| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2003 03:42:31 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Return of the King Movie |
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of the
lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did get to
see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I hate you and
I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some folks who get
to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am and quibbler-
smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits who bought up all
the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden variety ROTK tickets
and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3 hours 28 minutes and 57
of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far and I doubt
that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report on anything that
seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects. In reading some
advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything too unexpected. I
understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess they thought goblins
seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it isn't too great a
departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm totally
gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big damn winter
coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie is gonna rock.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
16 Dec 2003 03:54:51 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in the
first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible title
for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also objected
to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many of
the servants of Saruman.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
16 Dec 2003 09:24:57 PM |
|
|
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in the
first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible title
for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also objected
to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But whether
you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end up with one
that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even argue that while
Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things that he may have
subconsciously added certain symbols and themes based on his own culture
and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much to try to tell theists that the
story isn't symbolic, because these are folks who think that their god
could inspire bible writers to embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many of
the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always something
one can complain about, I suppose.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 11:09:38 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in the
first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible title
for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also objected
to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you.
From Tolkien himself. It is a pretty famous piece he wrote, often
reprinted with "Lord of the Rings".
http://www.mi.uib.no/~respl/tolkien/lotr-foreword.html
" The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it
finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here
with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received
or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The
prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a
really long story that would hold the attention of readers, 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 often at fault.
[...]
" As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of
the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the
story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out
unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset
by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The
Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of
the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the
foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster,
and from that point the story would have developed along
essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its
sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already
written and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that
began in 1939 or its sequels.
" The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process
or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development
of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and
used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but
enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but
occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in
the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the
missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long
he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge
the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides
would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long
have survived even as slaves.
" Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes of
views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I
cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always
have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its
presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied
applicability to the thought and experience of readers.
" I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but
the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the
purposed domination of the author. An author cannot of course
remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a
story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex and
attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence
that is inadequate and ambiguous."
If you read the early drafts, in the books by Christopher Tolkien, it
becomes ever more apparent just where the images come from: they are
standard themes in mythology, particularly European mythology. Tolkien
had written several early ideas and drafts of what would become _The
Silmarillion_, his attempt at creating, whole cloth, a mythology to go
with the languages he had invented (he was a philologist by
profession).
It is the same well from which christianity drank, and stole, and
appropriated many ideas. To identify them as "christian," however, has
one major problems: it misrepresents where these ideas come from,
reinforcing the incorrect perception that they are original in
christianity.
But whether
you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end up with one
that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even argue that while
Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things that he may have
subconsciously added certain symbols and themes based on his own culture
and values.
The problem with that is that you give credence to those god-soaked
idiots who think everything is "about god".
Anyway, it doesn't help much to try to tell theists that the
story isn't symbolic,
No, but if you agree that it is, then you give force to ->their<-
argument. When the author explicitly denies any such symbolism, why do
so? I would certainly not try to argue that _Narnia_ is not meant to
be symbolic of the christianity that Lewis embraced, but Tolkien is
simply drawing inspiration from a much deeper common well. Don't let
theists appropriate the well by acquiescence!
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
17 Dec 2003 05:08:30 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in the
first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible title
for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also objected
to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But whether
you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end up with one
that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even argue that while
Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things that he may have
subconsciously added certain symbols and themes based on his own culture
and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much to try to tell theists that the
story isn't symbolic, because these are folks who think that their god
could inspire bible writers to embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many of
the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always something
one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of the
shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that. They did
show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in previous
movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other wrap up they
had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that little anti-
climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll write more after I
get some sleep.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
17 Dec 2003 10:28:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in the
first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible title
for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also objected
to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But whether
you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end up with one
that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even argue that while
Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things that he may have
subconsciously added certain symbols and themes based on his own culture
and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much to try to tell theists that the
story isn't symbolic, because these are folks who think that their god
could inspire bible writers to embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many of
the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always something
one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of the
shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that. They did
show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in previous
movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other wrap up they
had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that little anti-
climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll write more after I
get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
18 Dec 2003 01:34:38 PM |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2003, AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:n4b2uvgbgtlrv3vgmd4o65h0cslo65fg5k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
magidin@math.berkeley.edu says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism
in ROTK, starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in
the first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible
title for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also
objected to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away
spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But
whether you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end
up with one that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even
argue that while Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things
that he may have subconsciously added certain symbols and themes
based on his own culture and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much
to try to tell theists that the story isn't symbolic, because these
are folks who think that their god could inspire bible writers to
embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having
goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many
of the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always
something one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of
the shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that.
They did show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in
previous movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other
wrap up they had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that
little anti- climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll
write more after I get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
In the books, it actually happened.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
18 Dec 2003 02:38:01 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:n4b2uvgbgtlrv3vgmd4o65h0cslo65fg5k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
magidin@math.berkeley.edu says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism
in ROTK, starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in
the first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible
title for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also
objected to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away
spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But
whether you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end
up with one that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even
argue that while Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things
that he may have subconsciously added certain symbols and themes
based on his own culture and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much
to try to tell theists that the story isn't symbolic, because these
are folks who think that their god could inspire bible writers to
embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having
goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many
of the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always
something one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of
the shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that.
They did show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in
previous movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other
wrap up they had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that
little anti- climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll
write more after I get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
In the books, it actually happened.
I imagine it ended up on the cutting room floor.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
18 Dec 2003 10:27:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:38:01 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Mekkala wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:n4b2uvgbgtlrv3vgmd4o65h0cslo65fg5k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
magidin@math.berkeley.edu says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism
in ROTK, starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in
the first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible
title for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also
objected to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away
spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But
whether you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end
up with one that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even
argue that while Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things
that he may have subconsciously added certain symbols and themes
based on his own culture and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much
to try to tell theists that the story isn't symbolic, because these
are folks who think that their god could inspire bible writers to
embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having
goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many
of the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always
something one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of
the shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that.
They did show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in
previous movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other
wrap up they had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that
little anti- climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll
write more after I get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
In the books, it actually happened.
I imagine it ended up on the cutting room floor.
Could have been another hour easy.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
18 Dec 2003 10:26:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:38 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:n4b2uvgbgtlrv3vgmd4o65h0cslo65fg5k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
magidin@math.berkeley.edu says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism
in ROTK, starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in
the first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible
title for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also
objected to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away
spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But
whether you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end
up with one that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even
argue that while Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things
that he may have subconsciously added certain symbols and themes
based on his own culture and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much
to try to tell theists that the story isn't symbolic, because these
are folks who think that their god could inspire bible writers to
embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having
goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many
of the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always
something one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of
the shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that.
They did show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in
previous movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other
wrap up they had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that
little anti- climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll
write more after I get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
In the books, it actually happened.
You are correct. Saw the movie today and loved it. Given the
immensity of the task I, totally personal opinion, think they did a
fantastic job.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
19 Dec 2003 10:46:47 PM |
|
|
In article <9dv4uvkutibk7hq70alrvtt0r473hfpj45@4ax.com>,
KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com says...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:38 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:n4b2uvgbgtlrv3vgmd4o65h0cslo65fg5k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
magidin@math.berkeley.edu says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism
in ROTK, starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in
the first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible
title for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also
objected to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away
spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But
whether you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end
up with one that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even
argue that while Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things
that he may have subconsciously added certain symbols and themes
based on his own culture and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much
to try to tell theists that the story isn't symbolic, because these
are folks who think that their god could inspire bible writers to
embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having
goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many
of the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always
something one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of
the shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that.
They did show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in
previous movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other
wrap up they had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that
little anti- climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll
write more after I get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
In the books, it actually happened.
You are correct. Saw the movie today and loved it. Given the
immensity of the task I, totally personal opinion, think they did a
fantastic job.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I thought they did a decent job overall. Hey,
maybe they can do a follow on show or a series or something, what with
modern animation and our need for constant entertainment and all.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: minor retraction (minor spoiler) |
19 Dec 2003 11:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:46:47 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <9dv4uvkutibk7hq70alrvtt0r473hfpj45@4ax.com>,
KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com says...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:38 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:n4b2uvgbgtlrv3vgmd4o65h0cslo65fg5k@4ax.com:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:08:30 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <MPG.1a497a66d691ea78989779@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler247@yahoo.com says...
In article <brnuvb$16g0$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
magidin@math.berkeley.edu says...
In article <MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism
in ROTK, starting with the name.
"Return of the King" was not the name that Tolkien wanted. It was
chosen by the publisher. Tolkien did not want to split the book in
the first place, but suggested "The War of the Ring" as a possible
title for Book V (the first part of "Return of the King"). He also
objected to "Return of the King", on the grounds that it gave away
spoilers.
Tolkien was also vehemently opposed to symbolism, parables, and
allegories of any kind.
Yeah, ok, I know I've heard this before, probably from you. But
whether you intend to write an allegorical story or not, you can end
up with one that to all appearances is an allegory. Some may even
argue that while Tolkien might have consciously avoided these things
that he may have subconsciously added certain symbols and themes
based on his own culture and values. Anyway, it doesn't help much
to try to tell theists that the story isn't symbolic, because these
are folks who think that their god could inspire bible writers to
embed funky bible codes and what not.
I understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having
goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return.
The book has humans that "look more than half-goblin", like many
of the servants of Saruman.
I'll see how they look in the movie, I guess. They did try to stay
pretty close to the book where possible, though there's always
something one can complain about, I suppose.
After just watching the show it appears that there is no "scouring of
the shire" after all. I must have gotten bad information on that.
They did show images of a possible goblin/orc attack on the shires in
previous movies (the two towers, I think). But with all the other
wrap up they had to do, they didn't have time, apparently, for that
little anti- climactic drama. It was still pretty good, but I'll
write more after I get some sleep.
Weren't the prior movies showing of the shire done as a vision? IIRC
it was more of a vision of impending doom rather than an actual
occurring event.
In the books, it actually happened.
You are correct. Saw the movie today and loved it. Given the
immensity of the task I, totally personal opinion, think they did a
fantastic job.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I thought they did a decent job overall. Hey,
maybe they can do a follow on show or a series or something, what with
modern animation and our need for constant entertainment and all.
I hope they don't try and drag it out into a series or some other
entity. It has been quite a while since I read the books and I knew
there were errors but chose to enjoy the movie and not worry about
every detail. I will probably have a more critical eye when I read
them again.
I would like to see them put out a single boxed set of the dvd's, a
final this is all there is, directors cut or whatever they want to
call it. However, I am somewhat cynical and see the same thing
happening as with FOTR. A release, a re-release with more, then again
for each movie then the boxed set, etc... etc... etc.....
The brightest spot from the movies for me is the fact that it seems to
be stirring a greater interest in reading within my children.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
16 Dec 2003 03:50:53 PM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2003, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de:
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of
the lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did
get to see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I
hate you and I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some
folks who get to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am
and quibbler- smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits
who bought up all the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden
variety ROTK tickets and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3
hours 28 minutes and 57 of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's
expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in
ROTK, starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far
and I doubt that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report
on anything that seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects.
In reading some advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything
too unexpected. I understand that the movie does take some liberties,
like having goblins in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess
they thought goblins seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it
isn't too great a departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm
totally gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big
damn winter coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie
is gonna rock.
Just to comment... Tolkien did not intend that his books would have any
religious significance. Any "religious symbolism" is manufactured from
whole cloth by religionists, and as I'm sure you realize, anything
that's at all philosophical can be interpreted as religious by someone
who really wants to.
And yeah, I'm stoked :)
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
16 Dec 2003 09:10:43 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9453A160EB057Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Just to comment... Tolkien did not intend that his books would have any
religious significance. Any "religious symbolism" is manufactured from
whole cloth by religionists, and as I'm sure you realize, anything
that's at all philosophical can be interpreted as religious by someone
who really wants to.
Yeah, I guess that's true. I mean so many fricken xers keep talking
about the ring being an allegory for the forbidden fruit. But it doesn't
quite fit. First off, people can use the ring for a while and still be
okay. Adam and Eve only got one chance and then were screwed for all
eternity. Also, most people, like smeagol got no warning that they
shouldn't use the ring. Plus, it's not clear if people act evilly
because the ring/sauron is making them that way or because of their own
evil character expressing itself. In any event, the ring actively uses
it's magic power to mentally seduce those around it.
I actually find it rather dubious that simple hobbits like sam and frodo
should be any more immune to rings effects than anyone else, either.
However, such immunity is not necessarily any particular fault or virtue
of their own doing. It's almost like fate has made them the right people
for the job.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 10:42:42 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1a49772026dca525989778@news.cis.dfn.de>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <Xns9453A160EB057Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Just to comment... Tolkien did not intend that his books would have any
religious significance. Any "religious symbolism" is manufactured from
whole cloth by religionists, and as I'm sure you realize, anything
that's at all philosophical can be interpreted as religious by someone
who really wants to.
Yeah, I guess that's true. I mean so many fricken xers keep talking
about the ring being an allegory for the forbidden fruit. But it doesn't
quite fit.
Exactly.
To be honest, your comments struck me of precisely the same sort of
silliness that some theist engage in: finding "god talk" even where
there is none. Only you find it to condemn it.
First off, people can use the ring for a while and still be
okay. Adam and Eve only got one chance and then were screwed for all
eternity. Also, most people, like smeagol got no warning that they
shouldn't use the ring. Plus, it's not clear if people act evilly
because the ring/sauron is making them that way or because of their own
evil character expressing itself.
It is the malice of Sauron, twisting the bearer. An evil bearer can
more easily control the ring, and the ring can more easily influence
the bearer.
In any event, the ring actively uses
it's magic power to mentally seduce those around it.
I actually find it rather dubious that simple hobbits like sam and frodo
should be any more immune to rings effects than anyone else, either.
The point made over and over is that the ring has to work with what it
has. The more powerful the person wielding it, the more the power of
the ring awakens. The reason why "simple hobbits" are less affected is
because they have less power. It is using these forces that causes
corruption, so by not attempting to use it in any important way, they
are less affected (think, perhaps, of the power of the ring as
"radiation": the more you are exposed to it, for stronger doses, the
worse you get; if you don't use it much, and don't use it ->for<-
much, then your exposure is much less. You still get radiation
sickness in the end, but not as fast and not as bad).
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 09:39:52 AM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2003, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:MPG.1a49772026dca525989778@news.cis.dfn.de:
In article <Xns9453A160EB057Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Just to comment... Tolkien did not intend that his books would have
any religious significance. Any "religious symbolism" is
manufactured from whole cloth by religionists, and as I'm sure you
realize, anything that's at all philosophical can be interpreted as
religious by someone who really wants to.
Yeah, I guess that's true. I mean so many fricken xers keep talking
about the ring being an allegory for the forbidden fruit. But it
doesn't quite fit. First off, people can use the ring for a while and
still be okay. Adam and Eve only got one chance and then were screwed
for all eternity. Also, most people, like smeagol got no warning
that they shouldn't use the ring. Plus, it's not clear if people act
evilly because the ring/sauron is making them that way or because of
their own evil character expressing itself. In any event, the ring
actively uses it's magic power to mentally seduce those around it.
I actually find it rather dubious that simple hobbits like sam and
frodo should be any more immune to rings effects than anyone else,
either. However, such immunity is not necessarily any particular
fault or virtue of their own doing. It's almost like fate has made
them the right people for the job.
It's not so much their own virtue, or a matter of fate, as it is the
fact that they're hobbits. Apparently, as Gandalf says repeatedly (and
Gandalf, you must remember, is an avid student of hobbitlore in the
books), hobbits as a race have a "tough fiber" that makes them partially
immune to the Ring's effects -- which, of course, is why a hobbit was
the best choice to take the Ring to Mordor.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 11:21:17 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <Xns9453A160EB057Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Just to comment... Tolkien did not intend that his books would have any
religious significance. Any "religious symbolism" is manufactured from
whole cloth by religionists, and as I'm sure you realize, anything
that's at all philosophical can be interpreted as religious by someone
who really wants to.
Yeah, I guess that's true. I mean so many fricken xers keep talking
about the ring being an allegory for the forbidden fruit. But it doesn't
quite fit. First off, people can use the ring for a while and still be
okay. Adam and Eve only got one chance and then were screwed for all
eternity. Also, most people, like smeagol got no warning that they
shouldn't use the ring. Plus, it's not clear if people act evilly
because the ring/sauron is making them that way or because of their own
evil character expressing itself. In any event, the ring actively uses
it's magic power to mentally seduce those around it.
I actually find it rather dubious that simple hobbits like sam and frodo
should be any more immune to rings effects than anyone else, either.
There is a section of the first book, constantly cut from the various screen
presentations, that explains the power of the Ring and why Hobbits are
relatively immune. That is the section with Tom Bombadil.
Bombadil's entire existance is filled up with his lovely wife and his section
of the Old Forest. He wants nothing more than what he has; he is perfectly
content. Thus, when he puts the Ring on his finger, he *does not disappear.*
When an alarmed Frodo demands the Ring back, Bombadil basically tosses it
over his shoulder; to him, it is nothing more than a pretty trinket.
Latter on, we come to realize that the Rings of Power work on one's desires
and hungers. The Nine brought eternal life and great power to their wearers
(a fact we learned in the Barrow Downs, also perpetually absent from the
movies.) The Seven enhanced Dwarven greed, which eventually led them to be
devoured by dragons or lost in the release of demons from the deep. The
Three, never directly tainted by Sauron, worked from the desire to bring
order and neverending changelessness to an ever changing world. The One was
motivated by a desire to control, to dominate.
Without those motivations, the power of the rings was less. The One had
absolutely no power over Bombadil, because he was already the master of
everything he wanted to be master of. The Ring had little power over Hobbits,
as they are by nature a contented people, generally happy with a warm hole, a
bit of land and a full larder. It was able to catch Smeagol so easily because
he was jealous of his brother Deagol's popularity. (That story, and how
Smeagol came to live under the Misty Mountains, was not well covered in the
movie. The full tale is very interesting.) Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel...
remember how they were too terrified of the Ring to even touch it. They knew
full well that their own desires would be their downfall, should the Ring
ensnare them.
However, such immunity is not necessarily any particular fault or virtue
of their own doing. It's almost like fate has made them the right people
for the job.
As it was :-) Read the Silmarillion, specifically the chapter titled
"Ainulindale." It is, in effect, Tolkien's creation myth for Arda (the
physical universe.) With the coming of the Children of Iluvatar (elves and
men), the most triumphant notes of evil become even more triumphant notes of
good.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 01:25:44 PM |
|
|
In article <3FE0908D.5346E9BE@serv.net>, says...
quibbler wrote:
Bombadil's entire existance is filled up with his lovely wife and his section
of the Old Forest. He wants nothing more than what he has; he is perfectly
content. Thus, when he puts the Ring on his finger, he *does not disappear.*
When an alarmed Frodo demands the Ring back, Bombadil basically tosses it
over his shoulder; to him, it is nothing more than a pretty trinket.
Yeah Tom was the man. Buddhists would probably get jonesed about his
apparent mastery of material desires. But again, it could be that the
main reason he is able to be like this is because of good genetics and
fate, or it could be mainly learned behaviors and conscious attitudes.
Without those motivations, the power of the rings was less. The One had
absolutely no power over Bombadil, because he was already the master of
everything he wanted to be master of. The Ring had little power over Hobbits,
as they are by nature a contented people, generally happy with a warm hole, a
bit of land and a full larder. It was able to catch Smeagol so easily because
he was jealous of his brother Deagol's popularity.
Right, but since I'm mainly focusing upon free will and intentionality,
it wasn't necessarily smeagol's fault that his brother was more popular,
lucky, etc. Could smeagol have really helped himself to act other than
he did?
As it was :-) Read the Silmarillion, specifically the chapter titled
"Ainulindale." It is, in effect, Tolkien's creation myth for Arda (the
physical universe.) With the coming of the Children of Iluvatar (elves and
men), the most triumphant notes of evil become even more triumphant notes of
good.
I'll check it out. I think I've read parts of the silmarillion, but I
never quite got into it as much.
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 03:13:06 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <3FE0908D.5346E9BE@serv.net>, says...
quibbler wrote:
Bombadil's entire existance is filled up with his lovely wife and his section
of the Old Forest. He wants nothing more than what he has; he is perfectly
content. Thus, when he puts the Ring on his finger, he *does not disappear.*
When an alarmed Frodo demands the Ring back, Bombadil basically tosses it
over his shoulder; to him, it is nothing more than a pretty trinket.
Yeah Tom was the man. Buddhists would probably get jonesed about his
apparent mastery of material desires. But again, it could be that the
main reason he is able to be like this is because of good genetics and
fate, or it could be mainly learned behaviors and conscious attitudes.
Without those motivations, the power of the rings was less. The One had
absolutely no power over Bombadil, because he was already the master of
everything he wanted to be master of. The Ring had little power over Hobbits,
as they are by nature a contented people, generally happy with a warm hole, a
bit of land and a full larder. It was able to catch Smeagol so easily because
he was jealous of his brother Deagol's popularity.
Right, but since I'm mainly focusing upon free will and intentionality,
it wasn't necessarily smeagol's fault that his brother was more popular,
lucky, etc. Could smeagol have really helped himself to act other than
he did?
The Ring is a tempter, a seductress. It can not make you do things you do not want
to do, but it *can* goad you in to doing things that you otherwise would not likely
do. It is like a little voice whispering in your ear: "It's your birthday, he
should give it to you as a present. He's being selfish, not letting you have it.
He's already got everything, friends and good looks. Mom likes him better, anyway.
So he doesn't need such a precious thing. He forgot it's your birthday, but he
could make it all up if he gave you such a nice birthday present. He's being so
selfish, and selfish people always come to an unpleasant end."
Ultimately, Smeagol killed his brother because he *wanted* to. The Ring only gave
him the motivational speech. The same with Boromir.
As it was :-) Read the Silmarillion, specifically the chapter titled
"Ainulindale." It is, in effect, Tolkien's creation myth for Arda (the
physical universe.) With the coming of the Children of Iluvatar (elves and
men), the most triumphant notes of evil become even more triumphant notes of
good.
I'll check it out. I think I've read parts of the silmarillion, but I
never quite got into it as much.
There are five parts:
Ainulinale ("Song of the Ainur") - The creation story, and a rather interesting one
in my opinion. Iluvatar ("the Source") creates the Ainur and commands them to sing;
it is in their song that they reveal their power. One of the greatest Ainu, Melkor
("He who arises in might"), seeks to dominate and control the song. He succeeds
until Iluvatar changes the theme of the music to include a haunting, sad thread
able to turn Melkor's greatest trumphs in to its own triumphs. Then Iluvatar stops
the music and shows them a vision, a glimps at what their song means. He then sends
them in to Ea ("That Which Is") and tells them to bring that vision to life.
Valaquenta ("Accounting of the Valar") - Basically, a listing of the Valar (the
great powers) and some of the more important of the Maiar (the assistants) who came
in to Arda along with tales of their work (such as Aule creating the first Dwarves
and Yavanna teaching the trees to walk and talk.) It covers the early history of
Arda, the Age of the Lamps, the near abandonment of Middle Earth to Melkor, the
creation of Valinor, "The Undying Lands", in the uttermost west, and the Age of the
Trees.
Quenta Silmarillion ("Accounting of the Silmarils") - The main part of the book, it
covers the coming of the Elves, the creation of the Silmarils, the poisoning of the
Trees and the coming of the Age of Shadows in the West, the theft of the Silmarils
by Melkor, who is renamed Morgoth ("Dark Enemy"), Feanor's vow to get back the
Silmarils which caused he and all his people (which included Galadriel) to be
exiled from the Undying Lands, the creation of the sun and moon, the coming of Man,
and various legends about how the Silmarils were, with much sorrow and loss,
reclaimed. It ends with the death of Morgoth which, interestingly enough, does not
end the First Age (of the Sun, to give its full, proper name.)
Akallabeth ("The Downfall") - This tells of how a group of Men instrumental in the
War of the Silmarils against Morgoth are rewarded with very long life and Numenor
("The Western Isle"), an island kingdom within sight of the Undying Lands. To them
is given charge of Sauron, a Maia once associated with Aule (a smith who, before
the waking of the Elves, created the race of Dwarves) but converted by Morgoth.
During the Second Age, Sauron corrupted the kings of Numenor. They set out to
conquer the lesser men in Middle Earth and then, at Sauron's instigation, they set
out for war against Valinor. The Valar respond by destroying Numenor (echoes of
Atlantis) and removing the Undying Lands "from the circles of the world." In the
tumult, Sauron escapes and the First Age comes to an end.
Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age - A history, scholarly rather than
scriptural (like the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta) or dramatic (Quenta
Silmarillion). It tells of how Sauron tricked the Elves in to believing he had
reformed, taught them the art of making Rings of Power, had them forge the Nine,
the Seven and the Three, and then how he, in secret, created the One Ring. This
sparked the great war that ended when Isildur cut the Ring from Sauron's hand,
closing the Second Age. It continues with a recast of the history of the Ring from
that time, in to the Third Age, and the return of Sauron.
--
Gregory Gadow
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 03:23:35 PM |
|
|
In article <3FE0C6E2.4148FFB3@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
[.snip.]
Slight quibble:
Akallabeth ("The Downfall") - This tells of how a group of Men instrumental in the
War of the Silmarils against Morgoth are rewarded with very long life and Numenor
("The Western Isle"), an island kingdom within sight of the Undying Lands. To them
is given charge of Sauron, a Maia once associated with Aule (a smith who, before
the waking of the Elves, created the race of Dwarves) but converted
by Morgoth.
No: they are not "given charge of Sauron." Sauron hid from Manwe's
herald at the fall of Morgoth, and remained in Middle-Earth. Later,
during the second age, he began to become a power there. The King of
Numenor puts together an army and goes against him in
Middle-Earth. Sauron surrenders, and is taken in chains to Numenor;
but his surrendering is merely part of his plan to poison Numenor from
within (although the Kings had already began murmuring against the
Valar, following the usurpation of the throne at one point).
My point being, your summary read as if the Valar, having captured
Sauron, ask the Men of Numenor to keep him (say, like Gandalf asks the
Elves of Mirkwood to keep Gollum); but Sauron gets to Numenor because
the King of Numenor takes him there in his pride (the king's, that is).
Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age - A history, scholarly rather than
scriptural (like the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta) or dramatic (Quenta
Silmarillion). It tells of how Sauron tricked the Elves in to believing he had
reformed,
In fact, this happens ->before<- the Numenorians capture Sauron: the
first war of the ring and the founding of Rivendell happened in
1693-1701 Second Age, and the capture of Sauron in 3262. Sauron
appeared before the Elves disguised, named himself "Giver of Gifts";
they did not know him for Sauron until he forged the One
Ring. Although he could still appear in a fair shape until he was
caught in the drowning of Numenor.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 03:43:14 PM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <3FE0C6E2.4148FFB3@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
[.snip.]
Slight quibble:
Akallabeth ("The Downfall") - This tells of how a group of Men instrumental in the
War of the Silmarils against Morgoth are rewarded with very long life and Numenor
("The Western Isle"), an island kingdom within sight of the Undying Lands. To them
is given charge of Sauron, a Maia once associated with Aule (a smith who, before
the waking of the Elves, created the race of Dwarves) but converted
by Morgoth.
No: they are not "given charge of Sauron." Sauron hid from Manwe's
herald at the fall of Morgoth, and remained in Middle-Earth. Later,
during the second age, he began to become a power there. The King of
Numenor puts together an army and goes against him in
Middle-Earth. Sauron surrenders, and is taken in chains to Numenor;
but his surrendering is merely part of his plan to poison Numenor from
within (although the Kings had already began murmuring against the
Valar, following the usurpation of the throne at one point).
My point being, your summary read as if the Valar, having captured
Sauron, ask the Men of Numenor to keep him (say, like Gandalf asks the
Elves of Mirkwood to keep Gollum); but Sauron gets to Numenor because
the King of Numenor takes him there in his pride (the king's, that is).
Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age - A history, scholarly rather than
scriptural (like the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta) or dramatic (Quenta
Silmarillion). It tells of how Sauron tricked the Elves in to believing he had
reformed,
In fact, this happens ->before<- the Numenorians capture Sauron: the
first war of the ring and the founding of Rivendell happened in
1693-1701 Second Age, and the capture of Sauron in 3262. Sauron
appeared before the Elves disguised, named himself "Giver of Gifts";
they did not know him for Sauron until he forged the One
Ring. Although he could still appear in a fair shape until he was
caught in the drowning of Numenor.
Hmm.... clearly, I need to reread the book :-/
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 11:13:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:50:53 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> ejaculated:
On 16 Dec 2003, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:MPG.1a492a2625af3e65989775@news.cis.dfn.de:
Just to comment... Tolkien did not intend that his books would have any
religious significance. Any "religious symbolism" is manufactured from
whole cloth by religionists, and as I'm sure you realize, anything
that's at all philosophical can be interpreted as religious by someone
who really wants to.
You do realize that Tolkien was one of those religionists. He was
instrumental in C S Lewis's conversion to Christianity. (Lewis was
supposedly an atheist prior to his conversion.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
16 Dec 2003 06:42:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:42:31 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of the
lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did get to
see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I hate you and
I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some folks who get
to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am and quibbler-
smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits who bought up all
the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden variety ROTK tickets
and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3 hours 28 minutes and 57
of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far and I doubt
that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report on anything that
seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects. In reading some
advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything too unexpected. I
understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess they thought goblins
seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it isn't too great a
departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm totally
gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big damn winter
coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie is gonna rock.
I am insanely jelous that anyone gets to see it before me. {sigh} I
will have to wait. Job thing you see. That and two kids that are
also drooling to see it so til the weekend when they are mine and
hoping I can get tickets to the Senator.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 05:53:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:42:47 -0500 in alt.atheism, AngryJohn
(AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:42:31 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of the
lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did get to
see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I hate you and
I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some folks who get
to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am and quibbler-
smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits who bought up all
the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden variety ROTK tickets
and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3 hours 28 minutes and 57
of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far and I doubt
that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report on anything that
seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects. In reading some
advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything too unexpected. I
understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess they thought goblins
seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it isn't too great a
departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm totally
gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big damn winter
coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie is gonna rock.
I am insanely jelous that anyone gets to see it before me. {sigh} I
will have to wait. Job thing you see. That and two kids that are
also drooling to see it so til the weekend when they are mine and
hoping I can get tickets to the Senator.
20;10 tonight for me. Looking forward to it, not least because I shall
probably meet Ishtar-Lilith after I leave the Chinese Restaurant for
the cinema. FYI 500 people will witness this.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the cutest atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 06:12:47 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:drg0uvk79a8ajuvus50osaugbmscemvo84@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:42:47 -0500 in alt.atheism, AngryJohn
(AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:42:31 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of
the
lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did get to
see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I hate you and
I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some folks who get
to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am and quibbler-
smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits who bought up all
the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden variety ROTK tickets
and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3 hours 28 minutes and
57
of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far and I
doubt
that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report on anything
that
seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects. In reading some
advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything too unexpected.
I
understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess they thought goblins
seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it isn't too great a
departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm
totally
gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big damn winter
coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie is gonna rock.
I am insanely jelous that anyone gets to see it before me. {sigh} I
will have to wait. Job thing you see. That and two kids that are
also drooling to see it so til the weekend when they are mine and
hoping I can get tickets to the Senator.
20;10 tonight for me. Looking forward to it, not least because I shall
probably meet Ishtar-Lilith after I leave the Chinese Restaurant for
the cinema. FYI 500 people will witness this.
it's not fair, it doesn't come out in australia til midnight christmas day!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 08:10:13 AM |
|
|
In article <3LXDb.56217$aT.44274@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, remove says...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:drg0uvk79a8ajuvus50osaugbmscemvo84@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:42:47 -0500 in alt.atheism, AngryJohn
(AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:42:31 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of
the
lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did get to
see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I hate you and
I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some folks who get
to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am and quibbler-
smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits who bought up all
the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden variety ROTK tickets
and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3 hours 28 minutes and
57
of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far and I
doubt
that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report on anything
that
seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects. In reading some
advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything too unexpected.
I
understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess they thought goblins
seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it isn't too great a
departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm
totally
gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big damn winter
coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie is gonna rock.
I am insanely jelous that anyone gets to see it before me. {sigh} I
will have to wait. Job thing you see. That and two kids that are
also drooling to see it so til the weekend when they are mine and
hoping I can get tickets to the Senator.
20;10 tonight for me. Looking forward to it, not least because I shall
probably meet Ishtar-Lilith after I leave the Chinese Restaurant for
the cinema. FYI 500 people will witness this.
it's not fair, it doesn't come out in australia til midnight christmas day!!
Hell, I have to wait until it comes out on video!
(I'll be damned if I'll pay what they charge at a movie theatre, much less for a
baby sitter) ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Return of the King Movie |
17 Dec 2003 10:52:49 AM |
|
|
In article <9tZDb.36933$cJ5.5652@www.newsranger.com>,
nospam@newsranger.com says...
In article <3LXDb.56217$aT.44274@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, remove says...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:drg0uvk79a8ajuvus50osaugbmscemvo84@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:42:47 -0500 in alt.atheism, AngryJohn
(AngryJohn <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:42:31 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, I'm set to see ROTK at 12:01 am Mountain time. I wasn't one of
the
lucky few who got to see an early preview. If any of you all did get to
see it early then, of course, it goes without saying that I hate you and
I'm insanely jealous :). For that matter, there are some folks who get
to watch the whole trilogy back to back starting at 1 am and quibbler-
smeagol hates them too, because they are evil hobbits who bought up all
the precious tickets. But I got one of the garden variety ROTK tickets
and I'd rather not spend too much more than the 3 hours 28 minutes and
57
of plus ~15 minutes of previews that it's expected to take already.
Of course, I'm also keenly aware of all the religious symbolism in ROTK,
starting with the name. But I haven't let it bother me so far and I
doubt
that it will be a problem now. Naturally, I will report on anything
that
seems particularly significant WRT to aa subjects. In reading some
advance reviews it doesn't sound like there's anything too unexpected.
I
understand that the movie does take some liberties, like having goblins
in the shire when frodo and sam return. I guess they thought goblins
seemed more the demonic villians, but I guess it isn't too great a
departure from the book.
Anyway, is anyone else super stoked about seeing this thing? I'm
totally
gonna haul all kinds of food into the theater inside my big damn winter
coat and munch out until I puke skittles :). This movie is gonna rock.
I am insanely jelous that anyone gets to see it before me. {sigh} I
will have to wait. Job thing you see. | | | | | |
