From: "Speaking Clock" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: There's nothing new under the sun Keywords: world X-No-archive: yes Lines: 28 Organization: . X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 22:26:11 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.178.112 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010528817 62.252.178.112 (Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:26:57 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 22:26:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!btnet-peer1!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:70473 I was re-reading the foreword to FOTR tonight. I tried substituting a few of my own words for Tolkien's, and here's the result: "The prime motive was the desire of a [movie-maker] to try his hand at a really long [film] that would hold the attention of [audiences], amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably at fault. Some who have [seen the movie], or at any rate reviewed it [ooh - I'd forgotten that bit of sarcasm!] have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of [artistic creation] that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the [scenes] that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical viewer of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the [movie] or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the [movie] is too short." Just bring out the full 6 hour version on DVD, Mr Jackson. No pressure. :) Speaking Clock Remove mascara to reply ###### Message-ID: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> From: pmhilton@mfx.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 42 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 05:05:02 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv3-Sp2zabRwocY3e0H0d19yR9ksFcBz1mCTznyf0ME4BQ96kzjzNmS56Zl5jMILki4Edye7EHI7cE/isrq!FeorNXiYeFbPW+ahNAIECH7LMtMYhchzc1Tdn/XOL5eSkh2TWt21SL8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 11:05:02 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.siscom.net!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71159 Speaking Clock wrote: > I was re-reading the foreword to FOTR tonight. I tried substituting a few > of my own words for Tolkien's, and here's the result: > > "The prime motive was the desire of a [movie-maker] to try his hand at a > really long [film] that would hold the attention of [audiences], amuse them, > delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a > guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for > many the guide was inevitably at fault. Some who have [seen the movie], or > at any rate reviewed it [ooh - I'd forgotten that bit of sarcasm!] have > found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, > since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of [artistic > creation] that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of > many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is > perhaps not everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I > have received that the [scenes] that are to some a blemish are all by others > specially approved. The most critical viewer of all, myself, now finds many > defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either > to review the [movie] or to write it again, he will pass over these in > silence, except one that has been noted by others: the [movie] is too > short." > > Just bring out the full 6 hour version on DVD, Mr Jackson. No pressure. :) > > Speaking Clock > > Remove mascara to reply WELL SAID! Would that all these self-congratulatory types would slow down and take as moderate & companionable a tone as "The Master." Pete Hilton aka The Ent -- There are two sides to every argument unless someone is personally involved in which case there is only one. anon. ###### From: gary4books@yahoo.com (Gary E. Masters) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: 9 Jan 2002 07:41:52 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 11 Message-ID: <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.53.186 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1010590912 17569 127.0.0.1 (9 Jan 2002 15:41:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jan 2002 15:41:52 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71151 pmhilton@mfx.net wrote in message news:<3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net>... > Speaking Clock wrote: > > , he will pass over these in > > silence, except one that has been noted by others: the [movie] is too > > short." I was reading that last night. It is very appropriate to the film and gives us some idea of how well it stands in for the book. If it were not so close, the reactions would not fit Tolkien's words. ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:46:59 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.8e X-Server-Date: 9 Jan 2002 17:46:42 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71521 Gary E. Masters wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >pmhilton@mfx.net wrote in message news:<3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net>... >> Speaking Clock wrote: >> >> , he will pass over these in >> > silence, except one that has been noted by others: the [movie] is too >> > short." > > >I was reading that last night. It is very appropriate to the film and >gives us some idea of how well it stands in for the book. It is very _inappropriate_ to the film. The book was Tolkien's original word, not only a new novel but a new genre. The film is an adaptation of an existing work -- or at least so Jackson claims. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site) Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 26 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 21:40:11 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010612948 80.2.247.85 (Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:49:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 21:49:08 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news2.euro.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71346 "Stan Brown" wrote in message news:MPG.16a64c1cde36f71b98cd1d@news.mindspring.com... > It is very _inappropriate_ to the film. The book was Tolkien's > original word, not only a new novel but a new genre. The film is an > adaptation of an existing work -- or at least so Jackson claims. Sorry is the film based on the book? I suppose it is in the way that "clueless" was based on emma or last temptation is based on the gospels (who'd have thought it Judas was a servant of satan right from the begining!). Clever how although the book was Epic genre, the film is Action genre, how the book was Mythos and the film is Pop Psycology. No I am off to make a film of Macbeth where he turns out to be a nice bloke in the end and Banquo dies having slipped on a wet patch of grass by a ditch. LOTR-FUBAR Edward/ ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 01:48:43 +0200 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-q139.otenet.gr X-Trace: usenet.otenet.gr 1010620148 11122 212.205.254.139 (9 Jan 2002 23:49:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 23:49:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!skynet.be!skynet.be!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71414 "Edward Green" wrote in message news:oV2%7.3747$1s6.729062@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > No I am off to make a film of Macbeth where he turns out to be a nice bloke > in the end and Banquo dies having slipped on a wet patch of grass by a > ditch. How ironic that you'd use Macbeth as an example. Of course the real Macbeth never murdered King Duncan - he defeated him in combat. And while Duncan was considered something of a tyrant (his reign was disastrous for Scotland), Macbeth's seventeen years of reign were something of a small golden age instead. Making Macbeth a nice bloke is a much more plausible interpretation of real history than Shakespeare's slanderous perversion (ahem - liberal adaptation) thereof. Aris Katsaris ###### Message-ID: <3C3CE5B5.C507404F@mfx.net> From: pmhilton@mfx.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 18:51:35 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv3-1YSfxMbHw+voji6GTOmOe0yPsB8uAkvHh5R7Rnb4yyoDOROr8AGi2/X4s7106yu/JjhvATGaKsq2Xes!cTEx5vUO6zD51KqCjvjWEXpl//bLcKo8qSSFkEgvAG2XwK3I3HNHFTg= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:51:35 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!easynews!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71502 Aris Katsaris wrote: > > Of course the real Macbeth never murdered King Duncan - he defeated > him in combat. And while Duncan was considered something of a tyrant > (his reign was disastrous for Scotland), Macbeth's seventeen years of reign > were something of a small golden age instead. > > Making Macbeth a nice bloke is a much more plausible interpretation of > real history than Shakespeare's slanderous perversion (ahem - liberal > adaptation) thereof. > > Aris Katsaris Bear in mind that Shakespeare was free to use familiar material as the foundation upon which to erect stunning examinations of life's basic themes. True, the Macbeth/Duncan thing isn't historical. Romeo & Juliet was his 'modernization' of Pyramus & Thisbee. Every age has had its Iago, its Brutus, or Cleopatra....... Pete H. -- There are two sides to every argument unless someone is personally involved in which case there is only one. anon. ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:40:32 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.6f.58 X-Server-Date: 10 Jan 2002 05:40:14 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71505 Edward Green wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >"Stan Brown" wrote in message >news:MPG.16a64c1cde36f71b98cd1d@news.mindspring.com... > >> It is very _inappropriate_ to the film. The book was Tolkien's >> original word, not only a new novel but a new genre. The film is an >> adaptation of an existing work -- or at least so Jackson claims. > >Sorry is the film based on the book? > >I suppose it is in the way that "clueless" was based on emma or last >temptation is based on the gospels (who'd have thought it Judas was a >servant of satan right from the begining!). <> -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site) Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: James Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 47 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.80.135.150 X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 1010773412 210.80.135.150 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:23:32 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:23:32 EST Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:21:34 +1100 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71694 Edward Green : >Sorry is the film based on the book? I suppose it is in the way that >"clueless" was based on emma Er... what movie were you watching? I saw one that had the same story, characters, tone, theme, atmosphere, and setting as LotR. In fact, about 80-90% of the dialogue was - by some astonishing coincidence - lifted entirely from that famous fantasy novel. Maybe you're talking about some _other_ film? But then I guess Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet wasn't _really_ based on Shakespeare's play, and the Harry Potter movie was actually nothing to do with the books of the same name because they didn't mention what happened to that stupid dragon. >Clever how although the book was Epic genre, the film is Action genre, I see. So not only is "epic" a genre, but the film _wasn't it_. FotR, the movie: not an epic. >how >the book was Mythos and the film is Pop Psycology. Pop psychology? Are you talking about FotR, or Oprah?? I really don't understand what you mean. FotR had scenes of action, just like the book. But it was primarily a work of epic, mythological (or "mythos") fantasy, as is obvious from its heavy focus on the Elves and their fading from Middle-earth - in fact, PJ spent more time on this particular angle than ol' JRRT himself did in the opening chapters of LotR. >No I am off to make a film of Macbeth where he turns out to be a nice bloke >in the end and Banquo dies having slipped on a wet patch of grass by a >ditch. Sorry, what? I understand that this is supposed to be sarcasm, but it just doesn't seem relevant. Did the film of FotR have Sauron turn out to be a nice bloke? Did it have Boromir die by slipping on a wet patch of grass? Are you just blathering mindlessly? James (Back, and grumpy, even though I loved the movie. :) "Whoever truly loves the written word must wish frustration and ruin on those who attempt to film it." ###### From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:37:17 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 21 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on potato.bti.cornell.edu) Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.bti.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1010774237 14014 132.236.86.124 (11 Jan 2002 18:37:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2002 18:37:17 GMT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71542 In article , James wrote: > Edward Green : > >Sorry is the film based on the book? I suppose it is in the way that > >"clueless" was based on emma > > Er... what movie were you watching? I saw one that had the same story, > characters, tone, theme, atmosphere, and setting as LotR. In fact, > about 80-90% of the dialogue was - by some astonishing coincidence - > lifted entirely from that famous fantasy novel. Maybe you're talking > about some _other_ film? You have to understand that in the minds of some of the Tolkies, their own neurotic delusions cannot be overcome by any dose of reality. This sad sort of creature lives in pure fanboy mode, hiding behind blabitieblah and poshtosh to give superficial differentiation from more plebian fanboys like Trekkies--but the disease is ultimately the same. -- "A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right." ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:48:16 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010774903 80.2.247.85 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:48:23 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:48:23 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71555 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message news:bjm10-8F61A0.13371711012002@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu... > > You have to understand that in the minds of some of the Tolkies, their > own neurotic delusions cannot be overcome by any dose of reality. This > sad sort of creature lives in pure fanboy mode, hiding behind > blabitieblah and poshtosh to give superficial differentiation from more > plebian fanboys like Trekkies--but the disease is ultimately the same. Strangely enough I hadn't read the book in 10 years before I reread it just after Christmas and before seeing the film. I just feel that the film missed what the book was really about. Ed/ ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 84 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:57:29 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010775456 80.2.247.85 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:57:36 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:57:36 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!freenix!grolier!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71548 "James" wrote in message news:lrau3u8838rb23pv35puaff0ba00h307ii@4ax.com... > Edward Green : > >Sorry is the film based on the book? I suppose it is in the way that > >"clueless" was based on emma > > Er... what movie were you watching? I saw one that had the same story, > characters, tone, theme, atmosphere, and setting as LotR. In fact, > about 80-90% of the dialogue was - by some astonishing coincidence - > lifted entirely from that famous fantasy novel. Maybe you're talking > about some _other_ film? That is a very mechanicalistic approach. Despite all of the above the book and the film are about very different things at a deeper level. The Film is, to be frank Holiwoodised, the underlying philosophical emphasies are lost or shrouded. > >Clever how although the book was Epic genre, the film is Action genre, > I see. So not only is "epic" a genre, but the film _wasn't it_. FotR, > the movie: not an epic. > >how > >the book was Mythos and the film is Pop Psycology. > Pop psychology? Are you talking about FotR, or Oprah?? I really don't > understand what you mean. At least Elrond didn't turn out to be Boromirs father. > FotR had scenes of action, just like the book. But it was primarily a > work of epic, mythological (or "mythos") fantasy, as is obvious from > its heavy focus on the Elves and their fading from Middle-earth - in > fact, PJ spent more time on this particular angle than ol' JRRT > himself did in the opening chapters of LotR. Mythos is more than fantasy. > >No I am off to make a film of Macbeth where he turns out to be a nice bloke > >in the end and Banquo dies having slipped on a wet patch of grass by a > >ditch. > Sorry, what? I understand that this is supposed to be sarcasm, but it > just doesn't seem relevant. Did the film of FotR have Sauron turn out > to be a nice bloke? Did it have Boromir die by slipping on a wet patch > of grass? Are you just blathering mindlessly? Tongue in cheek perhaps. Still a majority of film goers I have spoken to _didn't_realise_ Sauron and Sarumun were different "people". Here was my review of the film .. "The film got off to a bad start by missing out what I feel is the most important part of the book, the development of the Hobbits from Shire folk to individuals capable of such a quest. The whole trip to Rivendell was castrated by removing the old forrest, (and Bombadil my favourite character) the barrow downs, and skimping on the flight from the shire and weathertop. Result: Emasculated Hobbits. Suddenly Saramun is in league with Sauron. Doh. One of the main tensions of the book is just done away with; just who is persuing the fellowship when. This is compounded by the whole mountain crossing scene. The book leaves it open to question about who or what is causing the storm, and why. Not so the film. This demonstrates how the film completely misses the point; the subtlty and the epic nature, the mystery and the wonder are lost, replaced with an action flick with pointy ears. Babylon 5 is closer in spirit to the book than the FOTR film, which reminds me of Clueless compared to Emma. I am by no means a LOTR geek (otherwise I would be writing in Quenya), but when I saw this film I found myself shaking my head all the way through. I almost cried." Maybe I was expecting to much of the film. Ed/ ###### From: Emilie Karr Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:57:58 -0500 Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net-38395.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.fas.harvard.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71583 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote: > > You have to understand that in the minds of some of the Tolkies, their > own neurotic delusions cannot be overcome by any dose of reality. This > sad sort of creature lives in pure fanboy mode, hiding behind > blabitieblah and poshtosh to give superficial differentiation from more > plebian fanboys like Trekkies--but the disease is ultimately the same. > I also believe some of the backlash is an intellectual-snob reaction - that is, if the movies are popular, then Tolkien will become popular (even moreso) and in the intellectual atmosphere of today, 'popular' and 'critically acclaimed' are mutually exclusive terms. If any old plebe can enjoy something, then it isn't worthy of serious consideration. Tolkien's always been on the edge of what's considered "literature" and the movies might tip him into the mainstream, after which he'll be grouped with Danielle Steele until critics figure out that just because lots of people like trash doesn't mean that everything lots of people like *is* trash. Then again, intellectual snobbery is really just fanboy reactionism with a bigger vocabulary... emilie ###### From: Emilie Karr Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:18:20 -0500 Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 30 Message-ID: <3C3F3A7C.EDF79509@law.harvard.edu> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net-38395.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.fas.harvard.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71603 Edward Green wrote: > Strangely enough I hadn't read the book in 10 years before I reread it just > after Christmas and before seeing the film. I just feel that the film missed > what the book was really about. > That's different, at least to my mind. Those who have seen the film, and simply didn't think it captured what they like in the books - this is a completely acceptable position. Those who merely didn't like the film are reasonable. Experience of art/entertainment is always subjective (heck, there were things in the film I really didn't care for; the experience overall just worked well for me) What a lot of us are frustrated by (and I'd say even folk who didn't like the movie would agree with this) are those few who are insisting that the movie is bad when they haven't even seen it, are buying voodoo dolls to punish Peter Jackson for the sin of making it, and are in effect saying that anyone who enjoys the movie is somehow betraying Tolkien. I love Star Wars, hated Phantom Menace, but I'm not about to damn to an eternity of bad sitcoms anyone who enjoyed PM. Heck, I'm kind of jealous of them, that they could get something out of it that I couldn't. For that matter I was a Trekkie for years but couldn't stand Voyager, but that doesn't mean I went around insisting everyone who liked Voyager was a pariah who ought to be tossed out the nearest airlock (that's reserved for anyone who prefers DS9 over B5!) Then again, I have a couple friends who don't like LotR, movie or book (they're not into fantasy) and I'm friends with them anyway. So maybe I'm not a true Tolkien fan after all... emilie ###### From: James Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Message-ID: <3ueu3u8fbuoflhhjo51van1pot11et6cno@4ax.com> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 87 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.80.135.60 X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 1010777855 210.80.135.60 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:37:35 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:37:35 EST Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:35:41 +1100 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!yorrell.saard.net!duster.adelaide.on.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71767 Edward Green : >The Film is, >to be frank Holiwoodised, the underlying philosophical emphasies are lost or >shrouded. Feel free to explain this. What "underlying philosophical emphasies" were present in the FotR book, but not the movie? Remember to stick to Fellowship; no quoting from the later books. >> >the book was Mythos and the film is Pop Psycology. >> Pop psychology? Are you talking about FotR, or Oprah?? I really don't >> understand what you mean. >At least Elrond didn't turn out to be Boromirs father. I freely admit to being confused here. :) >> FotR had scenes of action, just like the book. But it was primarily a >> work of epic, mythological (or "mythos") fantasy, as is obvious from >> its heavy focus on the Elves and their fading from Middle-earth - in >> fact, PJ spent more time on this particular angle than ol' JRRT >> himself did in the opening chapters of LotR. >Mythos is more than fantasy. Two things: 1. You didn't reply to what I said, really. 2. I have no idea what you mean. "Mythos", "more than fantasy"? How so? How do you define those terms? I can't see how you could possibly come up with workable definitions and manage to include JRRT's LotR, but not the filmed version. >Tongue in cheek perhaps. Still a majority of film goers I have spoken to >_didn't_realise_ Sauron and Sarumun were different "people". Er. I really don't think that wasn't a problem with the film as much as it was with the people you spoke to - Saruman and Sauron were clearly different people, and I have experienced not a single person who had any confusion on that issue (How hard can it be? Sauron is the "giant, flaming, lidless eye" [to quote Saruman] or the huge armoured warrior, and Saruman is the white-robed guy who used to be friends with Gandalf, who spends most of the movie talking about Sauron's motivations, movements, and lack of physical form). I thought the movie actually made this *more* clear than the book; many of my really quite intelligent friends had trouble distinguishing the two characters when first reading FotR. >The whole trip to Rivendell was >castrated by removing the old forrest, (and Bombadil my favourite character) IMO, if you really wanted Bombadil in the movie, you didn't want a good movie. >The book leaves it >open to question about who or what is causing the storm, and why. Not so the >film. > >This demonstrates how the film completely misses the point; the subtlty and >the epic nature, the mystery and the wonder are lost, replaced with an >action flick with pointy ears. Babylon 5 is closer in spirit to the book >than the FOTR film, which reminds me of Clueless compared to Emma. What's most irritating about your critique is that you bring up examples, and then talk about what they demonstrate, without clearly linking your ideas together (or even _unclearly_ linking them; incoherent reasoning would be preferable to lack of any reasoning at all). It's almost random; "In the film, Gandalf offers Bilbo his hat, and Bilbo stumbles and nearly tips over with the weight of the man-sized article of clothing. This shows how Peter Jackson is a mindless sellout and his movie is more like Angel than Buffy. Ocean window cleaner fighting century millenium hand and shrimp." >I am by no means a LOTR geek (otherwise I would be writing in Quenya), but >when I saw this film I found myself shaking my head all the way through. I >almost cried." Are you all right? Maybe you're just not cut out for such an emotional, traumatic experience as SEEING A MOVIE. Jeez. >Maybe I was expecting to much of the film. Or too little. James "Whoever truly loves the written word must wish frustration and ruin on those who attempt to film it." ###### From: James Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Message-ID: <6nfu3u0lsq8al8amditpve8sb8epb97iqs@4ax.com> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.80.135.60 X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 1010778262 210.80.135.60 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:44:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:44:22 EST Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Distribution: world Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 06:42:28 +1100 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!snewsf0.syd.ops.aspac.uu.net!newsfeed.ozemail.com.au!ozemail.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71769 Emilie Karr : >I also believe some of the backlash is an intellectual-snob reaction - >that is, if the movies are popular, then Tolkien will become popular >(even moreso) and in the intellectual atmosphere of today, 'popular' and >'critically acclaimed' are mutually exclusive terms. If any old plebe >can enjoy something, then it isn't worthy of serious consideration. Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that. While many have valid and understandable issues with PJ's film interpretation, a lot of anti-movie types seem to be constantly searching for anything, anything at all they can use to accuse the filmmakers of betraying, diluting, or whatevering Tolkien's original vision; it smacks of desperation, a need to have the movie fail artistically and commercially, so the LotR secret can stay with them. In fact, the more vicious moviehaters (including the one in my sig :) seem to hate the medium in itself, which gives away their ideological basis in intellectual snobbery right from the get-go. >Then again, intellectual snobbery is really just fanboy reactionism with >a bigger vocabulary... We-e-ell, not always bigger, necessarily, tho usually longer... James "Whoever truly loves the written word must wish frustration and ruin on those who attempt to film it." ###### From: Emilie Karr Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:43:13 -0500 Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 41 Message-ID: <3C3F4051.A22B332A@law.harvard.edu> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: net-38395.law.harvard.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.fas.harvard.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71591 Edward Green wrote: > > This demonstrates how the film completely misses the point; the subtlty and > the epic nature, the mystery and the wonder are lost, replaced with an > action flick with pointy ears. Babylon 5 is closer in spirit to the book > than the FOTR film, which reminds me of Clueless compared to Emma. > I found Clueless to be rather in the spirit of Emma, actually (the movie, can't speak for the sitcom) Different trappings, same story and themes. Actually rather the same relationship of Babylon 5 to LotR itself (B5 has other stories going on as well, but definitely the entire Shadow arc is drawn from LotR) The major issue with peoples' opinions about the film seems to deal with the question of 'spirit'. The problem is twofold. One, Tolkien has a lot of themes going down in LotR; the film interpretation delves into some of these to the lessening of others. The other issue seems to be interpretation of the movie itself; some people saw a lot less going on there than others did. To me, the major aspects of LOTR that the movie focused on were the creation of Middle-earth and its peoples as a real place, and the themes of adventure, friendship/loyalty, corruption and will to good or evil. The battles and running were in the spirit of adventure, but they were not the sole element in the movie. To me they added color without dominating the rest. The science of movie critiquing aside, I'm convinced that this is all subjective, because there's such wide-ranging opinions. Some people say the special effects are the reason for the show, others say they're only a tool to tell the story. Some say Boromir is poorly characterized while others say he's better-portrayed than he was in the book. Or that the balrog was excellently done, or exceedingly bad, and on and on...I don't think there's a single scene in that film everyone can agree upon (I know someone who liked the wizard fight. And yes they've been a fan of the book for years. Go figure.) At least it makes for good discussions...and I think that proves that whatever he might've missed, Peter Jackson must have captured at least *some* of Tolkien's spirit. I doubt there was this much conversation over Armageddon or Independence Day... emilie ###### From: "Aris Katsaris" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:48:42 +0200 Organization: An OTEnet S.A. customer Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: athe530-u232.otenet.gr X-Trace: usenet.otenet.gr 1010778551 5392 62.103.251.232 (11 Jan 2002 19:49:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@otenet.gr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:49:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!skynet.be!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!news.otenet.gr!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71606 "Edward Green" wrote in message news:AAG%7.20227$X87.2718350@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > > "James" wrote in message > > Sorry, what? I understand that this is supposed to be sarcasm, but it > > just doesn't seem relevant. Did the film of FotR have Sauron turn out > > to be a nice bloke? Did it have Boromir die by slipping on a wet patch > > of grass? Are you just blathering mindlessly? > > Tongue in cheek perhaps. Still a majority of film goers I have spoken to > _didn't_realise_ Sauron and Sarumun were different "people". I don't think I've ever accused anyone here of downright lying before, but I'll say this now: I don't believe you. I've heard of people being confused about Sauron and Saruman in the *book*-version. My mother was among them in her first reading. But I don't believe in the slightest that a "majority of film goers you've spoken to" didn't realize they are different when they look nothing alike. Unless you only spoke to one filmgoer - and you picked the most idiotic one you could. How many filmgoers did you speak to, btw? > I almost cried." Crybaby. Boohoohoo, no Tom Bombadil, your favourite character. Aris Katsaris ###### Message-ID: <3C3F495F.CBAFFA14@earthlink.net> From: geoffrey kimbrough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> <6nfu3u0lsq8al8amditpve8sb8epb97iqs@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:27:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.249.67.84 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1010780845 216.249.67.84 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:27:25 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:27:25 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:27:18 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71579 James wrote: > Emilie Karr : > >I also believe some of the backlash is an intellectual-snob reaction - > [snip] > > Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that. While many have valid and > understandable issues with PJ's film interpretation, a lot of > anti-movie types seem to be constantly searching for anything, > anything at all they can use to accuse the filmmakers of betraying, > diluting, or whatevering Tolkien's original vision; it smacks of > desperation, a need to have the movie fail artistically and > commercially, so the LotR secret can stay with them. I think the most amusing of these was someone's complaint that "Gandalf didn't hit his head on Bilbo's chandelier in the book." I'm almost not convinced the poster was serious about that complaint. Geoffrey ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:23:39 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F3A7C.EDF79509@law.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-142.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1010790306 16391 203.173.246.142 (11 Jan 2002 23:05:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:05:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed.nextra.ch!news.nextra.ch!nextra.at!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71837 "Emilie Karr" wrote in > I love Star Wars, hated Phantom Menace (SNIP) For that matter I was a Trekkie for years but couldn't stand > Voyager Me too- though I've ended up watching a lot of Voyager because that's the only Trekkie series avaliable at my local video store. I check them out for children who haven't seen any Star Trek on TV. Wish I had a few hundred to spare to buy the whole original Star Trek series.. > Then again, I have a couple friends who don't like LotR, movie or book > (they're not into fantasy) I know of one person who walked out of the movie because she thought it was too violent... (Mmm??) My sister hasn't been to see the movie yet because she was afraid it might be a blight on the book. I told her it doesn't hurt the book at all and it's actually a nice companion to the book. Told her to hurry and see it while it's on the big screen. ###### From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:28:21 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 24 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on potato.bti.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.bti.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1010791701 3131 132.236.86.124 (11 Jan 2002 23:28:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2002 23:28:21 GMT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.syr.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71793 In article <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu>, Emilie Karr wrote: > I also believe some of the backlash is an intellectual-snob reaction - > that is, if the movies are popular, then Tolkien will become popular > (even moreso) and in the intellectual atmosphere of today, 'popular' and > 'critically acclaimed' are mutually exclusive terms. If any old plebe > can enjoy something, then it isn't worthy of serious consideration. I think that's also part of what motivates those sad and sorry sorts who still keep trying to shoehorn "allegory" into the picture. They can't permit themselves to actually just enjoy a good story, so they have to make it "respectable". > Tolkien's always been on the edge of what's considered "literature" and > the movies might tip him into the mainstream, after which he'll be > grouped with Danielle Steele until critics figure out that just because > lots of people like trash doesn't mean that everything lots of people > like *is* trash. Bums in seats was very important to the Bard of Avon... -- "A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right." ###### From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:29:00 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 22 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on potato.bti.cornell.edu) Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> <6nfu3u0lsq8al8amditpve8sb8epb97iqs@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.bti.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1010791739 3131 132.236.86.124 (11 Jan 2002 23:28:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2002 23:28:59 GMT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.syr.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71792 In article <6nfu3u0lsq8al8amditpve8sb8epb97iqs@4ax.com>, James wrote: > Emilie Karr : > >I also believe some of the backlash is an intellectual-snob reaction - > >that is, if the movies are popular, then Tolkien will become popular > >(even moreso) and in the intellectual atmosphere of today, 'popular' and > >'critically acclaimed' are mutually exclusive terms. If any old plebe > >can enjoy something, then it isn't worthy of serious consideration. > > Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that. While many have valid and > understandable issues with PJ's film interpretation, a lot of > anti-movie types seem to be constantly searching for anything, > anything at all they can use to accuse the filmmakers of betraying, > diluting, or whatevering Tolkien's original vision; it smacks of > desperation, a need to have the movie fail artistically and > commercially, so the LotR secret can stay with them. Do they castigate Thornton Wilder for "ruining" _A Day Well Spent_???? -- "A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right." ###### From: "Bryan J. Maloney" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:31:46 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Lines: 36 Sender: bjm10@cornell.invalid (on potato.bti.cornell.edu) Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.bti.cornell.edu X-Trace: news01.cit.cornell.edu 1010791906 3131 132.236.86.124 (11 Jan 2002 23:31:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news01.cit.cornell.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2002 23:31:46 GMT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.syr.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!bjm10 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71794 In article , "Edward Green" wrote: > "James" wrote in message > news:lrau3u8838rb23pv35puaff0ba00h307ii@4ax.com... > > Edward Green : > > >Sorry is the film based on the book? I suppose it is in the way that > > >"clueless" was based on emma > > > > Er... what movie were you watching? I saw one that had the same story, > > characters, tone, theme, atmosphere, and setting as LotR. In fact, > > about 80-90% of the dialogue was - by some astonishing coincidence - > > lifted entirely from that famous fantasy novel. Maybe you're talking > > about some _other_ film? > > That is a very mechanicalistic approach. Despite all of the above the > book > and the film are about very different things at a deeper level. The Film > is, > to be frank Holiwoodised, the underlying philosophical emphasies are lost > or > shrouded. Yes, blahbitieblah and yackitieshmackitie. Not only that, but yackitieshmack blahblah. > I am by no means a LOTR geek (otherwise I would be writing in Quenya), > but > when I saw this film I found myself shaking my head all the way through. > I > almost cried." Fanboy. -- "A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right." ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 12:37:22 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F4051.A22B332A@law.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-142.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1010791102 16927 203.173.246.142 (11 Jan 2002 23:18:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 23:18:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed.nextra.ch!news.nextra.ch!nextra.at!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71888 "Emilie Karr" wrote in > I found Clueless to be rather in the spirit of Emma, actually (the > movie, can't speak for the sitcom) 'Clueless' the movie and 'Emma' the book are both highly entertaining. I had no idea that the inspiration for the movie came from that book. If that's correct, the movie is a delightful interpretation of the book I found 'Emma' the movie a boring flop. ###### Message-ID: <3C3FBB51.84CA517E@earthlink.net> From: geoffrey kimbrough X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 9 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 04:33:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.249.67.84 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1010810018 216.249.67.84 (Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:33:38 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:33:38 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:33:31 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71848 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote: > > Bums in seats was very important to the Bard of Avon... Except that they didn't *have* seats in theaters in those days. 8^) (sorry, couldn't resist.) ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3ueu3u8fbuoflhhjo51van1pot11et6cno@4ax.com> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 116 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:17:59 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010830832 80.2.247.85 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:20:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:20:32 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71791 "James" wrote in message news:3ueu3u8fbuoflhhjo51van1pot11et6cno@4ax.com... > Edward Green : Hey James, you have got me all wrong. I am a nice person. I have a wife and everything. :o) > >The Film is, > >to be frank Holiwoodised, the underlying philosophical emphasies are lost or > >shrouded. > > Feel free to explain this. What "underlying philosophical emphasies" > were present in the FotR book, but not the movie? Remember to stick to > Fellowship; no quoting from the later books. I have no idea. Its to do with the way the book feels more than just a fantasy story. Not in an allegorical sense, but in a some sort broader sense. Look I'm being Post-Modern here. > >> >the book was Mythos and the film is Pop Psycology. > > >> Pop psychology? Are you talking about FotR, or Oprah?? I really don't > >> understand what you mean. > > >At least Elrond didn't turn out to be Boromirs father. > > I freely admit to being confused here. :) People take a while to get my sense of humour. I am using flowery language to dress up a very real discomfort at the film. I think I know what it is.... > >> FotR had scenes of action, just like the book. But it was primarily a > >> work of epic, mythological (or "mythos") fantasy, as is obvious from > >> its heavy focus on the Elves and their fading from Middle-earth - in > >> fact, PJ spent more time on this particular angle than ol' JRRT > >> himself did in the opening chapters of LotR. > > >Mythos is more than fantasy. > > Two things: 1. You didn't reply to what I said, really. 2. I have no > idea what you mean. "Mythos", "more than fantasy"? How so? How do you > define those terms? I can't see how you could possibly come up with > workable definitions and manage to include JRRT's LotR, but not the > filmed version. I am using the term Mythos to describe something that is more than just a myth. In theology some people approach faith stories not as facts, but as a separate category that lies between fact and fiction. Some people use the term Mythos to describe this category. I read FOTR as Mythos, which is a valid reading, but not the only reading of it. The Film is not particularly theological or philosophical, not compared even to other films. > Er. I really don't think that wasn't a problem with the film as much > as it was with the people you spoke to - Saruman and Sauron were > clearly different people, and I have experienced not a single person > who had any confusion on that issue (How hard can it be? Sauron is the > "giant, flaming, lidless eye" [to quote Saruman] or the huge armoured > warrior, and Saruman is the white-robed guy who used to be friends > with Gandalf, who spends most of the movie talking about Sauron's > motivations, movements, and lack of physical form). I thought the > movie actually made this *more* clear than the book; many of my really > quite intelligent friends had trouble distinguishing the two > characters when first reading FotR. Actually I only asked Lawyers. :o) > >The whole trip to Rivendell was > >castrated by removing the old forrest, (and Bombadil my favourite character) > IMO, if you really wanted Bombadil in the movie, you didn't want a > good movie. Perhaps you are right. Shame about the Barrows tho. > What's most irritating about your critique is that you bring up > examples, and then talk about what they demonstrate, without clearly > linking your ideas together (or even _unclearly_ linking them; > incoherent reasoning would be preferable to lack of any reasoning at > all). I don't really do reason. I'm more interested in exploring ideas and possible connections. > It's almost random; "In the film, Gandalf offers Bilbo his hat, > and Bilbo stumbles and nearly tips over with the weight of the > man-sized article of clothing. This shows how Peter Jackson is a > mindless sellout and his movie is more like Angel than Buffy. Ocean > window cleaner fighting century millenium hand and shrimp." But I don't care about that stuff. I didn't like the film because it missed out the Hobbits rights of passage and the battle between Good and Evil was two sided rather than multifaceted. > >I am by no means a LOTR geek (otherwise I would be writing in Quenya), but > >when I saw this film I found myself shaking my head all the way through. I > >almost cried." > > Are you all right? Maybe you're just not cut out for such an > emotional, traumatic experience as SEEING A MOVIE. Jeez. Yeah, you're right. I hate cinemas. I watch most my movies at home. -- Edward Green -- kHiTeDev http://www.khite.co.uk/ -- ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F4051.A22B332A@law.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 46 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <19U%7.671$_x4.188177@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:21:25 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010831037 80.2.247.85 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:23:57 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:23:57 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news2.euro.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71787 "Emilie Karr" wrote in message news:3C3F4051.A22B332A@law.harvard.edu... > Edward Green wrote: > > > > This demonstrates how the film completely misses the point; the subtlty and > > the epic nature, the mystery and the wonder are lost, replaced with an > > action flick with pointy ears. Babylon 5 is closer in spirit to the book > > than the FOTR film, which reminds me of Clueless compared to Emma. > > > I found Clueless to be rather in the spirit of Emma, actually (the > movie, can't speak for the sitcom) Different trappings, same story and > themes. Actually rather the same relationship of Babylon 5 to LotR > itself (B5 has other stories going on as well, but definitely the entire > Shadow arc is drawn from LotR) I like both Emma and Clueless very much. I agree about the feel of B5 compared to the feel of the LOTR books. That is what is missing in the FOTR film. Maybe the should have got MSJ to direct? > The major issue with peoples' opinions about the film seems to deal with > the question of 'spirit'. The problem is twofold. One, Tolkien has a > lot of themes going down in LotR; the film interpretation delves into > some of these to the lessening of others. The other issue seems to be > interpretation of the movie itself; some people saw a lot less going on > there than others did. To me, the major aspects of LOTR that the movie > focused on were the creation of Middle-earth and its peoples as a real > place, and the themes of adventure, friendship/loyalty, corruption and > will to good or evil. The battles and running were in the spirit of > adventure, but they were not the sole element in the movie. To me they > added color without dominating the rest. The film recreated the world beautifully. > At least it makes for good discussions...and I think that proves that > whatever he might've missed, Peter Jackson must have captured at least > *some* of Tolkien's spirit. I doubt there was this much conversation > over Armageddon or Independence Day... :o) Ed/ ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 21 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:23:06 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010831137 80.2.247.85 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:25:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:25:37 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71801 "Aris Katsaris" wrote in message news:a1nfjm$58g$1@usenet.otenet.gr... > Unless you only spoke to one filmgoer - and you picked the most > idiotic one you could. > > How many filmgoers did you speak to, btw? Just Lawyers ;o) > > > I almost cried." > > Crybaby. Boohoohoo, no Tom Bombadil, your favourite character. Get a grip, and don't take me so seriously. I'm only having a rant! Ed/ ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 32 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: <0cU%7.685$_x4.191178@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:24:35 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010831228 80.2.247.85 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:27:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:27:08 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news2.euro.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71797 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message news:bjm10-AD7544.18314611012002@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu... > > That is a very mechanicalistic approach. Despite all of the above the > > book > > and the film are about very different things at a deeper level. The Film > > is, > > to be frank Holiwoodised, the underlying philosophical emphasies are lost > > or > > shrouded. > > Yes, blahbitieblah and yackitieshmackitie. Not only that, but > yackitieshmack blahblah. Hey, I thought it sounded pretty. > > I am by no means a LOTR geek (otherwise I would be writing in Quenya), > > but > > when I saw this film I found myself shaking my head all the way through. > > I > > almost cried." > Fanboy. You must excuse me I haven't washed in a week and my mother is coming home. Ed/ ###### From: "Edward Green" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F3A7C.EDF79509@law.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Lines: 22 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:26:36 -0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.2.247.85 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news2-win.server.ntlworld.com 1010831348 80.2.247.85 (Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:29:08 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:29:08 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!btnet-peer!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news2-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71805 "Emilie Karr" wrote in message news:3C3F3A7C.EDF79509@law.harvard.edu... > Edward Green wrote: > > Strangely enough I hadn't read the book in 10 years before I reread it just > > after Christmas and before seeing the film. I just feel that the film missed > > what the book was really about. > Then again, I have a couple friends who don't like LotR, movie or book > (they're not into fantasy) and I'm friends with them anyway. So maybe > I'm not a true Tolkien fan after all... My problem is that I read LOTR as theology rather than fiction. However that is my Job. ;o) I kind of like this part of the thread, not as hot as further down. Ed/ ###### From: ed Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 16:19:33 +0000 Organization: Team Rodent Approved: Apparently Message-ID: <6co04us5i834f9pupqehq5v6m0jvo8eqts@4ax.com> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3ueu3u8fbuoflhhjo51van1pot11et6cno@4ax.com> Reply-To: edhogg@equus.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: equus.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: equus.demon.co.uk:158.152.255.217 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1010852243 nnrp-07:25699 NO-IDENT equus.demon.co.uk:158.152.255.217 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!equus.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72100 The noble "Edward Green" spake on the day of Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:17:59 -0000: >But I don't care about that stuff. I didn't like the film because it missed >out the Hobbits rights of passage and the battle between Good and Evil was >two sided rather than multifaceted. Hang on, most of the Rites of Passage stuff for Merry and Pippin anyway, take place in Books 2 and 3, so you won't see them in this film anyway Criticise all you like, but compare like with like ed -- edhogg@equus.demon.co.uk | Dragons Rescued | _//// http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/ | Maidens Slain | o_/o /// For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGs, | Quests P.O.A. | __\ ///__ Science-Fiction and other stuff | | <*> ###### From: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:17:37 -0500 Organization: Oak Road Systems Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> <6nfu3u0lsq8al8amditpve8sb8epb97iqs@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.7e.da X-Server-Date: 12 Jan 2002 18:17:10 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72147 James wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >a lot of >anti-movie types seem to be constantly searching for anything, >anything at all they can use to accuse the filmmakers of betraying, >diluting, or whatevering Tolkien's original vision You say that as though it were a difficult task! -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site) Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: gary4books@yahoo.com (Gary E. Masters) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: 12 Jan 2002 12:57:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 12 Message-ID: <38aeacaa.0201121257.6df457a4@posting.google.com> References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.53.186 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1010869041 23619 127.0.0.1 (12 Jan 2002 20:57:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jan 2002 20:57:21 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!proxad.net!isdnet!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:72088 brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote in message news:... > Gary E. Masters wrote in > rec.arts.books.tolkien: > > It is very _inappropriate_ to the film. The book was Tolkien's > original word, not only a new novel but a new genre. The film is an > adaptation of an existing work -- or at least so Jackson claims. Glad you liked it. I saw it twice. Perhaps again in the spring. ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:12:01 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-113.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1010944361 25134 203.173.246.113 (13 Jan 2002 17:52:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:52:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp-relay.ihug.net!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71865 "Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in > sad sort of creature lives in pure fanboy mode, > blabitieblah and poshtosh Some new vocab words- definition for fanboy please? ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: There's nothing new under the sun Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:14:48 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <3C3C240B.C9001695@mfx.net> <38aeacaa.0201090741.66aa5f85@posting.google.com> <3C3F35B6.6A477D4@law.harvard.edu> <6nfu3u0lsq8al8amditpve8sb8epb97iqs@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-113.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1010944527 25217 203.173.246.113 (13 Jan 2002 17:55:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:55:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:71866 "Stan Brown" wrote in > >a lot of > >anti-movie types seem to be constantly searching for anything, > >anything at all they can use to accuse the filmmakers of betraying, > >diluting, or whatevering Tolkien's original vision > You say that as though it were a difficult task! And wouldn't it be boring here without them?