Théoden looks completely wrong. But you can see the lower half of an Ent!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
great. more shit masquerading as a work by JRR Tolkien. when is Aragorn going to have fucking Narsil reforged? when is peter jackson going to fix his illiteracy so that he can read The Lord of the Rings? it would be nice if he actually knew what the fuck was going on in the series.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Théoden looks completely wrong.
that must have been Théoden's butler, or something. and since when was �owyn unattractive? since when did Eomer look like a dirty hippy? and since when did modern "blockbuster" movies have really fakey 3d effects? they really should have gotten Blizzard to do the FX. Gollum looks worse than the characters in the Diablo II cutscenes. it's a shame that Peter Jackson wasn't the one to die at a celebrity basketball game instead of Ted Demme. Ted Demme at least made good movies.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Having barely read any of the books, I actually like the Lord of the Rings movies. The trailer looks great, it will make for another fine movie right next to the first.
EdipisReks--Jackson's trying to adapt a huge trilogy, and he can't please everyone. Go and make a Lord of the Rings movie yourself if you're not happy. You know you'll go see TTT anyway. And the Return of the King.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Isn't that the best, Veers. People can complain all they like - but they are STILL going to go and see the next two movies!
Andrew
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Having barely read any of the books, I actually like the Lord of the Rings movies. The trailer looks great, it will make for another fine movie right next to the first.
EdipisReks--Jackson's trying to adapt a huge trilogy, and he can't please everyone. Go and make a Lord of the Rings movie yourself if you're not happy. You know you'll go see TTT anyway. And the Return of the King.
the movies should never have been made. i would never have soiled the books by doing so. i was dragged to see the first piece of shit, and i will not be seeing the second and third. unless the girl i like is going. in which case i will go with her. but only so that i get to open the door for her. and share popcorn with her. hopefully at one of those theaters where the armrests lift *rawwwr*.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
by the way, Veers, you should read the series. i read it for the first time in the second grade, and i've read them at least a dozen times since then. great, great, great stuff. only matched by John Oliver Rigney jr's (pseudonym Robert Jordan) The Wheel of Time, imo.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I really liked the first movie. Yes, the book is better, and yes, there are some changes, but as a movie, it's great. I think Jackson did a pretty good job... It's near impossible to make a movie (or series of movies) that follows the book from A to Z. For all the background stories to work out on screen, you'll have to explain half the Silmarillion too, which is even harder. And you really can't show the Elves the way they're supposed to look like.
Some more trailer bits.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
that's exactly why the movies should never have been made in the first place. it's impossible to do it right, so it shouldn't be done at all.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
thats one of the dumbest things ive ever heard.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
let me guess. you do a lot of things that end up failing, right? sometimes the old sayings are the ones to follow. "if you can't do it right, don't do it at all" is one of those old sayings. too bad peter jackson hadn't heard that one. too bad peter jackson didn't care about ruining one of the best pieces of fiction of the 20th century.
The Lord of the Rings is a sacred institution to me. if the movies can't do it justice then i don't think they should be made. no movies will ever do the books justice (or, i should say, no movies that would ever be made will). therefore, no LoTR movies should ever be made.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Oh, please. Jackson hasn't touched the bloody books; pick them up and read them whenever you damn well please! Jackson's done a pretty decent job overall of adaptation; if you want to see a piece of crap adaptation, go rent Bakshi's animated version (don't even START about the Return of the King abomination shot for TV in the 80s). If you're expecting perfection, then you obviously can't be going to any movies. Or watching any TV. Which makes me wonder why you're on this forum.
Before you ask: yes, I have read the books. I was assigned them in high school 25 years ago. Sorry to burst your bubble, but, good as they are, they are not perfect holy writ, cast in gold tablets by the hand of God. Welcome to the real world.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Indie Tolkien Geekout Credit Report:
Despising the films: +100 points. Thinking that Robert Jordan's work is something other than extruded fantasy product: -100,000,000 points.
Total: -99,999,900 points.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I started on the first book and got through a few chapters when the movie came out. I went to see it and then just stopped reading the actual book. I don't know why, maybe it was I had other things on my mind. I hope to read them before RotK comes out, but who knows?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Indie Tolkien Geekout Credit Report:
Despising the films: +100 points. Thinking that Robert Jordan's work is something other than extruded fantasy product: -100,000,000 points.
Total: -99,999,900 points.
what do you mean by "extruded fantasy product"? do you mean because it is based off a lot of other works? almost everything is. the reason The Wheel of Time is so good isn't because of an original plot, but because Jordan can write characters. have you read the books? Jordan can write characters better than anyone, in my opinion.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Woodside Kid: [QB]Oh, please. Jackson hasn't touched the bloody books;
you're right, he hasn't touched the books. if he had touched the books, he might have done better since the books have a plot synopsis on the back. there wasn't one fucking scene that was right in the first movie. would it have been so hard to make most of the right? i am well aware that they can't make the movies just like the books, but there is no reason to change everything. was it soooooo necessary to make the the battle between the West and Sauron so wrong? was it so necessary to make Isildur accidentally cut the ring from Sauron's hand instead of doing it on purpose with the Hilt shard of his father's sword after Sauron was momentarily stunned? instead of making Isildur and his kin and Gil-Galad heroic, jackson made them pathetic. yea, i guess you can say it was jackson's own "vision", but if Jackson wanted to produce his own "vision" then he should have made a movie set in an orginal universe. was it really necessary for Jackson to make Arwen the one who saved the Hobbits at the river? Arwen doesn't have many lines in the book. Liv Tyler should have known that going in. she's ugly anyway, so who wants to see more of her? they cut out one of my favorite characters to have more of a chick so that teenage boys will get all excited. doesn't sound like responsible film making. i can accept the chase from the Shire the way it was done. i can accept the cutting out of the Old Forest. in a movie adaptation of this type it is necessary to cut out the "character building only" stuff sometimes. however, it was totally unnecessary to warp the flavor and character of every scene. and it is every scene, believe me. this distortion is why i hate the movies. someone who actually cared about the material could have made a movie that was just as "good" and just as concise while still being in the spirit of LoTR.
quote: was assigned them in high school
wow, forced to read a series of books a quarter century, and now you're an expert. you might be twice my age, but you need to grow up.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Extruded fantasy product is any work which is not so much written as squeezed out from a vat in a sort of assembly line process.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Edipis, where the hell did all this sudden, teenagey angst come from?
If details like Narsil/And�ril get you worked up like this you should try to get things in perspective. Mortensen held And�ril already on the first movie poster, so relax, guy!
Quote: "it was totally unnecessary to warp the flavor and character of every scene. and it is every scene, believe me. this distortion is why i hate the movies."
LOTR is written in a very rigid, dry olde english that can be a real challenge to understand for many people, without a copy of "Oxford's" at their side.
So any movie adaption with the slightest talent, adding colours, a music score and emotional content to elevate the scene, would inevitably "warp the flavor and characters" of the original in a heartbeat.
And I think it was done with style. :-)
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
Hahaha! You need to grow up you're really mad about a silly geek movie and a buncha old books!
Every time anything is adapted, the original intentions get altered by artistic license. Shakespeare's work has been rewritten, filmed and reimagined in countless ways, I can't imagine he'd approve of all of them but all of them have artistic value and entertainment value as well.
Saying that they never should have been made is ridiculous. I'm going to expand on my earlier comment that that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard: EVERY movie is going to have its detractions.. negative points that just couldn't be fixed, but every movie (or at least every well imagined film, if you want to make that differentiation) has artistic value because it is a labor of creativity, if the process was abandoned because there were exceedingly minor plot points that just couldn't be abided to, very few of my favorite movies would ever have been made.
And now you're so upset by a movie adaptation of a book that you are lashing out with personal attacks telling people to grow up because you aren't satisfied with a childish movie. Go you!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I think Edy is actually having you all on. Very convincing, very funny. 8)
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Why Voggie, what a noble gesture, presenting the lad with a backdoor. :-)
Well, his comments were a bit low.
"since when did Eomer look like a dirty hippy?"
Battling orcs and beasts on trampled fields and patrolling lands for days on end can get a bit dirty actually, and at the time, the James Bond Magic Makeover Hairspray hadn't been invented, I'm happy to say. Only Gandalf can do that, and preferably only once a lifecycle (it stings somewhat). :-)
"since when did modern blockbuster movies have really fakey 3d effects?"
Since Tron. (and by jove it works!)
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
don't insult Liv Tyler. It just ain't right.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by O Captain Mike Captain: don't insult Liv Tyler. It just ain't right.
she looks like a monkey. and one of my friends nearly ran over her dad over by accident at Cincinnati's Oktoberfest.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: Why Voggie, what a noble gesture, presenting the lad with a backdoor. :-)
i don't need a backdoor, but thanks anyway, Vogon Poet.
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: "since when did modern blockbuster movies have really fakey 3d effects?"
Since Tron. (and by jove it works!)
tron's effects weren't fakey. that was just the....art style .
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks:
quote:Originally posted by O Captain Mike Captain: don't insult Liv Tyler. It just ain't right.
she looks like a monkey. and one of my friends nearly ran over her dad over by accident at Cincinnati's Oktoberfest.
"Crazy."
(FOR GREAT PUN!!!!)
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Could have been worse, I guess: we could have ended up with Alicia Silverstone as Arwen instead. 8)
(assuming of course Tom's post refers to the Aerosmith vid which featured both her and the then-Liv Rundgren - I thought I'd better check, after all, my instincts are off today, I thought Edy was kidding when it turns out he's deadly, alarmingly, serious)
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
nevermind. i get it now.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The Poet has the correct interpretation, yes.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
You can bitch about tLotR all you like - you are still going to see it. And people are talking about pubococcyceal straining around these parts - I need to go to a physiotherapist after watching the latest trailer. *tingling feeling* *lump in throat forming* *get the tissues!* ;o)
The Wheel of Time though I HAVE to comment on. Those 10 books and counting are some of the biggest load of SHITE that has ever been committed to paper. I'm sure L. Ron Hubbard's book is better than those travesties. When someone says extruded fantasy... The books are just shelf-fillers. Each book could be one or even half of one chapter of ONE book. Talk about long winded clap trap that tires, bores and goes NOWHERE. No character development, rehashed ideas, pathetic plot advancement, cliched ideas... i.e. a real bore. Those books are made for nerds who can show off at a bus-stop how big-a-book they can read. Ugh.
I read the first two or three, and I was so disgusted with them I sold them. (I generally keep all the books I read). If they were a bad movie, I'd be sneeking into another movie to get my money's worth.
What a waste of mental power.
Ugh.
If you want 'pop' fantasy done WELL - Read The Dragonlance series. In particular the Dragons trilogy and the Twins trilogy.
Oh and the Sparhawk - Elenium/Tamuli trilogies by Robert Eddings. (And his wife as well weren't they).
I don't often have a lot of things/books to complain about but those Wheel of Time things are just hokey trash.
*would rather read a Mills and Boon*
Andrew
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
first, it's David Eddings, not Robert Eddings. and about Eddings, he reuses the same story for every series he writes. second, to have the opinions you did of tWoT, you obviously could have never read any of them. there are many reasons to dislike them, but none of the ones you gave are valid. not even as opinions.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
haha tWot!
sounds like Twat!
that strain thing is the scientific way of saying your about to blow an o-ring rite? see you explain that to your doctor!*
*CaptainMike wrote the previous post pretending he was 12. He is not 12.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i wish i was 12.
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
theres a 12 year old in each of us trying to get out.
you have to bind their limbs or theyll hit your ribs.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
gimme a sec while i go do that, then. brb.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
ok, i'm back. the 12 year old is now safely bound. thanks for the warning, O Captain Mike Captain (btw, that name works on SOOOOO many levels).
Posted by O Captain Mike Captain (Member # 709) on :
good levels right? levels that are good for me?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
very good levels that are very good for you.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
EdipisReks, if you think that LOTR trilogy is the supreme work of fantasy then you quite obiviously have not read the Silmarillion. The depth of charater, motivation and story in there far outweighs Tolkiens other works.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Books. Good books. But not the only books.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
To quote Terry Pratchett (roughly, since it's from memory):
quote:If, when you're 10 years old, you don't think The Lord of the Rings is the best book ever written, then there's probably something wrong with you; if, when you're 40 years old, you still think it's the best book ever written, then there's defintely something wrong with you."
Edy, I see where you're coming from but you need to chill out a bit. I've re-read all your posts and I've boiled them down to the following:
1. You don't like the films. Well, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to quibble except to point out that so far yuou've only seen one of three, and don't seem desposed to give the others a chance.
2. They shouldn't have been made, because TLotR is sacrosanct. I refer you to the words of Mr. Pratchett.
3. They shouldn't have been made, because no-one could ever get them 'right.' Now, I'm not quite sure how to handle this one, except in a few specifics I'll tackle in the next few sections. But your stance reminds me of some prat over at the Flameboard who said that there shouldn't be gun control because it doesn't completely work. Absurd. Yet they remained all for drug controls even though those work even less.
4. The casting is all wrong. JRRT didn't provide detailed facial descriptions of his characters. It's left up to you to imagine them. If you expect a movie version to somehow emulate your own imagination, then you're living in Cloudcuckooland. On the other hand, maybe you had your own ideas about which actual acturs should play the roles; well, we all played the game of Fantasy LotR Cast - I saw Connery as Theoden, Patrick Stewart as Gandalf, Richard Briers as Bilbo, among others - yet we remain aware of the realities of Hollywood. They may not be available; they may want too much money; they may not want to move to New Zealand for a year; and, most likely, remember that most actors are ignorant at best and semi-illiterate at worst: many of them had probably never read the books and didn't see it as the prestige project it was.
5. Each scene was done all wrong. Again, JRRT didn't provide detailed stage plans for everything. It's up to the director's interpretation. I'm encouraged, however, that you at least admit that movies can't be made exactly like the books. As for your examples. . .
a) The Battle between the West and Sauron. I'll agree, I'm a bit puzzled about this one and the changes that were made - sticking to the original version wouldn't have made that much difference surely? But it doesn't work to the detriment of the whole film.
b) Arwen replacing Glorfindel. This was done for purely star=pleasing reasons, yet I see what they intended. Glorfindel is a non-character, he serves no other purpose in the trilogy. In Bakshi's version he was replaced by Legolas for similar reasons. Yet Glorfindel has more character development than Arwen! In the end, it doesn't really matter. I'm still worried about what other, more obtrusive, lengths Jackson might go to to increase Liv's screen time, however.
c) "I can accept the cutting out of the Old Forest." Thank God for that, I didn't want to have to go through all that again!
d) "Since when did Eomer look like a dirty hippy?" My currewnt connection precluded viewing the trailer, so I can't really comment here. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'look' of the Riders of Rohan closely matched the faux-Celtic look of Braveheart and Battlefield Earth: it just seems to be trendy right now.
e) "Since when was �owyn unattractive?" Again, no comment, except to say that Miranda Otto, who I've only seen in The Thin Red Line, didn't strike me as unattractive. But then you don't seem to like Liv Tyler either, so I'll just chalk that down to different tastes.
6. "Since when did modern blockbuster movies have really fakey 3d effects?" Well, others have answered this quite adequately. But I didn't notice people complaining about the awful FX in Spiderman, easily the worst film this year.
But in the spirit of reconciliation I'll end by saying I agree with you on your assessment of Eddings. And as for Weiss & Hickman. . . ugh. First trilogy was good, second one not so goo. Then it just became this franchise. Thank God for the Internet, it gave a home to third-rate fan fiction that authors might otherwise have licensed to increase their revenue.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: EdipisReks, if you think that LOTR trilogy is the supreme work of fantasy then you quite obiviously have not read the Silmarillion. The depth of charater, motivation and story in there far outweighs Tolkiens other works.
i've read the Silmarillion several times.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Vogon Poet, i knew all of that. i've just read the books too many times to have any opinion other than the one i have. i accept change a lot, but i'll never change on that stance. thanks for not cutting my head off by "d00d teh LTOR moovees r0x0rs moore tan teh inything!!!!!!".
the Death Gate Cycle is good, by the way.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Edipis: "first, it's David Eddings, not Robert Eddings. and about Eddings, he reuses the same story for every series he writes. second, to have the opinions you did of tWoT, you obviously could have never read any of them. there are many reasons to dislike them, but none of the ones you gave are valid. not even as opinions."
David is his evil twin... David, Robert; MarkR, SeanR. Whatever...
I'm sorry Edipis but what you said is just rediculous... "there are many reasons to dislike them (no argument there), but none of the ones you gave are valid. not even as opinions."
WTF!?! opinions are opinions - you can't validate them. You might disagree with my opinions, but you can't dismiss them out of hand cause you didn't like what I said.
Who are you to allow what I say or think or feel or type to be valid or not. I say my points are QUITE valid.
The plot is plodding. The ideas are NOT original. As a few have said, they are rehashed... I've even had someone trying to convince me that the book(s) ARE worthwhile because they are similar to the Lord of the Rings in that they start out as a journey etc. etc.
I HAVE indeed read the first three books - and that was enough torture for me. They made me feel so physically sick that, as I said I had to sell them.
They have WAY too much padding... what was said in Book one - could have been said in about one or two chapters - at the very least a much smaller book.
I look forward to reading those books... (I mean I read at least THREE of them)... I was NOT impressed.
And I'm sorry... but I have seen so many uber-nerd wannabes reading those books simply for the fact that they are these monstrously large books. And that they look 'intellegent' standing at a bus stop or sitting at lunch reading these slabs of paper.
If they wanted to look really intellegent - they should be engrossed in the complete works of Shakespeare or a Thomas Hardy novel (now THERE's long winded for you).
Just because you don't like what I say Edipis, you can't dismiss it out of hand - well YOU can, but you can't invalidate what I have said. My opinion is as very much important as your own. Such words as chosen by you are like the typical newsnet flamer/bitcher attacking the person. Ugh.
That said, I must say I hold the Lord of the Rings DEARLY in my heart. I was VERY worried about what Peter Jackson was going to do with Middle Earth. From Cate Blanchette's first word I was spell-bound. He has done the book(s) justice from what a person COULD do giving the nature of the work and given the type of media he is working with. Just thank Varda that someone like Speilberg didn't get a-hold of the rights.
"I've replaced swords with walk-talkie-palantiri"
Nothing can beat what your mind creates. And Middle-Earth is a very special place to me. Peter Jackson has come very close to what your mind could conjure up. He is a TRUE fan and is not in it SOLELY for the money. The actors are true fans. Christopher Lee has read the books each year since 1954/55 and met the good Professor. With someone like that in your cast and lauding praise on the production(s). I'd say Peter Jackson has the tick of approval.
Well done Peter and well done New Zealand!
Andrew
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Christopher Tolkien didn't want the films to be made. and i'm sorry. as long as you insult tWoT, your opinion on the matter WILL NOT BE VAILD SO THERE! it's the characerizations that make the books, man, the characterizations. and the plot is hardly plodding in the first few books (and at no point is it Thomas Hardy plotting: like Hardy, however, the ploddiness doesn't really detract). considering that i've been reading this series since it started 10 years ago and i've read it at least 4 times (it might be more, i forget), i don't think i've been reading it for the "geek factor"
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Just thank Varda that someone like Speilberg didn't get a-hold of the rights
the horror!!!!! *AAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH* or worse! jerry brucheimer! *shoots self in head*
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Don't make me vomit! OMG! LOL!
Starring Nicholas Cage as Aragorn son of Arathorn Dennis Hopper as Saruman the White Ben Affleck as Boromir of Gondor Bruce Willis as Elrond, Lord of Rivendell
Supposedly Steven Speilberg wanted to do Harry Potter on the condition that it would be shot in America with American actors etc. luckily J.K. Rowling stepped in and said NO! Thankyou J.K.!
"We've replaced wands with walkie-talkies"
That kid from Jerry McGuire as Harry Potter Drew Barrymore as Hermione Harrison Ford as Dumbledore
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
quote: Bruce Willis as Elrond, Lord of Rivendell
Yipee-ki-ye, motherfucker. *Kills an orc.*
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, I just have to wonder one thing: How the "fuck" can Glorfindel be one of your favorite characters? He hardly did anything. I couldn't even remember his name until I looked it up (before seeing that it was mnetioned later in the thread).
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Glorfindel is one of my favorite characters because of his mannerisms. he was supremely confident even in the face of the Nazgul. also the fact that when Frodo was slipping into the world of the dead he started seeing things as the Nazgul see: Glorfindel was a startling, glowing personification of good. and how can you say that Glorfindel did nothing? he saved the fucking ringbearer. thats a hell of a lot more than most of the characters did. i bet Glorfindel's wallet says "bad motherfucker".
[edited because of a stupid fucking keyboard that exists only to thwart me!!!!!!]
[ October 02, 2002, 13:58: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
"Lord of the Rings 2: This time it's personal" and "Lord of the Rings 4: The Voyage Home" (they could get trapped in San Francisco and have to get back to their universe! Complete with the "colorful metaphors" joke!)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
While I of course I agree that it's stupid to replace Glorfindel w/ Arwen solely on the basis of "Look! It's Liv Tyler! She's, like, famous, and has tits and stuff!", I would point out that those things you say you like about Glorfindel were indeed portrayed in the movie.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
I can't believe it, here in Sweden, "The Fellowship of da ring" premiered on dec.19th 2001, it's now october 3rd, it's still going! Is it the same in the US and UK? This must be some kind of modern record...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Is it the same in the US and UK?
Nope; been off the cinema here simce about May (I think)
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: While I of course I agree that it's stupid to replace Glorfindel w/ Arwen solely on the basis of "Look! It's Liv Tyler! She's, like, famous, and has tits and stuff!", I would point out that those things you say you like about Glorfindel were indeed portrayed in the movie.
yes, but it wasn't Glordfindel. it was "Look! It's Liv Tyler! She's, like, famous, and has tits and stuff!".
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I know that they are going to re-relase tFotR in November for a lead up to TTT - at "Hoyts" cinemas... I don't know if that is just and Australian thing.
There was a smallish cinema in Brisbane that had - until recently been showing The Rocky Horror Picture Show every week for the last 20 years or something like that.
Andrew
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
yes, but it wasn't Glordfindel.
So... what? You're complaining that they changed the name and gender, and gave the attributes of one minor character to another, to form a better, more major character? It's not as if there was any NEED to have two seperate characters...
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: So... what? You're complaining that they changed the name and gender, and gave the attributes of one minor character to another, to form a better, more major character? It's not as if there was any NEED to have two seperate characters...
you're missing the point. they replaced Glorfindel with Arwen so that Liv Tyler would have more titty time. THAT is what i have a problem with. it wasn't done to streamline the plot, or help in the adaptation. it was done for titty time.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Actually it wasn't for "titty time", it was done in part to counter the male chauvinist line of the saga. Funny you should label it as that, though...
The Tolkien-universe is based on his catholic, patriarchal upbringing, where women are to be meek and abiding. There were some female elves, sure, but how many actually fighting women exist in Quenta Silmarillion, for example?
Arwen's part has been extended and modified to make the saga more modern, and I'm not complaining. The old Arwen was a pussy, just "I'll await thee at Rivendell, my love, if you ever find the time", and "I made this banner for you to use in your adventures, my love. What? Oh yes, I love sewing...Please don't force yourself upon me".
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
it was titty time. besides, the Royalty situation in Lothlorien kinda punches holes in your theory. besides, how many fighting women are there now? i can't think of too many. even in "enlightened" societies, women tend to not take aggressive roles. in that regard, tLotR is just being realistic. yes, the books are chauvanistic, but Liv Tyler and her expanded role wasn't to counterract any of this. it was titty time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Someone sounds a bit bitter.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
indeed they do.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Nope, not titty time.
And my "theory" is the official line, actually.
And as for fighting women, the american and israeli armies and defense agencies is one example of utilizing females. They can also be excellent martial artists, something I've learned the hard way, on the mat. :-)
In days of yore, women often went around and routinely slit the throats of not-quite-dead enemies on the battlefield, in many cultures. Women are human and, as such, can be every bit as coldblooded and cruel as men, and also be mothers.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimpim: Nope, not titty time.
And my "theory" is the official line, actually.
And as for fighting women, the american and israeli armies and defense agencies is one example of utilizing females. They can also be excellent martial artists, something I've learned the hard way, on the mat. :-)
In days of yore, women often went around and routinely slit the throats of not-quite-dead enemies on the battlefield, in many cultures. Women are human and, as such, can be every bit as coldblooded and cruel as men, and also be mothers.
blah blah blah. it was titty time. "official line"="official bullshit". besides, there ARE not combat soldiers AFAIK in the US military, only combat pilots, and the Israeli military quit using women in offensive combat because male soldiers tended to jump in front of the women. the most cruel people i have ever known have been women. however, they have not been agressive. that was the point i was making, you simply missed it.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
In WW2 the USSR employed women in many roles, including snipers, infantry, tank crews and aircrew. So there.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
it was titty time.
See, gents, THIS is the fingers-in-the-ears approach that you so often accuse me of when I have legitimate points.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Except for the fact you never have any.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Omega: Yes, it is. You should stop doing it, too.
And I would point out that the US requires men to sign up to be potentially drafted when they turn 18. Women don't have to (in fact, I'm not even sure if they're allowed to).
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: it was titty time.
See, gents, THIS is the fingers-in-the-ears approach that you so often accuse me of when I have legitimate points.
yeah, except i attempt to back up what i'm saying.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: In WW2 the USSR employed women in many roles, including snipers, infantry, tank crews and aircrew. So there.
world wars are hardly a normal situation, and most of these "female special reserve battalions" were not volunteer. as i said earlier, my point was that women generally do not choose aggressive roles. being forced to learn to be a sniper is hardly choosing.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
On a lighter note, I found myself thinking the other day about how Oedipus Rex (the play by Sophocles) wouldn't make a good movie. That's not to say it hasn't been made into a film (I've seen at least one, filmed on an ancient Greek site which managed to give the impression that ancient Greeks lived in crumbling ruins with walls never more than a foot above the ground), just that by today's standards it wouldn't.
First of all, there's the whole older woman thing. Ew. It's never worked too well. Dustin Hoffman and Anne Bancroft were virtually the same age IRL when filming The Graduate. Sure the difference when Oedipus and, um, whatsername (it was a question in my Greek Civilisation 'O'-Level and I couldn't remember it then, still got an A grade though) isn't that much greater than Annakin and Padm�, but that's still way too much.
On the other hand, I gather Jessica Lange is quite hot in Titus and she gets to shag Alan Cumming, but I haven't seen it.
Jocasta. I just looked it up. In the exam I just wrote "JOsquiggle."
Anyway. Then there's the whole way Oedipus became king. Contrived or what? Not the whole Sphinx thing, but rather the way he inadvertently bumps off his father yet never wonders why there's no hue-and-cry over the murder of some old man out in the country, still less investigate his predecessor's death or get to see the corpse during the inevitable state funeral. Or get to hear about how the old king deepsixed his own son on account of some prophecy. I hope he found time to shitcan his National Security Adviser before getting on to the whole self-blinding thing.
So, there. Edipis is better-named than we realized. 8)
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: So, there. Edipis is better-named than we realized. 8)
maybe, but you're no poet, bub . Jessica Lange was....i guess.....o...k.....sorta......um.....in titus. certainly better than Jessica Tandy.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I got the terrifying sensation that perhaps Simon and Lee had coalesced into one organism while reading his last post.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
i attempt to back up what i'm saying.
No, you're not. You're just repeating "titty time" over and over.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: i attempt to back up what i'm saying.
No, you're not. You're just repeating "titty time" over and over.
apparently, you're nearly totally illiterate. do all the other words that i wrote just look like weird smears to you?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
. . . nah, forget it.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Good ole original Georgie Lucas... Jocastu Nu was the name of the old librarian chick in AotC.
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
Edipis: "blah blah blah. it was titty time. "official line"="official bullshit"."
Well, why don't we just discard every statement ever made from the producer's tent to the people, then, you hilarious little guy.
"the Royalty situation in Lothlorien kinda punches holes in your theory."
Oh, and how exactly? Galadriel is in the book portrayed like Virgin Mary, which can be linked to Tolkien's view of his mother, like the general catholic way of putting the mother/woman on a "piedestal". Galadriel's and Celeborn's equality is commendable and I don't see how it punches holes in my "theory", as you like to call it.
"there ARE not combat soldiers AFAIK in the US military, only combat pilots"
That does NOT make a difference and is no argument in your favor. If anything, being a pilot demands even more dedication, professionalism and crueler, colder persons that don't flinch when bombing stuff. If it's a policy thing then the US Army PR-section must have forgotten that female pilot deaths get just as gorey, burnt or bloody as a girl being shot or crushed under tanks.
Swedish women over 18 can volunteer and apply for any bransch of the army, navy or air force if they qualify. I happen to know two girls that finished their military service a year ago and are arctic fucking rangers now. And they're cute, not crewcut lesbian bikers, but they recieved nothing but respect from the gentlemen in the unit.
"...and the Israeli military quit using women in offensive combat because male soldiers tended to jump in front of the women. the most cruel people i have ever known have been women. however, they have not been agressive. that was the point i was making, you simply missed it."
I didn't miss it, it is a moot point since it is already widely accepted and doesn't enter into it. You don't have to be aggressive to be a warrior, martial arts can teach you that.
Israeli men, although perhaps ahead of their muslim fundamentalist counterparts regarding equality, are maybe too conservative for the model "female soldier" to work properly in their case, if your story is true. I understand why they would want to do that, but it works in many other parts of the world, nonetheless.
Unless you've actually been tortured or beaten by a woman I suspect you're either talking about some nasty school teacher of yours, or you're referring to relationship experiences, in which case I'm sorry to say that we guys can be just as cruel, sorry to burst your stereotype "50's blues song"-attitude towards angry women.
"however, they have not been agressive." Well good for you, son! Honestly! And Damn you're shifting topics. :-)
Posted towards Omega: "apparently, you're nearly totally illiterate. do all the other words that i wrote just look like weird smears to you?"
What? Those points about women? You only stuck to that "women not aggresive" thing, and the "titty" thing, just repetition. Omega was just observing and did not have that coming.
--
To summarize, elves do have magnificent female warriors, and the new films get the opportunity to maybe show it more than the book, if Arwen does anything else daring in the coming movies. The book did graze the subject, no doubt about it, Eowyn has been utilized heavlily judging by the trailers, and her actor is no less attractive than, say, Heather graham or Cameron Diaz, in my opinion.
And that's what all this is about, opinions, and not to confuse them with facts.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Was there equality between Galadriel and Celeborn? Celeborn seemed like Galadriel's wipping boy!
I would have loved to have seen Celebrian's hair... father had silver hair mother had golden hair. Hair that supposedly F�anor coveted. It seemed to capture the light of the two trees of Valinor... and it supposedly gave him the idea to make the Silmarils. He even asked for a lock of her hair - which she denied him... and from then on they were never 'friendly' towards each other again.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Nice'n'Easy, works with your natural tones and highlights. . .
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Tom and Tahna, I think you are both in the GTA, did you know that the ROM is have an exhibition of the Two Towers stuff, I believe it starts Oct 31.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
There were elements of the first book I which had been left in. An example is when Frodo is at Armen Hen and sees the armies of the Dark Lord massing to the east and to the south. If you go by the film alone, you might think that the Dark Lord has only an army of Orcs. I think by showing the armies massing we see his power over men.
The biggest issue I have with the trilogy is the removal of the Scouring of the Shire. According to the creators of the film, there wasn't enough time. Yet, interestingly enough, we have forty-five minutes of the Battle of the Helm. Couldn't they have trimmed this battle down? This is the longest I have ever heard of for a battle in a motion picture.
I feel the Scouring of the Shire is important for it shows the growth of the four hobbits and the fading of Frodo near to the time he leaves for the West. Instead, as I read right, we are going to see an epilogue read by Frodon on the fate of Arwen and Aragorn. This is wrong.
If I remember the books correctly, the focus was on the hobbits. This is their story of how four of their own help to defeat the Dark Lord and his servants. This is the myth story of England-how a pastoral people defended their small oasis from the dangers of the outside world. For the story to change focus as is being seen in the movies, I think is a disservice to Tolkein's vision. We are now seeing the events through another people's eyes-perhaps one of the friendlier European countries to England if we follow Tolkein's intentions.
Another issue I have is how Peter Jackson and his people are handling the story of Frodo. My understanding of the story is that Frodo was gaining the grace of the Elves. When Sam sees Frodo on Mt. Doom, he envisions an ethereal light surrounding Frodo. This light is seen on the Elves. This suggests for me that Frodo is developing a higher elevated being-a being closer to the Elves than any other living being in Middle Earth. And this is why Scouring of the Shire is important to Frodo's character. He is disinterested in the retaking of the Shire for the Shire has lessened for him in some respect. In the beginning, we see his fondness for the shire. In the end, we see his disconnect with his former home and his need to leave the Shire behind.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
If Tolkien says a female elf can hack a troll apart with her weird looking sword, I'll believe him. After all, the book also features midgets that can run fast and stuff like talking trees, so examples of women being capable warriors in the real world aside, I think he was making stuff up.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
They've taken out the Scouring of the Shire? Bastards!
Posted by Nimpim (Member # 205) on :
What Sam saw in Galadriel's mirror, and should've been there to see in the movie, was the scouring of the Shire.
Instead, we had Frodo, seeing some people in chains, and also Sam among them! This situation was shown much more brutal and serious than the real oppression by "Sharkey", which although unfair and harsh was NOT putting the town under siege, IMO. Furthermore, it was taken by Sharkey's ruffians, who were men, not orcs.
I also heard some rumor about Saruman getting killed in TTT! What the shit is this?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Forty-five minutes for the battle at Helm's Deep? In the edition of the book that I have, it takes up barely over nine pages. Out of 323. Not even 3%. And I don't think the movie is going to be 25 hours long.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
see? bad movies!
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
There is a photo of Saruman impaled on one of his contraptions. I have seen the photo on OneRing.Net. I read two possibilities tied to the photo-a gag to quiet rumor mongers on the set, or an actual scene from the film. I know this much-Saruman is fated to die in the film. He does not go to the Shire.
Furthermore, the second movie ends just before Sam and Frodo enter the lair of Shelob.
Additional info on the battle- Legolas slides down a staircase into battle. A hundred elves fight at Helm's Deep and die.
The battle will have uninterrupted footage.
These are rumors. However, there is strong evidence for them occuring.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
WHAT THE FUCK!?!!? if Peter Jackson wanted to do this kinda shit, why didn't he just come out with an original fantasy universe of his own? well, maybe he did, because this sure as hell is tLotR.
P.S. how do you change text size on this site? the UBB code i know didn't work.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, while I have issues w/ Fellowship, it wasn't utter crap. However, if these rumors about Towers are true, I may not be able to say the same for it...
[ October 09, 2002, 22:48: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Careful there TSN, you are heading towards Trek-fan territory of judging-the-movie/episode-before-it's-even-been-completed.
TTT isn't finished yet.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I could be wrong, but I should think the movie would be done by now, since they filmed it a couple years ago, and it's due to be released in a couple months. If they're still working on it, they're certainly a little behind schedule.
And I didn't say the movie was going to be crap. I said that, if those rumors posted before are true, it will be crap. If they're not true, it likely won't be crap.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
AFAIK, all three movies are completed.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I doubt it. PJ said in one interview when FotR came out that he was still editing TT.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Principle photography was finished 3 years ago or what ever. They have still done re-shoots and are still of course editing and fine-tuning effects. I believe for TFotR, they didn't like the original cave-troll so they went back and did it again. I think PJ is a bit of a perfectionist. You can even see the differences in Gollum's quality between the first TTT Trailer and the Second... there was an analysis at theonering.net.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. Jessica Lange was....i guess.....o...k.....sorta......um.....in titus. certainly better than Jessica Tandy.