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&gt;&gt; &quot; As filmmakers and writers we had no interest whatsoever
&gt;&gt; in putting our judgement, our baggage into these movies. We
&gt;&gt; just thought we should take what Tolkien cared about
&gt;&gt; clearly, that we should take those and we should put them
&gt;&gt; into the film.
&gt;&gt; This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it shouldn't be
&gt;&gt; ours.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Too bad he didn't take his own advice.

Given that this was on the extra material for the FotR DVD, it is, at
the best, misleading: he knew before releasing it that it wasn't true.

But this is only aggravated by other statements:

Starting 10' 30&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&quot;The themes of Tolkien are another way of honouring the
book, because, you know, as we were saying, there's _so_
much detail that you ultimately can't - ... you can't
recreate the world of 'The Lord of the Rings', you know,
with everything in the books, but the _thematic_ material
is obviously critically important to translate that from
book to film, because the themes are (automatically?) at
the heart of any book, and Tolkien's themes in particular
were in his heart.&quot;

Both quotations are from the extended 'The Fellowship of the Ring' DVD
set. DVD #3 - From Book to Idea, 'J. R. R. Tolkien - Creator of
Middle-earth'

'Rape' or 'insult' are the nicest words I can come up with to describe
Jackson's treatment of Tolkien's themes. It's a shame, really, because
I think that these are wonderful films as such, but that fact tend to
be overshadowed at times (for me, at least) by the outrageous massacre
that is the 'adaptation'.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)

Report this message

#55: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-03 19:32:16 by David Gray Porter

Before you knock it, why do't you try it?
Looking at the 3rd set's extra DVDs, I see a pattern of them trying tro
leave the text and ending up coming back to it.
But even in three films and the 3rd coming close to non-intermission 4
hours, a lot has tyo be pruned away (especially when the author ghets
overly-wordy, which is a fault of Tolkien and others like
Wollstencraft-Shelley).
I started on trying to fashion a libretto from &quot;Frankenstein&quot; on more than
one occasion, and it's fukkin' HARD TO DO. Let's see you try it.

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>


&quot;Troels Forchhammer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid" target="_blank">Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:Xns97D4809E1FBB1T.Forch&#64;131.228.6.99..." target="_blank">Xns97D4809E1FBB1T.Forch&#64;131.228.6.99...</a>
&gt; In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1ee6ad37866b302898a4ff&#64;news.individual.net" target="_blank">MPG.1ee6ad37866b302898a4ff&#64;news.individual.net</a>&gt; Stan
&gt; Brown &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Tue, 30 May 2006 15:23:50 GMT from Morgoth's Curse &lt;morgothscurse2002
&gt;&gt; @nospam.yahoo.com&gt;:
&gt;&gt;&gt; Starting 22' 4&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot; As filmmakers and writers we had no interest whatsoever
&gt;&gt;&gt; in putting our judgement, our baggage into these movies. We
&gt;&gt;&gt; just thought we should take what Tolkien cared about
&gt;&gt;&gt; clearly, that we should take those and we should put them
&gt;&gt;&gt; into the film.
&gt;&gt;&gt; This should ultimately _be__Tolkien's__film_, it shouldn't be
&gt;&gt;&gt; ours.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Too bad he didn't take his own advice.
&gt;
&gt; Given that this was on the extra material for the FotR DVD, it is, at
&gt; the best, misleading: he knew before releasing it that it wasn't true.
&gt;
&gt; But this is only aggravated by other statements:
&gt;
&gt; Starting 10' 30&quot; Peter Jackson says:
&gt; &quot;The themes of Tolkien are another way of honouring the
&gt; book, because, you know, as we were saying, there's _so_
&gt; much detail that you ultimately can't - ... you can't
&gt; recreate the world of 'The Lord of the Rings', you know,
&gt; with everything in the books, but the _thematic_ material
&gt; is obviously critically important to translate that from
&gt; book to film, because the themes are (automatically?) at
&gt; the heart of any book, and Tolkien's themes in particular
&gt; were in his heart.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Both quotations are from the extended 'The Fellowship of the Ring' DVD
&gt; set. DVD #3 - From Book to Idea, 'J. R. R. Tolkien - Creator of
&gt; Middle-earth'
&gt;
&gt; 'Rape' or 'insult' are the nicest words I can come up with to describe
&gt; Jackson's treatment of Tolkien's themes. It's a shame, really, because
&gt; I think that these are wonderful films as such, but that fact tend to
&gt; be overshadowed at times (for me, at least) by the outrageous massacre
&gt; that is the 'adaptation'.
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; Troels Forchhammer
&gt; Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.
&gt; - Albert Einstein (1875-1955)

Report this message

#56: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 05:35:23 by Stan Brown

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:

Ah -- upside-down posting, that near-infallible pointer to bogosity.

&gt; Before you knock it, why do't you try it?

We *have* &quot;tried it&quot;, i.e. watched Jackson's films.

It is not necessary to be a filmmaker to see flaws in a film, any
more than it's necessary to be a cook to know food is spoiled.

&gt; Looking at the 3rd set's extra DVDs, I see a pattern of them trying tro
&gt; leave the text and ending up coming back to it.

Well, you're half right. :-)

Seriously, why &quot;leave the text&quot; at all? Jackson wants to eat his cake
and have it -- he substitutes his own story for Tolkien's, missing
most of the main themes of the book, then tries to appeal to fans by
mendacious claims that he is faithful to Tolkien's story, or spirit,
or something.

&gt; But even in three films and the 3rd coming close to non-intermission 4
&gt; hours, a lot has tyo be pruned away

No one denies this. But it's beside the point, since the filmmaker
*added* quite a lot that was (a) not in the book and (b) directly
contradictory to it. What the frell was Frodo doing in Osgiliath, for
instance? Why was Gandalf engaging in hand-to-hand combat?

&gt; (especially when the author ghets
&gt; overly-wordy, which is a fault of Tolkien and others like
&gt; Wollstencraft-Shelley).

&quot;Overly wordy&quot;? Gimme a break!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#57: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 10:00:22 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;
&gt; Ah -- upside-down posting, that near-infallible pointer to bogosity.

I don't like it -- it's the goddang default on this new machine and I can't
find whered to unbdo it -- yet.

&gt;&gt; Before you knock it, why do't you try it?
&gt;
&gt; We *have* &quot;tried it&quot;, i.e. watched Jackson's films.

Clown, I meant make a screenplay from a big fat over-written book. and
before you get onto that ...

&gt; But it's beside the point, since the filmmaker
&gt; *added* quite a lot that was (a) not in the book and (b) directly
&gt; contradictory to it. What the frell was Frodo doing in Osgiliath, for
&gt; instance? Why was Gandalf engaging in hand-to-hand combat?

Having read the books the first time amost 40 years ago, I think I have them
in a kind of memory that allows me to think of the books as musical
compositions. In this pretext, let me run something by you.

This is a movie, not a book. They work different-like.

And if you did not see the fundamentals of Tolkien's work in the films, at
least in the extended versions, well, I duuno what to say ...

Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.
There's a lot of fukkin' bloody hand-to-hand combat in the books too. In a
film you need the main characters to be the ones doing the fighting. And
characters get combined -- Glorfindl and Arwen and Elrond and ... oh, what
was the guy's name? who fought alongside Isuldur's father? -- in the
interest of the genre of these kinds of films. Look, I know this is a gross
oversmplification, but read Shakespeare and then go watch it being rehearsed
and look at the difference. Come on, it was a damn good series of
adaptations.

&gt;&gt; (especially when the author ghets
&gt;&gt; overly-wordy, which is a fault of Tolkien and others like
&gt;&gt; Wollstencraft-Shelley).
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Overly wordy&quot;? Gimme a break!

You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so is
Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
section.

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>

Report this message

#58: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 10:22:00 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; Clown, I meant make a screenplay from a big fat over-written book.

It would be interesting to try a group effort to do something like that.
Have an initial discussion on what the key themes are, and what bits to
cut, and then go through the book and time scenes and dialogue to fit a
10 or 11 hour film. You are right though, that it is a big project and
takes a lot of effort and time - I do admire the script writers for
that.

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; And if you did not see the fundamentals of Tolkien's work in the
&gt; films, at least in the extended versions, well, I duuno what to say

Some of the fundamentals, and maybe not the right ones, and maybe
overwhelmed by the inclusion of stuff that was anti-thetical to the
themes.

&gt; Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.

Why not try to be different? We are not talking a Hollywood blockbuster
here. Use unknown actors that are cheap (but still good), and wait for
computer special effects to become cheaper than they are now.

&gt; Come on, it was a damn good series of adaptations.

For its quality as an adaptation, you also need to compare it to other
adaptations. There are other LotR films to compare it to, but not enough
yet. I confidently predict that a remake will be made at some point, and
I hope that they try something different and avoid Hollywood pandering.

&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so
&gt; is Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words,
&gt; but it's often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd
&gt; prefer in each section.

Each to his own taste. There are authors I find to be overly wordy and
rather soporific, but Tolkien is not one of them.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#59: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 10:22:46 by Troels Forchhammer

In message
&lt;news:qqwgg.8811$<a href="mailto:921.3758&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net" target="_blank">921.3758&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net</a>&gt; &quot;David
Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Ah -- upside-down posting, that near-infallible pointer to
&gt;&gt; bogosity.
&gt;
&gt; I don't like it -- it's the goddang default on this new machine
&gt; and I can't find whered to unbdo it -- yet.

May I recommend the OE-Quotefix add-on -- it fixes the problem very
nicely, and even adds a few extra niceties that turns OE into a
reasonable reader:

&lt;<a href="http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/" target="_blank">http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/</a>&gt;

One of the features that I really enjoyed was the random-quote picker.
The thing that finally turned me off OE with Quotefix was the lack of a
scoring system, but that's another matter.

&gt;&gt;&gt; Before you knock it, why do't you try it?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; We *have* &quot;tried it&quot;, i.e. watched Jackson's films.
&gt;
&gt; Clown, I meant make a screenplay from a big fat over-written book.

That argument is flawed from the beginning. I don't have to be able to
make a better job at it in order to see the flaws in another's work; it
might actually better not to -- the best critics are arguably not
authors, instructors, painters etc. themselves.

All this, however, completely misses the point I was trying to make.
You may have noticed that I recognised that these are good films, as
films, but complained about the translation from book to film. That,
too, has nothing to do with film and book being two different media,
but with the films being directly contradictory to several of the
book's major themes as well as drastically changing the personality of
several of the characters in the book. A good, and in particular a
/faithful/, adaptation from one medium to another will take what is
there in the original in terms of themes, characters and basic story
and attempt to show precisely that in the new medium -- not necessarily
by attempting to use the details of story and dialogue.

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; And if you did not see the fundamentals of Tolkien's work in the
&gt; films, at least in the extended versions, well, I duuno what to
&gt; say ...

This, I think, is the crux.

I guess my only riposte can be that if you didn't see the complete
disregard for Tolkien's /themes/ and the fundamental changes in several
characters, then /I/ don't know what to say . . .

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
- Anne Lamott

Report this message

#60: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 10:31:31 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; It would be interesting to try a group effort to do something like that.
&gt; Have an initial discussion on what the key themes are, and what bits to
&gt; cut, and then go through the book and time scenes and dialogue to fit a
&gt; 10 or 11 hour film. You are right though, that it is a big project and
&gt; takes a lot of effort and time - I do admire the script writers for
&gt; that.

Compare the 1970s Willy Wonka movie to the 2000s one. In the former, they
made up new lyrics for no apparent reason.

Let's hope that someday the LOTR movies have a parellel situation. But by
the time it happens, we will all be able to reproduce such a movie with a
desktop computer, so nobody will be interested...

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#61: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 10:55:46 by Troels Forchhammer

In message
&lt;news:qqwgg.8811$<a href="mailto:921.3758&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net" target="_blank">921.3758&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net</a>&gt; &quot;David
Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; Having read the books the first time amost 40 years ago, I think I
&gt; have them in a kind of memory that allows me to think of the books
&gt; as musical compositions. In this pretext, let me run something by
&gt; you.

I meant to say, in my earlier post, that this could also help explain
our different perceptions. Being involved in discussions about
Tolkien's writings, their themes and the characters on a regular basis
tends to make one more keenly aware of these (as well as prompting one
to read LotR at least once each year &lt;G&gt;).

I don' suppose that the average reader pays so much attention to the
details, nor that they will have read some of the secondary material
that explains in greater depth the author's views and intentions.
Jackson cannot, however, claim that this material wasn't available, and
his various public remarks about staying faithful to Tolkien's visions
(as well as various other internal evidence in the films that he did
indeed read more than just LotR) made it obvious, at least to my
(admittedly prejudiced) eyes, to expect that he would read this
material and stay loyal to the visions/themes that Tolkien expounds
there.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
- Anne Lamott

Report this message

#62: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 18:47:22 by Stan Brown

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Ah -- upside-down posting, that near-infallible pointer to bogosity.
&gt;
&gt; I don't like it -- it's the goddang default on this new machine and I can't
&gt; find whered to unbdo it -- yet.

Your machine has no cursor keys and no mouse?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#63: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 18:48:53 by Stan Brown

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.

Only when made by people who don't understand the book.

Either Jackson was lying when he said he was faithful to the book, or
he truly didn't understand what it was about.

Either way, he made a moderately interesting action flick, but we're
still waiting for a movie version of Tolkien's work.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#64: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 18:51:04 by Stan Brown

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; &gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; &gt;&gt; Before you knock it, why do't you try it?
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; We *have* &quot;tried it&quot;, i.e. watched Jackson's films.
&gt;
&gt; Clown, I meant make a screenplay from a big fat over-written book. and
&gt; before you get onto that ...

I suppose name-calling is always easier than actually responding to
my point, which was:

Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:35:23 -0400 from Stan Brown
&lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt;:
&gt; It is not necessary to be a filmmaker to see flaws in a film, any
&gt; more than it's necessary to be a cook to know food is spoiled.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#65: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 21:43:04 by Christopher Kreuzer

Stan Brown &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Ah -- upside-down posting, that near-infallible pointer to bogosity.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I don't like it -- it's the goddang default on this new machine and
&gt;&gt; I can't find whered to unbdo it -- yet.
&gt;
&gt; Your machine has no cursor keys and no mouse?

LOL! I needed that laugh, thanks! :-)

Report this message

#66: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-04 22:55:46 by Derek Broughton

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt; But it's beside the point, since the filmmaker
&gt;&gt; *added* quite a lot that was (a) not in the book and (b) directly
&gt;&gt; contradictory to it. What the frell was Frodo doing in Osgiliath, for
&gt;&gt; instance? Why was Gandalf engaging in hand-to-hand combat?
&gt;
&gt; Having read the books the first time amost 40 years ago, I think I have
&gt; them in a kind of memory that allows me to think of the books as musical
&gt; compositions. In this pretext, let me run something by you.
&gt;
&gt; This is a movie, not a book. They work different-like.
&gt;
&gt; And if you did not see the fundamentals of Tolkien's work in the films, at
&gt; least in the extended versions, well, I duuno what to say ...

You'll get no argument from me, but if you think the comments you've heard
so far have been tough, wait until some of the guys who _really_ hated the
movies have a go at you :-)

&gt; In a
&gt; film you need the main characters to be the ones doing the fighting. And
&gt; characters get combined -- Glorfindl and Arwen and Elrond and ... oh, what
&gt; was the guy's name? who fought alongside Isuldur's father?

Elrond ? You might be thinking of Gil-galad, but Elrond _was_ there.

&gt;&gt;&gt; (especially when the author ghets
&gt;&gt;&gt; overly-wordy, which is a fault of Tolkien and others like
&gt;&gt;&gt; Wollstencraft-Shelley).
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Overly wordy&quot;? Gimme a break!
&gt;
&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy?

Not particularly.

&gt; ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt; section.

Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is too
wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
words he needed: and not a word more.
--
derek

Report this message

#67: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-05 18:55:32 by Me

In rec.arts.books.tolkien David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so is
&gt; Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt; section.

Chacun a son gout. Henry James, I find overly wordy.
Those four you mentioned, no. In fact two of them (Tolkien and
Nabokov) are two of my favourite authors. I also like
Hemingway, who can be much more terse, but I don't find his
terseness to be a virtue in itself.

--Jamie. (efil4dreN)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited &quot;bulk&quot; e-mail costs everyone.)

Report this message

#68: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-05 22:25:31 by morgothscurse2002

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT, &quot;David Gray Porter&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;
&gt;Clown, I meant make a screenplay from a big fat over-written book. and
&gt;before you get onto that ...

Jackson doomed his own film when he chose to limit it to a mere three
movies. One can no more fit the LOTR into three movies than one could
fit the Pacific Ocean into your bathtub.

&gt;&gt; But it's beside the point, since the filmmaker
&gt;&gt; *added* quite a lot that was (a) not in the book and (b) directly
&gt;&gt; contradictory to it. What the frell was Frodo doing in Osgiliath, for
&gt;&gt; instance? Why was Gandalf engaging in hand-to-hand combat?
&gt;
&gt;Having read the books the first time amost 40 years ago, I think I have them
&gt;in a kind of memory that allows me to think of the books as musical
&gt;compositions. In this pretext, let me run something by you.
&gt;
&gt;This is a movie, not a book. They work different-like.

That is certainly justification for choosing to emphasize different
aspects of the book, but it does not excuse the addition of material
which, as others have pointed out, dismisses or even contradicts the
themes of the book.

&gt;And if you did not see the fundamentals of Tolkien's work in the films, at
&gt;least in the extended versions, well, I duuno what to say ...
&gt;
&gt;Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.
&gt;There's a lot of fukkin' bloody hand-to-hand combat in the books too. In a
&gt;film you need the main characters to be the ones doing the fighting. And
&gt;characters get combined -- Glorfindl and Arwen and Elrond and ... oh, what
&gt;was the guy's name? who fought alongside Isuldur's father? -- in the
&gt;interest of the genre of these kinds of films. Look, I know this is a gross
&gt;oversmplification, but read Shakespeare and then go watch it being rehearsed
&gt;and look at the difference. Come on, it was a damn good series of
&gt;adaptations.
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; (especially when the author ghets
&gt;&gt;&gt; overly-wordy, which is a fault of Tolkien and others like
&gt;&gt;&gt; Wollstencraft-Shelley).
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Overly wordy&quot;? Gimme a break!
&gt;
&gt;You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so is
&gt;Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;section.

There is a distinction between using too many words and a book that is
too lengthy. You are certainly entitled to complain that the LOTR is
too long, but you cannot say that it is too &quot;wordy.&quot; Tolkien's
training as a philologist dictated that he carefully considered every
word that he wrote. In fact, if you look through HoME, you will find
many examples of how Tolkien compressed and edited many of the
passages that are so familiar and beloved now.

Morgoth's Curse

Report this message

#69: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 03:07:44 by Count Menelvagor

Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message wrote:
&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so is
&gt; &gt; Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt; &gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt; &gt; section.
&gt;
&gt; Chacun a son gout. Henry James, I find overly wordy.
&gt; Those four you mentioned, no. In fact two of them (Tolkien and
&gt; Nabokov) are two of my favourite authors. I also like
&gt; Hemingway, who can be much more terse, but I don't find his
&gt; terseness to be a virtue in itself.

tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
&quot;mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot; or &quot;they are gone.
they left the havens long ago.&quot;

however, it's arguable that wiords themselves are overrated. who needs
'em?

Report this message

#70: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 07:10:10 by Christopher Kreuzer

Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
&gt; &quot;mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot; or &quot;they are
&gt; gone. they left the havens long ago.&quot;

Ooh! This could be fun!!

Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

Let's get &quot;Well, I'm back&quot; out of the way first!
I too like &quot;tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot;.
Mandos's comments are rather pithy as well.

(&quot;Pithy, when used accurately, describes speech or writing that is
short, direct, and memorable.&quot; - had to remind myself whether I had the
right word!)

Though some of the memorable moments don't even use words:

&quot;Then he held up his right arm; and from that hour he named himself
Camlost, the Empty-handed.&quot; (Of Beren and Luthien)

Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#71: short quotes [Was - question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-06 10:47:13 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; Ooh! This could be fun!!
&gt;
&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

Ahem.

&quot;Fly, you fools!&quot;

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#72: Re: short quotes [Was - question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-06 13:48:43 by Morgil

Phlip wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Ooh! This could be fun!!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Ahem.
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Fly, you fools!&quot;

&quot;Wherever I have been, I am back,&quot;

Morgil

Report this message

#73: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 18:51:07 by JimboCat

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt;Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
&gt;&gt; &quot;mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot; or &quot;they are
&gt;&gt; gone. they left the havens long ago.&quot;
&gt;
&gt;Ooh! This could be fun!!
&gt;
&gt;Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

&quot;In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.&quot; - duh.

&quot;Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy.&quot; Talk about cliffhangers!

&quot;Fool of a Took!&quot; Anybody with text search can tell us how many times
this appears...

And my favorite (second time it's come up today) apocryphal quote:
(Boromir) &quot;What about a catapult?&quot; ... and Aragorn's rejoinder:
&quot;That's retarded!&quot;

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
&quot;Verbing weirds language.&quot;

Report this message

#74: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:06:16 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgoth's Curse&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morgothscurse2002&#64;nospam.yahoo.com" target="_blank">morgothscurse2002&#64;nospam.yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:244982hb9sgiksncurnvajc4569qo60jf5&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">244982hb9sgiksncurnvajc4569qo60jf5&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT, &quot;David Gray Porter&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so is
&gt;&gt;Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;&gt;often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;&gt;section.
&gt;
&gt; There is a distinction between using too many words and a book that is
&gt; too lengthy. You are certainly entitled to complain that the LOTR is
&gt; too long, but you cannot say that it is too &quot;wordy.&quot; Tolkien's
&gt; training as a philologist dictated that he carefully considered every
&gt; word that he wrote. In fact, if you look through HoME, you will find
&gt; many examples of how Tolkien compressed and edited many of the
&gt; passages that are so familiar and beloved now.
&gt;
&gt; Morgoth's Curse

One need look no further for an example of &quot;wordiness&quot; -- oral tradition
puit down as words in print -- an oral story can afford to be wordy, but
when it is literally written down that way it comes off as over-written.
I'll dare say that's true of The Odyssey -- that the paragraph on the death
of the barrow-sword that pierces the Witch-King.

The very fact that he was a philologist can be a pitfall as well as a boon.
If he compresses his textx, it shows he was well aware of the potential for
being overblown.

I'll add as well that I find Beethoven to be overblown all too often. But
not Bach. Wagner especially, Mahler tending to be too often, Bruckner
interminably so.

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>

Report this message

#75: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:12:20 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:me&#64;privacy.net" target="_blank">me&#64;privacy.net</a>&gt; wrote in
message news:<a href="mailto:4ej604F1f671qU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4ej604F1f671qU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; In rec.arts.books.tolkien David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy? Nabokov surely is, um, so is
&gt;&gt; Lovecraft ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;&gt; section.
&gt;
&gt; Chacun a son gout. Henry James, I find overly wordy.
&gt; Those four you mentioned, no. In fact two of them (Tolkien and
&gt; Nabokov) are two of my favourite authors. I also like
&gt; Hemingway, who can be much more terse, but I don't find his
&gt; terseness to be a virtue in itself.

Nabokov is one of my favorites as well, but Bend Sinister, maybe because it
has such an overt &quot;message,&quot; is really hard to wade through in spots. But
the punch line at the end is cute. Vlad confesses to this sin in the
Foreword to his revision of King, Queen &amp; Knave, which is still pretty slow
in places. And consider that it takes over two full small-print pages to
get from where Hermann knocks Felix's hat off his face to where we are told
what the &quot;marvel&quot; really is. Now I just finished transliterating an article
for my wife that was in Russian (one of its topics is the marrying of
9-year-old Tajik girls to 12-year-old boys, but that's for another thread),
and it is WORDY ... it is a characteristic of Russian....

Everyone who likes Lovecraft admits he is a little long in the word
department. (But he'd charge so little for those words as well....)

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>



&gt; --Jamie. (efil4dreN)
&gt; andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
&gt; @csd .ca } (Unsolicited &quot;bulk&quot; e-mail costs everyone.)

Report this message

#76: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:17:48 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; But it's beside the point, since the filmmaker
&gt;&gt;&gt; *added* quite a lot that was (a) not in the book and (b) directly
&gt;&gt;&gt; contradictory to it. What the frell was Frodo doing in Osgiliath, for
&gt;&gt;&gt; instance? Why was Gandalf engaging in hand-to-hand combat?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Having read the books the first time amost 40 years ago, I think I have
&gt;&gt; them in a kind of memory that allows me to think of the books as musical
&gt;&gt; compositions. In this pretext, let me run something by you.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; This is a movie, not a book. They work different-like.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; And if you did not see the fundamentals of Tolkien's work in the films,
&gt;&gt; at
&gt;&gt; least in the extended versions, well, I duuno what to say ...
&gt;
&gt; You'll get no argument from me, but if you think the comments you've heard
&gt; so far have been tough, wait until some of the guys who _really_ hated the
&gt; movies have a go at you :-)

Oh I'm shaking in my boots awaiting the Epstein Treatment! ...

&gt;&gt; In a
&gt;&gt; film you need the main characters to be the ones doing the fighting. And
&gt;&gt; characters get combined -- Glorfindl and Arwen and Elrond and ... oh,
&gt;&gt; what
&gt;&gt; was the guy's name? who fought alongside Isuldur's father?
&gt;
&gt; Elrond ? You might be thinking of Gil-galad, but Elrond _was_ there.

Yes, Giligalad -- in the films they combine him and Elrond (but NOT in that
storyboard on disk 3!).

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; (especially when the author ghets
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; overly-wordy, which is a fault of Tolkien and others like
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Wollstencraft-Shelley).
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Overly wordy&quot;? Gimme a break!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy?
&gt;
&gt; Not particularly.

OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
opera libretto? I keep hitting a brick wall due to what is to me a fault of
the style -- being in love with the wound of your own words -- the times I
tried.

&gt;&gt; ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;&gt; section.
&gt;
&gt; Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is too
&gt; wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
&gt; words he needed: and not a word more.

As I say in another answer, it's what invariably happens when one writes in
a style of an oral history, which is what Tolkien does, because when one
puts it on paper that way you see exactly just how over-worded it is for
reading. It's easy to prove -- switch from reading it off the page to
having it read to you.

&gt; --
&gt; derek

Report this message

#77: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:21:11 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eecd985a8a5cee098a517&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eecd985a8a5cee098a517&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt;&gt; &gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Before you knock it, why do't you try it?
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; We *have* &quot;tried it&quot;, i.e. watched Jackson's films.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Clown, I meant make a screenplay from a big fat over-written book. and
&gt;&gt; before you get onto that ...
&gt;
&gt; I suppose name-calling is always easier than actually responding to
&gt; my point, which was:
&gt;
&gt; Sat, 3 Jun 2006 23:35:23 -0400 from Stan Brown
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; It is not necessary to be a filmmaker to see flaws in a film, any
&gt;&gt; more than it's necessary to be a cook to know food is spoiled.

That makes about as much sense as anything I've ever heard coming out of a
theater director's mouth when it came to the &quot;sound&quot; for the play in
question. Just because someone hires you to direct it never means you know
squat about sound, but that hiring makes every incompetent with a little
experience on stage think he just got a PhD in music compositon.

If you're an Epstein you can't see any good in any Tolkien film, but is that
the fault of the filmmaker? (Epstein will say yes but he's crazy from the
get-go.)

Report this message

#78: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:29:31 by David Gray Porter

EXAMPLE #1 -- The Man Who Will Always Be Disappointed

&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eecd900e831ef2498a516&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eecd900e831ef2498a516&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.
&gt;
&gt; Only when made by people who don't understand the book.
&gt;
&gt; Either Jackson was lying when he said he was faithful to the book, or
&gt; he truly didn't understand what it was about.
&gt;
&gt; Either way, he made a moderately interesting action flick, but we're
&gt; still waiting for a movie version of Tolkien's work.

I've been imagining LotR on film since 1969, and I don't feel disappointed
with the Jackson films. I avoided the Bakshi disaster until last year
because I knew that one was a stinker. I was somewhat disappointed with the
theatrical releases of TT and RotK to one degree or another, especially the
way Christyopher Lee got shafted in the third one. What I've seen is that
there are important and unimportant deviations from the books. An
unimportant one is the time-compression of Frodo's leaving the Shire. An
extremely important one is that Sauron NOT appear in the final battle in
front of the Black Gate(s) [there being two gates in the film is another
example of uinimporant deviation, but Sauron leaving Barad-Dur would be
inexcusable, and they wisely cut that and let Aragorn battle a troll]. I'm
not bringing up the Bombadil omission because that part of the book is
frankly embarrassing.

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>

&gt; --
&gt; Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
&gt; <a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
&gt; Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
&gt; Tolkien letters FAQ:
&gt; <a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
&gt; FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
&gt; Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
&gt; more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#79: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:30:04 by David Gray Porter

I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual post.

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>


&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eecd8a97fd46afd98a515&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eecd8a97fd46afd98a515&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 08:00:22 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1eec1f01ad8bb60f98a50e&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:32:16 GMT from David Gray Porter
&gt;&gt; &gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; Ah -- upside-down posting, that near-infallible pointer to bogosity.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I don't like it -- it's the goddang default on this new machine and I
&gt;&gt; can't
&gt;&gt; find whered to unbdo it -- yet.
&gt;
&gt; Your machine has no cursor keys and no mouse?
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
&gt; <a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
&gt; Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
&gt; Tolkien letters FAQ:
&gt; <a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
&gt; FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
&gt; Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
&gt; more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#80: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 19:36:45 by Derek Broughton

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; &quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt;&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not particularly.
&gt;
&gt; OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
&gt; opera libretto? I keep hitting a brick wall due to what is to me a fault
&gt; of the style -- being in love with the wound of your own words -- the
&gt; times I tried.

Heavens! I once tried to write a small musical libretto - opera's _way_
beyond me :-)
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;&gt;&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;&gt;&gt; section.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is too
&gt;&gt; wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
&gt;&gt; words he needed: and not a word more.
&gt;
&gt; As I say in another answer, it's what invariably happens when one writes
&gt; in a style of an oral history, which is what Tolkien does, because when
&gt; one puts it on paper that way you see exactly just how over-worded it is
&gt; for
&gt; reading. It's easy to prove -- switch from reading it off the page to
&gt; having it read to you.

I saw that post, and mostly agreed - I just don't agree that that makes
Tolkien too wordy. I'm not sure what your proof proves, either - one of
the beauties of Tolkien's writing is that I hear it in my head _as if_ it's
being read to me, and I know others in these groups feel the same way.
--
derek

Report this message

#81: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-06 20:04:41 by Phlip

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; An
&gt; unimportant one is the time-compression of Frodo's leaving the Shire.
&gt; An extremely important one is that Sauron NOT appear in the final battle
&gt; in front of the Black Gate(s)

Uh, another issue is the Morannon had a huge earthworks rampart leading up
from the vale between the Towers of the Teeth, to a fortified wall with
multiple (3?) great doors in it. Leaving the rampart out makes the black
gate look trivial.

&gt; [there being two gates in the film is another example of uinimporant
&gt; deviation, but Sauron leaving Barad-Dur would be inexcusable, and they
&gt; wisely cut that and let Aragorn battle a troll]. I'm not bringing up
&gt; the Bombadil omission because that part of the book is frankly
&gt; embarrassing.

That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

The recurring theme as Frodo leaves the Shire is everything and everyone
keeps rescuing him. Even the Gaffer rescued him when he told an untruth to
a Ringwraith (!!). He told it that Frodo had already left for Crickhollow
that morning. Note that the G. could not refuse sensitive information, but
note he's an adled old man and the info is completely misleading. It sends
all the RWs in Hobbiton off on the wrong path, at top speed, while Frodo
is still on the steps of Bag End!

Then, everyone else rescues Frodo. Eldar, Farmer Maggot, Merry, even Fatty
Bolger. All these rescues intend to push up the ultimate rescue - Aragorn
meeting Frodo in Bree. Frodo must first earn that rescue.

Look closer at the Old Forest. One of Tolkien's common themes is an
enchanted forest on the border of a realm. Even the Shire gets one. And
the Witch King tried to use it against Frodo. He passed thru the area and
cast spells to awaken every wicked thing from the Baranduin to Tyrn
Gothad.

Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle), and by a tree
(life). Then again by air (mist), and in a barrow (death). Bombadil
reliably rescues him, each time.

In between each rescue, he spends two nights in B's house. This represents
an &quot;unexpected party&quot; - the rest and tuck-in before a long march. It also
gives Frodo two nights to dream, in the house of a de-facto Maiar.

During the first dream, he sees the Elvish Towers on the West frontier of
his homeland. He has a compulsion to climb the tower and see the Sea.
(Recall that one of these towers contains a Palantir capable of viewing
Tirion.)

During the second dream, he sees silver rain that rolls back like a
curtain, revealing a far country. This is a premonition of his arrival
/at/ Tirion.

So Tom Bombadil's house represents Frodo spiritually preparing for the
ordeal he must soon face, to save his Shire and all Middle-earth. Of
course he is not mentally or physically ready. He has many mistakes yet to
make.

Because &quot;an evil will oft doth evil mar&quot;, the Witch King should not
have activated the Barrow Wights. This lead to Bombadil despoiling the
barrow, and that lead to Merry receiving a sword crafted by Numenoreans
during their wars with Angmar. No other sword could deal the Witch King so
bitter a wound.

And when Tom, the ultimate air-head, fiiinally escorts the Hobbits to his
borders (once the last border between Numenoreans and realms conquered by
Angmar), Tom takes them right to a spot on the road where a certain
Numenorean is hiding behind the border hedge.

--
Phlip

Report this message

#82: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 20:23:24 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual
&gt; post.

I used OE Quotefix, the thing Troels mentioned earlier.

Report this message

#83: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 20:24:02 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; I'm not bringing up the Bombadil omission because that part
&gt; of the book is frankly embarrassing.

Oh really? Why is that?

Report this message

#84: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-06 20:37:18 by Christopher Kreuzer

phlip &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; Look closer at the Old Forest. One of Tolkien's common themes is an
&gt; enchanted forest on the border of a realm. Even the Shire gets one.
&gt; And the Witch King tried to use it against Frodo. He passed thru the
&gt; area and cast spells to awaken every wicked thing from the Baranduin
&gt; to Tyrn Gothad.
&gt;
&gt; Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle), and by a
&gt; tree (life). Then again by air (mist), and in a barrow (death).
&gt; Bombadil reliably rescues him, each time.

Interesting. Do you think the water/air, life/death thing has any overt
meaning, or is it just a nice correspondence? I don't think you can say
Tolkien intended this, but it is nice.

&gt; In between each rescue, he spends two nights in B's house. This
&gt; represents an &quot;unexpected party&quot; - the rest and tuck-in before a long
&gt; march.

There are lots of 'quiet moments before danger' throughout the book.
This one doesn't seem any different in that respect to the others.

&gt; It also gives Frodo two nights to dream, in the house of a
&gt; de-facto Maiar.

Well, just to dream. I wouldn't overplay the &quot;Maiar&quot; bit.

&gt; During the first dream, he sees the Elvish Towers on the West
&gt; frontier of his homeland. He has a compulsion to climb the tower and
&gt; see the Sea. (Recall that one of these towers contains a Palantir
&gt; capable of viewing Tirion.)
&gt;
&gt; During the second dream, he sees silver rain that rolls back like a
&gt; curtain, revealing a far country. This is a premonition of his arrival
&gt; /at/ Tirion.

Aha! Very good. I like that. I hadn't made that connection between the
two dreams. But then what about Frodo's other dreams (some back in the
Shire, and possibly some later on)? And what about what Frodo sees in
Galadriel's mirror?

And don't forget the bit where Bombadil tells the hobbits tales of
ancient times &quot;singing back into the ancient starlight, when only the
elf sires were awake&quot;. And the &quot;who are you&quot; - &quot;Eldest&quot; bit. That is
absolutely the most magical moment in the whole book.

&gt; So Tom Bombadil's house represents Frodo spiritually preparing for the
&gt; ordeal he must soon face, to save his Shire and all Middle-earth. Of
&gt; course he is not mentally or physically ready. He has many mistakes
&gt; yet to make.
&gt;
&gt; Because &quot;an evil will oft doth evil mar&quot;, the Witch King should not
&gt; have activated the Barrow Wights. This lead to Bombadil despoiling the
&gt; barrow, and that lead to Merry receiving a sword crafted by
&gt; Numenoreans during their wars with Angmar. No other sword could deal
&gt; the Witch King so bitter a wound.

Haven't seen the complete link made from activation by the WK to
stabbing of the WK by Merry. That's an interesting idea.

&gt; And when Tom, the ultimate air-head, fiiinally escorts the Hobbits to
&gt; his borders (once the last border between Numenoreans and realms
&gt; conquered by Angmar), Tom takes them right to a spot on the road
&gt; where a certain Numenorean is hiding behind the border hedge.

Well, I don't think Aragorn would have failed to meet up with the
hobbits, regardless of what Bombadil did. And calling Bombadil an
airhead is really not on! :-)

Thanks for that analysis of the Bombadil sequence.
Do you think it is filmable? Including the dreams?

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#85: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 20:38:39 by Christopher Kreuzer

Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; - one of the beauties of Tolkien's writing is that I hear it in my
&gt; head _as if_ it's being read to me, and I know others in these groups
&gt; feel the same way.

Absolutely. Or I just read it out anyway.

Report this message

#86: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-06 21:04:49 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt;&gt; Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle), and by a
&gt;&gt; tree (life). Then again by air (mist), and in a barrow (death).
&gt;&gt; Bombadil reliably rescues him, each time.
&gt;
&gt; Interesting. Do you think the water/air, life/death thing has any overt
&gt; meaning, or is it just a nice correspondence? I don't think you can say
&gt; Tolkien intended this, but it is nice.

The two chapters are stupid without it. The Withywindle has no
significance to the plot (other than to form a modern mirror of the
ancient Tasarinan). The barrow wight itself has no significance.

&gt;&gt; In between each rescue, he spends two nights in B's house. This
&gt;&gt; represents an &quot;unexpected party&quot; - the rest and tuck-in before a long
&gt;&gt; march.
&gt;
&gt; There are lots of 'quiet moments before danger' throughout the book.
&gt; This one doesn't seem any different in that respect to the others.

It's carbo-loading. Eating and sleeping a lot. Frodo couldn't do it until
now, due to his cover story of moving to Crickhollow.

&gt; Aha! Very good. I like that. I hadn't made that connection between the
&gt; two dreams. But then what about Frodo's other dreams (some back in the
&gt; Shire, and possibly some later on)? And what about what Frodo sees in
&gt; Galadriel's mirror?

They are not Bombadil-influenced.

Imagine Middle-earth is a single desolate craton, with nothing living on
it. Then Something arives, and it watches life arise. It sees the first
acorn fall. It takes shape, and sees the Great Old Forest stretch from the
Baranduin to the Anduin. It is an Earth Spirit, the ward of Middle-earth,
and it uses spontaneous randomness to slowly and subtly influence its
entire domain.

&gt; Haven't seen the complete link made from activation by the WK to
&gt; stabbing of the WK by Merry. That's an interesting idea.

All evil acts come back in unexpected ways to harm the do-er. All acts,
even mistakes, with good intentions, come back to help the do-er.

Note that as Angmar rose to challenge Arnor, halflings living south of
Rivendell fled (back) over the Misty Mountains, and settled the Gladden
Fields. There they developed a riparian culture. Lots of fishing and
diving. And, after a while, one of them notices a gleam of gold at the
bottom of a pool...

(Another movie screw-up - we all agree Gollum himself was perfect (and
far-and-above the best actor!;). The sequence showing him degrading
was simply amazing. He even pronounced &quot;yarr-um&quot; correctly. However, when
he found the Ring, he should have been dressed like a riparian indian,
like a Lenni Lenapi! Not like a Shire hobbit while sport-fishing!!)

&gt; Do you think it is filmable? Including the dreams?

The pen is mightier than the story-board. ;-)

--
Phlip

Report this message

#87: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 21:06:18 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual
&gt;&gt; post.
&gt;
&gt; I used OE Quotefix, the thing Troels mentioned earlier.

Learn to edit text rapidly, with keystrokes, without reaching for the
mouse.

--
Phlip

Report this message

#88: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-06 22:30:27 by David Gray Porter

I'm sorry, but you got Monty Python stuck in me mind...

--
<a href="http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/Niekum.doc" target="_blank"> http://depts.washington.edu/reecas/events/conf2002/papers02/ Niekum.doc</a>


&quot;phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.06.18.04.38.896821&#64;gEEEmail.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.06.06.18.04.38.896821&#64;gEEEmail.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt; Look closer at the Old Forest. One of Tolkien's common themes is an
&gt; enchanted forest on the border of a realm. Even the Shire gets one. And
&gt; the Witch King tried to use it against Frodo. He passed thru the area and
&gt; cast spells to awaken every wicked thing from the Baranduin to Tyrn
&gt; Gothad.

OK, that'a granted, but it doesn't change the embarrassing quality that
imbues Bombadil that made me cringe in my later high school years.

&gt; Frodo gets captured twice, once by water (the withywindle),

Oh man, those names!
Derrek the Dwarf lived down by the Dingly Dell, There he sold prophylactics
to the children and ... !! -- with a melon!???
The Shire stuff is just too clying!
&quot;Withywindle.&quot; Ack.
But the Shire gets cool when one of the Merry Companions sez he wants to
punch Lotho's pimply face...

I'll greant your points and I see the connections in your analysis, but it
can't change the content of the Bombadil passages. &quot;Ya cain't put lipstick
onna pig an' 'spect it look like somethin' beside a pig.&quot;
Hey Doll trip and fall
Hard upon your boot-y!
Tom's pass'd out 'gainst the wall
Pants all full of dooty!

Report this message

#89: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-06 22:30:53 by TT Arvind

Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:

&gt; Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
&gt; much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)

Though not &quot;pithy&quot; in the &quot;Well, I'm back&quot; sense, there are a number of
instances where characters say a lot in a sentence or two. Tolkien was
actually very good at this. Examples:

'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

&quot;Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and
beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!&quot;

--
Arvind

How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow?
It has more feathers than the dove, and it doesn't have that dangerous
beak.

Report this message

#90: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 22:44:06 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Christopher Kreuzer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:6Ljhg.81933$<a href="mailto:wl.63975&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk..." target="_blank">wl.63975&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I'm not bringing up the Bombadil omission because that part
&gt;&gt; of the book is frankly embarrassing.
&gt;
&gt; Oh really? Why is that?

Too cute. The part of the trilogy geared toward children under 8.

Report this message

#91: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-06 22:46:24 by David Gray Porter

Maybe it's just the individual's writing style. I never had a problem
reading Shakespeare but a lot of people tell me they find him infathomable.

And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.

&quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:d2rgl3-d2i.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">d2rgl3-d2i.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; You don't find Mary Shelley overly-wordy?
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Not particularly.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
&gt;&gt; opera libretto? I keep hitting a brick wall due to what is to me a fault
&gt;&gt; of the style -- being in love with the wound of your own words -- the
&gt;&gt; times I tried.
&gt;
&gt; Heavens! I once tried to write a small musical libretto - opera's _way_
&gt; beyond me :-)
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; section.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is
&gt;&gt;&gt; too
&gt;&gt;&gt; wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
&gt;&gt;&gt; words he needed: and not a word more.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; As I say in another answer, it's what invariably happens when one writes
&gt;&gt; in a style of an oral history, which is what Tolkien does, because when
&gt;&gt; one puts it on paper that way you see exactly just how over-worded it is
&gt;&gt; for
&gt;&gt; reading. It's easy to prove -- switch from reading it off the page to
&gt;&gt; having it read to you.
&gt;
&gt; I saw that post, and mostly agreed - I just don't agree that that makes
&gt; Tolkien too wordy. I'm not sure what your proof proves, either - one of
&gt; the beauties of Tolkien's writing is that I hear it in my head _as if_
&gt; it's
&gt; being read to me, and I know others in these groups feel the same way.
&gt; --
&gt; derek

Report this message

#92: Re: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-06 23:52:51 by Christopher Kreuzer

TT Arvind &lt;<a href="mailto:ttarvind&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">ttarvind&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
&gt;&gt; much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)
&gt;
&gt; Though not &quot;pithy&quot; in the &quot;Well, I'm back&quot; sense, there are a number
&gt; of instances where characters say a lot in a sentence or two.
&gt; Tolkien was actually very good at this. Examples:
&gt;
&gt; 'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and
&gt; beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!&quot;

Nice!

That's reminded me of one of my favorites as well:

&quot;'You come at last,' she said. 'I have waited too long.'
'It was a dark road. I have come as I could,' he answered.
'But you are too late,' [she] said. 'They are lost.'
'I know it,' he said. 'But you are not.'
But [she] said: 'Almost. I am spent. I shall go with the sun.

[...]

they sat beside the stone, and did not speak again; and when the sun
went down Morwen sighed and clasped his hand, and was still; and Hurin
knew that she had died.&quot; (Of the Ruin of Doriath)

The text before and after the conversation is strong, vibrant and
definitely not short: &quot;...that light still gleamed in them that long ago
had earned for her the name Eledhwen, proudest and most beautiful of
mortal women in the days of old.&quot; and &quot;[he] sat unmoving beside her as
the night drew down. The waters of Cabed Naeramarth roared on, but he
heard no sound...&quot; etc.

But the actual words between Morwen and Hurin speak absolute volumes,
and no more is needed. Short and to the point. And totally
heartbreaking.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#93: Re: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-07 02:02:08 by Christopher Kreuzer

TT Arvind &lt;<a href="mailto:ttarvind&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">ttarvind&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Though actually, I'm having trouble finding many pithy quotes. It is
&gt;&gt; much easier to find long-winded (but nice) ones! :-)
&gt;
&gt; Though not &quot;pithy&quot; in the &quot;Well, I'm back&quot; sense, there are a number
&gt; of instances where characters say a lot in a sentence or two.
&gt; Tolkien was actually very good at this.

Here's another one:

&quot;Ónen i-Estel Edain, ú-chebin estel anim.&quot;

(Gilraen's linnod from Appendix A: &quot;I gave Hope to the Dúnedain, I have
kept no hope for myself.&quot;)

Report this message

#94: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 02:17:15 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; Well, I don't think Aragorn would have failed to meet up with the
&gt; hobbits, regardless of what Bombadil did. And calling Bombadil an
&gt; airhead is really not on! :-)

What's most curious is this: Tom leaves Frodo on the road, and Frodo
immediately reminds his companions to use the name Underhill. He doesn't
mention it again (and it foreshadows Bree). Only after this lecture do they
start walking.

In Bree, Aragorn slips over the gate after them, and meets Frodo in the Inn.
He says he overhead the name &quot;Underhill&quot;, on the road - a name he was
waiting to hear.

This implies that Tom brought Frodo directly to the spot where he was most
likely to say &quot;Underhill&quot; close enough to Aragorn for him to hear it. Frodo
must say &quot;Underhill&quot; only after leaving Tom and before traveling on the
road.

And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he overlooked a
full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#95: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 03:50:57 by Emma Pease

In article &lt;fWohg.39908$<a href="mailto:4L1.24125&#64;newssvr11.news.prodigy.com" target="_blank">4L1.24125&#64;newssvr11.news.prodigy.com</a>&gt;, Phlip wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Well, I don't think Aragorn would have failed to meet up with the
&gt;&gt; hobbits, regardless of what Bombadil did. And calling Bombadil an
&gt;&gt; airhead is really not on! :-)
&gt;
&gt; What's most curious is this: Tom leaves Frodo on the road, and Frodo
&gt; immediately reminds his companions to use the name Underhill. He doesn't
&gt; mention it again (and it foreshadows Bree). Only after this lecture do they
&gt; start walking.
&gt;
&gt; In Bree, Aragorn slips over the gate after them, and meets Frodo in the Inn.
&gt; He says he overhead the name &quot;Underhill&quot;, on the road - a name he was
&gt; waiting to hear.
&gt;
&gt; This implies that Tom brought Frodo directly to the spot where he was most
&gt; likely to say &quot;Underhill&quot; close enough to Aragorn for him to hear it. Frodo
&gt; must say &quot;Underhill&quot; only after leaving Tom and before traveling on the
&gt; road.
&gt;
&gt; And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he overlooked a
&gt; full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??

If Tom realized Aragorn was there he would likely realize that he was
a ranger and meant no evil.

There probably weren't too many usual exits out of Tom's land and
Aragorn possibly knew enough to wait and watch (or possibly was
considering entering himself to search).

Aragorn didn't need the &quot;Underhill&quot; reference to realize the party
almost certainly included Frodo (four hobbits wandering around was
unusual enough and it is possible that Pippin, Merry, and Frodo had
some family resemblence to Bilbo who Aragorn knew). Underhill
confirmed his suspicion and would also confirm which hobbit was
Frodo. He later tried to use it to get in with the hobbits, but, that
backfired a bit.

On a side issue, how extensive were Tom's contacts outside his land.
He knew Farmer Maggot. He knew of Butterbur but did he know him
personally? I think yes. Others? Some rangers?



--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

Report this message

#96: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 04:44:55 by Stan Brown

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:10:10 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
&lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt;:
&gt; Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt; tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
&gt; &gt; &quot;mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot; or &quot;they are
&gt; &gt; gone. they left the havens long ago.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Ooh! This could be fun!!
&gt;
&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

Tolkien himself talks about this at length in a Letter. He points out
that his language, especially when it seems &quot;archaic&quot;, is often more
terse than contemporary language. His example is &quot;Helms too they
chose&quot;, which in modern language would be &quot;They also picked out
helmets&quot; or something of the source. (I'm paraphrasing from memory,
except that I'm sure of the &quot;Helms too they chose&quot; quote, which was
part of the narration of events in Rohan.)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#97: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 04:47:16 by Stan Brown

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:30:04 GMT from David Gray Porter
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:
&gt; I want to change the default, not have to mess with each individual post.

You *have* to &quot;mess with each individual post&quot;, because you need to
trim your quoted material.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#98: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 05:31:06 by Phlip

Emma Pease wrote:

&gt;&gt; And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he
&gt;&gt; overlooked a
&gt;&gt; full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??
&gt;
&gt; If Tom realized Aragorn was there he would likely realize that he was
&gt; a ranger and meant no evil.

When Tom spoke of the history of Arnor, during Frodo's day of rest, the
hobbits fell into visions of a line of kings and chieftans; the last with a
star on his brow.

That introduced the topic of Aragorn to the readers, and forshadowed Frodo
meeting him.

I think Tom subconsciously lead Frodo directly to Aragorn, but Tom remained
too wifty and random to simply introduce them. And of course &quot;here's this
guy behind the hedge&quot; would have been awkward.

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#99: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 08:32:52 by David Gray Porter

Why did the word &quot;dick&quot; come to mind?

Oh look, I over-snipped...

Report this message

#100: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 08:38:59 by David Gray Porter

OK, rag me about the top post if you have nothing better... however ...

That line. &quot;Helms too they chose,&quot; is wonderful in its MUSICAL quality. It
is PRECISELY the line a librettist would want from a writer, and a composer
would want from a poet. &quot;HELMS TOO, THEY CHOSE&quot; is probably how it would be
set, as:
quarter / triplet quarter plus triplet eighth / quarter / quarter rest
HELMS TOO THEY CHOSE!
[hope the alignment happens]

(And the line should be sent as an affirmative, with a forceful presentation
and array of notes for the melody, because they didn't fuck around! How
'bout F#-B-F#-d#?)



&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:MPG.1ef007b51858a30198a526&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1ef007b51858a30198a526&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt; Tolkien himself talks about this at length in a Letter. He points out
&gt; that his language, especially when it seems &quot;archaic&quot;, is often more
&gt; terse than contemporary language. His example is &quot;Helms too they
&gt; chose&quot;, which in modern language would be &quot;They also picked out
&gt; helmets&quot; or something of the source. (I'm paraphrasing from memory,
&gt; except that I'm sure of the &quot;Helms too they chose&quot; quote, which was
&gt; part of the narration of events in Rohan.)

Report this message

#101: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 08:41:13 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlipcpp&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">phlipcpp&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:fWohg.39908$<a href="mailto:4L1.24125&#64;newssvr11.news.prodigy.com..." target="_blank">4L1.24125&#64;newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...</a>
&gt; And Tom behaves like an air-head, but do you reeeeally think he overlooked
&gt; a full-grown human hiding right on the border of his land??

The acid kicked in just as Merry and Pip assumed their shapes of toaster and
coffee percolater...

Report this message

#102: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 12:06:13 by Charilaos Velaris

&gt; That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

I admit to never having understood Bombadil from a story-internal
perspective, although I have read the various theories, e.g. Robert Foster's
take that he is &quot;a Maia gone native&quot; (the least improbable) as well as
others who believe him to be Aulë (with Goldberry as Yavanna) or even Eru
himself. The problem, I think, is that he just doesn't fit in. Without being
able to prove it, I believe that Tolkien could have intended to further
develop the character. Gandalf and the Elves know about him and he is
respected among them. His stature is further elevated by the fact that
Gandalf deems it proper to have a long talk with him at the end of the war.
However, the tone in the Bombadil chapters is alien to LotR and could have
been plucked out of a children's book.
If, on the other hand, Bombadil was referred to by his Sindarin name,
Iarwain Ben-Adar (Old Without-father) and he spoke in a more sophisticated,
less childish manner, I agree he could be a very intriguing character. As it
is, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a Maia acting like a clown. Is there
anything about Bombadil in Tolkien's letters (other than the story about the
inspiration from his son's doll)?
Another thought: Could the whole Bombadil story be a kind of collective
dream for the company? Thus, it could have been an Ainu orchestrating the
show in order to get across his message and arm the Hobbits with the
Barrow-blade, but he didn't have an actual physical form involving a blue
jacket and yellow boots. An Elf could have seen him differently, say dressed
in a L?rien cloak with long silver hair.

Report this message

#103: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 13:25:36 by Taemon

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.

And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?

Oh, wait.

Here.

<a href="http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/" target="_blank">http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/</a>

You're welcome.

T.

Report this message

#104: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 15:32:20 by Phlip

Charilaos Velaris wrote:

&gt; ... His stature is further elevated by the fact that Gandalf deems it
&gt; proper to have a long talk with him at the end of the war.

That wasn't just the end of the war. It was the end of Gandalf's &gt;2,000 year
visit to Middle-earth.

&gt; ...I am uncomfortable with the idea of a Maia acting like a clown...

Would you prefer the Norse god Loki?

(Whose mask can turn ordinary dweebs into Jim Carrey?;)

&gt; ...to get across his message and arm the Hobbits with the Barrow-blade...

It's not just about the Barrow-blade!

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#105: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 15:35:53 by urban

If direct quotes from characters in the stories are the topic, one
that I use quite a lot is, &quot;I am no weather-master; nor is aught that
goes on two legs.&quot;

Report this message

#106: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 15:52:12 by Derek Broughton

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; Why did the word &quot;dick&quot; come to mind?
&gt;
&gt; Oh look, I over-snipped...

David, it's a matter of etiquette. There's just no call to piss everybody
off.
--
derek

Report this message

#107: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 19:40:53 by bredband.net

&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:qqwgg.8811$<a href="mailto:921.3758&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">921.3758&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>

[snip]

&gt; Films like this will always be Errol-Flynn-hand-to-hand-combat films.
&gt; There's a lot of fukkin' bloody hand-to-hand combat in the books too. In
&gt; a film you need the main characters to be the ones doing the fighting.
&gt; And characters get combined -- Glorfindl and Arwen and Elrond and ... oh,
&gt; what
And in the film, Glorfindl was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't he?

Öjevind

Report this message

#108: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-07 20:00:08 by Phlip

Öjevind Lång wrote:

&gt; And in the film, Glorfindel was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't
&gt; he?

Hasta la vista, Balrog!

--
Phlip

Report this message

#109: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 20:25:54 by JimboCat

Phlip wrote:
&gt;That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.

Hurrah! Well done!

I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the Master
managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to me.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
The great danger of
Hydrogen cyanide is
Not to be sniffed at

Report this message

#110: Re: short quotes [Was - question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-07 20:27:56 by nfw

Morgil a écrit :
&gt; Phlip wrote:
&gt;&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Fly, you fools!&quot;
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Wherever I have been, I am back,&quot;

&quot;Pipsqueak had a strange feeling: he stood still like a great boulder by
the sea, while Gandalf's words crashed over him like waves driven by a
violent wind&quot;
and
&quot;A flowing trumpet call rang out from the distant castle, and at that
signal, the seven gates of the city swung open, welcoming visitors with
the promise of Magic™ and Wonder™&quot; (Book V, Chapter 1: Minas Tirith™)

and also

&quot;He also wanted to know if Bombadil still had his copy of the DSM
IV lying around somewhere&quot; (Book VI, Chapter 7: Bound To Go Homewards)

Well done! :-)

--
nfw - brasseur grandefaux com
à point

Report this message

#111: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-08 07:37:28 by Laurie Forbes

&quot;JimboCat&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com" target="_blank">103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1149704754.477952.208910&#64;g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149704754.477952.208910&#64;g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt; Phlip wrote:
&gt; &gt;That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
&gt;
&gt; Hurrah! Well done!
&gt;
&gt; I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
&gt; within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the Master
&gt; managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to me.
&gt;
&gt; Jim Deutch (JimboCat)

I second the &quot;well done&quot; part! I can't remember when I've enjoyed a post as
much as I did this one by Phlip (alas, now snipped) (the post, that is) ..
or phlip, as he was known in those days. Readable and thought-stimulating
for all, IMO, and especially so for anyone like me who's simply &quot;read the
book&quot; but never made it through any of the supporting (?) literature.
(&quot;Letters&quot; ...... [SHIVER])

--
Laurie Forbes

Report this message

#112: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 08:14:58 by David Gray Porter

OK, point taken, but it's a habit from when I was reading for a blind friend
every week, and in sveeral groups there was a discussion about how much to
NOT snip as well as how much to snip. I leave as much as I feel is needed
for context.

&quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:c92jl3-51m.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">c92jl3-51m.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Oh look, I over-snipped...
&gt;
&gt; It's a matter of etiquette. There's just no call to piss everybody
&gt; off.
&gt; --
&gt; derek

Report this message

#113: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 08:19:34 by David Gray Porter

Well, thanx, twerp.

&quot;Taemon&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Taemon&#64;zonnet.nl" target="_blank">Taemon&#64;zonnet.nl</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4enrdpF1fgsojU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4enrdpF1fgsojU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.
&gt;
&gt; And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
&gt; problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?

Would you like me to insert a digit into an anonymous person's anal orifice?
I'll use a &quot;3.&quot; The esses make for easy insertion...
Hey, weed, you might suggest a solution.
Or am I putting wings on the Balrog?

&gt; Oh, wait.
&gt;
&gt; Here.
&gt;
&gt; <a href="http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/" target="_blank">http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/</a>
&gt;
&gt; You're welcome.
&gt;
&gt; T.
&gt;

Report this message

#114: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-08 08:25:21 by David Gray Porter

What I like about this commentary is that it recasts the Bombadil episode in
a Silmarillion light.
And yes, I am deliberately not smipping it all, because it is worth
repetition.
And Philip Glass is more repetetive than my reposting this, so &quot;in winter.&quot;

&quot;Charilaos Velaris&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:4486a514$0$920$<a href="mailto:ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr..." target="_blank">ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr...</a>
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
&gt;
&gt; I admit to never having understood Bombadil from a story-internal
&gt; perspective, although I have read the various theories, e.g. Robert
&gt; Foster's take that he is &quot;a Maia gone native&quot; (the least improbable) as
&gt; well as others who believe him to be Aulë (with Goldberry as Yavanna) or
&gt; even Eru himself. The problem, I think, is that he just doesn't fit in.
&gt; Without being able to prove it, I believe that Tolkien could have intended
&gt; to further develop the character. Gandalf and the Elves know about him and
&gt; he is respected among them. His stature is further elevated by the fact
&gt; that Gandalf deems it proper to have a long talk with him at the end of
&gt; the war. However, the tone in the Bombadil chapters is alien to LotR and
&gt; could have been plucked out of a children's book.
&gt; If, on the other hand, Bombadil was referred to by his Sindarin name,
&gt; Iarwain Ben-Adar (Old Without-father) and he spoke in a more
&gt; sophisticated, less childish manner, I agree he could be a very intriguing
&gt; character. As it is, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a Maia acting
&gt; like a clown. Is there anything about Bombadil in Tolkien's letters (other
&gt; than the story about the inspiration from his son's doll)?
&gt; Another thought: Could the whole Bombadil story be a kind of collective
&gt; dream for the company? Thus, it could have been an Ainu orchestrating the
&gt; show in order to get across his message and arm the Hobbits with the
&gt; Barrow-blade, but he didn't have an actual physical form involving a blue
&gt; jacket and yellow boots. An Elf could have seen him differently, say
&gt; dressed in a L?rien cloak with long silver hair.
&gt;

Report this message

#115: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-08 11:05:01 by bredband.net

&quot;Laurie Forbes&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:moc.rr.eniam&#64;1sebrofr" target="_blank">moc.rr.eniam&#64;1sebrofr</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:sIOhg.14099$<a href="mailto:W97.7257&#64;twister.nyroc.rr.com..." target="_blank">W97.7257&#64;twister.nyroc.rr.com...</a>

&gt; &quot;JimboCat&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com" target="_blank">103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:1149704754.477952.208910&#64;g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149704754.477952.208910&#64;g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; Phlip wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Hurrah! Well done!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
&gt;&gt; within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the Master
&gt;&gt; managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to me.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
&gt;
&gt; I second the &quot;well done&quot; part! I can't remember when I've enjoyed a post
&gt; as
&gt; much as I did this one by Phlip (alas, now snipped) (the post, that is) ..
&gt; or phlip, as he was known in those days. Readable and thought-stimulating
&gt; for all, IMO, and especially so for anyone like me who's simply &quot;read the
&gt; book&quot; but never made it through any of the supporting (?) literature.
&gt; (&quot;Letters&quot; ...... [SHIVER])

I third it. Man, do some of Tolkien's letter suck! His books are
*literature*, to be enjoyed as such, not sacred texts. It's a pity that he
himself apparently began to forget that at times when corresponding with
some of his more scholastically inclined admireres. Still, I think he would
have been quite annoyed if someone had written to ask him about B*lr*g
w*ngs.

Öjevind

Report this message

#116: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 11:31:11 by bredband.net

&quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:<a href="mailto:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>

[snip]

&gt;&gt; ... and so is Tolkien. Well, it is a craft of words, but it's
&gt;&gt; often like music that goes on a little longer than you'd prefer in each
&gt;&gt; section.
&gt;
&gt; Dem's fighting words, here! I would completely agree that Tolkien is too
&gt; wordy for (modern) film - but for the purposes of literature he used the
&gt; words he needed: and not a word more.

I agree. Criticizing Tolkien for not writing film script when he wrote LotR
seems a bit weird to me. And I write as one who enjoyed Jackson's films but
think they could have been much better. I was annoyed by all the gratuitous
snipping or twisting of dialogue and plot to include more cool fighting. (Of
course, I do not mean to imply that the films could have been made
completely without editing and minor plot changes.)
I also thought a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens &amp; Walsh
really sucked. Elrond thundering: &quot;Man has failed! I saw him fail three
thousand years ago!&quot; Théoden sobbing: &quot;No father should have to bury his
child&quot; (or words to that effect&quot;). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
expense, not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: &quot;My
cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;
Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me. As depicted in the book,
he is one of the most interesting characters in the whole epic. Cold,
calculating, overproud but convinced that he is acting for the best of his
country, and for a long time actually having done the best he could with a
really bad hand of cards. In the film version, he was reduced to a
stereotyped decadent Roman emperor who does not say a single memorable thing
(and there was any amount of great dialogue to choose from), and who spends
all his time eating, moaning, making stupid decisions or screaming: &quot;Flee
for your lives!&quot; And his end, which is horrifying in the book, is plain
silly in the film: &quot;Denethor's burning leap&quot; (through a convenient hole in
the citadel wall) is almost Pythonesque.
In the film, Denethor telling Faramir to try to regain control of the
crossings of Anduin is not obviously a bad decision. Doubtful, perhaps, but
not clearly moronic. In the film, that has turned into a command to Faramir
to commit suicide with his men, imparted while Denethor is eating chicken.

Öjevind

Report this message

#117: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 11:37:17 by bredband.net

&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:WjPhg.10442$<a href="mailto:921.5666&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">921.5666&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>
&gt; Well, thanx, twerp.
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Taemon&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Taemon&#64;zonnet.nl" target="_blank">Taemon&#64;zonnet.nl</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4enrdpF1fgsojU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4enrdpF1fgsojU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
&gt;&gt; problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?
&gt;
&gt; Would you like me to insert a digit into an anonymous person's anal
&gt; orifice?
&gt; I'll use a &quot;3.&quot; The esses make for easy insertion...
&gt; Hey, weed, you might suggest a solution.
&gt; Or am I putting wings on the Balrog?

I really don't think you need to get abusive to everybody who happens to
disagree with you. If that's your thing, I think you should start editing
articles in the Wikipedia instead. Just try to remember the 3RR guideline!

Öjevind

Report this message

#118: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 11:38:56 by bredband.net

&quot;Christopher Kreuzer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:S68hg.81601$<a href="mailto:wl.36497&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk..." target="_blank">wl.36497&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...</a>
&gt; Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
&gt;&gt; &quot;mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot; or &quot;they are
&gt;&gt; gone. they left the havens long ago.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Ooh! This could be fun!!
&gt;
&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

&quot;Your wait may be long.&quot; (The man of Rohan who tells Háma that he thinks
Gandalf has left them in the lurch.)

Öjevind

Report this message

#119: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 11:42:00 by bredband.net

&quot;phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.07.18.00.07.498449&#64;gEEEmail.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.06.07.18.00.07.498449&#64;gEEEmail.com...</a>
&gt; Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; And in the film, Glorfindel was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't
&gt;&gt; he?
&gt;
&gt; Hasta la vista, Balrog!

:-D

But an Austrian Elf would spell his name &quot;Glorfindl&quot;!

Öjevind

Report this message

#120: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 17:06:00 by Charilaos Velaris

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; a écrit dans le message de news:
<a href="mailto:4eq931F1f18klU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4eq931F1f18klU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">kvtbl3-lcj.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>

&gt; I agree. Criticizing Tolkien for not writing film script when he wrote
&gt; LotR seems a bit weird to me. And I write as one who enjoyed Jackson's
&gt; films but think they could have been much better.

....

(Of
&gt; course, I do not mean to imply that the films could have been made
&gt; completely without editing and minor plot changes.)

Actually, they could. It's just that nobody besides us would want to watch
them :-)

&gt; I also thought a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens &amp; Walsh
&gt; really sucked. Elrond thundering: &quot;Man has failed! I saw him fail three
&gt; thousand years ago!&quot; Théoden sobbing: &quot;No father should have to bury his
&gt; child&quot; (or words to that effect&quot;). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
&gt; expense,

Agreed. But I really liked the scene between Aragorn and Arwen and their
conversation - in Sindarin (I had some very slight disagreements about the
pronunciation).

not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: &quot;My
&gt; cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;

You may be right about the silliness of some of the comments (Gimli was not
so confident about Balin's fate), but I'd go with Jackson about the accent.
One of the problems with Dwarves speaking foreign languages was that they
excessively rolled their &quot;R&quot;s. The Eldar in particular took issue with this.
A Scottish accent is a good rendition of this effect in English.

&gt; Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me. As depicted in the
&gt; book, he is one of the most interesting characters in the whole epic.
&gt; Cold, calculating, overproud but convinced that he is acting for the best
&gt; of his country, and for a long time actually having done the best he could
&gt; with a really bad hand of cards. In the film version, he was reduced to a
&gt; stereotyped decadent Roman emperor who does not say a single memorable
&gt; thing (and there was any amount of great dialogue to choose from), and who
&gt; spends all his time eating, moaning, making stupid decisions or screaming:
&gt; &quot;Flee for your lives!&quot; And his end, which is horrifying in the book, is
&gt; plain silly in the film: &quot;Denethor's burning leap&quot; (through a convenient
&gt; hole in the citadel wall) is almost Pythonesque.

Well, Denethor /is/ deranged at the end, though I agree that his end should
be more tragic than comic.

&gt; In the film, Denethor telling Faramir to try to regain control of the
&gt; crossings of Anduin is not obviously a bad decision. Doubtful, perhaps,
&gt; but not clearly moronic. In the film, that has turned into a command to
&gt; Faramir to commit suicide with his men, imparted while Denethor is eating
&gt; chicken.

In effect, the counterattack on Sauron's forces /is/ suicide, though it
could be useful in gaining time. They should indeed have omitted the
chicken. :-)

Report this message

#121: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 17:41:31 by Jette Goldie

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote
&gt; not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: &quot;My cousin
&gt; Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;


Welsh. That was a Welsh accent. Nothing like a Scots accent.

Pippin had a Scots accent.

Merry came close.

Gimli's accent was Welsh.


--
Jette Goldie
<a href="mailto:jette&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">jette&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>
<a href="http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/</a>
(&quot;reply to&quot; is spamblocked)

Report this message

#122: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 18:52:44 by Taemon

Öjevind Lång wrote:

&gt; I really don't think you need to get abusive to everybody who
&gt; happens to disagree with you.

I didn't disagree? I provided a Handy Link! Handy, that's me all over.
Oh wait, it's not.

T.

Report this message

#123: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 19:00:46 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#124: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 19:15:01 by Jette Goldie

&quot;Alison&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news.poster&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">news.poster&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:folg82p8abgaik1aoion17aq38i4m8jblq&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">folg82p8abgaik1aoion17aq38i4m8jblq&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:41:31 GMT, &quot;Jette Goldie&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:bosslady&#64;scotlandmail.com" target="_blank">bosslady&#64;scotlandmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote
&gt;&gt;&gt; not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: &quot;My
&gt;&gt;&gt; cousin
&gt;&gt;&gt; Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Welsh. That was a Welsh accent. Nothing like a Scots accent.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Pippin had a Scots accent.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Merry came close.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Gimli's accent was Welsh.
&gt;
&gt; John Rhys Davies (who's Welsh) was certainly aiming for a Scottish
&gt; accent, he's said so. His success was somewhere close to that of
&gt; Scottie's in Star Trek, of course....


Not even that close - I've met Jimmy Doohan and his &quot;scots&quot; accent
was a greater difference from his normal speaking voice than
Rhys Davies managed.

(and Jimmy's version sounded Irish!)


--
Jette Goldie
<a href="mailto:jette&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">jette&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>
<a href="http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/</a>
(&quot;reply to&quot; is spamblocked)

Report this message

#125: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 22:41:13 by bredband.net

&quot;Charilaos Velaris&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:44883cd7$0$847$<a href="mailto:ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr..." target="_blank">ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr...</a>

[snip]

&gt;&gt; I also thought a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens &amp; Walsh
&gt;&gt; really sucked. Elrond thundering: &quot;Man has failed! I saw him fail three
&gt;&gt; thousand years ago!&quot; Théoden sobbing: &quot;No father should have to bury his
&gt;&gt; child&quot; (or words to that effect&quot;). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
&gt;&gt; expense,
&gt;
&gt; Agreed. But I really liked the scene between Aragorn and Arwen and their
&gt; conversation - in Sindarin (I had some very slight disagreements about the
&gt; pronunciation).

I agree that that was beautiful.

&gt; not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: &quot;My
&gt;&gt; cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;
&gt;
&gt; You may be right about the silliness of some of the comments (Gimli was
&gt; not so confident about Balin's fate), but I'd go with Jackson about the
&gt; accent. One of the problems with Dwarves speaking foreign languages was
&gt; that they excessively rolled their &quot;R&quot;s. The Eldar in particular took
&gt; issue with this.
What Tolkien says in one of the appendices was that some Dwarves spoke with
uvular r's, &quot;which the Elves foudn distasteful&quot;. Uvular r's are not the
trilling r''s of Scotland, They are the kind of r's spoken in ¨France,
Germany, the Neterlands and southern Scandinavia.

Öjevind

Report this message

#126: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-08 22:51:37 by Derek Broughton

Taemon wrote:

&gt; Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I really don't think you need to get abusive to everybody who
&gt;&gt; happens to disagree with you.
&gt;
&gt; I didn't disagree? I provided a Handy Link! Handy, that's me all over.
&gt; Oh wait, it's not.

LOL! Still, you _did_ provide a very handy link, even if you had to step
right out of character to do it :-)
--
derek

Report this message

#127: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 22:58:32 by mhaines

Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;
&gt; Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me.

Me too. I still think Huge Weaving would have made a much better
Denethor than Elrond. That cold seething thing he was doing with
Elrond would have suited Denethor so much better. *sigh* Lost
opportunities.

Michelle
Flutist

Report this message

#128: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-08 23:06:17 by Phlip

Michelle J. Haines wrote:

&gt; Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me.
&gt;
&gt; Me too. I still think Huge Weaving would have made a much better Denethor
&gt; than Elrond. That cold seething thing he was doing with Elrond would have
&gt; suited Denethor so much better. *sigh* Lost opportunities.

I got stuck first on &quot;The face of Elrond was ageless&quot;.

Note Frodo first met him when sitting between the ancient Gandalf and
young-looking Glorfindel. G, E, G, folks!

--
Phlip

Report this message

#129: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 00:34:17 by Troels Forchhammer

In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:4ergbbF1g57ihU1&#64;individual.net" target="_blank">4ergbbF1g57ihU1&#64;individual.net</a>&gt; &quot;Öjevind Lång&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; enriched us with:

&gt; &quot;Charilaos Velaris&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt; skrev i
&gt; meddelandet news:44883cd7$0$847$<a href="mailto:ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr..." target="_blank">ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr...</a>
&gt;&gt;

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; What Tolkien says in one of the appendices was that some Dwarves
&gt; spoke with uvular r's, &quot;which the Elves foudn distasteful&quot;. Uvular
&gt; r's are not the trilling r''s of Scotland, They are the kind of
&gt; r's spoken in ¨France, Germany, the Neterlands and southern
&gt; Scandinavia.

E.g. Denmark . . .

I've known Danes who were incapable of trilling their r's -- one, even,
who were learning Spanish (which he pronounced with a kind of masked
uvular r's -- very alternative &lt;G&gt;).

I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

The &quot;paradox&quot; is only a conflict between reality and your
feeling of what reality &quot;ought to be&quot;.
- Richard Feynman

Report this message

#130: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 00:45:23 by TT Arvind

Taemon wrote:

&gt; Handy, that's me all over.

Doesn't &quot;Handy&quot; mean &quot;mobile telephone&quot; in German? Oh dear, now I have
a very odd image of you in my head...

--
Arvind

Report this message

#131: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 01:06:59 by Stan Brown

Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:14:58 GMT from David Gray Porter
&lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt;:

[More upside-down posting, with snarkiness thrown in for free]

Life's too short to mess with people who aren't house trained.
*plonk*

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#132: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 02:30:19 by TT Arvind

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

&gt; I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
&gt; the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?

Well, I've found it absolutely impossible to pronounce the uvular-r
they use in the west of Norway. I initially had a tendency to use the
Tamil dental r instead which sounded absolutely horrible. Nowadays, I
use an alveolar r which at least doesn't get me funny stares.

Report this message

#133: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 07:01:55 by Count Menelvagor

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

mandos gets a couple:

&quot;Not the first.&quot;

and

&quot;And yet remain evil. to me shall feanor come soon.&quot;

and there's always:

&quot;need drove them.&quot;

Report this message

#134: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-09 07:09:19 by Count Menelvagor

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; Aha! Very good. I like that. I hadn't made that connection between the
&gt; two dreams. But then what about Frodo's other dreams (some back in the
&gt; Shire, and possibly some later on)? And what about what Frodo sees in
&gt; Galadriel's mirror?

i'm vaguely wondering if anyone has done a study of frodo's dreams,
their function in the narrative, how they affect the reader's
perspective on events through foreshadowing, etc. to say nothing of
their relation to th &quot;frodo's dreme&quot; poem in /the adventures of tom
bombadil/.

Report this message

#135: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 12:33:24 by Charilaos Velaris

&gt; What Tolkien says in one of the appendices was that some Dwarves spoke
&gt; with
&gt; uvular r's, &quot;which the Elves foudn distasteful&quot;. Uvular r's are not the
&gt; trilling r''s of Scotland, They are the kind of r's spoken in ¨France,
&gt; Germany, the Neterlands and southern Scandinavia.
&gt;

You might be right about that, I was working from memory. That would make
the Jewish connection Tolkien cites in Letters easier to grasp.

Report this message

#136: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 13:44:26 by Stan Brown

Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:33:24 +0200 from Charilaos_Velaris
&lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt;:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; What Tolkien says in one of the appendices was that some Dwarves spoke
&gt; &gt; with
&gt; &gt; uvular r's, &quot;which the Elves foudn distasteful&quot;. Uvular r's are not the
&gt; &gt; trilling r''s of Scotland, They are the kind of r's spoken in ¨France,
&gt; &gt; Germany, the Neterlands and southern Scandinavia.

Please attribute your quotes.
<a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib</a>

&gt; You might be right about that, I was working from memory. That would make
&gt; the Jewish connection Tolkien cites in Letters easier to grasp.

Tolkien's comparison of Dwarves to Jews was not about the sounds of
their language. From letter 176 of 1955-12-08:

&quot;I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in
their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an
accent due to their own private tongue. ....&quot; [ellipsis in book]

In other words, Dwarves lived in particular places but always had
their own particular culture and language alongside that of the place
where they lived. At the time Tolkien wrote, and for hundreds of
years before, this was true of the Jews: they were both part of their
country and separate from it, and they had their own language
(Yiddish) that they used among themselves, while using the national
language with outsiders. It's less true today, I think.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#137: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 19:22:09 by JimboCat

=D6jevind L=E5ng wrote:

&gt;a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens &amp; Walsh
&gt;really sucked. Elrond thundering: &quot;Man has failed! I saw him fail three
&gt;thousand years ago!&quot; Th=E9oden sobbing: &quot;No father should have to bury his
&gt;child&quot; (or words to that effect&quot;). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
&gt;expense, not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent: &quot;=
My
&gt;cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;
&gt; Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me.

You know? I don't think anything they could have done with Bombadil
would have been as cringe-inducing as what they did with these moments
(and more that you've not mentioned). They should have left Bombadil
in, with his silly songs intact: at least they could have blamed those
on Tolkien!

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--=20
&quot;Frog parking only all others will be toad&quot;

Report this message

#138: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 20:44:54 by Charilaos Velaris

&gt; Tolkien's comparison of Dwarves to Jews was not about the sounds of
&gt; their language. From letter 176 of 1955-12-08:
&gt;
&gt; &quot;I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in
&gt; their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an
&gt; accent due to their own private tongue. ....&quot; [ellipsis in book]

I was precisely referring to this &quot;accent due to their own private tongue&quot;.
It seems Khuzdul is correctly pronounced with an uvular R, and thus Dwarves
can't easily pronounce a trilled one. While we're at it, how would you
pronounce your Elvish R?

Report this message

#139: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 20:53:35 by Taemon

Derek Broughton wrote:

&gt; Taemon wrote:
&gt;&gt; I didn't disagree? I provided a Handy Link! Handy, that's me all
&gt;&gt; over. Oh wait, it's not.
&gt; LOL! Still, you _did_ provide a very handy link, even if you had
&gt; to step right out of character to do it :-)

Sir, I'll have you know it's physically impossible to step out of
character!

T.

Report this message

#140: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 21:04:51 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Plonk&quot; is for pussies.

Report this message

#141: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 21:08:22 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4eq9efF1g55nhU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4eq9efF1g55nhU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
&gt; news:WjPhg.10442$<a href="mailto:921.5666&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">921.5666&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; Well, thanx, twerp.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;Taemon&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Taemon&#64;zonnet.nl" target="_blank">Taemon&#64;zonnet.nl</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4enrdpF1fgsojU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4enrdpF1fgsojU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; And I don't have OE Quotefix, apparently.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; And what on earth could we do about that? This is really a difficult
&gt;&gt;&gt; problem. I have no idea how to solve it. What to do? Oh, what to do?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Would you like me to insert a digit into an anonymous person's anal
&gt;&gt; orifice?
&gt;&gt; I'll use a &quot;3.&quot; The esses make for easy insertion...
&gt;&gt; Hey, weed, you might suggest a solution.
&gt;&gt; Or am I putting wings on the Balrog?
&gt;
&gt; I really don't think you need to get abusive to everybody who happens to
&gt; disagree with you. If that's your thing, I think you should start editing
&gt; articles in the Wikipedia instead. Just try to remember the 3RR guideline!

Someone gets abusive with me I return the favor.
Sorry, clowns, but not everyone who uses a newsreader is up on the latest in
bells and whistles in software-geek earth. Especially since these wankers
delight in making everything obsolete every three months.

Report this message

#142: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 21:15:54 by David Gray Porter

Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt are very
sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it is more projection
than knowledge of real people.
(In other words, Tolkien didn't get out much after say 1920.)

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4eq931F1f18klU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4eq931F1f18klU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; In the film, Denethor telling Faramir to try to regain control of the
&gt; crossings of Anduin is not obviously a bad decision. Doubtful, perhaps,
&gt; but not clearly moronic. In the film, that has turned into a command to
&gt; Faramir to commit suicide with his men, imparted while Denethor is eating
&gt; chicken.

In the book Denethor is an obviously unreal character, like goody-good
Faramir.
You put that up on a film screen and you're going to get laffs from the
audience.
Sorry, but it's no different than watchng some John Gilbert film from when
talkies were new. (Or comparing a 1918 Chaplin film to some overacted
melodrama from the same year.)

What do people here think of the way &quot;I, Claudius&quot; was adapted for TV?
Plenty of changes in that one. And personally I like Graves better than
Tolkien (you can't slight Graves on his scientific background), though he
can be just as windy.

Report this message

#143: Re: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 21:16:52 by TT Arvind

Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:
&gt; That's reminded me of one of my favorites as well:
&gt;
&gt; &quot;'You come at last,' she said. 'I have waited too long.'
&gt; 'It was a dark road. I have come as I could,' he answered.
&gt; 'But you are too late,' [she] said. 'They are lost.'
&gt; 'I know it,' he said. 'But you are not.'
&gt; But [she] said: 'Almost. I am spent. I shall go with the sun.


I'd forgotten about that one. JRRT really could use these one-sentence
exchanges well. Here's another - not as pithy as yours, but still to
the point:

`Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said Gimli.
'Maybe,' said Elrond, `but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has
not seen the nightfall.'
'Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli.
`Or break it,' said Elrond. `Look not too far ahead! But go now with
good hearts!


And, of course, let's not forget the wonderful homespun wisdom of Gaffer
Gamgee, about which we had a thread some time ago.

--
Arvind

Report this message

#144: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-09 21:23:08 by David Gray Porter

Topic: What makes people cringe.

&quot;JimboCat&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com" target="_blank">103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1149873729.650804.25570&#64;h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149873729.650804.25570&#64;h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...</a>
Öjevind Lång wrote:

&gt;a lot of the dialogue invented by Jackson, Boyens &amp; Walsh
&gt;really sucked. Elrond thundering: &quot;Man has failed! I saw him fail three
&gt;thousand years ago!&quot; Théoden sobbing: &quot;No father should have to bury his
&gt;child&quot; (or words to that effect&quot;). And all the shortass jokes at Gimli's
&gt;expense, not to mention Gimli's own silly comments in a Scottish accent:
&gt;&quot;My
&gt;cousin Balin will serve us meat rrred from the bone!&quot;
&gt; Denethor, in particular, is a sore point with me.

You know? I don't think anything they could have done with Bombadil
would have been as cringe-inducing as what they did with these moments
(and more that you've not mentioned). They should have left Bombadil
in, with his silly songs intact: at least they could have blamed those
on Tolkien!

THAT made you cringe??
(You may as well get it right, though: &quot;Roaring fyers, rrred meat off the
bone!&quot;)
Gee, why don't you bitch about these changes from about that same place?:

Frodo solves the gate riddle, not Gandalf.
Pippin throws the rocks into the pool, not Boromir, and Aragorn chastises
Pippin, not Frodo Boromir.
Did you cringe every tiume Sam was a whole adult himan being, not some
2-dimensional squire character obviously starting out almost as a simpleton
compared to Frodo?: 'Hooray, me going to see Elves!--Now I gonna cry about
it!'

Report this message

#145: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 22:20:07 by Speaking Clock

Christopher Kreuzer typed:

&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien quote....

&quot;In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.&quot;
--
Speaking Clock

Report this message

#146: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-09 23:21:29 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Speaking Clock&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:speaking.clock&#64;jeemale.com" target="_blank">speaking.clock&#64;jeemale.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4eu3gaF1ggtm5U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4eu3gaF1ggtm5U1&#64;individual.net...</a>

&quot;I was glad to be rid of him, for he stank.&quot;
--Aragorn

Report this message

#147: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 00:16:28 by BaJoRi

&quot;Charilaos_Velaris&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:44894e7a$0$858$<a href="mailto:ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr..." target="_blank">ba4acef3&#64;news.orange.fr...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt; What Tolkien says in one of the appendices was that some Dwarves spoke
&gt;&gt; with
&gt;&gt; uvular r's, &quot;which the Elves foudn distasteful&quot;. Uvular r's are not the
&gt;&gt; trilling r''s of Scotland, They are the kind of r's spoken in ¨France,
&gt;&gt; Germany, the Neterlands and southern Scandinavia.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; You might be right about that, I was working from memory. That would make
&gt; the Jewish connection Tolkien cites in Letters easier to grasp.
&gt;

Dwarves are representative of jews? Short, large proboscii, and
money-grubbing. I never took Tolkien to give into those stereotypes.

Report this message

#148: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 00:22:17 by bredband.net

&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:KNjig.11146$<a href="mailto:921.6834&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">921.6834&#64;newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>

&gt; Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt are very
&gt; sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it is more
&gt; projection than knowledge of real people.

Rubbish. Tolkien was capable of great subtlety when describing characters.
He most definitely did with Denehor, with faramir and with the intreplay
between Frodo, Sam and Gollum.
Also, do try to learn not to top-post. It is bad netiquette.
Jackson is the one who operates with one-dimensional stock characters.
Rubbish

&gt; &quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4eq931F1f18klU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4eq931F1f18klU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; In the film, Denethor telling Faramir to try to regain control of the
&gt;&gt; crossings of Anduin is not obviously a bad decision. Doubtful, perhaps,
&gt;&gt; but not clearly moronic. In the film, that has turned into a command to
&gt;&gt; Faramir to commit suicide with his men, imparted while Denethor is eating
&gt;&gt; chicken.
&gt;
&gt; In the book Denethor is an obviously unreal character, like goody-good
&gt; Faramir.
&gt; You put that up on a film screen and you're going to get laffs from the
&gt; audience.
&gt; Sorry, but it's no different than watchng some John Gilbert film from when
&gt; &gt; talkies were new. (Or comparing a 1918 Chaplin film to some overacted
&gt; melodrama from the same year.)

I disagree.

&gt; What do people here think of the way &quot;I, Claudius&quot; was adapted for TV?
&gt; Plenty of changes in that one. And personally I like Graves better than
&gt; Tolkien (you can't slight Graves on his scientific background), though he
&gt; can be just as windy.

So you think Graves is &quot;windy&quot;? Figures...

Öjevind Lång

Report this message

#149: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 02:05:59 by Stan Brown

Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:44:54 +0200 from Charilaos Velaris
&lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt;:

&gt; &gt; Tolkien's comparison of Dwarves to Jews was not about the sounds of
&gt; &gt; their language. From letter 176 of 1955-12-08:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in
&gt; &gt; their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an
&gt; &gt; accent due to their own private tongue. ....&quot; [ellipsis in book]

I wrote the above (and quoted the quote). Once again, please
attribute your quotes. That's part of standard good manners on
Usenet.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#150: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 04:04:56 by Count Menelvagor

JimboCat wrote:

&gt; You know? I don't think anything they could have done with Bombadil
&gt; would have been as cringe-inducing as what they did with these moments
&gt; (and more that you've not mentioned). They should have left Bombadil
&gt; in, with his silly songs intact: at least they could have blamed those
&gt; on Tolkien!

and they could have had a way kewl action scene where bombadil fights
the barrow-wight. this could take up the first third of the film.

Report this message

#151: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 06:56:57 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4euaksF1fmvaaU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4euaksF1fmvaaU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; So you think Graves is &quot;windy&quot;? Figures...

Yes, as I do Nabokov and Lovecraft and Tolkien, all authors whose works I
like to read and strill read.

Do you think Bruckner is windy or not? This is a good analogy. I find
Bruckner exceedingly long-winded but so many people swear by him.

Report this message

#152: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 13:11:38 by Charilaos Velaris

&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; a écrit dans le message de news:
<a href="mailto:MPG.1ef3d6ecf2b4dd2098a539&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1ef3d6ecf2b4dd2098a539&#64;news.individual.net...</a>

&gt; I wrote the above (and quoted the quote). Once again, please
&gt; attribute your quotes. That's part of standard good manners on
&gt; Usenet.

The only reason I'm not quoting is because I don't have most of my texts
with me. I realise this might cause some inconvenience and apologise for it,
but I cannot think of any immediate solution.

Report this message

#153: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 16:18:12 by bredband.net

&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:tisig.3881$<a href="mailto:o4.3784&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">o4.3784&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>
&gt; &quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4euaksF1fmvaaU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4euaksF1fmvaaU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; So you think Graves is &quot;windy&quot;? Figures...
&gt;
&gt; Yes, as I do Nabokov and Lovecraft and Tolkien, all authors whose works I
&gt; like to read and strill read.
&gt;
&gt; Do you think Bruckner is windy or not? This is a good analogy. I find
&gt; Bruckner exceedingly long-winded but so many people swear by him.

I must confess that I haven't read anything by him. Would you say that it is
worth it?

Öjevind

Report this message

#154: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 18:21:36 by Derek Broughton

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt are very
&gt; sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it is more
&gt; projection than knowledge of real people.

Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.
--
derek

Report this message

#155: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 19:40:17 by Tamf Moo

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt; I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
&gt; the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?

well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
more like the german &quot;ch&quot; than the r.

tamf

* of curse, this could just reflect the scornful treatment heaped on
spouses by the womenfolk in my family.

Report this message

#156: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 20:31:46 by Derek Broughton

Charilaos Velaris wrote:

&gt;
&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; a écrit dans le message de news:
&gt; <a href="mailto:MPG.1ef3d6ecf2b4dd2098a539&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1ef3d6ecf2b4dd2098a539&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I wrote the above (and quoted the quote). Once again, please
&gt;&gt; attribute your quotes. That's part of standard good manners on
&gt;&gt; Usenet.
&gt;
&gt; The only reason I'm not quoting is because I don't have most of my texts
&gt; with me. I realise this might cause some inconvenience and apologise for
&gt; it, but I cannot think of any immediate solution.

He's not referring to citing texts - it gets difficult to see who has
written what in a thread if you leave out the attributions to the posters.
--
derek

Report this message

#157: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-10 21:20:06 by Stan Brown

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:11:38 +0200 from Charilaos Velaris
&lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt;:
&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; a écrit dans le message de news:
&gt; <a href="mailto:MPG.1ef3d6ecf2b4dd2098a539&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1ef3d6ecf2b4dd2098a539&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; &gt; I wrote the above (and quoted the quote). Once again, please
&gt; &gt; attribute your quotes. That's part of standard good manners on
&gt; &gt; Usenet.
&gt;
&gt; The only reason I'm not quoting is because I don't have most of my texts
&gt; with me. I realise this might cause some inconvenience and apologise for it,
&gt; but I cannot think of any immediate solution.

Texts? I'm not talking about quoting from the books, I'm talking
about properly attributing your quotes from other articles.

Once again: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib</a>

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#158: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 00:50:52 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:g58rl3-grr.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">g58rl3-grr.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt are
&gt;&gt; very
&gt;&gt; sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it is more
&gt;&gt; projection than knowledge of real people.
&gt;
&gt; Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.

OK. I can buy that. It works great in literature too. But it really falls
flat on the big screen unless it is underdone -- &quot;very underdone, but not
too very underdone.&quot;

Another problem you get with putting any author's work on the screen (just
ask Nabokov about Lolita) is that, My Dinner With Andre being an exception
that proves this rule, long speeches do not work well on screen, especially
if there is more than one of them and not at the film's climactic
conclusion, e.g., Chaplin's big speech at the end of The Great Dictator --
first &quot;real&quot; speech (and the last one) in the film. You can't get away with
that in this format. (You can, though, get away with more of it in a
serialized format, with shorter segments broken up by time and script. It's
not really a paradox.)

Now, Tolkien would work greast in oratorio format. This is the medium where
you LOVE those long speeches by so many characters!

Report this message

#159: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 01:03:52 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4f02l8F1flg01U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4f02l8F1flg01U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
&gt; news:tisig.3881$<a href="mailto:o4.3784&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">o4.3784&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>
&gt;&gt; &quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4euaksF1fmvaaU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4euaksF1fmvaaU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; So you think Graves is &quot;windy&quot;? Figures...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Yes, as I do Nabokov and Lovecraft and Tolkien, all authors whose works I
&gt;&gt; like to read and strill read.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Do you think Bruckner is windy or not? This is a good analogy. I find
&gt;&gt; Bruckner exceedingly long-winded but so many people swear by him.
&gt;
&gt; I must confess that I haven't read anything by him. Would you say that it
&gt; is worth it?

Well, first of all he's a composer, and many people like his stuff. He
lived in the 19th Century and died in the 1880s I think. HIs music moves in
regular 4-bar phrases with 4 phrases to a unit.

I''ve never been a big Bruckner fan because I think he's very windy. I
prefer Mahler 'though he gets caught up in his personal angst worse than a
Binky Brown does. I confess to a guilty pleasure of liking some Wagner (the
greatest hits stuff) but other that those few pieces I can't stand Wagner
for all his pomposity. Bruckner does not strike me as pompous, and he does
not do &quot;personal angst.&quot;

A former college professor of mine has done a realization of the Finale to
Bruckner's 9th Symphony, but I cannot sit through the first 3 movements of
that piece without having to shut it off.

Report this message

#160: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 01:12:24 by Morgil

David Gray Porter kirjoitti:
&gt; &quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:g58rl3-grr.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">g58rl3-grr.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt are
&gt;&gt;&gt;very
&gt;&gt;&gt;sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it is more
&gt;&gt;&gt;projection than knowledge of real people.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; OK. I can buy that. It works great in literature too. But it really falls
&gt; flat on the big screen unless it is underdone -- &quot;very underdone, but not
&gt; too very underdone.&quot;

Yeah, nobody like archtypes in big screen - that's why
Star Wars was such a massive flop...

Morgil

Report this message

#161: Uvular vs. thrilled r (was: The Book and the Films)

Posted on 2006-06-11 09:12:28 by Dirk Thierbach

Tamf Moo &lt;<a href="mailto:liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;&gt; I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
&gt;&gt; the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?

&gt; well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
&gt; endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
&gt; part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
&gt; tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
&gt; more like the german &quot;ch&quot; than the r.

Interesting. I have the same problem, the other way round: I am used to
the uvular r, and when trying to pronounce the thrilled r, I am
sometimes able to get somewhat similar results, but the thrill is still
at the wrong position (and sometimes it just doesn't work at all).
It helps if I don't think about it as the letter 'r' that I am now
going to say, but as something completely different.

BTW, Germany is also split in &quot;uvular&quot; and &quot;thrilled&quot; parts: In
southern germany, people often use the thrilled variant, but they are
able to do both. In the middle or northern parts, people just use the
uvular r.

- Dirk

Report this message

#162: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 12:53:59 by Charilaos Velaris

&quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; a écrit dans le message de news:
<a href="mailto:MPG.1ef4e56ce5d3c79898a53b&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1ef4e56ce5d3c79898a53b&#64;news.individual.net...</a>

&gt; I'm not talking about quoting from the books, I'm talking
&gt; about properly attributing your quotes from other articles.
&gt;
&gt; Once again: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib</a>

OK, sorry, I'll keep that in mind. I didn't mean any offense.

Report this message

#163: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 16:15:08 by Stan Brown

Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:53:59 +0200 from Charilaos Velaris
&lt;<a href="mailto:velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">velaris.charilaos&#64;wanadoo.fr</a>&gt;:
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Stan Brown&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm" target="_blank">the_stan_brown&#64;fastmail.fm</a>&gt; a écrit dans le message de news:
&gt; <a href="mailto:MPG.1ef4e56ce5d3c79898a53b&#64;news.individual.net..." target="_blank">MPG.1ef4e56ce5d3c79898a53b&#64;news.individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; &gt; I'm not talking about quoting from the books, I'm talking
&gt; &gt; about properly attributing your quotes from other articles.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Once again: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#attrib</a>
&gt;
&gt; OK, sorry, I'll keep that in mind. I didn't mean any offense.

Thanks -- your attribution in this most recent article was just fine.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#164: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 20:55:57 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:plIig.973$<a href="mailto:Jm.518&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net..." target="_blank">Jm.518&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter kirjoitti:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Derek Broughton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:g58rl3-grr.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca..." target="_blank">g58rl3-grr.ln1&#64;news.pointerstop.ca...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt are
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;very
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it is more
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;projection than knowledge of real people.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; OK. I can buy that. It works great in literature too. But it really
&gt;&gt; falls flat on the big screen unless it is underdone -- &quot;very underdone,
&gt;&gt; but not too very underdone.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Yeah, nobody like archtypes in big screen - that's why
&gt; Star Wars was such a massive flop...

I saw Star Wars (I) in a preview showing in '77. Sure, it was &quot;impressive,&quot;
especially with Peter Cushing and James Earl Jones's voice, but by movie #3
I was more than ready for it to be over. And do not even bring up the newer
films -- they suck like a Galloise.

If it's numbers you want, there's always Don Trump's shows.

Report this message

#165: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-11 23:52:29 by bredband.net

&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:sdIig.4242$<a href="mailto:lf4.2427&#64;newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">lf4.2427&#64;newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>

[snip]

&gt;&gt;&gt; Do you think Bruckner is windy or not? This is a good analogy. I find
&gt;&gt;&gt; Bruckner exceedingly long-winded but so many people swear by him.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I must confess that I haven't read anything by him. Would you say that it
&gt;&gt; is worth it?
&gt;
&gt; Well, first of all he's a composer, and many people like his stuff. He
&gt; lived in the 19th Century and died in the 1880s I think. HIs music moves
&gt; in regular 4-bar phrases with 4 phrases to a unit.

D'uh. Yes, of course he was a composer. Sorry - it simply didn't occur to me
that you were comparing a writer to a composer. Since I've never heard
anything by the man, I didn't connect.

Öjevind

Report this message

#166: Re: Uvular vs. thrilled r (was: The Book and the Films)

Posted on 2006-06-12 14:41:12 by Derek Broughton

Dirk Thierbach wrote:

&gt; Tamf Moo &lt;<a href="mailto:liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
&gt;&gt;&gt; the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?
&gt;
&gt;&gt; well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
&gt;&gt; endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
&gt;&gt; part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
&gt;&gt; tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
&gt;&gt; more like the german &quot;ch&quot; than the r.
&gt;
&gt; Interesting. I have the same problem, the other way round: I am used to
&gt; the uvular r, and when trying to pronounce the thrilled r, I am
&gt; sometimes able to get somewhat similar results, but the thrill is still
&gt; at the wrong position (and sometimes it just doesn't work at all).
&gt; It helps if I don't think about it as the letter 'r' that I am now
&gt; going to say, but as something completely different.
&gt;
&gt; BTW, Germany is also split in &quot;uvular&quot; and &quot;thrilled&quot; parts: In

&quot;Trilled&quot; :-) I was born in South London, and for us there's
nothing &quot;thrilling&quot; about R's. I don't have an uvular _or_ a trilled R,
and I've spent 40 years trying to learn to pronounce an R. There are two
things I have trouble forgiving my parents for, and one is giving me a name
with an R in the middle...
--
derek

Report this message

#167: Re: Uvular vs. thrilled r

Posted on 2006-06-12 17:00:21 by Dirk Thierbach

Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &quot;Trilled&quot; :-)

Of course. Stupid typo.

&gt; I was born in South London, and for us there's nothing &quot;thrilling&quot;
&gt; about R's. I don't have an uvular _or_ a trilled R,

So what kind of R do you use?

&gt; and I've spent 40 years trying to learn to pronounce an R. There are two
&gt; things I have trouble forgiving my parents for, and one is giving me a name
&gt; with an R in the middle...

BTW, I often change my name to Derek when talking to native English
speakers, and they have trouble with Dirk. Too often they confuse Dirk
with Dick (with no R ...)

- Dirk

Report this message

#168: Re: Uvular vs. thrilled r

Posted on 2006-06-12 19:20:39 by Derek Broughton

Dirk Thierbach wrote:

&gt; Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Trilled&quot; :-)
&gt;
&gt; Of course. Stupid typo.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; I was born in South London, and for us there's nothing &quot;thrilling&quot;
&gt;&gt; about R's. I don't have an uvular _or_ a trilled R,
&gt;
&gt; So what kind of R do you use?

You've never heard Londoners speak? Particularly on television, there's
nothing like an R in the vocabulary. It's closest to a &quot;w&quot; (which, of
course, you don't have in German...)
&gt;
&gt;&gt; and I've spent 40 years trying to learn to pronounce an R. There are two
&gt;&gt; things I have trouble forgiving my parents for, and one is giving me a
&gt;&gt; name with an R in the middle...
&gt;
&gt; BTW, I often change my name to Derek when talking to native English
&gt; speakers, and they have trouble with Dirk. Too often they confuse Dirk
&gt; with Dick (with no R ...)

LOL. I've been Dirk at times, because the R's too troublesome :-)
--
derek

Report this message

#169: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-13 01:14:00 by Christopher Kreuzer

Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien
&gt;&gt; quote....

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; and there's always:
&gt;
&gt; &quot;need drove them.&quot;

This reminds me of:

&quot;Gandalf and Aragorn went in the van&quot;

At long last we know the name of the van driver!

Report this message

#170: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-13 01:16:52 by Christopher Kreuzer

Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Aha! Very good. I like that. I hadn't made that connection between
&gt;&gt; the two dreams. But then what about Frodo's other dreams (some back
&gt;&gt; in the Shire, and possibly some later on)? And what about what Frodo
&gt;&gt; sees in Galadriel's mirror?
&gt;
&gt; i'm vaguely wondering if anyone has done a study of frodo's dreams,
&gt; their function in the narrative, how they affect the reader's
&gt; perspective on events through foreshadowing, etc. to say nothing of
&gt; their relation to th &quot;frodo's dreme&quot; poem in /the adventures of tom
&gt; bombadil/.

Almost certainly. There have definitely been several academic papers
over the years (some very serious, some less so) about Dreams in LotR
and Tolkien's other writings. One was published very recently in volume
3 of /Tolkien Studies/. Don't have it handy to quote the paper title,
but may do so later.

Not certain though whether any papers have specifically studied &quot;frodo's
dreme&quot; from TAoTB - though that would almost certainly be mentioned in
passing, if nothing else - well, if the author did their homework that
is.

Report this message

#171: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-13 01:31:39 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &quot;Speaking Clock&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:speaking.clock&#64;jeemale.com" target="_blank">speaking.clock&#64;jeemale.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4eu3gaF1ggtm5U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4eu3gaF1ggtm5U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; &quot;I was glad to be rid of him, for he stank.&quot;
&gt; --Aragorn

Reminds me of another Tolkien quote, but not a Middle-earth one:

&quot;we had nothing to say to one another&quot;

Actually, that is cheating, as it is taken out of context from a longer
quote. I saw it in isolation as one of the chapter titles of Carpenter's
biography of the Inklings, a book I have recently started reading, and
which I am enjoying very much.

But it has reminded me that Tolkien has these pithy comments scattered
throughout his Letters, as well as in his books.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#172: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-13 01:33:56 by Christopher Kreuzer

Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; JimboCat wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; You know? I don't think anything they could have done with Bombadil
&gt;&gt; would have been as cringe-inducing as what they did with these
&gt;&gt; moments (and more that you've not mentioned). They should have left
&gt;&gt; Bombadil in, with his silly songs intact: at least they could have
&gt;&gt; blamed those on Tolkien!
&gt;
&gt; and they could have had a way kewl action scene where bombadil fights
&gt; the barrow-wight. this could take up the first third of the film.

Aaaaggghhh! No!!!
That is too horrendous to even contemplate.

Next thing we know, Farmer Maggot will be fighting the Black Riders...

Report this message

#173: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-13 01:40:10 by Christopher Kreuzer

Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt
&gt;&gt; are very sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it
&gt;&gt; is more projection than knowledge of real people.
&gt;
&gt; Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.

Ooh. Thanks! I must remember that one for next time.

Report this message

#174: Re: short quotes [Was - question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-13 02:12:58 by Christopher Kreuzer

nfw &lt;<a href="mailto:sp&#64;m.invalid" target="_blank">sp&#64;m.invalid</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; &quot;Pipsqueak had a strange feeling: he stood still like a great boulder
&gt; by the sea, while Gandalf's words crashed over him like waves driven
&gt; by a violent wind&quot;

Are those from /Bored of the Rings/?

Report this message

#175: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-13 02:30:51 by Christopher Kreuzer

Öjevind Lång &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &quot;Laurie Forbes&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:moc.rr.eniam&#64;1sebrofr" target="_blank">moc.rr.eniam&#64;1sebrofr</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
&gt; news:sIOhg.14099$<a href="mailto:W97.7257&#64;twister.nyroc.rr.com..." target="_blank">W97.7257&#64;twister.nyroc.rr.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;JimboCat&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com" target="_blank">103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:1149704754.477952.208910&#64;g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149704754.477952.208910&#64;g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Phlip wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; That Bombadil sequence is too subtle for some readers.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Hurrah! Well done!
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; I tried to write an accolade, but failed to do it justice. Speaking
&gt;&gt;&gt; within a rhythymic constraint is nearly beyond my skill! How the
&gt;&gt;&gt; Master managed to meld his poetry with prose remains a mystery to
&gt;&gt;&gt; me.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; I second the &quot;well done&quot; part! I can't remember when I've enjoyed a
&gt;&gt; post as
&gt;&gt; much as I did this one by Phlip (alas, now snipped) (the post, that
&gt;&gt; is) .. or phlip, as he was known in those days.

So what is the story behind Phlip?
A simple typo or a distinctive name?

&gt;&gt; Readable and
&gt;&gt; thought-stimulating for all, IMO, and especially so for anyone like
&gt;&gt; me who's simply &quot;read the book&quot; but never made it through any of the
&gt;&gt; supporting (?) literature. (&quot;Letters&quot; ...... [SHIVER])

HoME might mke people shiver (though people should at least try them),
but there is nothing wrong with /Letters/.

&gt; I third it. Man, do some of Tolkien's letter suck! His books are
&gt; *literature*, to be enjoyed as such, not sacred texts.

I think he said that as well.

Just to redress the balance, I would strongly encourage anyone who
hasn't read /The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien/ to do so. They are
absolutely fascinating and give at least some impressions of some
aspects of Tolkien himself.

&gt; It's a pity
&gt; that he himself apparently began to forget that at times when
&gt; corresponding with some of his more scholastically inclined
&gt; admireres.

Mere inconsistency I fear. He would never have been able to publish a
collection of his letters - he would have wanted to rewrite most of
them!

&gt; Still, I think he would have been quite annoyed if someone
&gt; had written to ask him about B*lr*g w*ngs.

How do we know someone didn't? :-)

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#176: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-13 02:33:19 by Christopher Kreuzer

Öjevind Lång &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; Denethor, in
&gt; particular, is a sore point with me. As depicted in the book, he is
&gt; one of the most interesting characters in the whole epic. Cold,
&gt; calculating, overproud but convinced that he is acting for the best
&gt; of his country, and for a long time actually having done the best he
&gt; could with a really bad hand of cards. In the film version, he was
&gt; reduced to a stereotyped decadent Roman emperor who does not say a
&gt; single memorable thing (and there was any amount of great dialogue to
&gt; choose from)

And John Noble is a noted Shakespearan actor who could have done the
lines justice. I was really looking forward to seeing what a
Shakespearan actor would make of Denethor's character, and I was _so_
disappointed when I saw what film-Denethor turned out to be.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#177: Character descriptions (was Re: The Book and the Films [...])

Posted on 2006-06-13 02:38:41 by Christopher Kreuzer

phlip &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt; I got stuck first on &quot;The face of Elrond was ageless&quot;.

Aha! After the &quot;short, pithy quotes&quot; thread, we can now have the
&quot;character description&quot; thread!

Like Phlip, the description of Elrond is one of my favorites, along with
the descriptions of Gandalf and Glorfindel:

Gandalf: &quot;his long white hair, his sweeping silver beard, and his broad
shoulders, made him look like some wise king of ancient legend. In his
aged face under great snowy brows his dark eyes were set like coals that
could leap suddenly into fire.&quot;

Glorfindel: &quot;his face fair and young and fearless and full of joy; his
eyes were bright and keen, and his voice like music; on his brow sat
wisdom, and in his hand was strength.&quot;

Elrond: &quot;The face of Elrond was ageless, neither old nor young, though
in it was written the memory of many things both glad and sorrowful. His
hair was dark as the shadows of twilight, and upon it was set a circlet
of silver; his eyes were grey as a clear evening, and in them was a
light like the light of stars. Venerable he seemed as a king crowned
with many winters, and yet hale as a tried warrior in the fulness of his
strength.&quot;

Can people add any other character descriptions they found particularly
memorable?

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#178: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-13 02:45:13 by Christopher Kreuzer

Öjevind Lång &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &quot;Christopher Kreuzer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
&gt; news:S68hg.81601$<a href="mailto:wl.36497&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk..." target="_blank">wl.36497&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...</a>
&gt;&gt; Count Menelvagor &lt;<a href="mailto:Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com" target="_blank">Menelvagor&#64;mailandnews.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; tolkien can be marvellously terse. 'm thinking of passages like
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;mormegil. tell the mormegil that finduilas is here&quot; or &quot;they are
&gt;&gt;&gt; gone. they left the havens long ago.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Ooh! This could be fun!!
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Put forward your candidate for your favorite _short_ Tolkien
&gt;&gt; quote....
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Your wait may be long.&quot; (The man of Rohan who tells Háma that he
&gt; thinks Gandalf has left them in the lurch.)

Hmm. Strip away who said them, and these could be interesting quiz
questions... Something along the lines of &quot;who said this and to whom&quot;.

Report this message

#179: Re: short quotes (Was re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-13 02:49:48 by Christopher Kreuzer

TT Arvind &lt;<a href="mailto:ttarvind&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">ttarvind&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer spoke softly, shivering:
&gt;&gt; That's reminded me of one of my favorites as well:

&lt;snip Hurin/Morwen dialogue&gt;

&gt; I'd forgotten about that one. JRRT really could use these one-sentence
&gt; exchanges well. Here's another - not as pithy as yours, but still to
&gt; the point:
&gt;
&gt; `Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,' said
&gt; Gimli. 'Maybe,' said Elrond, `but let him not vow to walk in the
&gt; dark, who has not seen the nightfall.'
&gt; 'Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,' said Gimli.
&gt; `Or break it,' said Elrond. `Look not too far ahead! But go now with
&gt; good hearts!

Nice one. A proverbial dual! :-)

&gt; And, of course, let's not forget the wonderful homespun wisdom of
&gt; Gaffer Gamgee, about which we had a thread some time ago.

You might mean the &quot;Gafferisms&quot; thread from October 2004:

<a href="http://tinyurl.com/gm7tk" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/gm7tk</a>

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#180: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-13 03:28:53 by Stan Brown

Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:40:10 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
&lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt;:
&gt; Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; &gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt
&gt; &gt;&gt; are very sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it
&gt; &gt;&gt; is more projection than knowledge of real people.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.
&gt;
&gt; Ooh. Thanks! I must remember that one for next time.

Or you could even remember &quot;archetypal&quot;, which is the word as I
learned it :-) -- from the noun archetype, not archtype.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#181: Re: short quotes [Was - question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-13 03:29:44 by Stan Brown

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:12:58 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
&lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt;:
&gt; nfw &lt;<a href="mailto:sp&#64;m.invalid" target="_blank">sp&#64;m.invalid</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &gt; &quot;Pipsqueak had a strange feeling: he stood still like a great boulder
&gt; &gt; by the sea, while Gandalf's words crashed over him like waves driven
&gt; &gt; by a violent wind&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Are those from /Bored of the Rings/?

The wizard in BotR was Goodgulf, and the boggies were Moxie and
Pepsi.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
<a href="http://OakRoadSystems.com" target="_blank">http://OakRoadSystems.com</a>
Tolkien FAQs: <a href="http://Tolkien.slimy.com" target="_blank">http://Tolkien.slimy.com</a> (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
<a href="http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html" target="_blank">http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html</a>
FAQ of the Rings: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm</a>
Encyclopedia of Arda: <a href="http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm" target="_blank">http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm</a>
more FAQs: <a href="http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm" target="_blank">http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm</a>

Report this message

#182: Re: Bombadil didn't suck [Was question about ending of LOTR:ROTK]

Posted on 2006-06-13 06:52:11 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; So what is the story behind Phlip?
&gt; A simple typo or a distinctive name?

When I post from my Ubuntu notebook, Pan seems to have picked up my account
name. I'm too lazy to fix it. (And my street name is a real name - short for
Philip.)

I can't seem to think of a way to put this post into alliterative or
otherwise poetry, though... ;-)

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#183: Re: Character descriptions (was Re: The Book and the Films [...])

Posted on 2006-06-13 12:05:11 by bredband.net

&quot;Christopher Kreuzer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:lOnjg.85124$<a href="mailto:wl.62350&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk..." target="_blank">wl.62350&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...</a>

[snip]

&gt; Can people add any other character descriptions they found particularly
&gt; memorable?

Two passages from &quot;At the Sign of the Prancing Pony&quot;.

&quot;Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting
in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the
hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a
long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him,
showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much
wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green
cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the rom he wore
a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen
as he watched the hobbits.&quot;

When I first read this, at thee age of thirteen, I was quite scared and
convinced that this mysterious stranger was up to no good.
A little further on:

&quot;Frodo found that Strider was now looking at him, as if he heard or guessed
all that had been said. Presently, with a wave of his hand and a nod, he
invited Frodo to come over and sit by him. As Frodo drew near he threw back
his hood, showing a shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey, and in a
pale stern face a pair of keen grey eyes.&quot;

Still not too reassuring. Though his behaviour when first Pippin and then
Frodo made fools of themselves made me begin to believe that he was not an
enemy after all, it was only Gandalf's letter that put all my misgivings
about him completely to rest.
And some lit crits and culture writer claim that Tolkien was a bad
stylist! Rubbish.

Öjevind

Report this message

#184: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-13 16:25:15 by Derek Broughton

Stan Brown wrote:

&gt; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:40:10 GMT from Christopher Kreuzer
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt;:
&gt;&gt; Derek Broughton &lt;<a href="mailto:news&#64;pointerstop.ca" target="_blank">news&#64;pointerstop.ca</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Topic: This is precisely the fault with Tolien characters. Theyt
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; are very sterotypical. If one sees this kind of de;th in them, it
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; is more projection than knowledge of real people.
&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt; &gt; Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archtypical&quot;. It's a particular form of art.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Ooh. Thanks! I must remember that one for next time.
&gt;
&gt; Or you could even remember &quot;archetypal&quot;, which is the word as I
&gt; learned it :-) -- from the noun archetype, not archtype.
&gt;
OK, maybe I should have used &quot;archetypical&quot;, but it would hardly have worked
if I said 'Not &quot;stereotypical&quot; but &quot;archetypal&quot;' :-) I have to admit, I
haven't used the term enough to remember how to spell it!
--
derek

Report this message

#185: Re: Character descriptions (was Re: The Book and the Films [...])

Posted on 2006-06-15 17:58:43 by JimboCat

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt;Can people add any other character descriptions they found particularly
&gt;memorable?

Butterbur's, after Pippin (or is it Merry?) calls him stupid.
IDHTBIFOM, but it is very close to

&quot;He thinks less than he talks, and slower; yet he can see through a
brick wall in time.&quot;

OTOH, Strider's initial description of him is also excellent:

&quot;A fat innkeeper who only remembers his own name because people shout
it at him all day long.&quot;

especially because this is said right to his face!

And, finally, Gandalf's description TO Butterbur, of Frodo:

&quot;A stout little fellow, with red cheeks.&quot;

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
Barad-d=FBr MUST rise again, at least as tall as before...or Frodo has
triumphed. -- Flame of the West

Report this message

#186: Re: Character descriptions (was Re: The Book and the Films [...])

Posted on 2006-06-15 19:23:58 by Phlip

JimboCat wrote:

&gt; &quot;He thinks less than he talks, and slower; yet he can see through a
&gt; brick wall in time.&quot;

Gandalf's written description to Frodo of B:

&quot;Mind like a lumber room. Thing wanted always buried.&quot;

--
Phlip

Report this message

#187: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-22 23:51:24 by tms

Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;
&gt; May I recommend the OE-Quotefix add-on

There's a program that fixes Old English quotes?

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- <a href="mailto:tms&#64;nj.net" target="_blank">tms&#64;nj.net</a> -- AB2SB

Report this message

#188: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-23 01:51:27 by Christopher Kreuzer

T.M. Sommers &lt;<a href="mailto:tms&#64;nj.net" target="_blank">tms&#64;nj.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt; Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; May I recommend the OE-Quotefix add-on
&gt;
&gt; There's a program that fixes Old English quotes?

Sadly not. Just Outlook Express quotes.

Report this message

#189: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-23 04:09:01 by tms

David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt; OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
&gt; opera libretto?

Anna Russell managed to condense the entire Ring Cycle down to a
single side of an LP, so it can't be all that hard.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- <a href="mailto:tms&#64;nj.net" target="_blank">tms&#64;nj.net</a> -- AB2SB

Report this message

#190: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-23 04:37:46 by tms

David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt; Do you think Bruckner is windy or not?

Parts, of course. Other parts are stringy.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- <a href="mailto:tms&#64;nj.net" target="_blank">tms&#64;nj.net</a> -- AB2SB

Report this message

#191: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-23 15:27:49 by Ostadan

In article &lt;449b4d3e$0$12736$<a href="mailto:470ef3ce&#64;news.pa.net" target="_blank">470ef3ce&#64;news.pa.net</a>&gt;,
T.M. Sommers &lt;<a href="mailto:tms&#64;nj.net" target="_blank">tms&#64;nj.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
&gt;&gt; opera libretto?
&gt;
&gt;Anna Russell managed to condense the entire Ring Cycle down to a
&gt;single side of an LP, so it can't be all that hard.
&gt;

&quot;So Aragorn weds Arwen and everyone's happy. She's his aunt,
by the way. But that's the beauty of grand opera, you can do
_anything_ so long as you _sing_ it!&quot;

Or something.

Report this message

#192: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-23 17:44:28 by David Gray Porter

&lt;<a href="mailto:Ostadan&#64;theonering.net" target="_blank">Ostadan&#64;theonering.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:e7gq8l$qij$<a href="mailto:1&#64;reader2.panix.com..." target="_blank">1&#64;reader2.panix.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt; &quot;So Aragorn weds Arwen and everyone's happy. She's his aunt,
&gt; by the way. But that's the beauty of grand opera, you can do
&gt; _anything_ so long as you _sing_ it!&quot;

I've known my Auntie all my life
And that's why she is now my wife
I think my son must know it's true
'Cuz he's my nephew too!

My Daddy is my Uncle Joe
My Mammy's also my Aunt Flo
I think by now it's plain to see
That my first cousin's me!

--Theme Song of the &quot;Deliverance Wing&quot; of the Republican Party

Report this message

#193: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-23 17:45:11 by David Gray Porter

&quot;T.M. Sommers&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:tms&#64;nj.net" target="_blank">tms&#64;nj.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:449b4d3e$0$12736$<a href="mailto:470ef3ce&#64;news.pa.net..." target="_blank">470ef3ce&#64;news.pa.net...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; OK, how would you go about condensing say a small part of the text for an
&gt;&gt; opera libretto?
&gt;
&gt; Anna Russell managed to condense the entire Ring Cycle down to a single
&gt; side of an LP, so it can't be all that hard.

But she also had a Lagonda or whatever to have herself driven around in.

Report this message

#194: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-06-23 20:05:08 by JimboCat

T.M. Sommers wrote:

&gt;David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Do you think Bruckner is windy or not?
&gt;
&gt;Parts, of course. Other parts are stringy.

Some of the stringy parts are tough. Not sure I'd describe them as
&quot;chewy&quot;, though...

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
&quot;It's essentially word opera, where normal opera is a small story that
is an excuse to have music, so word opera is a small story that gives
an excuse to have word play.&quot;
-- Darin Johnson, on Shakespeare

Report this message

#195: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-25 15:30:00 by bredband.net

&quot;JimboCat&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com" target="_blank">103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:<a href="mailto:1149612429.560476.21780&#64;u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149612429.560476.21780&#64;u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...</a>

[snip]

&gt; But the most egregious change to Treebeard was of course his utter
&gt; stupidity. In the book, he is slow but very wise. The arrival of the
&gt; Hobbits completed a long chain of reasoning that tipped the Ents into
&gt; action. In the movie, however, a cheap ploy tricked them into action.

I agree. The Ents are the shepherds of the trees, but in the film, they
don't have a clue that Saruman has been feeling huge amnounts of their trees
to stoke his furnaces. Like, d'uh.
Another idiocy PJ committed with regard to the Ents was the
pseudo-scientific explanation he lets Merry give for the excistence of
sentient trees in the Old Forest (and by analogy tree-creatures in Fangorn):
&quot;People said soemthing in the water made them aware and thinking&quot;. Words to
that effect. Suddenly, PJ is producing science fiction movies where fable
creatures have to be explained by means of cod-science.

&gt; Frankly, I'd've preferred they'd used a catapult :-)

A stack of swordsmen backed up by catapults and an archer or two would have
put an end to his civ. ;-)

Öjevind

Report this message

#196: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-26 14:25:02 by mhaines

Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;
&gt; Another idiocy PJ committed with regard to the Ents was the
&gt; pseudo-scientific explanation he lets Merry give for the excistence of
&gt; sentient trees in the Old Forest (and by analogy tree-creatures in Fangorn):
&gt; &quot;People said soemthing in the water made them aware and thinking&quot;. Words to
&gt; that effect. Suddenly, PJ is producing science fiction movies where fable
&gt; creatures have to be explained by means of cod-science.

Eh. That doesn't sound too far off an explanation uneducated country
folks might think up for semi-sentient trees when they don't know the
scoop.

Michelle
Flutist

Report this message

#197: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-26 15:31:55 by Morgil

Michelle J. Haines wrote:
&gt; Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Another idiocy PJ committed with regard to the Ents was the
&gt;&gt; pseudo-scientific explanation he lets Merry give for the excistence of
&gt;&gt; sentient trees in the Old Forest (and by analogy tree-creatures in
&gt;&gt; Fangorn): &quot;People said soemthing in the water made them aware and
&gt;&gt; thinking&quot;. Words to that effect. Suddenly, PJ is producing science
&gt;&gt; fiction movies where fable creatures have to be explained by means of
&gt;&gt; cod-science.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Eh. That doesn't sound too far off an explanation uneducated country
&gt; folks might think up for semi-sentient trees when they don't know the
&gt; scoop.

Which explains why PJ thought it up ;-)

Morgil

Report this message

#198: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-26 19:14:44 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:e7ot9u$n1r$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt; Michelle J. Haines wrote:
&gt;&gt; Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Another idiocy PJ committed with regard to the Ents was the
&gt;&gt;&gt; pseudo-scientific explanation he lets Merry give for the excistence of
&gt;&gt;&gt; sentient trees in the Old Forest (and by analogy tree-creatures in
&gt;&gt;&gt; Fangorn): &quot;People said soemthing in the water made them aware and
&gt;&gt;&gt; thinking&quot;. Words to that effect. Suddenly, PJ is producing science
&gt;&gt;&gt; fiction movies where fable creatures have to be explained by means of
&gt;&gt;&gt; cod-science.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Eh. That doesn't sound too far off an explanation uneducated country
&gt;&gt; folks might think up for semi-sentient trees when they don't know the
&gt;&gt; scoop.
&gt;
&gt; Which explains why PJ thought it up ;-)
&gt;
&gt; Morgil

Panties in a bunch? Or another horsehair up there?
&quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O the
whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;

Report this message

#199: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-26 23:22:23 by Morgil

David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:e7ot9u$n1r$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>

&gt;&gt;Which explains why PJ thought it up ;-)
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Morgil
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Panties in a bunch? Or another horsehair up there?
&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O the
&gt; whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;

Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.

Morgil

Report this message

#200: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 00:06:26 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O
&gt; the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;

Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's.
If Jackson wants to tell a story, he can write his own.

Report this message

#201: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 00:14:46 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O
&gt;&gt; the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If Jackson wants
&gt; to tell a story, he can write his own.

Didn't Merry, in the book, say the Withywindle was the center of the Old
Forest's queerness?

Sounds to me like, on paper, there is a cycle from water, to roots, to
trees, to life, to Ents living around special springs. I am
obviously, frantically aware that Ents ascribe their sentience to
(patient) Elves singing them, but can't we cut PJ just one little break
by letting him replace that cycle with one little utterance?

Nope!

--
Phlip

Report this message

#202: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 00:51:46 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com...</a>
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O
&gt;&gt;&gt; the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If Jackson
&gt;&gt; wants
&gt;&gt; to tell a story, he can write his own.

Fundie clown.
Why don't you write your own stories instead of other people write something
to entertain you?

&gt; Didn't Merry, in the book, say the Withywindle was the center of the Old
&gt; Forest's queerness?
&gt;
&gt; Sounds to me like, on paper, there is a cycle from water, to roots, to
&gt; trees, to life, to Ents living around special springs. I am
&gt; obviously, frantically aware that Ents ascribe their sentience to
&gt; (patient) Elves singing them, but can't we cut PJ just one little break
&gt; by letting him replace that cycle with one little utterance?
&gt;
&gt; Nope!

Naw, these guys are fundie purists. I'd guess that they also never listen
to Bach played on anything but a harpsichord or clavichord, and maybe on a
1749 fortepiano for one work only. And they won't listen to any part of
Mahler's Tenth except the Adagio. They raise their eyebrow at Brahms, and
convict Wagner of lunacy (well, that one isn't so hard), and look for hidden
fifths in Corelli. Every painting on their walls is painted with oil and
framed in gilded oak. And every painter represented could paint a landscape
in the style of Ingres away from the piano.


Quick!--what's the joke in this punchline!:

Leonard Bernstein walks up to a guy and asks, &quot;Can you give me a lift to
Tanglewood? I'm conducting Mahler's Tenth.&quot;

Report this message

#203: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 00:58:54 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:e7pj6i$cnb$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:e7ot9u$n1r$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Which explains why PJ thought it up ;-)
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Morgil
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Panties in a bunch? Or another horsehair up there?
&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O the
&gt;&gt; whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
&gt; We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.

Fie! I must be round with you.
The movies were fukkin great movies is all, and that's not my fault--I've
never been to New Zealand.
I did have a friend at UCLA Film Schhol in the '70s and I did a soundtrack
for one of his projects WAYYY back then, so I may look at film differently
than most.
What, you think you're going to get an Erich von Stroheim trying to film
&quot;MacTeague&quot; situation and then wondering why you're ending up with &quot;Greed&quot;
instead? The extended DVDs are already a day long in toto!
Now endeavor thyself to sleep and leave thy vain bibble-babble. Fear to
kill a woodcock lest you displace the soul of thy grand-dame.

Report this message

#204: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 02:11:36 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; water, O the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If Jackson
&gt;&gt;&gt; wants to tell a story, he can write his own.
&gt;
&gt; Fundie clown.
&gt; Why don't you write your own stories instead of other people write
&gt; something to entertain you?

Are you changing the subject? &lt;checks&gt;
Ooh! Yes, you are. Let me know when you reply to what I wrote.

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; Naw, these guys are fundie purists. I'd guess that they also never
&gt; listen to Bach played on anything but a harpsichord or clavichord,
&gt; and maybe on a 1749 fortepiano for one work only. And they won't
&gt; listen to any part of Mahler's Tenth except the Adagio. They raise
&gt; their eyebrow at Brahms, and convict Wagner of lunacy (well, that one
&gt; isn't so hard), and look for hidden fifths in Corelli. Every
&gt; painting on their walls is painted with oil and framed in gilded oak.
&gt; And every painter represented could paint a landscape in the style of
&gt; Ingres away from the piano.

This doesn't sound like me at all.
Oh dear. I guess your cod-psychology didn't work.

Report this message

#205: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 05:28:21 by Morgil

David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:e7pj6i$cnb$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>

&gt;&gt;Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
&gt;&gt;We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Fie! I must be round with you.
&gt; The movies were fukkin great movies is all, and that's not my fault--I've
&gt; never been to New Zealand.

The movies were huge, but the quality was poor, not great.
Just because you like something, doesn't mean it's &quot;great&quot;.
The countless cinematic flaws, plot holes, total lack of
any inner logic, and all the rest, make it impossible for
these movies to be considered great, exept for some very
limited parts, like visual realisation or action sequences.

&gt; I did have a friend at UCLA Film Schhol in the '70s and I did a soundtrack
&gt; for one of his projects WAYYY back then, so I may look at film differently
&gt; than most.

That probably puts you ahead of PJ as far as formal cinematic
education is concerned, but that's not impressive yet, and in
fact you bringing up something trivial like that in attempt
to claim some deeper understanding over the topic, is only
desperate and pathetic. &quot;I went to zoo, now I'm a koala-bear.&quot;

Morgil

Report this message

#206: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 07:24:54 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:e7q8kr$hqq$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:e7pj6i$cnb$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
&gt;&gt;&gt;We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Fie! I must be round with you.
&gt;&gt; The movies were fukkin great movies is all, and that's not my fault--I've
&gt;&gt; never been to New Zealand.
&gt;
&gt; The movies were huge, but the quality was poor, not great.
&gt; Just because you like something, doesn't mean it's &quot;great&quot;.
&gt; The countless cinematic flaws, plot holes, total lack of
&gt; any inner logic, and all the rest, make it impossible for
&gt; these movies to be considered great, exept for some very
&gt; limited parts, like visual realisation or action sequences.

Gosh, I didn't realiza I was dealing with the one true sage of film!
Why don't you enlighten me on these plot holes, cinematic flaws (I already
know about Gandalf's wand in TTT), and a TOTAL lack (WOW!--a TOTAL lack!) of
ANY (again WOW!--ANY and thus all!) inner logic!

&gt;&gt; I did have a friend at UCLA Film Schhol in the '70s and I did a
&gt;&gt; soundtrack for one of his projects WAYYY back then, so I may look at film
&gt;&gt; differently than most.
&gt;
&gt; That probably puts you ahead of PJ as far as formal cinematic
&gt; education is concerned, but that's not impressive yet, and in
&gt; fact you bringing up something trivial like that in attempt
&gt; to claim some deeper understanding over the topic, is only
&gt; desperate and pathetic. &quot;I went to zoo, now I'm a koala-bear.&quot;

What a dick.
Actually I stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Report this message

#207: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 07:29:02 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Christopher Kreuzer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:YI_ng.92060$<a href="mailto:wl.49543&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk..." target="_blank">wl.49543&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; water, O the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If Jackson
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; wants to tell a story, he can write his own.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Fundie clown.
&gt;&gt; Why don't you write your own stories instead of other people write
&gt;&gt; something to entertain you?
&gt;
&gt; Are you changing the subject? &lt;checks&gt;
&gt; Ooh! Yes, you are. Let me know when you reply to what I wrote.

What you wrote was stupid and pretentious. I'm merely torn between writing
you off as someone on the level of a smug grad student or a smug stuffed-ass
professor.
You may not like it, but that IS Tolkien's story, more than basically. I've
seen a lot worse.

Report this message

#208: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 14:12:23 by bredband.net

&quot;Michelle J. Haines&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:mhaines&#64;nanc.com" target="_blank">mhaines&#64;nanc.com</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:3e9dc$449feabf$4127760a$<a href="mailto:24973&#64;hpnx.com..." target="_blank">24973&#64;hpnx.com...</a>
&gt; Öjevind Lång wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Another idiocy PJ committed with regard to the Ents was the
&gt;&gt; pseudo-scientific explanation he lets Merry give for the excistence of
&gt;&gt; sentient trees in the Old Forest (and by analogy tree-creatures in
&gt;&gt; Fangorn): &quot;People said soemthing in the water made them aware and
&gt;&gt; thinking&quot;. Words to that effect. Suddenly, PJ is producing science
&gt;&gt; fiction movies where fable creatures have to be explained by means of
&gt;&gt; cod-science.
&gt;
&gt; Eh. That doesn't sound too far off an explanation uneducated country
&gt; folks might think up for semi-sentient trees when they don't know the
&gt; scoop.

In fairy-stories (or in the traditional socities that gave rise to them),
people never thought up &quot;scientific&quot; explanations for trolls, huldras,
fairies, selchies and so on. They simply existed. The need for a &quot;natural
explanation&quot; is very much a feature of our time. That stuff does not belong
in fantasy, no matter whether we are talking about a book or a film.
Fairy-stories are pre-scientific.
Agatha Christie, by the way, made a funny observation concerning this in
one of her books. One of her characters says (words to this effect; I'm not
quoting verbatim): &quot;Nowadays, no one belives a witch can turn somebody into
a frog; but if a newspaper article said that scientists could give a person
froglike characteristics through injections, many people would accept it
unquestioningly.&quot;
When an explanation for something is given in a fairy-story (for example
regarding how the Man in the Moon came into existence, or how the giants
first came into being) that explanation is always a fairy-story in itself.

Öjevind

Report this message

#209: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 14:28:06 by Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:e7ot9u$n1r$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Which explains why PJ thought it up ;-)
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Morgil
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Panties in a bunch? Or another horsehair up there?
&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O the
&gt;&gt; whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
&gt; We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.
&gt;
Another boring utterance from the anti-movie fanatic.

--
derek

Report this message

#210: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 14:31:18 by bredband.net

&quot;Phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com...</a>
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O
&gt;&gt;&gt; the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If Jackson
&gt;&gt; wants
&gt;&gt; to tell a story, he can write his own.
&gt;
&gt; Didn't Merry, in the book, say the Withywindle was the center of the Old
&gt; Forest's queerness?
&gt;
&gt; Sounds to me like, on paper, there is a cycle from water, to roots, to
&gt; trees, to life, to Ents living around special springs. I am
&gt; obviously, frantically aware that Ents ascribe their sentience to
&gt; (patient) Elves singing them, but can't we cut PJ just one little break
&gt; by letting him replace that cycle with one little utterance?

Well, not a chemical cycle; the Withywindle was &quot;the centre&quot; in the sense of
being the headquarters from which all the queerness came. The headquarters,
as we learn later on from Bombadil, was under the command of Old Man Willow,
who gradually subdued almost all the trees in the forest to his will. It had
nothing to do with the quality of the water. It had to do with his evil
will.
As for Fangorn, as you point out the Ents existed before the Elves; they
were taught to think and speak by the Elves, which is not a scientific
explanation but the kind of explanation one can find in a work of fantasy.
By the same token, the Ents are creatures of fantasy, not the result of
experiments conducted at a hortocultural laboratory. And the Elves are also
mythical, not a lost hominid branch discovered by archaeologists.
As I have said in another post, a true fairy-story does not need any
explanations. &quot;Once upon a time there was a giant.&quot; Not &quot;Once upon a time
there was a giant; he was a giant because of a glandular dysfunction.&quot;
Jackson didn't have to supply any explanation at all. He could simply have
let Merry say: &quot;There may be strange trees in this forest, just as we know
there are in the Old Forest back home.&quot;

Öjevind

Report this message

#211: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 16:09:43 by Morgil

David Gray Porter kirjoitti:
&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:e7q8kr$hqq$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;news:e7pj6i$cnb$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Fie! I must be round with you.
&gt;&gt;&gt;The movies were fukkin great movies is all, and that's not my fault--I've
&gt;&gt;&gt;never been to New Zealand.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;The movies were huge, but the quality was poor, not great.
&gt;&gt;Just because you like something, doesn't mean it's &quot;great&quot;.
&gt;&gt;The countless cinematic flaws, plot holes, total lack of
&gt;&gt;any inner logic, and all the rest, make it impossible for
&gt;&gt;these movies to be considered great, exept for some very
&gt;&gt;limited parts, like visual realisation or action sequences.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Gosh, I didn't realiza I was dealing with the one true sage of film!

Obviously being illiterate and clueless, it's hard for you
to realize anything. Like the fact that you're the only one
who's been claiming something like that. As for my arguments,
anyone who watches the movies with open eyes can see those
things as well. No need to be any kind of film sage.

&gt; Why don't you enlighten me on these plot holes, cinematic flaws (I already
&gt; know about Gandalf's wand in TTT), and a TOTAL lack (WOW!--a TOTAL lack!) of
&gt; ANY (again WOW!--ANY and thus all!) inner logic!

Why should I bother? If I do, you'll just say such things
don't really matter. First admit that my premise is correct.

&gt;&gt;&gt;I did have a friend at UCLA Film Schhol in the '70s and I did a
&gt;&gt;&gt;soundtrack for one of his projects WAYYY back then, so I may look at film
&gt;&gt;&gt;differently than most.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;That probably puts you ahead of PJ as far as formal cinematic
&gt;&gt;education is concerned, but that's not impressive yet, and in
&gt;&gt;fact you bringing up something trivial like that in attempt
&gt;&gt;to claim some deeper understanding over the topic, is only
&gt;&gt;desperate and pathetic. &quot;I went to zoo, now I'm a koala-bear.&quot;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; What a dick.

What a brilliant comeback. Well, for a clueless, etc. fanboy anyway.

Morgil

Report this message

#212: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 16:20:32 by Morgil

Derek Broughton kirjoitti:
&gt; Morgil wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt;&gt;news:e7ot9u$n1r$<a href="mailto:1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi..." target="_blank">1&#64;nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Which explains why PJ thought it up ;-)
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Morgil
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Panties in a bunch? Or another horsehair up there?
&gt;&gt;&gt;&quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O the
&gt;&gt;&gt;whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Clueless, illiterate, no sense of humor-nay; do not start!
&gt;&gt;We know it well - here are the marks of a Movie Fanatic.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Another boring utterance from the anti-movie fanatic.

If the shoe fits...

Morgil

Report this message

#213: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 16:40:55 by Derek Broughton

Morgil wrote:

&gt; Derek Broughton kirjoitti:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Another boring utterance from the anti-movie fanatic.
&gt;
&gt; If the shoe fits...
&gt;

Duh? I _like_ the movies. Just because someone does, though, hardly makes
them a fanatic. You otoh can't stand that anybody has an appreciation for
them on any level.
--
derek

Report this message

#214: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 17:59:59 by Morgil

Derek Broughton kirjoitti:
&gt; Morgil wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Derek Broughton kirjoitti:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;Another boring utterance from the anti-movie fanatic.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;If the shoe fits...
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Duh? I _like_ the movies. Just because someone does, though, hardly makes
&gt; them a fanatic.

So if you're not a movie fanatic, why do you decide to
take offence when I put another movie fanatic to his place?

You otoh can't stand that anybody has an appreciation for
&gt; them on any level.

Absurd generalisations. Typical movie fanatic stunt.
Make up your mind. Do you wanna be one or not?

Morgil

Report this message

#215: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by mhaines

David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt; And I defy any of you to do it all over your way.

I -like- the movies and wish you would shut up and stop shouting
curses at us.

Michelle
Flutist

Report this message

#216: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Troels Forchhammer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid" target="_blank">Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:Xns97EFF1199FF09T.Forch&#64;130.133.1.4..." target="_blank">Xns97EFF1199FF09T.Forch&#64;130.133.1.4...</a>
&gt;
&gt; Personally I don't care, really -- this is insignificant compared to
&gt; other issues I have with Jackson's work (the lying &lt;strong expletive&gt;
&gt; &lt;GG&gt;). The only reason I could have to point to this explanation
&gt; would be that it is stupid as part of the film -- it is unnecessary
&gt; and it doesn't even make sense as part of the film's universe; it is
&gt; simply pointless. Fortunately the comment is easily lost (it is sort
&gt; of a throw-away line: it doesn't contribute to the plot, and only
&gt; confuses matters with respect to the underlying world) so I tend to
&gt; ignore it.
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I generally like the films for what they are -- best in class of the
&gt; usual lowest-common-denominator entertainment. As adaptions of
&gt; Tolkien in particular, my main issues have to do with loss of
&gt; coherence and consistency (it's not so much that he changed things,
&gt; but it became inconsistent and illogical in the process; something
&gt; which Tolkien worked very hard to reduce, if not avoid altogether) as
&gt; well as (and primarily) the way Jackson treated the thematic content
&gt; by contradicting (and, IMO, implicitly ridiculing) the points Tolkien
&gt; were trying to get across.


NO NO NO!!! It was NOT RIDUCULING!

I duuno, you musta seen a different film. See, I wanted to see Tolkiwn in
the films, and I did. You, apparently, want to see NON-Tolkien in the film
and so that's wat you harp on, Sancho Panchez.
The film is to tell a story and it did. The book is too tell a story and it
did.

Frankly, Tokien's first book is still embarrassing. Given that (1) I hate
Bombadil -- and (2) it takes three months fore Frodo to leave the
Shire!!!!???? DUDE!-GET the FUCK out ot there!
(3) Merry and Pippin join him on a lark in the book -- Oh, fine
storyletting, LOUSY movie script. The movie wins on this one, no matter who
wrote it. Merry and Pippin join to preserve their friend's life.
(4) Sevetenteen days to Rivendell? He'd be dead! But the storey idea is
good--just contract the timeline. Introduce an Elf too while you're at it.

It all comes down to one thing -- people who want the book bein' literal on
the screen ('MacTeaugue&quot; didn't make it) but who fogret that book cannot be
literally translated on the screen because they are written books and windy
as a Katrina.

You read a book to relax -- you watch a film to get revved up.

Why don;t you Epsteinians just sit bakk and enjoy the films and read the
books and tokk to peeople who do;t know about Tollkine including all you
know and not deened on judging and just turn on to how Tolkeene is cool!

Eh?

Report this message

#217: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by Phlip

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt; A films go, his was a great one. It IS Tolkien's story.

One major problem with Hollywood directors; they express &quot;artistic
control&quot; as a form of dominance. For example, the comic strip and movie
&quot;Over the Hedge&quot; are subtly different. The turtle Verne is more pragmatic,
and is a natural leader. In the comic strip, he's a neurotic wiener who
secretly drools over pinups of Janet Reno.

Aligning the movie just a couple degrees closer to the comic strip would
have not cost a single audience ticket. However, the strip's authors'
names, Fry &amp; Lewis, appear in the credits in only one place - the &quot;based
on&quot;.

Possessory credits represent the right to bet a studio's money on a
movie's success. &quot;Over the Hedge&quot; is indeed an awesome movie, and in many
ways it reflects the authors' vision. Yet the characters are slightly
different, and neither Fry nor Lewis could have done anything about that
if they had foolishly tried.

Signing movie rights always requires relinquishing creative control to
someone trusted by the movie studios to exert only the specific kinds of
control that their &quot;experience&quot; shows will return good reviews and good
word-of-mouth advertising.

So a producer and director will exert creative control just to prove they
can - to dominate the original author, or his estate. They want to tell
their moneybags, &quot;See! I'm fucking around with the plot! I'm doing my job!&quot;

--
Phlip

Report this message

#218: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by Troels Forchhammer

In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; Phlip
&lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;
&gt; Didn't Merry, in the book, say the Withywindle was the center of
&gt; the Old Forest's queerness?

And, as Öjevind has already pointed out, Tom explains that the reason
for this is that Old Man Willow is at the Withywindle.

&gt; Sounds to me like, on paper, there is a cycle from water,
[...]

No. It originates in the trees, that much is clear from Tom's
explanations.

It was not called the Old Forest without reason, [...];
and in it there lived yet, [...], the fathers of the
fathers of trees, remembering times when they were lords.
The countless years had filled them with pride and rooted
wisdom, and with malice. But none were more dangerous
than the Great Willow: [...], and his song and thought
ran through the woods on both sides of the river. His
grey thirsty spirit drew power [...], till it had under
its dominion nearly all the trees of the Forest from the
Hedge to the Downs.
[LotR I,7 'In the House of Tom Bombadil' - edited for brevity]

The river, if anything, is personified by Goldberry, the daughter of
the River:

[...]
in a wide pool, deep and clear, far down Withywindle;
[...]
By that pool long ago I found the River-daughter,
fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes.

&gt; but can't we cut PJ just one little break by letting him replace
&gt; that cycle with one little utterance?

Personally I don't care, really -- this is insignificant compared to
other issues I have with Jackson's work (the lying &lt;strong expletive&gt;
&lt;GG&gt;). The only reason I could have to point to this explanation
would be that it is stupid as part of the film -- it is unnecessary
and it doesn't even make sense as part of the film's universe; it is
simply pointless. Fortunately the comment is easily lost (it is sort
of a throw-away line: it doesn't contribute to the plot, and only
confuses matters with respect to the underlying world) so I tend to
ignore it.


I generally like the films for what they are -- best in class of the
usual lowest-common-denominator entertainment. As adaptions of
Tolkien in particular, my main issues have to do with loss of
coherence and consistency (it's not so much that he changed things,
but it became inconsistent and illogical in the process; something
which Tolkien worked very hard to reduce, if not avoid altogether) as
well as (and primarily) the way Jackson treated the thematic content
by contradicting (and, IMO, implicitly ridiculing) the points Tolkien
were trying to get across.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)

Report this message

#219: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:2Ccog.10197$<a href="mailto:3f.6587&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net..." target="_blank">3f.6587&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; So if you're not a movie fanatic, why do you decide to
&gt; take offence when I put another movie fanatic to his place?

First, Morgoth, I am not a movie fanatic. I'm just tired of the Epsteins
and &quot;pseudos&quot; (&quot;gremmies&quot; too) dissing a good set of filsm.

Now, I am always refering to te DVD sets. Everyne should have the
opportunity to see the storyboard of the original Prologue.

A films go, his was a great one. It IS Tolkien's story. It may not have
been to JRRT's absolute liking, but Nabokov had his own troubles with
hollywsood and he suirvived and so did his original novel.

The book is great if you want to wallow (yes, I have to say that, but I also
say it about Beethoven, and I do my own good bit of wallowing, thank you) in
watching the butter-arm churn endlessly. The book is also great &quot;just&quot; as a
story. But whether or not you like it, oralstories do get purified
distilled and restranslated over years. The PLAIN DEALER FACT is that NO
ONE is going to hate the books but they WILL be INTIMIDATED by them, IF they
want to read them, just by seeing the films (extended) and hearing that they
may have to R-E-A-D to know the original.

Get real dudes! Most people today won't even watch a film in English if it
has a few subtitles! THEY CAN'T READ!!! NOT ONE FUCKING WORD. So let them
learn about Tolkien through Jackson. Jeez, he beats Bakshi out!!

I didn't make this situation

Fuck, a couple of years ago a friend teaching ESL high school English was
trying to present &quot;Walter Mitty,&quot; with just the book, and a subsitute
teacher came in and showed the Danny Kaye film that TOTLLY FUCKED UP what
the first teacher was trying to do, and I agree because THAT IS A SHIT
MOVIE. And it completely fucked up her class lesson.

Jackson did not make a SHIT MOVIE even if you fundies can't get over a few
variations and see how good it is as a film of Tolken's work. SHIT! Look
at what happened to great works in the 1930s and 1960s! This was much
better, harking back to the apex of the silent era in what it was trying to
do with the medium.

And I defy any of you to do it all over your way.

Report this message

#220: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:O8bog.10113$<a href="mailto:UD6.1882&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net..." target="_blank">UD6.1882&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt; If the shoe fits...

My kitty will live in it. She luvs malic pheromones...

Report this message

#221: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:F_aog.10107$<a href="mailto:UD6.6355&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net..." target="_blank">UD6.6355&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net...</a>
&gt; fanboy

Heh-heh, ... yeah...

Report this message

#222: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4gcmotF1mjmn2U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4gcmotF1mjmn2U1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; &quot;Phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.06.26.22.14.37.937511&#64;gEEEmail.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;O dear, Jackson said they might have got something from the water, O
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the whole story is just rhuned for me.&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Precisely. I want to hear Tolkien's story, not Jackson's. If Jackson
&gt;&gt;&gt; wants
&gt;&gt;&gt; to tell a story, he can write his own.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Didn't Merry, in the book, say the Withywindle was the center of the Old
&gt;&gt; Forest's queerness?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Sounds to me like, on paper, there is a cycle from water, to roots, to
&gt;&gt; trees, to life, to Ents living around special springs. I am
&gt;&gt; obviously, frantically aware that Ents ascribe their sentience to
&gt;&gt; (patient) Elves singing them, but can't we cut PJ just one little break
&gt;&gt; by letting him replace that cycle with one little utterance?
&gt;
&gt; Well, not a chemical cycle; the Withywindle was &quot;the centre&quot; in the sense
&gt; of being the headquarters from which all the queerness came. The
&gt; headquarters, as we learn later on from Bombadil, was under the command of
&gt; Old Man Willow, who gradually subdued almost all the trees in the forest
&gt; to his will. It had nothing to do with the quality of the water. It had to
&gt; do with his evil will.
&gt; As for Fangorn, as you point out the Ents existed before the Elves; they
&gt; were taught to think and speak by the Elves, which is not a scientific
&gt; explanation but the kind of explanation one can find in a work of fantasy.
&gt; By the same token, the Ents are creatures of fantasy, not the result of
&gt; experiments conducted at a hortocultural laboratory. And the Elves are
&gt; also mythical, not a lost hominid branch discovered by archaeologists.

Now jest hole don a minute.
In a world where Elves and Ents had been real entities, ther &quot;science&quot; would
include their works evemn if those capabilities are no longer possible.
This is why I know for a certainty that in &quot;playful physics&quot; (the kind where
the rules don't apply but for a valid reason), this would all be acceptable
scientific explanations. Documentatins fom old elven sources and
man-translations would back this up.
But the rub it to try and take a modern 3rd age tree and &quot;re-Ent&quot; it!

&gt; As I have said in another post, a true fairy-story does not need any
&gt; explanations.

This is a point I really want to stress. In ther remakes of &quot;Phanton of the
Opera&quot; the awful color versions have so much explanation that there's no
time left for the as-it-happens horror! And we dont need to know about
Erick's background beyond that he was a prisoner during a really sucky time
and that he had been a musician. SOME explanations, ESPECIALLY when
presented as guesswork-dialogue between those involved, is cool -- spelling
it all out with the acid-in-the-face scene (Claude Raines' Phantom) is
unnecessary and means that the writers couldn't put enough OOMPH into the
real, main story.

Gore is alike garlic-- a good amount is good, but too much is overdose.

Report this message

#223: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-27 23:07:27 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4gclleF1lpq8dU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4gclleF1lpq8dU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; In fairy-stories (or in the traditional socities that gave rise to them),
&gt; people never thought up &quot;scientific&quot; explanations for trolls, huldras,
&gt; fairies, selchies and so on. They simply existed. The need for a &quot;natural
&gt; explanation&quot; is very much a feature of our time. That stuff does not
&gt; belong in fantasy, no matter whether we are talking about a book or a
&gt; film. Fairy-stories are pre-scientific.

Hobbits are not faerie creatures. They know one thing above all -- tilling
of the Earth.
'Nuff said?

Report this message

#224: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 01:29:56 by Christopher Kreuzer

David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; It all comes down to one thing -- people who want the book bein'
&gt; literal on the screen ('MacTeaugue&quot; didn't make it) but who fogret
&gt; that book cannot be literally translated on the screen because they
&gt; are written books and windy as a Katrina.

Oh please! Not that old chestnut again.

There always seem to be those from who want to misrepresent the
anti-film camp (a term that is itself a gross generalisation) by using
the simplistic soundbite: &quot;Anti-film people want the book translated
literally to the screen and don't understand how a film is different
from a book.&quot;

Can we _please_ get past this kindergarten level argument and accept
that the many of those who have problems with the films are _not_asking
for a literal adaptation, and they _do_ understand that films are
different from books. What they object to is how some specific changes
were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
film.

A faithful adaptation (not literal) would identify a set of core themes
and stay true to them, without diverging merely for the sake of it, or
to allow some special effects scene.

&gt; You read a book to relax -- you watch a film to get revved up.

Not all films are intended to rev people up. Some films are intended to
be artforms, rather than popular blockbusters, hence the term &quot;art house
cinema&quot;. I would love to see some of Tolkien's stories told this way,
with a sensitive director who had their own vision and was independent
enough from big money to stay true to their artistic ideals.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message

#225: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 03:03:55 by Phlip

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

&gt; ...What they object to is how some specific changes
&gt; were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
&gt; film.

(c) disgustingly clueless in a way that proved PJ didn't understand the
simplest aspects of the book.

&gt; Not all films are intended to rev people up.

And the parts that matched the book were breathtaking.

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#226: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 04:12:01 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com" target="_blank">phlip2005&#64;gEEEmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:pan.2006.06.27.21.54.17.951807&#64;gEEEmail.com..." target="_blank">pan.2006.06.27.21.54.17.951807&#64;gEEEmail.com...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; A films go, his was a great one. It IS Tolkien's story.
&gt;
&gt; One major problem with Hollywood directors; they express &quot;artistic
&gt; control&quot; as a form of dominance.

Oh man, if you'd like to open up a discussion of &quot;the Director&quot; and the
world seeminglyt revolves around it/him/her, I'd love it. But I'd have to
preface it by saying that for every score of bad directors there is one that
really knows what's going on, and then there's the innocent in between
(yeah, a Hollywood innocent--go figure, it does exist). Let' stick to the
ones that make good jokes.

The rest of this, fellow readers, is quite accurate when it comes to how the
real world of theater and folm works.

For example, the comic strip and movie
&gt; &quot;Over the Hedge&quot; are subtly different. The turtle Verne is more pragmatic,
&gt; and is a natural leader. In the comic strip, he's a neurotic wiener who
&gt; secretly drools over pinups of Janet Reno.
&gt;
&gt; Aligning the movie just a couple degrees closer to the comic strip would
&gt; have not cost a single audience ticket. However, the strip's authors'
&gt; names, Fry &amp; Lewis, appear in the credits in only one place - the &quot;based
&gt; on&quot;.
&gt;
&gt; Possessory credits represent the right to bet a studio's money on a
&gt; movie's success. &quot;Over the Hedge&quot; is indeed an awesome movie, and in many
&gt; ways it reflects the authors' vision. Yet the characters are slightly
&gt; different, and neither Fry nor Lewis could have done anything about that
&gt; if they had foolishly tried.

Well now, that is an absolute statement, and I'm sure if F&amp;L had tried to
alter a point here and there they would have gotten satisfaction...
If you go throuigh the alternate scenes from RotK you see how they tried to
make something cinematically BIG but then returned to a more Tolkien-true
line. Maybe the dead Tolkien was the best advocate for himself...

&gt; Signing movie rights always requires relinquishing creative control to
&gt; someone trusted by the movie studios to exert only the specific kinds of
&gt; control that their &quot;experience&quot; shows will return good reviews and good
&gt; word-of-mouth advertising.
&gt;
&gt; So a producer and director will exert creative control just to prove they
&gt; can - to dominate the original author, or his estate. They want to tell
&gt; their moneybags, &quot;See! I'm fucking around with the plot! I'm doing my
&gt; job!&quot;

As an editor, I know that sometimes I have put too much &quot;editorializing&quot;
into my editing of a text -- and the guy above me points this out, and I
correct the inappriopriate intrusion back towards the urtext and not later
variants. I always thought that if I didn't consider possibles that were
probably incorrect that someone would ask if I was doing my &quot;job.&quot;

Report this message

#227: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 04:12:39 by David Gray Porter

Okay.

&quot;Michelle J. Haines&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:mhaines&#64;nanc.com" target="_blank">mhaines&#64;nanc.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:78b60$44a1b603$4127760a$<a href="mailto:19055&#64;hpnx.com..." target="_blank">19055&#64;hpnx.com...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; And I defy any of you to do it all over your way.
&gt;
&gt; I -like- the movies and wish you would shut up and stop shouting curses at
&gt; us.
&gt;
&gt; Michelle
&gt; Flutist

Report this message

#228: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 04:21:04 by David Gray Porter

Okay. Now we have a good start.

&quot;Christopher Kreuzer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">spamgard&#64;blueyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:Ubjog.92469$<a href="mailto:wl.26505&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk..." target="_blank">wl.26505&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...</a>
&gt; David Gray Porter &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; It all comes down to one thing -- people who want the book bein'
&gt;&gt; literal on the screen ('MacTeaugue&quot; didn't make it) but who fogret
&gt;&gt; that book cannot be literally translated on the screen because they
&gt;&gt; are written books and windy as a Katrina.
&gt;
&gt; Oh please! Not that old chestnut again.

&quot;Chestnuts roastring on an open fire...&quot;

&gt; There always seem to be those from who want to misrepresent the
&gt; anti-film camp (a term that is itself a gross generalisation) by using
&gt; the simplistic soundbite: &quot;Anti-film people want the book translated
&gt; literally to the screen and don't understand how a film is different
&gt; from a book.&quot;

Only because we've heard it said to us. Okay, so let's assume it the tail
and not the dog.

&gt; Can we _please_ get past this kindergarten level argument and accept
&gt; that the many of those who have problems with the films are _not_asking
&gt; for a literal adaptation, and they _do_ understand that films are
&gt; different from books. What they object to is how some specific changes
&gt; were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
&gt; film.

A good discussion of the above as topics &quot;(a)&quot; and &quot;(b)&quot; would not only be
fun and constructive, it could actually teach some future film school
whizbang something.

&gt; A faithful adaptation (not literal) would identify a set of core themes
&gt; and stay true to them, without diverging merely for the sake of it, or
&gt; to allow some special effects scene.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; You read a book to relax -- you watch a film to get revved up.
&gt;
&gt; Not all films are intended to rev people up. Some films are intended to
&gt; be artforms, rather than popular blockbusters, hence the term &quot;art house
&gt; cinema&quot;. I would love to see some of Tolkien's stories told this way,
&gt; with a sensitive director who had their own vision and was independent
&gt; enough from big money to stay true to their artistic ideals.

Marcel Duchamp Productions presents!: &quot;Lord of Rings&quot;!--The Philip Glass
version!
(In this version we see the equivalent every moment of the six months it
took for Duchamp to &quot;breed&quot; the dust on his glass--just like watching Frodo
to take six months to get off his ass and get the goddam ring out otf the
Shire--and Duchamp includes every frame!--and that's jest part of Part
One!!!)
Cinematography by Andy Warhol. A great job on doing the Empire State piece,
Andy!

&gt;

Report this message

#229: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 04:22:08 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Phlip&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:phlipcpp&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">phlipcpp&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:%zkog.29454$<a href="mailto:VE1.21823&#64;newssvr14.news.prodigy.com..." target="_blank">VE1.21823&#64;newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...</a>
&gt; Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; ...What they object to is how some specific changes
&gt;&gt; were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
&gt;&gt; film.
&gt;
&gt; (c) disgustingly clueless in a way that proved PJ didn't understand the
&gt; simplest aspects of the book.

I think not.

&gt;&gt; Not all films are intended to rev people up.
&gt;
&gt; And the parts that matched the book were breathtaking.

On that we agree.

Report this message

#230: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 04:25:48 by Phlip

David Gray Porter wrote:

&gt;&gt; (c) disgustingly clueless in a way that proved PJ didn't understand the
&gt;&gt; simplest aspects of the book.
&gt;
&gt; I think not.

I have also heard that on USENET you can actually find people willing to
argue that toilet paper should be mounted to hang down in back.

&gt;&gt; And the parts that matched the book were breathtaking.
&gt;
&gt; On that we agree.

All three of them. ;-)

--
Phlip
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand" target="_blank">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand</a> &lt;-- NOT a blog!!!

Report this message

#231: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 06:40:12 by Morgil

David Gray Porter kirjoitti:
&gt; &quot;Morgil&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:morestelx&#64;hotmail.com" target="_blank">morestelx&#64;hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:2Ccog.10197$<a href="mailto:3f.6587&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net..." target="_blank">3f.6587&#64;reader1.news.jippii.net...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;So if you're not a movie fanatic, why do you decide to
&gt;&gt;take offence when I put another movie fanatic to his place?
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; First, Morgoth, I am not a movie fanatic. I'm just tired of the Epsteins
&gt; and &quot;pseudos&quot; (&quot;gremmies&quot; too) dissing a good set of filsm.

So because you have decided something is good, the others
should have no right to disagree? What do you think the
term &quot;movie fanatic&quot; is supposed to mean if not that!

&lt;snip rest of the illiterate and delusional drivel&gt;

You should really work on your basic reading skills.
Now you can't seem to get even names right any more.

Morgil

Report this message

#232: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 14:14:06 by Troels Forchhammer

In message
&lt;news:Mxiog.13566$<a href="mailto:o4.12813&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net" target="_blank">o4.12813&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net</a>&gt;
&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;
&gt; &quot;Troels Forchhammer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid" target="_blank">Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:Xns97EFF1199FF09T.Forch&#64;130.133.1.4..." target="_blank">Xns97EFF1199FF09T.Forch&#64;130.133.1.4...</a>
&gt;&gt;

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt;&gt; Personally I don't care, really -- this is insignificant compared
&gt;&gt; to other issues I have with Jackson's work
[...]
&gt;&gt; I generally like the films for what they are -- best in class of
&gt;&gt; the usual lowest-common-denominator entertainment.

I've cut down a bit on my earlier message in the hope that you wont
simply skip to the end without reading the whole story . . .

&gt;&gt; As adaptions of Tolkien in particular, my main issues have to
&gt;&gt; do with loss of coherence and consistency

In other words -- Jackson managed to make some changes that actually
contradicted parts of Tolkien that he kept in, or contradicted other
changes that he made. In both cases the result was an, IMO,
unfortunate loss of that 'inner consistency of reality' that is so
important in inducing Secondary Belief.

&gt;&gt; (it's not so much that he changed things, but it became
&gt;&gt; inconsistent and illogical in the process;

Another point that you apparently missed (or didn't believe) --
changes in themselves are generally not a problem, it is the
specifics of a few changes that people complain about.

&gt;&gt; and primarily the way Jackson treated the thematic content by
&gt;&gt; contradicting (and, IMO, implicitly ridiculing) the points
&gt;&gt; Tolkien were trying to get across.
&gt;
&gt; NO NO NO!!! It was NOT RIDUCULING!

I have normally assumed that it is enough to acknowledge PoV (and
hence inherently that others might disagree) to insert &quot;IMO&quot; -- I
assure you that it did indeed feel, /to me/ as ridiculing and no
amount of shouting from you can change that.

The whole scene on the stairs of Cirith Ungol changed, to my eyes,
the effect of Frodo's pity and mercy towards Gollum, and from an act
of Good, it was changed to idiocy (as I see it, though obviously
YMMV): portraying as naive idiocy the acts that Tolkien portrayed as
heroically Good does, in my view, amount to ridiculing.

&gt; I duuno, you musta seen a different film. See, I wanted to see
&gt; Tolkiwn in the films, and I did.

What is the point of your misspellings? I am quite capable of both
understanding and using correctly spelled English, and you have
elsewhere demonstrated that you are likewise capable, so it seems to
me that it is most likely deliberate. Is it a written equivalent of
sneering? The oral technique used to express contempt or ridicule of
others.

I don't think it's necessary to point out that such is a fallacious
argumentation technique (a variant of an emotional appeal combined
with an Ad Hominem attack), or that it signals, to more experienced
debaters, an argumental (rather than financial) bancruptcy.

&gt; You, apparently, want to see NON-Tolkien in the film and so that's
&gt; wat you harp on,

What little you know.

&gt; The film is to tell a story and it did. The book is too tell
&gt; a story and it did.

LOL! Well, talk about stating the obvious ;)

The point under discussion is rather to what degree they tell the
/same/ story -- not whether they each tell /a/ story.

I contest that the stories are only similar at the surface; the very
top of the story. The physical worlds look exactly the same, the
characters have the same names and go to places with the same names.
But from there things deviate quickly.

Many of the characters, despite having the same external
characteristics (name, age, lineage etc.) have been given completely
new personalities -- I cannot right now think of any major character
that was transferred unchanged, though only a handful or so were very
drastically changed.

The actual plot, the events that the characters experience, was
changed in both large and small ways, although most of that is of
little consequence to me. I know that there are others who do dislike
it, but in general I find these changes to be justified as being
better 'viewable', as fitting better in the film medium. The
exceptions to that are where they are used to affect or emphasize
more fundamental changes.

The underlying themes that Tolkien addressed have been treated with,
what I can only see as a complete lack of respect. I think that
Tolkien's underlying moral themes are, by and large, only addressed
when they are contradicted, and, as already said, in some cases even,
in my view (and your mileage very obviously does vary), ridiculed.

In my opinion the parts of the story that are under the surface, the
personalities of the characters and the thematic content (whether
ethical themes or other), are very significant to the story, and if
these are substantially different, as they, IMO, are between
Tolkien's /The Lord of the Rings/ and Peter Jackson's film trilogy of
the same name, then I cannot accept that they are the same story.
Hence I must conclude that they two different stories, that are only
superficially similar.

&gt; Frankly, Tokien's first book is still embarrassing.

You are, of course, free to think of it as you will. I disagree, as
you did probably foresee, and consequently I have to take issue with
the implicit claim of universal truth in your statement.

&gt; (1) I hate Bombadil

I very much like Tom -- I am fond of enigmas (I like to speculate
about the role of things we do nor and can not understand fully) and
he does make a very important ethical point in the book.

&gt; (2) it takes three months fore Frodo to leave the Shire!!!!????

Five, actually, but let that lie.

We obviously don't see eye to eye here either -- I found the
compression of the time line in the films to be stupid and
incredible. It does not, IMO, work within the logic of the film,
either -- the period from happy celebrating to world peril is too
short to be, to me, credible, and the journey (and hence, implicitly,
the distance) to Rivendell becomes too short for that part of the
story to work for me. But that's a common problem in films --
directors as a group seems to me incapable of grasping the ideas of
credibility, coherence and consistency of a story (actually I am sure
that they do understand these things very well, but they choose to
disregard them when making films -- possibly because there is very
little attention on such qualities from the majority of the
audience).

&gt; (3) Merry and Pippin join him on a lark in the book

I'm sure that you must be using the idiom ('on a lark') in a way that
I have not encountered before. The definition I know is more or less
equivalent to 'at a whim', which would, of course, make the above
sentence farcically erroneous.

&lt;<a href="http://www.clichesite.com/content.asp?which=tip+1992" target="_blank">http://www.clichesite.com/content.asp?which=tip+1992</a>&gt;
&lt;<a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lark_2?view=uk" target="_blank">http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/lark_2?view=uk</a>&gt;

They are, in the book, both very aware of the danger (though they
have probably underestimated it), and have planned and executed their
'conspiracy' with great attention to detail. They join not for
amusement or excitement, but to protect Frodo.

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; It all comes down to one thing -- people who want the book bein'
&gt; literal on the screen

You're wrong enough to make it actually amusing.

You either don't read what is actually written (skipping, perhaps, to
the 'last chapter' to read the end?) or you think we're lying to you
when we assure you we, or at least I, did not have that kind of
ideas. The vast majority of people with whom I've discussed the films
were highly expectant and extremly positive towards them from the
beginning. This was generally still the case after the first film --
enthusiasm prevailed /despite/ the changes (even the illogical and
inconsistent ones). It wasn't really until the release of the third
film that a large number of people became predominantly negative in
their attitude towards Jackson's work, although the enthusiasm had
cooled significantly after the release of his version of /Two
Towers/.

Most people are also, in my experience, quite capable of discussing
seperately the issues of 'Tolkien adaptation' and 'Action film', and
of expressing nuanced views (including both pros and cons) on both
issues.

It is only natural that the basic premise for discussions in
alt./fan.tolkien/ and rec.arts./books.tolkien/ (added emphasis) would
be Tolkien's books seen in a /very/ positive light (that's where the
'fan' part comes in). The focus here cannot and should not be the
films simply as action films (there are dedicated groups for that),
but the particular relationship between the books and their
adaptation into films.

&gt; but who fogret that book cannot be literally translated on the
&gt; screen because they are written books

Unless, of course, your film is simply a screening of the text ;-)

&gt; and windy as a Katrina.

Once again a matter of viewpoint -- I don't find Tolkien's writings
'windy' in any part; even where the plot speeds down, the words have
a purpose and are, to me, enjoyable.

&gt; You read a book to relax -- you watch a film to get revved up.

For me it is rather the other way around -- films for relaxation. but
then, I find it so easy to get drunk on words that I am rarely
completely sober ;) (there are no points for identifying the
quotation).

&gt; Why don;t you Epsteinians just sit bakk and enjoy the films and
&gt; read the books and tokk to peeople who do;t know about Tollkine
&gt; including all you know and not deened on judging and just turn on
&gt; to how Tolkeene is cool!

Oh, dear! I hardly know where to begin.

There is the straw man:
&lt;<a href="http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/straw.html" target="_blank">http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/straw.html</a>&gt;
I do not agree with Louis Epstein in his assessment of the films.

There is the loaded question:
&lt;<a href="http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html" target="_blank">http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html</a>&gt;
&quot;Why don't you . . .&quot;

An appeal to spite (as well as other emotional appeals)
&lt;<a href="http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/emotion.html#spite" target="_blank"> http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/emotion.html#s pite</a>&gt;

There is also a false dilemma involved
&lt;<a href="http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html" target="_blank">http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/dilemma.html</a>&gt;
The implication that &quot;Epsteinian&quot; is the only possible view that can
disagree with yours.

Of course it's quite an Ad Hominem attack
&lt;<a href="http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html" target="_blank">http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html</a>&gt;
and a very bad case of generalisation
&lt;<a href="http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/general.html" target="_blank">http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/general.html</a>&gt;

There are a number of other fallacies that I am pleased not to find
here, such as appeals to authority, common belief and common
practice, attempts to shift the burden of proof, post hoc or circular
reasoning.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

Scientific reasoning works only with measurements: only
when we have a number and a unit. Thus, topics for which
we have no measurements, scientific investigation is not
useful. No math, no science. When we do have
measurements, scientific reasoning cannot be ignored.
- Dr Nancy's Sweetie on usenet
Message-ID: &lt;ds159c$p45$<a href="mailto:1&#64;pcls4.std.com" target="_blank">1&#64;pcls4.std.com</a>&gt;

Report this message

#233: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 18:15:50 by bredband.net

&quot;David Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; skrev i meddelandet
news:rkhog.13539$<a href="mailto:o4.5979&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net..." target="_blank">o4.5979&#64;newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...</a>

&gt; &quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:4gcmotF1mjmn2U1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4gcmotF1mjmn2U1&#64;individual.net...</a>

[snip]

&gt;&gt; By the same token, the Ents are creatures of fantasy, not the result of
&gt;&gt; experiments conducted at a hortocultural laboratory. And the Elves are
&gt;&gt; also mythical, not a lost hominid branch discovered by archaeologists.
&gt;
&gt; Now jest hole don a minute.
&gt; In a world where Elves and Ents had been real entities, ther &quot;science&quot;
&gt; would include their works evemn if those capabilities are no longer
&gt; possible. This is why I know for a certainty that in &quot;playful physics&quot;
&gt; (the kind where the rules don't apply but for a valid reason), this would
&gt; all be acceptable scientific explanations. Documentatins fom old elven
&gt; sources and man-translations would back this up.
&gt; But the rub it to try and take a modern 3rd age tree and &quot;re-Ent&quot; it!

Why? Why include an explanation straight from some crappy sf movie (&quot;Attack
of the Mutant Trees&quot;, &quot;The Menace from the Forest&quot;, or the like) when you
don't need to explain the Ents at all?

&gt;&gt; As I have said in another post, a true fairy-story does not need any
&gt;&gt; explanations.
&gt;
&gt; This is a point I really want to stress. In ther remakes of &quot;Phanton of
&gt; the Opera&quot; the awful color versions have so much explanation that there's
&gt; no time left for the as-it-happens horror! And we dont need to know about
&gt; Erick's background beyond that he was a prisoner during a really sucky
&gt; time and that he had been a musician. SOME explanations, ESPECIALLY when
&gt; presented as guesswork-dialogue between those involved, is cool --
&gt; spelling it all out with the acid-in-the-face scene (Claude Raines'
&gt; Phantom) is unnecessary and means that the writers couldn't put enough
&gt; OOMPH into the real, main story.

You do not seem to quite get my drift. I am saying that in a fantasy story,
or fantasy film, no explanation is needed for the existence of supernatural
beings. I Instead of having Merry talk about how &quot;People said something in
the water made the trees sentient&quot; (with its implied pseudo-scientific
suggestion of &quot;mutation&quot;), as Jackson did, why not simply let him say:
&quot;Maybe there are sentient trees here, the way there are in the Old Forst
back home&quot;. It would not take more time; it would not introduce more
hitherto unmentioned things (it would introduce less, in fact); and it would
not be so embarrassingly on a quest for a &quot;natural explanation&quot;.
Like several other posters who have discussed the films with you, I
enjoyed them, but I do think some things in them could have been handled
better. Fair enough?

Öjevind

Report this message

#234: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-28 19:14:51 by Phlip

Öjevind Lång wrote:

&gt; &quot;Maybe there are sentient trees here, the way there
&gt; are in the Old Forst back home&quot;. It would not take more time; it would not
&gt; introduce more hitherto unmentioned things (it would introduce less, in
&gt; fact); and it would not be so embarrassingly on a quest for a &quot;natural
&gt; explanation&quot;.

T provided so many different aspects of the situation that Merry had a
wide choice of canon available.

&quot;Do you remember the tale in Rivendell of Dior and the Dwarves who sacked
Doriath? how the Shepherds of the Trees helped avenge him?&quot;

&quot;This woods is just the eastern end of a great old forest that stretched
all the way from here to the Old Forest outside the Shire, where the trees
are so strange.&quot;

Etc. Everyone's a director!

--
Phlip

Report this message

#235: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-29 04:27:47 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Öjevind Lång&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang" target="_blank">bredband.net&#64;ojevind.lang</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:4gfo9oF1lk88eU1&#64;individual.net..." target="_blank">4gfo9oF1lk88eU1&#64;individual.net...</a>
&gt; Fair enough?

Fair enough.

But this way the water and not ent-drafts make Hobbits grow!

Report this message

#236: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-29 04:32:13 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Troels Forchhammer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid" target="_blank">Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:Xns97F092F6532DCT.Forch&#64;131.228.6.98..." target="_blank">Xns97F092F6532DCT.Forch&#64;131.228.6.98...</a>
&gt;
&gt; What is the point of your misspellings? I am quite capable of both
&gt; understanding and using correctly spelled English, and you have
&gt; elsewhere demonstrated that you are likewise capable, so it seems to
&gt; me that it is most likely deliberate. Is it a written equivalent of
&gt; sneering? The oral technique used to express contempt or ridicule of
&gt; others.

No, I can;t always see the text clearly. Maybe I should get a newer
perscription (again!). My glasses are already thick enough though thank
you.

And I turned the spellchecker off because it took too much time.

I tried the magnifyer byt it gives me headaches.

Report this message

#237: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-29 09:05:42 by Troels Forchhammer

In message
&lt;news:NYGog.3031$<a href="mailto:NP4.1119&#64;newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net" target="_blank">NP4.1119&#64;newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net</a>&gt; &quot;David
Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;

&lt;snip&gt;

[Misspelling]

&gt; No, I can;t always see the text clearly.
[...]

OK -- I'm sorry for to have suspected you of a deliberate attempt at
ridicule. It was the switching between good and bad spelling that
triggered my distrustfulness. I apologize.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/

Report this message

#238: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-29 23:32:26 by David Gray Porter

&quot;Troels Forchhammer&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid" target="_blank">Troels&#64;ThisIsFake.invalid</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:Xns97F15EAD13350T.Forch&#64;131.228.6.98..." target="_blank">Xns97F15EAD13350T.Forch&#64;131.228.6.98...</a>
&gt; In message
&gt; &lt;news:NYGog.3031$<a href="mailto:NP4.1119&#64;newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net" target="_blank">NP4.1119&#64;newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net</a>&gt; &quot;David
&gt; Gray Porter&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:portniek&#64;earthlink.net" target="_blank">portniek&#64;earthlink.net</a>&gt; enriched us with:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &lt;snip&gt;
&gt;
&gt; [Misspelling]
&gt;
&gt;&gt; No, I can;t always see the text clearly.
&gt; [...]
&gt;
&gt; OK -- I'm sorry for to have suspected you of a deliberate attempt at
&gt; ridicule. It was the switching between good and bad spelling that
&gt; triggered my distrustfulness. I apologize.

Hey, when I'm &quot;dee-liberately&quot; misspelling for Twainian effect, I try to
make it obvious.

&quot;I wish ol' Boggs 'd threaten me! I know I'd live a thousand y'ar!&quot;

Report this message

#239: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-06-30 22:05:29 by JimboCat

Phlip wrote:

&gt;Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt; ...What they object to is how some specific changes
&gt;&gt; were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
&gt;&gt; film.
&gt;
&gt;(c) disgustingly clueless in a way that proved PJ didn't understand the
&gt;simplest aspects of the book.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Not all films are intended to rev people up.
&gt;
&gt;And the parts that matched the book were breathtaking.

Even many parts that *didn't* match the book were breathtaking: Pippin
sneaking up and lighting the beacon fire by stealth was pretty stupid,
and did a great disservice to the character of Denethor (not that it
wasn't already way too late for the poor guy, having already been
recast as Nero stuffing his face while Rome burned), but the ensuing
fly-through from beacon to beacon over the mountains was just a
way-cool movie moment...even if they didn't match JRRT's description
very closely.

Overall, I found the movies disappointing, and have only watched them
once (so far). But I can't think of a single book I liked whose movie I
also liked enough to watch more than once, so that's nothing new!

In the &quot;movie explanations that utterly fail&quot; department, I think the
prize goes to &quot;Smila's Sense of Snow&quot;. Not a great book: I kept going
to the end in hope of finally finding out wth was really going on, only
to read the last sentence: &quot;There would be no resolution.&quot; and groan
out &quot;Noooooo!!!!!!&quot; The movie attempted to explain the things the book
deliberately left as never-to-be-solved mysteries -- but the
explanations were lame, illogical, and totally ruined the story, not to
mention obviating the major themes of the book. Sigh.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
Our perceptions are shaped by the number of examples we can come up
with.
Quick question - are there more tornados in Nebraska or Kansas? Most
people will answer Kansas, although there are more in Nebraska.
However, nobody can come up with an example of a tornado that hit
Nebraska, and we can all come up with an example of one that hit
Kansas. (Even though that one is fictional!)
-Tom LeCompte

Report this message

#240: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-07-01 00:34:42 by David Gray Porter

&quot;JimboCat&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com" target="_blank">103134.3516&#64;compuserve.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1151697929.688845.85330&#64;b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1151697929.688845.85330&#64;b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt; Phlip wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; ...What they object to is how some specific changes
&gt;&gt;&gt; were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
&gt;&gt;&gt; film.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;(c) disgustingly clueless in a way that proved PJ didn't understand the
&gt;&gt;simplest aspects of the book.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; Not all films are intended to rev people up.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;And the parts that matched the book were breathtaking.
&gt;
&gt; Even many parts that *didn't* match the book were breathtaking: Pippin
&gt; sneaking up and lighting the beacon fire by stealth was pretty stupid,
&gt; and did a great disservice to the character of Denethor (not that it
&gt; wasn't already way too late for the poor guy, having already been
&gt; recast as Nero stuffing his face while Rome burned), but the ensuing
&gt; fly-through from beacon to beacon over the mountains was just a
&gt; way-cool movie moment...even if they didn't match JRRT's description
&gt; very closely.

This one was one of the instances I had in mind where a lesser detail is
changed (&quot;how&quot; Denethor burns) vs. a greater detail (Faramir having to take
his time in deciding to rlease Frodo &amp; Sam), when both end the same way as
in the book (Denethor roasts, F &amp; S go on to Mordor and the next Book
carries the story foreward).

Now first, I like the Faramir treatment. Trust me, fellas, it won't work on
today's screeen to have hm stentoring &quot;I would not touch the thing if I
found it on the road&quot;! -- UNLESS, of course, it would be done like that
truly &quot;blessed&quot; moment in the 2nd episode of the BBC &quot;I, Claudius&quot;
production, where Brian Blessed's Augustus tells Drusus that everything
could have been just wonderful between him and Antony but fr a &quot;if only&quot;
(and then he turns away and rolls his eyes with a look like, &quot;God what a
pile of shit I just laid!--whoo!&quot;).

Denethor roasting is different. (&quot;Denethor's roasting on a open fire; Big
Orc's nipping off your nose...&quot;).

It wwould have been really cool, and explained all his crazoid behavior, if
he had, as Pippin pulls Faramir off the pyre, pulled a Palantir out of his
cloak a la Saruman, said he';d seen it all, etc., whatever the book reads (I
don't have my copy here and I can't read it lately), and then jumps atop the
pyre and goes up in flames, holding the Palantir in his hands. And the
Palantir stars to glow from within.... &quot;Thus passes Denethor.&quot; (Plus he
had a problem with wind what with all those grapes.)

A later scene with Gandalf could show the Minas Tirith Palantir against a
narrative (prefacing Aragron's encounter with the Isengard Palantir??) afire
from within with the image of two hands together. But that would be asking
much -- we did at least get, &quot;Well, I'm back.&quot; (And line delivered outside
v. inside is OK by me.)



&gt; Overall, I found the movies disappointing, and have only watched them
&gt; once (so far). But I can't think of a single book I liked whose movie I
&gt; also liked enough to watch more than once, so that's nothing new!

Here's a contender for worst case.

They showed a BBC production of &quot;Last of the Mohicans&quot; on PBS inthe '70s,
and it took several hours and seemed pretty good. Then by chance I saw this
really howling gobbler of a film on this book made when my folks were
teenagers. It was so incredibly bad -- and yet that's what people in the
good ole US of A grew up on before WWII and the Atomic/Satelite Age that
confounded them so much. My folks thought the BBC production was too
disturbing, and they thought the American '30s film had been disturbing
enough for a teenager of &quot;that time.&quot; [It had a &quot;racial&quot; undertheme!] If
you want to really hurt yourself for a little over an hour and not draw much
blood, watch this truly hilarious and takes-itself-serious film of
&quot;Mohicans&quot; from the '30s. Real howlers! Big spoiler here: The half-Indian
daughter is played by a BLONDE.

People here say how they like the first LOTR film better than the 2nd and
3rd. I can see why. I myself say that you should not judge the films by
the theatrical version, that you should use the extended versions and check
out some details like the rejected storyboard from the Intro. Yes, Denethor
could have died truer to the book and it would have been just as fiery, but
overall the extendeds are pretty dang good for a film from a book.

Now let's make &quot;A Brief History of Time&quot; as a musical and the &quot;Hawking&quot;
character can be the star singer and dancer!

Report this message

#241: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-18 10:00:51 by morgothscurse2002

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:40:17 +0100, Tamf Moo &lt;<a href="mailto:liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt;
wrote:

&gt;Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;&gt; I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
&gt;&gt; the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?
&gt;
&gt;well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
&gt;endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
&gt;part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
&gt;tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
&gt;more like the german &quot;ch&quot; than the r.

This is why everybody should always use the English &quot;R.&quot; Our &quot;R's&quot;
are always easy to pronounce. :-)

Morgoth's Curse

Report this message

#242: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-18 11:17:27 by Troels Forchhammer

In message &lt;news:<a href="mailto:665pb2l4lqsmbbj6c5epr8kfu7lnedcb02&#64;4ax.com" target="_blank">665pb2l4lqsmbbj6c5epr8kfu7lnedcb02&#64;4ax.com</a>&gt;
Morgoth's Curse &lt;<a href="mailto:morgothscurse2002&#64;nospam.yahoo.com" target="_blank">morgothscurse2002&#64;nospam.yahoo.com</a>&gt; enriched us
with:
&gt;

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; This is why everybody should always use the English &quot;R.&quot; Our
&gt; &quot;R's&quot; are always easy to pronounce. :-)

&quot;You ahh of couwse wight!&quot; ;-)

(Now, how many foreign accents are parodied by mispronouncing the Rs?)

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is &lt;t.forch(a)email.dk&gt;

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking with which we created them.
- Albert Einstein

Report this message

#243: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-18 14:39:08 by Noh Phu Ling

Morgoth's Curse wrote:

&gt;
&gt; This is why everybody should always use the English &quot;R.&quot; Our &quot;R's&quot;
&gt; are always easy to pronounce. :-)
&gt;
&gt; Morgoth's Curse

Here in New England we often dispense with them entirely.

Pete H

Report this message

#244: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-18 14:40:42 by Noh Phu Ling

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

&gt;
&gt;
&gt; &quot;You ahh of couwse wight!&quot; ;-)
&gt;
&gt; (Now, how many foreign accents are parodied by mispronouncing the Rs?)
&gt;

That's not an accent; that's Elmer Fudd, you silly wabbit!

Pete H

Report this message

#245: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-18 15:44:38 by Derek Broughton

pmhilton wrote:

&gt; Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &quot;You ahh of couwse wight!&quot; ;-)
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; (Now, how many foreign accents are parodied by mispronouncing the Rs?)
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; That's not an accent; that's Elmer Fudd, you silly wabbit!
&gt;
Who are you calling a silly wabbit? That's _my_ accent.
--
dewek

Report this message

#246: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-20 09:16:37 by Henriette

Morgoth's Curse schreef:

&gt; On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:40:17 +0100, Tamf Moo &lt;<a href="mailto:liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com" target="_blank">liddlelellow&#64;yahoo.com</a>&gt;
&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;Troels Forchhammer wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt; I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
&gt; &gt;&gt; the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?
&gt; &gt;
For some it is, for some it isn't;-) The difference in individual
ability to copy the pronunciation of languages and dialects is
remarkable.

&gt; &gt;well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
&gt; &gt;endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
&gt; &gt;part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
&gt; &gt;tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
&gt; &gt;more like the german &quot;ch&quot; than the r.
&gt;
For some people (singers) it is essential they are able to pronounce
certain sounds, or they can forget about an international career. So
logotherapists have come up with exercises to help pronounce any sound.
A funny one for the pronunciation of the uvular r is take a sip of
water, then gurgle with sound.

&gt; This is why everybody should always use the English &quot;R.&quot; Our &quot;R's&quot;
&gt; are always easy to pronounce. :-)
&gt;
The English &quot;R&quot; is very easy indeed: skip it. The American &quot;R&quot; is
remarkably different. I can pronounce it, but because of my native
language, it is not as easy for me as the uvular or the thrilled &quot;R&quot;.

Henriette

Report this message

#247: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-07-22 14:36:04 by Mel.Brennan

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
&gt; ...There always seem to be those from who want to misrepresent the
&gt; anti-film camp (a term that is itself a gross generalisation) by using
&gt; the simplistic soundbite: &quot;Anti-film people want the book translated
&gt; literally to the screen and don't understand how a film is different
&gt; from a book.&quot;
&gt;
&gt; Can we _please_ get past this kindergarten level argument and accept
&gt; that the many of those who have problems with the films are _not_asking
&gt; for a literal adaptation, and they _do_ understand that films are
&gt; different from books. What they object to is how some specific changes
&gt; were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
&gt; film.
&gt;
&gt; A faithful adaptation (not literal) would identify a set of core themes
&gt; and stay true to them, without diverging merely for the sake of it, or
&gt; to allow some special effects scene...

Precisely. What a failure these moving pcitures are, but, more than
anything, what a failed opportunity.

PS Anyone see anything from these moving pictures inhabiting any
cultural landscape (other than a mockery of Gollum's &quot;my precious&quot; from
time to time)? Anything? Anyone? The very difference between the
impact of the original work, and this &quot;translation.&quot; Everything
important about the books was Lost in Translation.

It truly is almost as if Jackson, Boyens and Walsh said &quot;Let's just
distill this down to it's major action points, and build back up from
there in our own sense and sensibilities.&quot;

Problem there is (leaving aside the very callign it LOTR, when it is in
fact something else), Tolkien's work gives us all the richness such
that when battle comes, we move through it in intimate relationship
with the large and small consequences OF battle.

Not battle for battle's sake; these aren't flawed beings with whom
we're supposed to relate; these are archetypes by which a mythology
emerges. There's nothing in Viggo's performance that lends itself at
all to the Aragorn/Dunedan/Strider I know.

Thus, a different work. Not a &quot;Translation.&quot; An entirely different
work. ANd that's fine; just CALL it that - call it &quot;Peter Jackson's
World of Fantasy - and stop calling it LOTR.

It is simply NOT that.

Report this message

#248: Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK)

Posted on 2006-07-22 22:55:29 by Laurie Forbes

&quot;pmhilton&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:pmhilton&#64;mfx.net" target="_blank">pmhilton&#64;mfx.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:44BCD66C.8000300&#64;mfx.net..." target="_blank">44BCD66C.8000300&#64;mfx.net...</a>
&gt; Morgoth's Curse wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; This is why everybody should always use the English &quot;R.&quot; Our &quot;R's&quot;
&gt; &gt; are always easy to pronounce. :-)
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; Morgoth's Curse
&gt;
&gt; Here in New England we often dispense with them entirely.
&gt;
&gt; Pete H


That's right! And then for cosmic balance we might add them when we say
words that end in &quot;a.&quot; The capital of Maine (Augusta), for example, can
sound like &quot;auguster.&quot;

Report this message

#249: Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK

Posted on 2006-07-23 21:31:19 by Christopher Kreuzer

<a href="mailto:Mel.Brennan&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">Mel.Brennan&#64;gmail.com</a> &lt;<a href="mailto:Mel.Brennan&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">Mel.Brennan&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&lt;snip&gt;

&gt; Not battle for battle's sake; these aren't flawed beings with whom
&gt; we're supposed to relate; these are archetypes by which a mythology
&gt; emerges.

I agreed with most of what you said, but particularly this bit.

&gt; Thus, a different work. Not a &quot;Translation.&quot; An entirely different
&gt; work. ANd that's fine; just CALL it that - call it &quot;Peter Jackson's
&gt; World of Fantasy - and stop calling it LOTR.

Tolkien sold the film rights. They've paid money to be able to call it
that. You won't win this argument. I agree, though, that &quot;Peter Jackson&quot;
or &quot;New Line&quot;, and &quot;film/movie&quot; should be appended everytime it is
discussed.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Report this message