Warning: potentialy unpopular opinion inside
12-30-02, 05:38 PM
#76
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by caligulathegod
I found 7 occurances of the word "faggot" in Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. While he meant it as "sticks for the fire" (just as it does in England today) does that mean he meant it in the perjorative sense as a subtext? Sometimes we are too culture-centric and read into everything our own experiences and prejudices. While that can be good or intentional for some art, this is Tolkien. His answer for how Orcs reproduce is "after the manner of the Children of Illuvatar". How much more chaste must he get before it becomes clear that sex is not an undercurrent in his work? He even left Aragorn & Arwen out of the story and had to put them in an appendix so you knew what the heck was going on with them.
I found 7 occurances of the word "faggot" in Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. While he meant it as "sticks for the fire" (just as it does in England today) does that mean he meant it in the perjorative sense as a subtext? Sometimes we are too culture-centric and read into everything our own experiences and prejudices. While that can be good or intentional for some art, this is Tolkien. His answer for how Orcs reproduce is "after the manner of the Children of Illuvatar". How much more chaste must he get before it becomes clear that sex is not an undercurrent in his work? He even left Aragorn & Arwen out of the story and had to put them in an appendix so you knew what the heck was going on with them.
I'm just amazed someone counted how many times the word "faggot" appears in the books.
Or do you have a Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Concordance?
12-30-02, 05:43 PM
#77
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by movielib
I totally agree with you and all those who say there is nothing homoerotic in TLOTR. In fact I find the idea very silly.
I'm just amazed someone counted how many times the word "faggot" appears in the books.
Or do you have a Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Concordance?
I totally agree with you and all those who say there is nothing homoerotic in TLOTR. In fact I find the idea very silly.
I'm just amazed someone counted how many times the word "faggot" appears in the books.
Or do you have a Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Concordance?
Last edited by caligulathegod; 12-30-02 at 05:48 PM.
12-30-02, 07:01 PM
#79
Suspended
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Flava-Country!
Posts: 3,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Anyone who says stuff like this either says it because they either have an agenda, or are gay themselves(whether they know it or not) and want to find it somewhere, or at least have no concept about the world of J.R.R. Tolkien and what the stories mean.
Anyone who says stuff like this either says it because they either have an agenda, or are gay themselves(whether they know it or not) and want to find it somewhere, or at least have no concept about the world of J.R.R. Tolkien and what the stories mean.
Were the hobbits flaming? No. Did Fodo come right out and say "Damn Gandolf - you 've got a fine ass. Hows about we slip out for a little bit of the Hot and Sweaty Monkey Luv?" No. But I did see it in a very subtle manner.
Is this a bad thing? No - I dont care which way the gate swings for the characters in any film I watch (James Bond being the sole exception) - it was just a observation. No more, no less.
12-30-02, 11:43 PM
#80
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by chipmac
Where can you get these books as PDF files? I'd like to get copies in order to do searches like that for reference reasons.
Where can you get these books as PDF files? I'd like to get copies in order to do searches like that for reference reasons.
12-31-02, 08:39 AM
#81
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by El-Kabong
Nope, no agenda - at least that I'm aware of, and last time I looked I was straight.
Nope, no agenda - at least that I'm aware of, and last time I looked I was straight.
I think Banky Edwards had the same train of thought!
12-31-02, 01:55 PM
#82
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DeputyDave
That said, ANYONE saying you must read a book to enjoy or appriciate a movie is an idiot. A movie should stand on its own with out support from its book. And yes, you do sound like geek boy snobs when you say it.
That said, ANYONE saying you must read a book to enjoy or appriciate a movie is an idiot. A movie should stand on its own with out support from its book. And yes, you do sound like geek boy snobs when you say it.
No, you do not have the books to understand this movie. However, the movie doesn't have the time to explain everything that's covered in the book. Consider it a Cliff's Notes or a FAQ if you will. It tells you the general plot, the general characters, and what they do.
Some people watch the movie and say "well, why didn't xxxx go and xxxxx when xxxxxx happened?" Almost all of these kinds of questions are covered in the book, and are not "logical problems" or "inconsistencies". If you are so into the movie that you need to ask such questions, there is a place where they are all answered -- the books.
The movies stand alone just fine. However, if you want to know more, or you have unresovled questions about events that happened, there are answers, and the correct response is not "this movie sucks."
12-31-02, 03:14 PM
#83
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by einTier
The movies stand alone just fine. However, if you want to know more, or you have unresovled questions about events that happened, there are answers, and the correct response is not "this movie sucks."
The movies stand alone just fine. However, if you want to know more, or you have unresovled questions about events that happened, there are answers, and the correct response is not "this movie sucks."
I always see cinematic translations of literary works as more or less an advertisement for the books themselves. More like saying,"Like what you see? Read the books if you want to get more out of this material!" Films like LOTR can actually help get people interested in reading altogether, and for that I applaud it.
I read Bram Stoker's Dracula after seeing the Coppola version, and while it (the movie) was faithful to an extent, it was different for good reason. Coppola made a visually beautiful film that honors the book in many respects, but it is not the actual book on screen. In all honesty, a direct translation of ANY classic would not come across to well. Even the great film Gone With the Wind had to take many liberties to avoid making Scarlett O'Hara look like a pure woman. (In the book, she had two kids out of wedlock before settling with Rhett I believe.)
12-31-02, 04:41 PM
#84
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
The disadvantage this film has is that it depicts a completely invented world. Not like, say, the NeverEnding Story but more like Saving Private Ryan. Imagine making Saving Private Ryan and having to explain not only Hitler and WWII, but WWI and how it was started. You'd have to go into the history of the Balkan states, Austria-Hungary, the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand, the War itself, the entry of the United States (and why it took so long to join in), how the other countries punished Germany with reparations, how the German democracy failed, how the economy spiraled into hyperinflation, how a failed Austrian artist became a corporal in WWI and later met up with National Socialists and tried to take over Germany and was thrown into jail and wrote a scathing treatise on his beliefs, how he eventually won power, how the other countries rolled over in an attempt to appease him, how they gave him Czechloslavakia, how he took Eastern Europe, signed a non-aggression pact with Russia and disregarded it, how he defeated France and attacked England, how he scapegoated Jews, why Jews were hated in the first place, the laws passed to keep Jews down, the Ghettos, the Concentration Camps, the attempt by German scientists to develop a nuclear weapon after deporting the Jew that came up with the idea, how the Americans developed it instead, the Enigma machine, how the Americans entered the war against Germany and Japan, the American war against Japan, Japan's actions in the Pacific, etc...
Obviously, this could go on forever. I said all that to make a point. Imagine taking all that backstory and making a film about trying to get a soldier out because he was the last son left in his family. We don't need all that backstory explained to us to understand and enjoy the story. Now, if we wanted to know why Private Ryan was at war and what that war was about, then we would have to research it in Books or other source material. Tolkien not only created that kind of backstory but also worked out a kind of History of Western Civilization all the way back to the Creation of the world. It was his life's work and he spent almost 60 years on it. Lord of the Rings is actually about 2-3 years in a history of about 30,000 + years. The Elves in the First and Second Ages had great rollicking adventures and many battles against Morgoth and Sauron. The battled and lusted and loved. The story of the battles over the Silmaril jewels and the story of Beren the man and Luthien the Elf maiden are central to his mythology. The Third Age is the transistion period from the world of Elves to the dominion of Men. The Elves linger, content to live in memories of past achievements. That's what the Three Elven Rings of Power are for: they forstall change, e.i. decay. Gradually, the Elves have been leaving Middle Earth to live with the Valar (Gods) and turning over Middle Earth to men. Lord of the Rings is the actual transistion point. It is about how Men must finally prove they are worthy to take Middle Earth by defeating the great Enemy once and for all. The Ring itself is a MacGuffin. The real story is Aragorn and his transistion from Ranger to King and reclaiming Gondor and Arnor as a reunited Kingdom in league with the Kingdom of Rohan by defeating the Dark Lord. Since we are not a part of that world it makes sense to see the world from a more intimate vantage point. So we are given the view of the world from its least important citizens, the Hobbits. Hobbits have been content to keep to themselves and not bother about the world. The running gag in the books is that no one has ever heard of them, or if they have, they have no songs or stories about them. And this is a world that lives on its songs and stories. So this sets us up with the incredible irony that Hobbits bring about the most important element in changing the world. A Hobbit found the Ring and another Hobbit destroys it. LOTR is the Hobbits' story, too. They are our representative in the story.
Please keep it in mind that LOTR is incomparable to just about any other work of literature. Not that it is better, but it is unique in its depth and breadth while actually telling a simple story.
Obviously, this could go on forever. I said all that to make a point. Imagine taking all that backstory and making a film about trying to get a soldier out because he was the last son left in his family. We don't need all that backstory explained to us to understand and enjoy the story. Now, if we wanted to know why Private Ryan was at war and what that war was about, then we would have to research it in Books or other source material. Tolkien not only created that kind of backstory but also worked out a kind of History of Western Civilization all the way back to the Creation of the world. It was his life's work and he spent almost 60 years on it. Lord of the Rings is actually about 2-3 years in a history of about 30,000 + years. The Elves in the First and Second Ages had great rollicking adventures and many battles against Morgoth and Sauron. The battled and lusted and loved. The story of the battles over the Silmaril jewels and the story of Beren the man and Luthien the Elf maiden are central to his mythology. The Third Age is the transistion period from the world of Elves to the dominion of Men. The Elves linger, content to live in memories of past achievements. That's what the Three Elven Rings of Power are for: they forstall change, e.i. decay. Gradually, the Elves have been leaving Middle Earth to live with the Valar (Gods) and turning over Middle Earth to men. Lord of the Rings is the actual transistion point. It is about how Men must finally prove they are worthy to take Middle Earth by defeating the great Enemy once and for all. The Ring itself is a MacGuffin. The real story is Aragorn and his transistion from Ranger to King and reclaiming Gondor and Arnor as a reunited Kingdom in league with the Kingdom of Rohan by defeating the Dark Lord. Since we are not a part of that world it makes sense to see the world from a more intimate vantage point. So we are given the view of the world from its least important citizens, the Hobbits. Hobbits have been content to keep to themselves and not bother about the world. The running gag in the books is that no one has ever heard of them, or if they have, they have no songs or stories about them. And this is a world that lives on its songs and stories. So this sets us up with the incredible irony that Hobbits bring about the most important element in changing the world. A Hobbit found the Ring and another Hobbit destroys it. LOTR is the Hobbits' story, too. They are our representative in the story.
Please keep it in mind that LOTR is incomparable to just about any other work of literature. Not that it is better, but it is unique in its depth and breadth while actually telling a simple story.
12-31-02, 05:42 PM
#85
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 4,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Duckie
Because it is most definitely a relevant topic of interest. Whether you want to discuss Victorian ideas of male bonding versus modern perception (as well as whether one view necessarily invalidates the other), or how successfully, unsuccessfully or subversively it might be portrayed in the film, it's more relevant than the threadcrap you so generously contributed. Or was that just the appearance of a threadcrap?
Because it is most definitely a relevant topic of interest. Whether you want to discuss Victorian ideas of male bonding versus modern perception (as well as whether one view necessarily invalidates the other), or how successfully, unsuccessfully or subversively it might be portrayed in the film, it's more relevant than the threadcrap you so generously contributed. Or was that just the appearance of a threadcrap?
Sorry for the explanation, but some of the viewings of these works seem way too agenda-d.
12-31-02, 10:07 PM
#86
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by silentbob007
Sorry for the explanation, but some of the viewings of these works seem way too agenda-d.
Sorry for the explanation, but some of the viewings of these works seem way too agenda-d.
Clearly, the subject interests enough of us here to generate constructive discussion. Personally, some of the most fruitful arguments I've had have been unwinnable ones, especially when they branch into/from other questions. You don't have to lose or win an argument in order to offer and take away something from it.
01-02-03, 05:36 AM
#89
New Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even in reading the books there are huge gaps in the story. Pick up the FOTR extended DVD and watch through the special features for some background on Tolkien and his writing of the books. His intent was to create a sort of new mythology for a country that had no real mythology of its own. He didn't map out the story beforehand, he simply sat down and started writing which is amazing considering how coherent the entire story turned out to be. LOTR is simply part of a huge mythological creation which includes everything from the creation of the world, the rise of the first great evil (for whom Sauron was a minion), the first few ages, and on into the LOTR series and the rise of man and passing of elves. Having started on The Silmarillion, there's even more background to the story only hinted at in LOTR.
For the dryness of the first book, keep struggling. A good part of the first book is dry, but it gets much better about halfway through and continues to pick up pace throughout the last two books. In many ways I like the revisions made to the beginning by the movie since it cuts short alot of long and tedious story. I did miss the four hobbits picking up their weapons from their encounter with the Barrow-Wights, but that would have necessitated covering alot more of the tediousness.
I second the craptacular green screen work on the Hobbits and Treebeard. I also didn't care for the butchering of Helm's deep and the involvement of the Ents. I'm at a loss as to why they cut out the Ents' involvement in the battle and went with the inexplicable routing of 10,000 Uruk-Hai by 2-3,000 cavalry, especially given how well Saruman's forces were doing taking the castle. Gandalf is powerful, but I think he'd be a little lost against 10,000 Uruk. In the book you get to see the "tree herders" in action when a huge forest appears in the night, and the forest exacts it's revenge on the Orcs and Uruks that butchered other trees at Saruman's bidding. It's a little less climactic, but it's a bit more believeable than an army of evil, bloodthirsty orcs turning tail and fleeing from a few cavalry. IMO it gives a greater sense of the mystical wonder of the LOTR universe and the unknown power of its natural forces when roused.
Try on the books again for a greater appreciation of the movies, or go see them a few more times. Either that or maybe wait for all three to be released in extended DVD form and watch them at one go. Like the books, these aren't releases that can be appreciated on their own ala Star Wars. This is more of a three part mini-series released i the theater. Viewing them as anything less is to invite disappointment in each individual movie.
G
For the dryness of the first book, keep struggling. A good part of the first book is dry, but it gets much better about halfway through and continues to pick up pace throughout the last two books. In many ways I like the revisions made to the beginning by the movie since it cuts short alot of long and tedious story. I did miss the four hobbits picking up their weapons from their encounter with the Barrow-Wights, but that would have necessitated covering alot more of the tediousness.
I second the craptacular green screen work on the Hobbits and Treebeard. I also didn't care for the butchering of Helm's deep and the involvement of the Ents. I'm at a loss as to why they cut out the Ents' involvement in the battle and went with the inexplicable routing of 10,000 Uruk-Hai by 2-3,000 cavalry, especially given how well Saruman's forces were doing taking the castle. Gandalf is powerful, but I think he'd be a little lost against 10,000 Uruk. In the book you get to see the "tree herders" in action when a huge forest appears in the night, and the forest exacts it's revenge on the Orcs and Uruks that butchered other trees at Saruman's bidding. It's a little less climactic, but it's a bit more believeable than an army of evil, bloodthirsty orcs turning tail and fleeing from a few cavalry. IMO it gives a greater sense of the mystical wonder of the LOTR universe and the unknown power of its natural forces when roused.
Try on the books again for a greater appreciation of the movies, or go see them a few more times. Either that or maybe wait for all three to be released in extended DVD form and watch them at one go. Like the books, these aren't releases that can be appreciated on their own ala Star Wars. This is more of a three part mini-series released i the theater. Viewing them as anything less is to invite disappointment in each individual movie.
G
Last edited by gdougherty; 01-02-03 at 05:42 AM.
01-02-03, 04:29 PM
#90
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snip...
Fantastic post! 
The analogy to a film such as Saving Private Ryan is spot on. If we were to show said movie to those who had no idea that World War II even happened, would they have similar "backstory" questions? Would these questions mark a general weakness in narrative or are they above and beyond the necessary scope?
I'm of the mind that SPR stands on its own, and if you want more backstory pick up a history book.
-matt
Originally posted by caligulathegod
Obviously, this could go on forever. I said all that to make a point.
Obviously, this could go on forever. I said all that to make a point.
The analogy to a film such as Saving Private Ryan is spot on. If we were to show said movie to those who had no idea that World War II even happened, would they have similar "backstory" questions? Would these questions mark a general weakness in narrative or are they above and beyond the necessary scope?I'm of the mind that SPR stands on its own, and if you want more backstory pick up a history book.
-matt
01-02-03, 11:15 PM
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey caligula, can you also email me the Lord of the Rings + Silmarillion + Unfinished Tales in pdf format to me? I hope they aren't too big, though. Let me know if they are too big and I will setup my FTP server for you. Thanks!
p.s. I own the books. I just want to be able to carry them around in my Handspring Visor.
p.s. I own the books. I just want to be able to carry them around in my Handspring Visor.
01-06-03, 01:14 PM
#94
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Second Star on the right, and straight on til' morning...
Posts: 14,808
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by caligulathegod
The disadvantage this film has is that it depicts a completely invented world. Not like, say, the NeverEnding Story but more like Saving Private Ryan. Imagine making Saving Private Ryan and having to explain not only Hitler and WWII, but WWI and how it was started. You'd have to go into the history of the Balkan states, Austria-Hungary, the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand, the War itself, the entry of the United States (and why it took so long to join in), how the other countries punished Germany with reparations, how the German democracy failed, how the economy spiraled into hyperinflation, how a failed Austrian artist became a corporal in WWI and later met up with National Socialists and tried to take over Germany and was thrown into jail and wrote a scathing treatise on his beliefs, how he eventually won power, how the other countries rolled over in an attempt to appease him, how they gave him Czechloslavakia, how he took Eastern Europe, signed a non-aggression pact with Russia and disregarded it, how he defeated France and attacked England, how he scapegoated Jews, why Jews were hated in the first place, the laws passed to keep Jews down, the Ghettos, the Concentration Camps, the attempt by German scientists to develop a nuclear weapon after deporting the Jew that came up with the idea, how the Americans developed it instead, the Enigma machine, how the Americans entered the war against Germany and Japan, the American war against Japan, Japan's actions in the Pacific, etc...
Obviously, this could go on forever. I said all that to make a point. Imagine taking all that backstory and making a film about trying to get a soldier out because he was the last son left in his family. We don't need all that backstory explained to us to understand and enjoy the story. Now, if we wanted to know why Private Ryan was at war and what that war was about, then we would have to research it in Books or other source material. Tolkien not only created that kind of backstory but also worked out a kind of History of Western Civilization all the way back to the Creation of the world. It was his life's work and he spent almost 60 years on it. Lord of the Rings is actually about 2-3 years in a history of about 30,000 + years. The Elves in the First and Second Ages had great rollicking adventures and many battles against Morgoth and Sauron. The battled and lusted and loved. The story of the battles over the Silmaril jewels and the story of Beren the man and Luthien the Elf maiden are central to his mythology. The Third Age is the transistion period from the world of Elves to the dominion of Men. The Elves linger, content to live in memories of past achievements. That's what the Three Elven Rings of Power are for: they forstall change, e.i. decay. Gradually, the Elves have been leaving Middle Earth to live with the Valar (Gods) and turning over Middle Earth to men. Lord of the Rings is the actual transistion point. It is about how Men must finally prove they are worthy to take Middle Earth by defeating the great Enemy once and for all. The Ring itself is a MacGuffin. The real story is Aragorn and his transistion from Ranger to King and reclaiming Gondor and Arnor as a reunited Kingdom in league with the Kingdom of Rohan by defeating the Dark Lord. Since we are not a part of that world it makes sense to see the world from a more intimate vantage point. So we are given the view of the world from its least important citizens, the Hobbits. Hobbits have been content to keep to themselves and not bother about the world. The running gag in the books is that no one has ever heard of them, or if they have, they have no songs or stories about them. And this is a world that lives on its songs and stories. So this sets us up with the incredible irony that Hobbits bring about the most important element in changing the world. A Hobbit found the Ring and another Hobbit destroys it. LOTR is the Hobbits' story, too. They are our representative in the story.
Please keep it in mind that LOTR is incomparable to just about any other work of literature. Not that it is better, but it is unique in its depth and breadth while actually telling a simple story.
The disadvantage this film has is that it depicts a completely invented world. Not like, say, the NeverEnding Story but more like Saving Private Ryan. Imagine making Saving Private Ryan and having to explain not only Hitler and WWII, but WWI and how it was started. You'd have to go into the history of the Balkan states, Austria-Hungary, the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand, the War itself, the entry of the United States (and why it took so long to join in), how the other countries punished Germany with reparations, how the German democracy failed, how the economy spiraled into hyperinflation, how a failed Austrian artist became a corporal in WWI and later met up with National Socialists and tried to take over Germany and was thrown into jail and wrote a scathing treatise on his beliefs, how he eventually won power, how the other countries rolled over in an attempt to appease him, how they gave him Czechloslavakia, how he took Eastern Europe, signed a non-aggression pact with Russia and disregarded it, how he defeated France and attacked England, how he scapegoated Jews, why Jews were hated in the first place, the laws passed to keep Jews down, the Ghettos, the Concentration Camps, the attempt by German scientists to develop a nuclear weapon after deporting the Jew that came up with the idea, how the Americans developed it instead, the Enigma machine, how the Americans entered the war against Germany and Japan, the American war against Japan, Japan's actions in the Pacific, etc...
Obviously, this could go on forever. I said all that to make a point. Imagine taking all that backstory and making a film about trying to get a soldier out because he was the last son left in his family. We don't need all that backstory explained to us to understand and enjoy the story. Now, if we wanted to know why Private Ryan was at war and what that war was about, then we would have to research it in Books or other source material. Tolkien not only created that kind of backstory but also worked out a kind of History of Western Civilization all the way back to the Creation of the world. It was his life's work and he spent almost 60 years on it. Lord of the Rings is actually about 2-3 years in a history of about 30,000 + years. The Elves in the First and Second Ages had great rollicking adventures and many battles against Morgoth and Sauron. The battled and lusted and loved. The story of the battles over the Silmaril jewels and the story of Beren the man and Luthien the Elf maiden are central to his mythology. The Third Age is the transistion period from the world of Elves to the dominion of Men. The Elves linger, content to live in memories of past achievements. That's what the Three Elven Rings of Power are for: they forstall change, e.i. decay. Gradually, the Elves have been leaving Middle Earth to live with the Valar (Gods) and turning over Middle Earth to men. Lord of the Rings is the actual transistion point. It is about how Men must finally prove they are worthy to take Middle Earth by defeating the great Enemy once and for all. The Ring itself is a MacGuffin. The real story is Aragorn and his transistion from Ranger to King and reclaiming Gondor and Arnor as a reunited Kingdom in league with the Kingdom of Rohan by defeating the Dark Lord. Since we are not a part of that world it makes sense to see the world from a more intimate vantage point. So we are given the view of the world from its least important citizens, the Hobbits. Hobbits have been content to keep to themselves and not bother about the world. The running gag in the books is that no one has ever heard of them, or if they have, they have no songs or stories about them. And this is a world that lives on its songs and stories. So this sets us up with the incredible irony that Hobbits bring about the most important element in changing the world. A Hobbit found the Ring and another Hobbit destroys it. LOTR is the Hobbits' story, too. They are our representative in the story.
Please keep it in mind that LOTR is incomparable to just about any other work of literature. Not that it is better, but it is unique in its depth and breadth while actually telling a simple story.
01-06-03, 01:57 PM
#95
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 6,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Seeker
Excellent message. Sounds like it came from a book describing the premise of the story - and that's meant as a compliment.
Excellent message. Sounds like it came from a book describing the premise of the story - and that's meant as a compliment.
01-07-03, 02:02 AM
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
caligula,
Impressive...........Most impressive.
You left a little spoiler at the end (thought not entirely accurate ). But who cares. My love for book or the film isn't lessened because I know how it ends. In fact they grow stronger with repetition.
Impressive...........Most impressive.
You left a little spoiler at the end (thought not entirely accurate
). But who cares. My love for book or the film isn't lessened because I know how it ends. In fact they grow stronger with repetition.
Last edited by Ian11; 01-07-03 at 02:14 AM.
01-07-03, 09:26 AM
#99
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thanks. I had to say it to make my point. Plus (and I really thought about it) if someone thinks the Ring doesn't get destroyed then he's being pretty naive (and needs to read a few stories). This has never been sold as a great tragedy but as a rousing adventure. The good guys HAVE to win. I don't consider it a spoiler but mere common sense. The fun is in how they do it.
A point I didn't hit quite as hard as I would have liked is that the Hobbits are our representatives in the story and as its "least important residents" we can be presented with exposition because it must be given to the Hobbits themselves. It's always more interesting to observe great conflicts from the bottom up or the top down. We get both in LOTR.
As to my accuracy
A point I didn't hit quite as hard as I would have liked is that the Hobbits are our representatives in the story and as its "least important residents" we can be presented with exposition because it must be given to the Hobbits themselves. It's always more interesting to observe great conflicts from the bottom up or the top down. We get both in LOTR.
As to my accuracy
Spoiler:
Last edited by caligulathegod; 01-07-03 at 09:33 AM.
01-08-03, 08:33 PM
#100
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by caligulathegod
Originally posted by chipmac
Where can you get these books as PDF files? I'd like to get copies in order to do searches like that for reference reasons.
Originally posted by caligula
Just emailed them to you (under 2 names-by accident).
Originally posted by chipmac
Where can you get these books as PDF files? I'd like to get copies in order to do searches like that for reference reasons.
Originally posted by caligula
Just emailed them to you (under 2 names-by accident).
Edited to add:
Thanks Caligula! I got the pdfs!
Last edited by neo960; 01-09-03 at 04:12 PM.