From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:55:01 -0800 Lines: 39 Message-ID: <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> Reply-To: jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbBMD9NDYylLX+mpHd+MDmihFWln7Eq9CfYg4QBrtcQfaArYoRaZqjm X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jan 2002 20:57:34 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) 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.cwix.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73454 Stan Brown wrote: > "Sadly"? Why do you care? Why would anyone care who doesn't have a > financial interest in the movie? 10. The movie has ensured that we're no longer stuck with the same old small group on the NGs. 9. The better it does, the less we hear about Harry Potter. 8. Christopher Tolkien gets a cut of the profits, and I like him. 7. Its success generates more funny LotR-themed FoxTrot cartoons. (Did you see yesterday's, about the snow Balrog?) 6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) 5. The better it does, the more likely we are to see good Tolkien stuff reprinted (both Annotated Hobbit and Road Goes Ever On are coming out again this year). 4. The more people see it, the easier it is for me to make conversation with strangers on something I really care about. 3. Its success will ecourage more decent movies (e.g. Narnia). 2. The better it does, the more people are likely to read the books. but most of all... 1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: Ronald O. Christian Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Message-ID: <1ben4u0g5j9r2fkd0puisv027dn6lpv9ll@4ax.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.224.252.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1011596008 12.224.252.154 (Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:53:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:53:28 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:53:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73622 On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:55:01 -0800, Flame of the West wrote: >1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. I like that one. Ron www.europa.com/~ronc "If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today." ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:00:34 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-121.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1011609621 23654 203.173.246.121 (21 Jan 2002 10:40:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:40:21 +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!news-in-sanjose!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!usenet.net.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73551 "Flame of the West" > 10. The movie has ensured that we're no longer stuck with the same > old small group on the NGs. Steuard always said that too, when the newbies began to show up in droves. And he was right about the number of posts dying down. Perhaps it won't be too bad the next time around.. > 6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, > especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) Yep- it is nice. ###### From: "Ash" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Lines: 42 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Proxy-Client: abijanki@uiuc.edu from ACAA69D0.ipt.aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:32:18 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.174.5.27 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uiuc.edu X-Trace: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu 1011569570 128.174.5.27 (Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:32:50 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:32:50 CST Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73588 i particularly agree with #7 > > > "Sadly"? Why do you care? Why would anyone care who doesn't have a > > financial interest in the movie? > > 10. The movie has ensured that we're no longer stuck with the same > old small group on the NGs. > > 9. The better it does, the less we hear about Harry Potter. > > 8. Christopher Tolkien gets a cut of the profits, and I like him. > > 7. Its success generates more funny LotR-themed FoxTrot > cartoons. (Did you see yesterday's, about the snow Balrog?) > > 6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, > especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) > > 5. The better it does, the more likely we are to see good Tolkien > stuff reprinted (both Annotated Hobbit and Road Goes Ever On > are coming out again this year). > > 4. The more people see it, the easier it is for me to make > conversation with strangers on something I really care about. > > 3. Its success will ecourage more decent movies (e.g. Narnia). > > 2. The better it does, the more people are likely to read the books. > > but most of all... > > 1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. > > -- > > -- FotW > > Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. > ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:41:13 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.40.8e X-Server-Date: 21 Jan 2002 05:46:08 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!asynchrone!deine.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news.mindspring.net!jblanks Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73573 jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com wrote: >Stan Brown wrote: > >> "Sadly"? Why do you care? Why would anyone care who doesn't have a >> financial interest in the movie? > >10. The movie has ensured that we're no longer stuck with the same >old small group on the NGs. As long as they remember it's rec.arts.BOOKS.TOLKIEN, not rec.arts.MOVIES.PETER-JACKSON. >9. The better it does, the less we hear about Harry Potter. I didn't know this was a competition. >8. Christopher Tolkien gets a cut of the profits, and I like him. I don't know--what about that biz with Simon? >7. Its success generates more funny LotR-themed FoxTrot >cartoons. (Did you see yesterday's, about the snow Balrog?) I'll have to look at that one. >6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, >especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) It's good for society whenever a _good_ movie does well. What do you consider "pornography"? >5. >4. >3. >2. The better it does, the more people are likely to read the books. All true. >1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. So why has it generally been well-reviewed by "Hollywood snobs"? And do the "literary snobs" really have no legitimate point to make? -- "That's a damned lie! We must die anyway." --W.H. Auden, on his poem "September 1, 1939" ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 23:52:19 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-121.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1011609619 23654 203.173.246.121 (21 Jan 2002 10:40:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:40:19 +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!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!uunet!osa.uu.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73550 "Jeff Blanks" wrote in > >1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. > So why has it generally been well-reviewed by "Hollywood snobs"? And do > the "literary snobs" really have no legitimate point to make? Are Hollywood snobs more susceptible to public opinion than literary snobs? Yes I think they are... they are financially dependant upon pleasing people. Lit' snobs are a bit more removed from general opinion. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:42:48 -0800 Lines: 45 Message-ID: <3C4C5319.496539A2@erols.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> Reply-To: jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVa9yVnc0SILSLvt1t5/gMkaoFivklMxyeic4N4ET/WddPc0MoFY2gFV X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jan 2002 21:40:14 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73702 Jeff Blanks wrote: > >9. The better it does, the less we hear about Harry Potter. > > I didn't know this was a competition. It isn't (I have always maintained that it's apples and oranges). Rather, it's one mass-market pop-culture phoenomenon crowding out another. And in this case, I'm all for it. > >8. Christopher Tolkien gets a cut of the profits, and I like him. > > I don't know--what about that biz with Simon? Don't know, but I'm very grateful for the work CJRT has done on the Silm, UT, and HoME. > >6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, > >especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) > > It's good for society whenever a _good_ movie does well. What do you > consider "pornography"? Graphic depictions of sexual activity - what else? > >1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. > > So why has it generally been well-reviewed by "Hollywood snobs"? It hasn't, at least not yet. The snobs won't have their say until the Academy Awards. We'll see whether LotR gets Best Picture. > And do the "literary snobs" really have no legitimate point to make? They're not even trying to make a legitimate point. They're just posing for each other and their micro-audience. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:46:14 -0800 Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> Reply-To: jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbjIi/hUFpowkf0lj9RiTPEVyYh5jFxyR3mJjMWJOsfaKIlX0TkW6f6 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jan 2002 21:40:15 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) 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!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73667 TWS wrote: > > So why has it generally been well-reviewed by "Hollywood snobs"? And do > > the "literary snobs" really have no legitimate point to make? > > Are Hollywood snobs more susceptible to public > opinion than literary snobs? Yes I think they are... > they are financially dependant upon pleasing people. > Lit' snobs are a bit more removed from general > opinion. By "Hollywood snobs" I meant the people who choose the awards. I'm sure LotR is not "deep" enough for them. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: "TWS" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:40:35 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203-173-246-49.nzwide.ihug.co.nz X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1011662432 29617 203.173.246.49 (22 Jan 2002 01:20:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:20:32 +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!nntp-relay.ihug.net!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73778 "Flame of the West" > By "Hollywood snobs" I meant the people who choose the > awards. I'm sure LotR is not "deep" enough for them. Hollywood and 'deep' are not an association I would make... Oh wait- there is Hollywood and deep plunging necklines... ###### From: Ronald O. Christian Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Message-ID: <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.224.252.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1011669506 12.224.252.154 (Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:18:26 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:18:26 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:18:26 GMT 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!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73972 On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:40:35 +1300, "TWS" wrote: > >"Flame of the West" >> By "Hollywood snobs" I meant the people who choose the >> awards. I'm sure LotR is not "deep" enough for them. > >Hollywood and 'deep' are not an association I would >make... Oh wait- there is Hollywood and deep >plunging necklines... > They're looking for a certain kind of "deepness". What the rest of us would call presumptuous self-conscious tripe. 'Course, that's why we're not Hollywood snots... ur... snobs. Ron www.europa.com/~ronc "If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today." ###### From: Ronald O. Christian Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.224.252.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1011714650 12.224.252.154 (Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:50:50 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:50:50 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:50:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73936 On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:13:46 -0800, Mia Kalogjera wrote: >Ronald O. Christian wrote: > >> They're looking for a certain kind of "deepness". >> What the rest of us would call presumptuous >> self-conscious tripe. >> >> 'Course, that's why we're not Hollywood snots... >> ur... snobs. > > > >I strongly dislike people who watch/read/etc. things >only because they currently stand high on the trend market, >and even more the people who can't say "I enjoyed this" >for fear they'd be thought of as "shallow". Since it's >a category defined by people and as such subject to change, >I really don't see the point. How sad. > >Cheers, >Mia I think the real issue is that Hollywood runs on buzz, not necessarily talent. (Else Akiva Goldsman would be on unemployment.) In the industry, you are what you percieved to be, and by what circles will allow your presence. Although they might privately scheme and plot, these denizens are terrified to buck a trend in public. Think French politics before the revolution. Ron www.europa.com/~ronc "If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today." ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:49:46 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C5319.496539A2@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.5b.c6 X-Server-Date: 23 Jan 2002 06:49:49 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.mindspring.net.MISMATCH!news.mindspring.net!jblanks Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:73827 In article <3C4C5319.496539A2@erols.com>, jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com wrote: >> >6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, >> >especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) >Jeff Blanks wrote: >> It's good for society whenever a _good_ movie does well. What do you >> consider "pornography"? > >Graphic depictions of sexual activity - what else? Can you--do you--make a qualitative distinction between "pornography" and "erotica"? Can you--do you--make one between *a story that contains "graphic depictions of sexual activity"* and *a story whose driving force is sexuality*? Is it impossible for the latter to be a piece of worthwhile art? Why? >> >1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. >> So why has it generally been well-reviewed by "Hollywood snobs"? > >It hasn't, at least not yet. The snobs won't have their say >until the Academy Awards. We'll see whether LotR gets >Best Picture. So the "snobs" are, by definition, those who haven't reviewed the film yet? And are all the snobs *outside* the American Film Institute (who've already named the film their Best Picture)? I don't suppose you have any names? >> And do the "literary snobs" really have no legitimate point to make? > >They're not even trying to make a legitimate point. They're >just posing for each other and their micro-audience. Does Don De Lillo have a "micro-audience"? Does John Updike? J.D. Salinger? Norman Mailer? Alternately, when did having a small audience become so wrong? After all, Danielle Steel sells millions, no? -- "That's a damned lie! We must die anyway." --W.H. Auden, on his poem "September 1, 1939" ###### From: Ronald O. Christian Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Message-ID: <8tpt4ukmiffll5g6a5sp8kckaoig70snua@4ax.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C5319.496539A2@erols.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.224.252.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1011804075 12.224.252.154 (Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:41:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:41:15 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:41:15 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:74006 On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 01:49:46 -0500, jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) wrote: >In article <3C4C5319.496539A2@erols.com>, jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com wrote: > >>> >6. It's good for society whenever a non-pornographic movie does well, >>> >especially one based on a book by a conservative Catholic. ;-) > >>Jeff Blanks wrote: > >>> It's good for society whenever a _good_ movie does well. What do you >>> consider "pornography"? >> >>Graphic depictions of sexual activity - what else? > >Can you--do you--make a qualitative distinction between "pornography" and >"erotica"? Geeze, here we go. Ron (so much for this thread...) www.europa.com/~ronc "If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today." ###### From: Emilie Karr Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:04:01 -0500 Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3C559291.305EC15@law.harvard.edu> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.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!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.fas.harvard.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:74723 Jeff Blanks wrote: > > Mia Kalogjera wrote: > > >I strongly dislike people who watch/read/etc. things > >only because they currently stand high on the trend market, > >and even more the people who can't say "I enjoyed this" > >for fear they'd be thought of as "shallow". > > And that's what it all comes down to. Most JRRT fans seem to dislike > people in the second group more. I, OTOH, appear to dislike those in the > first group more. At least those in the second group _try_ to be > independent-minded and conscientious. > Not exactly - those two categories are basically the same anyway. Both are a matter of choosing likes based entirely on what clique they will associate one with: the popular crowd, or the intellectual snobs/iconoclasts/what-have-you. I admit that I'd rather be considered a member of an exclusive group than be one of the herd, but when you really get down to it those superficial distinctions are *so* highschool as it is... emilie ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:30:16 -0800 Lines: 16 Message-ID: <3C58AC37.37596412@erols.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3ac4908.0201301008.53bbfbb5@posting.google.com> Reply-To: jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYQNm85CNeuGFdt4QdZPV0bIkzm6TL5SWflBnJmDl71hKF0FLoTLD6t X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jan 2002 23:55:33 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) 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!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75776 David Sulger wrote: > > 3. Its success will ecourage more decent movies (e.g. Narnia). > > > Um, would that be the original Narnia, or the new bastardized non-Chrisitian Narnia? That's a good question, and I don't think we know the answer yet. My money's on the bastards, um, I mean bastardizers. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:31:14 -0800 Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3C58AC72.3A6C864D@erols.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> <3ac4908.0201301017.23a7436d@posting.google.com> Reply-To: jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVawf/MYp/nOy7epRvZhweYjPxkrKAiBcgxsteAuOk1Heq3l/9VSXlAc X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jan 2002 23:55:34 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) 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!howland.erols.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:74463 David Sulger wrote: > Well, actually, to put it bluntly, Hollywood runs onn bullshit ad blowjobs. Bill Clinton was very popular among Hollywood types. -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: Flame of the West Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 11:34:18 -0800 Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3C5C3F3A.BC295FF0@erols.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3ac4908.0201301008.53bbfbb5@posting.google.com> <29ff3ad6.0201301854.fe86023@posting.google.com> Reply-To: jsolinasNoSpam@erols.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVb6Xad56PKMHKOpM+9x6FfqE03m9YPk5aR5+O+td3pqDXpkrmz108vi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Feb 2002 16:33:52 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) 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!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:74490 Joy wrote: > there's a bastardized non-Christian Narnia? what?! how?! no! wow, i'm > glad i didn't know about that. until now. Not yet, but it's coming... http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/03/national/03NARN.html Even worse, there are new Narnia books coming out! -- -- FotW Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth. ###### From: OrionCA Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Organization: Starship Enterprises Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> <3C559291.305EC15@law.harvard.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 44 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:34:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.205.167.26 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1012318495 24.205.167.26 (Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:34:55 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:34:55 PST X-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:34:55 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!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:75709 On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:04:01 -0500, Emilie Karr wrote: >Jeff Blanks wrote: >> >> Mia Kalogjera wrote: >> >> >I strongly dislike people who watch/read/etc. things >> >only because they currently stand high on the trend market, >> >and even more the people who can't say "I enjoyed this" >> >for fear they'd be thought of as "shallow". >> >> And that's what it all comes down to. Most JRRT fans seem to dislike >> people in the second group more. I, OTOH, appear to dislike those in the >> first group more. At least those in the second group _try_ to be >> independent-minded and conscientious. >> >Not exactly - those two categories are basically the same anyway. Both >are a matter of choosing likes based entirely on what clique they will >associate one with: the popular crowd, or the intellectual >snobs/iconoclasts/what-have-you. I admit that I'd rather be considered >a member of an exclusive group than be one of the herd, but when you >really get down to it those superficial distinctions are *so* highschool >as it is... > Everybody hates being thought of as "shallow". Shallow people hate being thought of as shallow. You can have memorized LotR, the Silmarillion, JRRT's collected letters, and the less silly passages in "The Hobbit" and still be a shallow person if you don't apply the LESSON of his works - the one that might as well be written in 20-pitch Bold font across the top of each page of his books. Likewise, you can be a shallow person who won't read the books because "they're boring" but gushes at the movie because of the blood and guts and gore. Oh, and " is a BABE because he/she has !!!" And there are many NON-shallow people who have neither read his books or seen the movie - even once! - out there. Shallowness is, to some extent, a correctable defect. Depends on the willingness of the patient to admit that the cure is not worse than the disease. -- It only _looks_ like a little stick. Until you see it up close. ###### From: Ronald O. Christian Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Message-ID: References: <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> <3C559291.305EC15@law.harvard.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.553 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.224.252.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1012323612 12.224.252.154 (Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:00:12 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:00:12 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:00:12 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75673 On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:34:55 GMT, OrionCA wrote: >Everybody hates being thought of as "shallow". Um, not really. People exist who don't care what others think of them. > Shallow people hate >being thought of as shallow. Bingo! Just as cowardly people hate being thought of as cowardly, treacherous people hate being thought of as treacherous, etc etc. Ron www.europa.com/~ronc "If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war, it'd still be going on today." ###### From: Boris Badenov Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:09:30 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> <3C559291.305EC15@law.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-577.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75661 On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:00:12 GMT, Ronald O. Christian wrote: |> Shallow people hate |>being thought of as shallow. | |Bingo! Just as cowardly people hate being thought of as cowardly, |treacherous people hate being thought of as treacherous, etc etc. And, people tend to hate in others what they most hate in themselves, or sometimes its opposite, like the retiring wallflower who hates the warm, outgoing person because the person is warm and outgoing. ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 23:56:46 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> <3C559291.305EC15@law.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.11.fd X-Server-Date: 30 Jan 2002 04:56:48 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!jblanks Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75068 OrionCA wrote: >You can have memorized LotR, the >Silmarillion, JRRT's collected letters, and the less silly passages in >"The Hobbit" and still be a shallow person if you don't apply the >LESSON of his works.... "Power corrupts, but our friends keep us honest"?? (from a review of the movie by a person who knows the book--I can't remember who) -- "That's a damned lie! We must die anyway." --W.H. Auden, on his poem "September 1, 1939" ###### From: jblanks@mindspring.com (Jeff Blanks) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:58:09 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.4b.f4 X-Server-Date: 26 Jan 2002 03:58:11 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!jblanks Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75091 Mia Kalogjera wrote: >I strongly dislike people who watch/read/etc. things >only because they currently stand high on the trend market, >and even more the people who can't say "I enjoyed this" >for fear they'd be thought of as "shallow". And that's what it all comes down to. Most JRRT fans seem to dislike people in the second group more. I, OTOH, appear to dislike those in the first group more. At least those in the second group _try_ to be independent-minded and conscientious. -- "That's a damned lie! We must die anyway." --W.H. Auden, on his poem "September 1, 1939" ###### From: the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: 30 Jan 2002 10:08:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3ac4908.0201301008.53bbfbb5@posting.google.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.129.124.89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012414109 31735 127.0.0.1 (30 Jan 2002 18:08:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jan 2002 18:08:29 GMT 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!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75429 Flame of the West wrote in message news:<3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com>... > > 9. The better it does, the less we hear about Harry Potter. That's good enough for me. > 3. Its success will ecourage more decent movies (e.g. Narnia). > Um, would that be the original Narnia, or the new bastardized non-Chrisitian Narnia? > 1. It annoys the literary and Hollywood snobs. Now that is a noble cause! ###### From: the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: 30 Jan 2002 10:17:22 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 6 Message-ID: <3ac4908.0201301017.23a7436d@posting.google.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3C4C53E6.6F3FF53B@erols.com> <60mp4us2e3ftp5kpbtu90ccdeahq2i8fag@4ax.com> <3C4D9DCA.E35BA6C3@SPAMBLOCK.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.129.124.89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012414643 32018 127.0.0.1 (30 Jan 2002 18:17:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jan 2002 18:17:23 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!isdnet!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:75305 Ronald O. Christian wrote in message news:... > > I think the real issue is that Hollywood runs on buzz, not necessarily > talent. Well, actually, to put it bluntly, Hollywood runs onn bullshit ad blowjobs. ###### From: queen_yoj@hotmail.com (Joy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Why root for the movie? (was: FOTR #15 On All-time Worldwide Gross List) Date: 30 Jan 2002 18:54:35 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 13 Message-ID: <29ff3ad6.0201301854.fe86023@posting.google.com> References: <01c1a17e$e0dcc300$e0108aca@c-1> <3C4B58D5.B994BA63@erols.com> <3ac4908.0201301008.53bbfbb5@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.156.2.54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012445677 13425 127.0.0.1 (31 Jan 2002 02:54:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jan 2002 02:54:37 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!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:75401 the_real_orius@hotmail.com (David Sulger)wrote: > > > 3. Its success will ecourage more decent movies (e.g. Narnia). > > > Um, would that be the original Narnia, or the new bastardized non-Chrisitian Narnia? there's a bastardized non-Christian Narnia? what?! how?! no! wow, i'm glad i didn't know about that. until now. but yeah - some *good* Narnia movies would be cool. i'd like to see a Dufflepud.