| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2003 12:40:12 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
Well, I have returned from the Return of the King and I figured I could
say a couple things about it. Of course, I said I wouldn't spoil
anything for anyone and this oath I shall keep to the Heir of Isildur
;)...
Anyway, my first comment would be that it should be rather difficult to
spoil anything for folks when this story has been in print for more than
a half century. However, in actual practice, you couldn't tell that most
people knew the story at all based on their reactions. At least I wasn't
sitting next to five-year-olds who wanted everything explained to them,
but all manner of stupid questions and comments buzzed around me. Every
time Frodo got in trouble I could swear I heard people say, "Oh no, I
hope Frodo doesn't get killed!" and "Look out Frodo! That Gollum's up
to no good!". Various people constantly opined that, "Sam needs to kill
that Gollum dude" at critical junctures in the movie. One wonders how
somebody with even a rudimentary grasp of the plot of the story could
babble on about such things, but then again, I suspect that these people
were not encumbered by such a burden. Many people sounded genuinely
surprised when Denethor tried to host an impromptu marshmellow roast
(yeah, you know what I'm talking about). One person next to me asked,
"Is he crazy or what?" Hummmm....hard to tell...:) Perhaps my favorite
though was, "Why's that wizard called Gandalf the Grape?" By the third
movie I was used to this sort of behavior and was able to take it as
comic relief.
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere. At such points one did almost feel tempted to
throwing in with the *****-eaters and cry out in frustration, "Oh shut
the ***** up and destroy the ring already, you hairy, shoeless little
bastards!" Some reviewers have also pointed out that Jackson could have
chosen to end the story at about five different points before he did. He
even has multi-second blank screen wipes to transition between one ending
and the next, to the point of it becoming a bit anti-climactic. There is
something to be said about ending on a high note, rather than dragging on
for another five to ten minutes trying to wrap up boring, last minute
crap.
That's pretty much all I'm gonna say for now, lest I be tempted to give
away details to specific to this theatrical production. I will say that
you won't be disappointed by the visuals.
--
____________________________________________________
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: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 08:25:37 PM |
|
|
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like those
books so much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 05:53:38 AM |
|
|
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
--
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: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 08:35:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 11:01:30 AM |
|
|
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7je3uvopapcqtc6bscha5s57o2lsd8tfme@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious *****
is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about
reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like
those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street! There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 04:26:07 PM |
|
|
("Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net>):
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street! There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Agreed. It's pretty well-known that Tolkien wasn't the best
*writer*, but he invented fantastic stories and an amazing world,
while also single-handedly bringing about our present conceptions
of things such as elves and dwarves. TSR thanks you, sir!
--
Jeremy Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 09:02:27 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:01:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street! There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Just as detailed, hm?
Name five other schools of magic.
Who is the Minister of Magic?
When was Hogwarts founded?
The first book gets the far beyond the Shire. All the way to
Rivendell, the Moria, and into Gondor (the edges thereof, where the
Fellowship splits. Quite a distance, to be sure!
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
19 Dec 2003 02:46:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:02:27 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:01:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street! There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Just as detailed, hm?
Name five other schools of magic.
Who is the Minister of Magic?
When was Hogwarts founded?
I believe that was mentioned in the current HP book.
The first book gets the far beyond the Shire. All the way to
Rivendell, the Moria, and into Gondor (the edges thereof, where the
Fellowship splits. Quite a distance, to be sure!
I thought the pacing of his books was disrupted by his tendency to
meander. I don't think it's because there was too much information,
but perhaps that it could have been integrated a little bit more into
the narrative. I thought the movies convey the sense of dread and
desperation much more effectively than the book.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -459 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
19 Dec 2003 12:24:45 PM |
|
|
"Yang" <eacmole@SPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2b853.18954875@news.cox.net...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:02:27 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:01:30 GMT, a stranger
called by some "Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging
Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street!
There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a
world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But
most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Just as detailed, hm?
Name five other schools of magic.
Who is the Minister of Magic?
When was Hogwarts founded?
I believe that was mentioned in the current HP book.
The first book gets the far beyond the Shire. All the way to
Rivendell, the Moria, and into Gondor (the edges thereof, where the
Fellowship splits. Quite a distance, to be sure!
I thought the pacing of his books was disrupted by his tendency to
meander. I don't think it's because there was too much information,
but perhaps that it could have been integrated a little bit more into
the narrative. I thought the movies convey the sense of dread and
desperation much more effectively than the book.
Exactly! Tolken will halt the plot in it's tracks and take a 50 page
sabbatical to go into the history of such-and-such. I found it extremely
fustrating. Most authors will weave that stuff in a page at a time to keep
the plot flowing. I think Tolkens books would have been much more
compelling had he used flashbacks to go into the history, instead he wrote
it like a highschool history text.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 11:27:47 AM |
|
|
Nakas wrote:
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7je3uvopapcqtc6bscha5s57o2lsd8tfme@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious *****
is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about
reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like
those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street! There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Don't tell me, let me guess, you're not terribly fond of Stephen King,
either?
--
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: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 03:41:19 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu3osltb50pl38@news.supernews.com...
Nakas wrote:
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7je3uvopapcqtc6bscha5s57o2lsd8tfme@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While
critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling
about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious *****
is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about
reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored
the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like
those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging
Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street!
There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a
world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But
most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Don't tell me, let me guess, you're not terribly fond of Stephen King,
either?
I read the one that was the basis for "The Running Man", I forget what the
name was (maybe the same name). I thought it was really good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 03:58:01 PM |
|
|
Nakas wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu3osltb50pl38@news.supernews.com...
Nakas wrote:
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7je3uvopapcqtc6bscha5s57o2lsd8tfme@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While
critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling
about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious *****
is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about
reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored
the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like
those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging
Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street!
There's
such a thing as too much detail. J.K. Rowland was able to create a
world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along. But
most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Don't tell me, let me guess, you're not terribly fond of Stephen King,
either?
I read the one that was the basis for "The Running Man", I forget what the
name was (maybe the same name). I thought it was really good.
He gets pretty long-winded at times.
--
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: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
22 Dec 2003 08:52:57 AM |
|
|
Nakas wrote:
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7je3uvopapcqtc6bscha5s57o2lsd8tfme@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious *****
is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about
reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like
those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
It took Tolken an entire book to just get them out of the frigging Shire.
That's like writing a 400 page book about walking down my street! There's
such a thing as too much detail.
But it is *important* detail. Make an effort to see the points Tolkien is
raising. Here, let me help:
1. The Ring empowers the owner's dissatisfaction, the lusts and desires. The
reason why Hobbits, as a rule, are able to resist the Ring so long is that they
are a contented, happy people. It is important to show that.
2. Outside the Shire, and with very few exceptions (like Rivendell and possibly
Bree), the world is a cold, brutal place. But even in such a larger world, there
remain places where family and hearth are not merely important, but integral
parts of existence. Outside the Shire, how many happy families do we see?
3. Even though well protected (remember, the Rangers had been guarding the
borders of the Shire for a long time), evil was still infiltrating in. It took
the presence of a Dark Rider sniffing around Hobbiton to convince Frodo to
finally leave years after he was supposed to leave. (The timeline in the movies
was much compressed. In the books, Frodo left the Shire some 12 years after
Bilbo disappeared, very reluctant to give up everything he had.)
4. It sets up a contrast for the final chapter of the story, "The Scourging of
the Shire." The contrast between the Shire when our heroes left and the Shire
when our heroes return shows the lingering effects of evil, even after it has
been defeated.
J.K. Rowland was able to create a world
just as detailed, plus she made a plot that actually moves along.
Rowland has never tried to recreate the grandeur and scope of epic poetry, nor
did she come out of a background of epic scale literature; she wrote a book for
children about children. Tolkien deliberately used English epic (such as
Beowulf) and Finnish epic (such as the Kalevala) as his metaphor. Comparing the
two authors is rather like trying to compare Beverly Cleary and Edward Chaucer.
But most
importantly, every time Harry takes a ***** she didn't feel compelled to
write an entire chapter on the history of the toilet.
Tolkien never mentions toilet habits, not once.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 09:08:00 AM |
|
|
AngryJohn wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
I was a bit older, about fifteen, when my English teacher assigned The
Hobbit. I still remember it *very* vividly:
"Mrs. Smith! This is a *KIDS* story! Dwarves and wizards! Eeeewwww!"
"Just keep reading, there's going to be a test."
Then the story gets going. It gets *dark*. *wham* the class goes crazy.
All the girls were making hobbit dolls...
Then Mrs. Smith said that there were more books, and the Ring was
important...
--
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: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
22 Dec 2003 08:35:19 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
AngryJohn wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
I loved the books when I first read them and re-read them every couple
of years. I was 12/13 the first time I read them. I liked the
detail. Yes, it could be a slow read if a person is used to the
blip-blip-blip of modern life, commercials, 30 second spots, and
contemporary writing. Nothing recent really creates the world. the
vision, turned on my imagination like Tolkien did. Then again, I like
to read, always have, the more detailed, in fiction, the better.
I was a bit older, about fifteen, when my English teacher assigned The
Hobbit. I still remember it *very* vividly:
"Mrs. Smith! This is a *KIDS* story! Dwarves and wizards! Eeeewwww!"
"Just keep reading, there's going to be a test."
Then the story gets going. It gets *dark*. *wham* the class goes crazy.
All the girls were making hobbit dolls...
Then Mrs. Smith said that there were more books, and the Ring was
important...
Here, try it. A little bit of crack never hurt anyone....
I like the themes and storyline of The Hobbit, but the elves going
"Tra-la-la-la-la" as they skip through the forest got on my nerves. Yes, it *is* a
children's story and a "serious" reader can excuse Frodo's ignorance of the beauty
and richness of Sindarin, but still.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 10:56:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:00 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I was a bit older, about fifteen, when my English teacher assigned The
Hobbit. I still remember it *very* vividly:
"Mrs. Smith! This is a *KIDS* story! Dwarves and wizards! Eeeewwww!"
"Just keep reading, there's going to be a test."
Then the story gets going. It gets *dark*. *wham* the class goes crazy.
All the girls were making hobbit dolls...
Then Mrs. Smith said that there were more books, and the Ring was
important...
For me it was a bit different. I found an old battered copy in the
school library, in our tiny English section. (Remember, I'm Dutch. In
1973 Tolkien wasn't very well known in Holland.) Thought to give it a
go, even if the book seemed so old...
Never regretted it. Couldn't put it down. The Ring was even better. I
have read it countless time by now.
Got me an immediate 'A' for English Literature at college, four A's
actually. Each for one of the books. Great man, Tolkien.
See: we may not agree with the US policy over Iraq, but we do agree
about something. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
19 Dec 2003 02:51:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
Some people don't look beyond the surface to see fully developed/still
developing characters, a fascinating history, stirring battles,
loyalty and treachery, tragedy and victory and the battle of all
battles between good and evil. They just want to go from one action
scene to another and ignore all the heavy discussions and willingness
to suffer to achieve a goal that are the meat of the story.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action,
rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith.
Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let
me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. For
happiness is the only good, reason the only torch,
justice the only worship, and love the only priest.
- Robert Green Ingersoll
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
19 Dec 2003 12:13:54 PM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ede5uvcp5t2o40heq9vdjef1035llntunm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:53:38 -0500, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Nakas wrote:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious *****
is
going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much.
I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited about
reading
the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I was so bored the
whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does everyone like
those
books so much?
I don't understand why people find it boring. It's got the grandeur of
the old epic poetry and a story that just gets in there and *digs*.
Some people don't look beyond the surface to see fully developed/still
developing characters, a fascinating history, stirring battles,
loyalty and treachery, tragedy and victory and the battle of all
battles between good and evil. They just want to go from one action
scene to another and ignore all the heavy discussions and willingness
to suffer to achieve a goal that are the meat of the story.
I'm not saying that it doesn't have fully developed/still developing
characters, a fascinating history, etc. I'm just saying it made me bored at
times. That is, after all, perhaps the best metric by which to judge any
book.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 09:30:16 AM |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2003, "Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:Be8Eb.74337$8y1.277864@attbi_s52:
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While
critical things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually
ambling about and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even
if Tolkien did write the story a little like this, there clearly was
some editorial discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat
while serious ***** is going down elsewhere.
You know, I could never really understand why people like the books so
much. I used to play D&D as a kid and I remember being so excited
about reading the trilogy that started it all. But when I read it I
was so bored the whole time, I was so utterly disappointed. Why does
everyone like those books so much?
Some like it, some don't. I didn't find the books boring at all -- I
find them a beautifully crafted mythology.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 07:11:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:40:12 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, I have returned from the Return of the King and I figured I could
say a couple things about it. Of course, I said I wouldn't spoil
anything for anyone and this oath I shall keep to the Heir of Isildur
;)...
Anyway, my first comment would be that it should be rather difficult to
spoil anything for folks when this story has been in print for more than
a half century. However, in actual practice, you couldn't tell that most
people knew the story at all based on their reactions. At least I wasn't
sitting next to five-year-olds who wanted everything explained to them,
but all manner of stupid questions and comments buzzed around me. Every
time Frodo got in trouble I could swear I heard people say, "Oh no, I
hope Frodo doesn't get killed!" and "Look out Frodo! That Gollum's up
to no good!". Various people constantly opined that, "Sam needs to kill
that Gollum dude" at critical junctures in the movie. One wonders how
somebody with even a rudimentary grasp of the plot of the story could
babble on about such things, but then again, I suspect that these people
were not encumbered by such a burden. Many people sounded genuinely
surprised when Denethor tried to host an impromptu marshmellow roast
(yeah, you know what I'm talking about). One person next to me asked,
"Is he crazy or what?" Hummmm....hard to tell...:) Perhaps my favorite
though was, "Why's that wizard called Gandalf the Grape?" By the third
movie I was used to this sort of behavior and was able to take it as
comic relief.
My second comment, which I think some reviews of the movie echoed, is
that there are times in the movie that do sort of drag. While critical
things are going on elsewhere, sam and frodo are casually ambling about
and talking about what hobbit bread tastes like. Even if Tolkien did
write the story a little like this, there clearly was some editorial
discretion about throwing in distracting chit chat while serious ***** is
going down elsewhere. At such points one did almost feel tempted to
throwing in with the *****-eaters and cry out in frustration, "Oh shut
the ***** up and destroy the ring already, you hairy, shoeless little
bastards!" Some reviewers have also pointed out that Jackson could have
chosen to end the story at about five different points before he did. He
even has multi-second blank screen wipes to transition between one ending
and the next, to the point of it becoming a bit anti-climactic. There is
something to be said about ending on a high note, rather than dragging on
for another five to ten minutes trying to wrap up boring, last minute
crap.
That's pretty much all I'm gonna say for now, lest I be tempted to give
away details to specific to this theatrical production. I will say that
you won't be disappointed by the visuals.
Still haven't seen this one yet, soon! I will comment on the audience
at large. From my viewing experiences most of them had never rea the
books. There were just too many dumb questions. My kids knew more
than most adults there and they only know what I have told them or
snippets I have read. Face, movies, for the most part, are for people
too lazy to read.
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 09:56:59 AM |
|
|
In article <khv1uv0fg40ehsoe0edhiflvp6vuhqvcre@4ax.com>, AngryJohn says...
snip
Still haven't seen this one yet, soon! I will comment on the audience
at large. From my viewing experiences most of them had never rea the
books. There were just too many dumb questions. My kids knew more
than most adults there and they only know what I have told them or
snippets I have read. Face, movies, for the most part, are for people
too lazy to read.
LOL, perhaps that why I don't go to too many movies. I wish I had the time to
read as much as I want :)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles R Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
21 Dec 2003 10:06:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:11:26 UTC, AngryJohn
<KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote:
Still haven't seen this one yet, soon! I will comment on the audience
at large. From my viewing experiences most of them had never rea the
books. There were just too many dumb questions. My kids knew more
than most adults there and they only know what I have told them or
snippets I have read. Face, movies, for the most part, are for people
too lazy to read.
I had a once only experience in 1994 at the first local
showing of "The Puppet Masters", I don't recall that they
showed previews of coming attractions, the theater was
full of people talking about the book, other Heinlein books,
computers and several other subjects.
Charles R Ward
--
"I do live among my fellow atheists. I also happen to live
among Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Satanists
and followers of various other religions -- all of which
have a perfect right to live in the United States without
interference because of their religion or lack thereof no
matter how much it irks you." Liz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 01:07:39 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Well, I have returned from the Return of the King and I figured I could
say a couple things about it. Of course, I said I wouldn't spoil
anything for anyone and this oath I shall keep to the Heir of Isildur
;)...
Anyway, my first comment would be that it should be rather difficult to
spoil anything for folks when this story has been in print for more than
a half century. However, in actual practice, you couldn't tell that most
people knew the story at all based on their reactions. At least I wasn't
sitting next to five-year-olds who wanted everything explained to them,
but all manner of stupid questions and comments buzzed around me. Every
time Frodo got in trouble I could swear I heard people say, "Oh no, I
hope Frodo doesn't get killed!" and "Look out Frodo! That Gollum's up
to no good!". Various people constantly opined that, "Sam needs to kill
that Gollum dude" at critical junctures in the movie. One wonders how
somebody with even a rudimentary grasp of the plot of the story could
babble on about such things, but then again, I suspect that these people
were not encumbered by such a burden. Many people sounded genuinely
surprised when Denethor tried to host an impromptu marshmellow roast
(yeah, you know what I'm talking about). One person next to me asked,
"Is he crazy or what?" Hummmm....hard to tell...:) Perhaps my favorite
though was, "Why's that wizard called Gandalf the Grape?" By the third
movie I was used to this sort of behavior and was able to take it as
comic relief.
I perennially make the mistake of seeing the LotR movies with a group of
gamers. All of us play two or more of Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot,
Dungeons & Dragons, Neverwinter Nights or any of a half dozen similar games.
Some of the more amusing comments we've made in the theather....
[From an EQ player, at the Council of Elrond]
Ok, so what druid ring is closest to Mordor?
Four damn halflings, and not one of them is a druid?
You mean the wood elf ain't a druid, either?!
Gandalf is a wizard. What's the nearest wizard portal to Mordor?
[In Moria, when the goblins first appear]
Ok, who set off the area of effect spell?
[In Moria, when they are surrounded on all sides by goblins]
Now would be a good time for a fireball, Gandalf. A really good time.
[In Moria, when the balrog makes an appearance]
Hey! This is supposed to be a *low level* dungeon!
And so on :-P
--
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: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 01:47:53 PM |
|
|
In article <3FE0A97B.2DCA296F@serv.net>, says...
quibbler wrote:
Now would be a good time for a fireball, Gandalf. A really good time.
Yep, actually some of the "magic" in the Tolkien world is a bit
rare, lackluster and lame. A lot of problems could be solved by simple
flying spells, healing potions etc :). Plus, gandalf really throws down
with folks like Sauruman, but then he doesn't use many of those same
powers in other situations where they would come in handy.
[In Moria, when the balrog makes an appearance]
Hey! This is supposed to be a *low level* dungeon!
Yeah and why doesn't Sauron have some of those bad asses helping him out
in later battles?
--
____________________________________________________
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: "Wolf333" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 06:05:18 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a4a60c496ba56ad989782@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <3FE0A97B.2DCA296F@serv.net>, says...
quibbler wrote:
Now would be a good time for a fireball, Gandalf. A really good time.
Yep, actually some of the "magic" in the Tolkien world is a bit
rare, lackluster and lame. A lot of problems could be solved by simple
flying spells, healing potions etc :). Plus, gandalf really throws down
with folks like Sauruman, but then he doesn't use many of those same
powers in other situations where they would come in handy.
To quote the Red Dragon (from the excellent comicbook, "Bone," not the
Thomas Harris novel), "that's right kid... never throw an ace when a two
will do." Tolkein never really goes into this, but maybe Gandalf's power is
limited - could be he's saving up for the big guys.
Then again... it could be some kind of character building thing. Let the
Hobbits know that they are strong enough to do what needs to be done... etc.
And then again, it would be a pretty damn boring story if every danger could
be Gandalfed away.
[In Moria, when the balrog makes an appearance]
Hey! This is supposed to be a *low level* dungeon!
Yeah and why doesn't Sauron have some of those bad asses helping him out
in later battles?
See above. Maybe Sauron's powers are limited and he blew his load at the
beginning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 02:20:37 PM |
|
|
"Wolf333" <wolfe333@spaM.excite.com> wrote in message news:<vu1rq98gfhui36@corp.supernews.com>...
To quote the Red Dragon (from the excellent comicbook, "Bone," not the
Thomas Harris novel), "that's right kid... never throw an ace when a two
will do." Tolkein never really goes into this, but maybe Gandalf's power is
limited - could be he's saving up for the big guys.
Actually, he did, but mostly in the Silmarilion. The wizards were put
on Earth to persuade, not to interfere. If anything, Gandalf oversteps
his bounds. But it needs to be pointed out that in the books there was
little overt magic in his confrontation with Saruman.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 02:12:47 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:07:39 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
I perennially make the mistake of seeing the LotR movies with a group of
gamers. All of us play two or more of Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot,
Dungeons & Dragons, Neverwinter Nights or any of a half dozen similar games.
Some of the more amusing comments we've made in the theather....
A few years back, Dork Tower ran a strip where Carson was allowed to
play Gandalf.
"Ooh.. what kind of spells do you have?"
"I can talk to birds."
"What?"
"I can talk to birds, set pine cones on fire, and.. oh! I can make
fireworks!"
The fact is that Gandalf doesn't really do that much.
There was a discussion on a DnD list I read about Aragorn and the
Sword That Was Broken. A true gamer would have said "A magic sword?
With my name on it? A truly legendary, epic, BIG BAD MAGIC SWORD and
it's MINE for the taking? Superglue, stat!"
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 04:03:34 PM |
|
|
On 17 Dec 2003, Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
screwed up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message in news:5vd1uv480j4bs1s7fhdn0gei2pok3au90k@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:07:39 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
I perennially make the mistake of seeing the LotR movies with a group
of gamers. All of us play two or more of Everquest, Dark Age of
Camelot, Dungeons & Dragons, Neverwinter Nights or any of a half dozen
similar games. Some of the more amusing comments we've made in the
theather....
A few years back, Dork Tower ran a strip where Carson was allowed to
play Gandalf.
"Ooh.. what kind of spells do you have?"
"I can talk to birds."
"What?"
"I can talk to birds, set pine cones on fire, and.. oh! I can make
fireworks!"
The fact is that Gandalf doesn't really do that much.
This is true... however, you have to remember that in LoTR, wizardly
magic is not so much in terms of powerful, flashy spells as it is in
wisdom and lore and ability to create powerful things after long labor
and lots of blood, sweat, and tears.
They weren't the fireball-throwing types of wizards. They were the wise
type of wizards.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 10:24:09 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9454A388E84D5Mekkala@199.45.49.11>, Mekkala says...
On 17 Dec 2003, Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
screwed up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message in news:5vd1uv480j4bs1s7fhdn0gei2pok3au90k@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:07:39 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
I perennially make the mistake of seeing the LotR movies with a group
of gamers. All of us play two or more of Everquest, Dark Age of
Camelot, Dungeons & Dragons, Neverwinter Nights or any of a half dozen
similar games. Some of the more amusing comments we've made in the
theather....
A few years back, Dork Tower ran a strip where Carson was allowed to
play Gandalf.
"Ooh.. what kind of spells do you have?"
"I can talk to birds."
"What?"
"I can talk to birds, set pine cones on fire, and.. oh! I can make
fireworks!"
The fact is that Gandalf doesn't really do that much.
This is true... however, you have to remember that in LoTR, wizardly
magic is not so much in terms of powerful, flashy spells as it is in
wisdom and lore and ability to create powerful things after long labor
and lots of blood, sweat, and tears.
They weren't the fireball-throwing types of wizards. They were the wise
type of wizards.
I like the Discworld wizards - They're a hoot!
Dried frog pills, anyone? ;D
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
17 Dec 2003 04:36:09 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
screwed up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message in news:5vd1uv480j4bs1s7fhdn0gei2pok3au90k@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:07:39 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
I perennially make the mistake of seeing the LotR movies with a group
of gamers. All of us play two or more of Everquest, Dark Age of
Camelot, Dungeons & Dragons, Neverwinter Nights or any of a half dozen
similar games. Some of the more amusing comments we've made in the
theather....
A few years back, Dork Tower ran a strip where Carson was allowed to
play Gandalf.
"Ooh.. what kind of spells do you have?"
"I can talk to birds."
"What?"
"I can talk to birds, set pine cones on fire, and.. oh! I can make
fireworks!"
The fact is that Gandalf doesn't really do that much.
This is true... however, you have to remember that in LoTR, wizardly
magic is not so much in terms of powerful, flashy spells as it is in
wisdom and lore and ability to create powerful things after long labor
and lots of blood, sweat, and tears.
They weren't the fireball-throwing types of wizards. They were the wise
type of wizards.
Yup. Their role was to learn everything they could about Sauron and to
prevent his return; because of this, their powers were ones of knowledge and
insight rather than raw displays. In fact, they were strictly prohibited
from using their powers to dominate others. Saruman broke that rule and was
both thrown down and eternally exiled because of it.
And actually, that is one of the great things (IMO) that Tolkien did, make
magic a natural, organic force rather than all flash and bang. It fits in
very well with a naturalistic setting, legend rather than myth.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Some Comments on Return of the King (no spoilers) |
18 Dec 2003 11:16:20 AM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3FE0DA59.63918AA3@serv.net...
Mekkala wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003, Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com>
screwed up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message in news:5vd1uv480j4bs1s7fhdn0gei2pok3au90k@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:07:39 -0800, a stranger
called by some Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> came forth and told
this tale in alt.atheism
I perennially make the mistake of seeing the LotR movies with a group
of gamers. All of us play two or more of Everquest, Dark Age of
Camelot, Dungeons & Dragons, Neverwinter Nights or any of a half dozen
similar games. Some of the more amusing comments we've made in the
theather....
A few years back, Dork Tower ran a strip where Carson was allowed to
play Gandalf.
"Ooh.. what kind of spells do you have?"
"I can talk to birds."
"What?"
"I can talk to birds, set pine cones on fire, and.. oh! I can make
fireworks!"
The fact is that Gandalf doesn't really do that much.
This is true... however, you have to remember that in LoTR, wizardly
magic is not so much in terms of powerful, flashy spells as it is in
wisdom and lore and ability to create powerful things after long labor
and lots of blood, sweat, and tears.
They weren't the fireball-throwing types of wizards. They were the wise
type of wizards.
Yup. Their role was to learn everything they could about Sauron and to
prevent his return; because of this, their powers were ones of knowledge
and
insight rather than raw displays. In fact, they were strictly prohibited
from using their powers to dominate others. Saruman broke that rule and
was
both thrown down and eternally exiled because of it.
And actually, that is one of the great things (IMO) that Tolkien did, make
magic a natural, organic force rather than all flash and bang. It fits in
very well with a naturalistic setting, legend rather than myth.
Well, the wizards must not have been to bright. Not one of them thought to
go look for the ring where whats-his-name was ambushed and killed in the
river. Think about it, an entire war was fought over this thing and nobody
went looking for it? How much intelligence does it take to figure out where
it is? The entire party is dead on the bank of a river, what's-his-name is
washed up on the shore of the river a little ways downstream. Do you think
maybe it could be in the river? It was like 50 feet from where the party
was ambushed. I find it utterly unbelievable that the ring could be lost so
easily.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
