← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · N.B. Forrest
Thread ID: 4083 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2002-12-19
2002-12-19 05:22 | User Profile
And it was fantastic. It's a darker movie than Fellowship, and even more action-packed. So many eye-popping scenes: Gandalf's endless fall into Khazad-Dum, battling the Balrog all the way down; his haunted recounting of his transformation; the beautiful rendering of Edoras is superb, as is that of the Black Gate of Mordor - you really believe that what you're seeing is a gigantic fortress of evil & dread. The huge, multi-tusked oliphaunts are great, as are Saruman's wolves. The Ents are very well done (although I did notice one quick slip where you could see that Pippin's foot wasn't really on Treebeard's limb). The CGI Smeagol is extremely impressive: every human emotion registers on his ugly face. He comes across not as a wholly evil goblin, but as a tortured soul driven insane by his "precious". I felt real pity for the poor little fellow.
The depiction of the battle of Helm's Deep is the best I've ever seen on screen by far - non-stop savagery on a massive scale for a good 45 minutes. The heroic fatalism of the defenders against the overwhelming force of Uruk Hai......let it suffice to say that it's got Braveheart whipped all to hell. And when the Ents finally decide to sh-tcan Saruman after becoming enraged at his chopping down their beloved trees, it's a joy to see.
Add the sweeping panoramas of the jaw-droppingly majestic New Zealand landscape......well, what more could you possibly ask for?
Do yourselves a favor and see this movie.
2002-12-19 06:54 | User Profile
I own the DVD of Fellowship of the Ring. You can bet I'm going to see The Two Towers as soon as I can get into a decent theater.
2002-12-19 13:50 | User Profile
Good review, Nate. You can bet I'll be there ASAP.
2002-12-19 16:30 | User Profile
**let it suffice to say that it's got Braveheart whipped all to hell. **
That's a bold statement, NB! I can't wait to see this one.
2002-12-23 04:25 | User Profile
I saw it today. Fantastic. Not much I can add to N.B. Forrest's review. Like Fellowship, it's a three hour movie that feels much shorter. I didn't mind the liberties Jackson took with the book. Most of them I thought made sense. Most interesting I think is that Eowyn is presented as a serious rival to Arwen for Aragorn's love. I think we know how it will end, but it will be interesting to see how it's handled. I can't wait for Return of the King.
2002-12-23 07:43 | User Profile
I saw it yesterday, and I'm hoping to see it again at Christmas Eve. The battle scene was overwhelmingly real, and yes, it does beat Braveheart all to Hell as NB says. I was particularly struck by the scenes where the old men and boys of Rohan were outfitted to fight with the soldiers on the battlements. Also, the scene prior to the battle in which Aragorn takes the youth's sword, hefts it, and hands it back to him, saying, "This is a good sword" - showing Aragorn's natural leadership skills, but in a very subtle way.
I am so glad that this series wasn't turned into a Hollywoodized production with all the standard PC canards and alterations. No sappy New-Age "look into your heart for guidance" speeches. No black-guy character made up whole cloth for the movie (Remember Morgan Freeman's enlightened Moor in the Kevin Costner Robin Hood?) No multiethnic Gondor. And they even left in those swarthy Middle-Eastern types who go to the aid of Mordor. How, I wonder, was Jackson able to get away with it?
2002-12-23 14:13 | User Profile
[url=http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?%20objectid=12463394&method=full&siteid=50002]http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100ne...ll&siteid=50002[/url]
**Fascists hijack Lord of the Rings ** By Sophie Blakemore, Birmingham Post Dec 18 2002
Fascists have hijacked Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as propaganda to further their cause.
As the second film of the trilogy, The Two Towers, comes out on general release today, a Midland academic has expressed concerns that neo-Nazi groups are interpreting the Birmingham author's epic for their own ends.
One Internet website urges "every white nationalist" to watch the films, which it claims promote white supremacy over ethnic minorities living in the West.
Dr Stephen Shapiro, an English expert at the University of Warwick, said the adoption of the literary masterpiece by far right groups was worrying.
Tolkien lovers also expressed horror that the books were being used to promote extremism.
Chris Crawshaw, chairman of The Tolkien Society, urged people not to interpret the trilogy in a far right context.
"I am quite shocked and very saddened that The Lord of the Rings is being used by far right groups in this way.
"Tolkien himself would be horrified if he knew this was happening and I know some of his family, and they also would be appalled.
"There is not a grain of truth in their interpretation and I would ask people to read it for what it is - a very good story," she said.
Dr Shapiro said he could understand why Tolkien's works had been adopted by the far right but he called for loyal fans to confront the extremists' views.
"The books came out in the 1950s coinciding with the start of immigration into Britain and neo-Nazis are interpreting them in that way.
"It is very worrying that fascist groups are using The Lord of the Rings like this and are trying to infiltrate popular culture.
"This should be openly confronted and if readers of Tolkien feel that this is wrong and the books are not racist, I encourage them to challenge these groups," he said. Dr Shapiro said the trilogy of Middle Earth mythology represented anxieties about immigration.
"Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings because he believed England's original culture and mythology was destroyed by the Norman invasion, and thought his story-cycle would recreate the world of pre-invasion Britain.
"For today's film fans, this older racial anxiety fuses with a current fear and hatred of Islam that supports a crusading war in the Middle East."
He added that the books should not be used to incite racial hatred but to look at the modern state of race relations in the UK and further afield.
2002-12-24 01:18 | User Profile
[url=http://www.spearhead-uk.com/0208-sg.html]http://www.spearhead-uk.com/0208-sg.html[/url]
The Mythos of J. R. R. Tolkien Stephen Goodson explores the sympathies of the author of The Lord of the Rings
According to a survey by the Folio Society in 1997, as well as a poll by Waterstone's, the booksellers, in January of that year, The Lord of the Rings was voted readers' "favourite book of all time." The recent filming of the book has popularised it once more, and stimulated speculation as to what fuelled this extraordinary work.
While many aficionados are content to treat The Lord of the Rings as an epic fantasy, some have detected an underlying repugnance for the industrialisation of the countryside and the damage of total war.
In June 1997, Ross Shimmon, chief executive of the Library Association, commented:-
?It's astonishing that The Lord of the Rings has this impact. The idea of a parallel world... I wonder whether it's something to do with trying to make sense of the world around us.?
Candour reader A 20-year subscription to the patriotic journal Candour and a faithful preservation of its 24 volumes, may well provide some clues as to what were Tolkien's innermost thoughts, ideas and beliefs.
Candour was founded by A. K. Chesterton, a cousin of G. K. Chesterton, as a successor to Truth magazine, of which he had previously been Deputy Editor. Chesterton, a distinguished veteran of two world wars, had earlier edited Oswald Mosley's publications in the 'Thirties. In 1954 he established the League of Empire Loyalists, whose antics and interventions at Tory meetings proved to be a constant source of irritation and embarrassment to both Eden and Macmillan. In 1967 the League merged with the old British National Party (not to be confused with the present party of the same name) and the Racial Preservation Society to form the National Front, with the Greater Britain Movement joining the merger a short time later. Chesterton assumed the role of leader.
In 1973, Tolkien's copies of Candour were sold out of his estate for ã10. In 1997, I inherited these newsletters from Chesterton's secretary Moyna Traill-Smith. The quotations from Candour which follow have all been underlined by Tolkien with a red biro.
Empire tragedy The dissolution of the British Empire was viewed by Tolkien as a tragedy, which would have permanent negative consequences for its indigenous populations:-
?Africa is not peopled by Black Europeans, but it is a continent full of tribes mentally and morally at the dawn of history.
?Self-government does not mean democracy - Liberia and Abyssinia are two warning lights. African hegemony would lead to the suicide of the White community in East and Central Africa and to the ruin of African hopes of sustained progress.? (3/10 August 1956, page 44)
Tolkien was disillusioned about the effectiveness of modern democracy, and considered both the media and high finance to be inimical to its success:-
?The concentration of the power of the Press has long since made a mockery of whatever degree of informed democracy we may have once known...? (10 February 1956, page 50)
?The true equation is ?democracy? = government by world financiers.?
?The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or, what is most important of all, the banker of the backer.
?Throned above all, in a manner without parallel in all past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic, and delivering oracles in a language not understood of the people.? (13 July 1956, page 12)
Monetary reformer It was in the field of monetary reform that Tolkien displayed his most passionate concern. His indignation about the evil of usury - the creation of money out of nothing and then lending it out at interest - is reflected repeatedly:-
?There should only be one source of money: one fountainhead from which flows the nation's blood to vitalise commerce and industry, ensure economic equity and justice and safeguard the welfare of the people... In other words, it has always been and still is our contention that the prerogative of creating and issuing the money of the nation should be restored to the State.? (3/10 August 1956, page 48)
Utilising the above background, a brief exegesis of The Lord of the Rings may be attempted. The centre of all evil is the Dark Lord Sauron, who has enslaved the people of Middle Earth through the rings of power. There are seven rings for the dwarf lords, five for the elven kings, nine for mortal men, and one to rule and bind them all in darkness and slavery forever. These gold rings were ?forged? in the fires of Mount Doom and are symbolic of the central banks and their monopolistic powers, which enable them to create money out of nothing and lend it out at interest to the gullible people. With their unlimited financial power, they are able to control the mass media and spellbind the general public with their propaganda. Eventually good prevails over evil and the Ringwraiths, the Orcs and Uruk Hai monsters are defeated.
Background So who was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien? Did he support the NF? Probably not in any meaningful way, but indisputably he was sympathetic to its anti-immigration and anti-Common Market policies, having endorsed Chesterton's views over two decades.
There is little doubt that Tolkien was a patriot, and that his conviction that the civilising effects of the British Empire were a blessing to be enjoyed by all has been proven correct. The torment of death, debt and destruction, which Africa has subsequently endured, bears regrettable testimony to that fact.
Above everything else Tolkien may be judged as an ardent supporter of monetary reform. He understood that money is not a form of wealth, but a medium for the exchange of goods and services. He sought social justice through the adoption of an honest money system, which would distribute the benefits of the technological age to all mankind, and provide a secure basis for a future of progress and prosperity.
Tolkien could have written a treatise on political economy, and, if published, it would in all likelihood have achieved only a limited circulation. By employing a powerful allegory, he has subconsciously embraced and influenced the minds of untold millions with his mythos.
Stephen Goodson is leader of the Abolition of Income Tax, and Usury Party in South Africa, information about which can be obtained from its website at www.abolishtax.org.za.
Tolkien's Politics [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=2749&hl=tolkien]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...2749&hl=tolkien[/url]
J.R.R. Tolkien -- enemy of progress [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=4968&hl=tolkien]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...4968&hl=tolkien[/url]
Tolkien A Racist [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=4775&hl=tolkien]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...4775&hl=tolkien[/url]
Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=4332&hl=tolkien]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...4332&hl=tolkien[/url]
Lord Of The Rings [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=814&hl=tolkien]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=814&hl=tolkien[/url]
2002-12-24 04:27 | User Profile
Most interesting I think is that Eowyn is presented as a serious rival to Arwen for Aragorn's love. I think we know how it will end, but it will be interesting to see how it's handled.
Miranda Otto, the actress who plays Eowyn is one gorgeous young lady (as is Liv Tyler). She and the warriors of Rohan are clearly portrayed as good-looking blond Aryans.
Choke on it, Spielboig.
The movie has grossed $101.5 million in a mere 5 days. That's 30% more than Fellowship did in the same amount of time. New Line Cinema says that they expect TTT to rake in a Cool Bil. The only other movie to do so was non-jew James Cameron's teen girl tearjerker Titanic (which I've never seen). Add that anticipated billion to the $860 million the first film made, and it begins to add up to a fairly nice chunk of pocket change.
And just try to imagine what the climactic Return of the King will garner.....
2002-12-24 04:44 | User Profile
The sight of Nordic white men defending their blond blue eyed women and their blond blue eyed children from a horde of black skinned wide nosed ,dred locked bloodthirsty savages can't help but provoke buried racial instincts that most whites never thought they had. Bravo Mr. Jackson whether you knew the importance of what you were doing or not Bravo.
2002-12-24 04:48 | User Profile
il ragno,
Oh the poor PC types Morons at The Tolkien Society.
**I never understood why the Hippies liked it?
Down with Orcs!!! **
So who was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien? Did he support the NF? Probably not in any meaningful way, but indisputably he was sympathetic to its anti-immigration and anti-Common Market policies, having endorsed Chesterton's views over two decades.-Stephen Goodson
As one "Liberal" said: *To cap it all, the races that Tolkien has put on the side of evil are then given a rag-bag of non-white characteristics that could have been copied straight from a BNP leaflet. Dark, slant-eyed, swarthy, broad-faced - it's amazing he doesn't go the whole hog and give them a natural sense of rhythm.
Scratch the surface of Tolkien's world and you'll find a curiously 20th-century myth. Begun in the 1930s, published in the 1950s, it's shot through with the preoccupations and prejudices of its time... Strip away the archaic turns of phrase and you find a set of basic assumptions that are frankly unacceptable in 21st-century Britain.*-John Yatt
One Internet website urges "every white nationalist" to watch the films, which it claims promote white supremacy over ethnic minorities living in the West.
I think this is the article spoken of:
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=5078]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=10&t=5078[/url]
2002-12-24 08:05 | User Profile
I noticed that Leah Rozen from 'People' magazine gave the movie a somewhat negative review, writing, "Any sort of compelling story gets lost admist all the spectacle" and "Wake us when part 3 opens". On the other hand she wrote of the latest James Bond film, "Brosnan and Barry form a strong Bond".
2002-12-31 14:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Dec 18 2002, 23:22 ** The depiction of the battle of Helm's Deep is the best I've ever seen on screen by far - non-stop savagery on a massive scale for a good 45 minutes. The heroic fatalism of the defenders against the overwhelming force of Uruk Hai......let it suffice to say that it's got Braveheart whipped all to hell. **
There is no way in hell that the Comic Book like defense of Helm's Deep was a better action sequence than seen in Braveheart! Braveheart's battle scenes were many times more believable.
2002-12-31 15:17 | User Profile
I've seen it three times now, and I think it was great, but I was disappointed in several departures which seemed to me gratuitous.
First, Aragorn and Arwen's love was steadfast thoughout, and Elrond had set fair conditions for his daughter to marry Aragorn, and supported him and Arwen all the way.
Eowyn's love for Aragorn was true, but never encouraged by Aragorn as in the movie.
Also much was taken away from the allies in terms of nobleness. Faramir was much wiser in the book, and Treebeard and the entmoot decided on war on thier own.
The biggest problem that I had was in the battle scenes at helm's deep. The Urak's were indeed better fighters that the regular orks, but not as great as a fighting man. The elves of course didn't fight at Helm's deep, and while the discipline shown was thrilling, to have an Urak defeat more that one elf in single combat was laughable. I'm not sure why Jackson desided to deviate so much, but it was his film after all.
I think when the last film comes out, it will smash every record ever set.
2002-12-31 16:01 | User Profile
LOTR is smashing records in terms of dollar amounts. However this happens every few years because of inflation. The big news is that movies like LOTR with all white casts are decimating movies staring blacks at the box office.
Compare LOTR Part II to Drumline(a movie about "creative Negroes"). LOTR grossed 910% more than Drumline about the first two weeks of each release.
LOTR Part II also beat Maid in Manhatten (which features, puke, and interracial couple) by 570% based on each movies initial two week gross.
Don't forget Formula-51 staring Samuel L. Jackson in a Kilt. It's year to date is less than 6 million! Whoever invested in that movie lost everything.
The other big movies to come out recently was Harry Potter I & II, which I am told is virtually all white. However the producers inserted some non-white background characters into part II after the critics complained about it's whiteness.
I liked LOTR Part I better. LOTR Part II had a lot of scenes that were way to cartoonish. There also wasn't a whole lot of plot involved in Part II.
I was going to buy LOTR Part I on DVD last night and they had two versions. One was $28 and the other was $36. I couldn't believe it, someone is really milking the DVD sales. New Line will probably make another 300 million off DVD and pay-per-view. Mabey another 100 or so million off high priced action figures which grown men will fight over at toy stores and keep in their original packaging for years.
2002-12-31 16:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell@Dec 31 2002, 15:17 ** ...and while the discipline shown was thrilling, to have an Urak defeat more that one elf in single combat was laughable. I'm not sure why Jackson desided to deviate so much, but it was his film after all. **
OC,
I agree with your criticisms. Jackson's deviations took away from Tolkien's vision and some them might come back to bite him. How is Aragorn going to go back to Arwen without looking like a jerk to Eowyn, and without making Faramir look like a consolation prize? Still, the movie's great, and I want to see it again in theatres before I buy the DVD.
I can explain the uber-Urak hai, though. In a movie you have to have some palpable tension, and that could only be done by making the Uraks a little more competent than Tolkien made them. The little flashes like this, and John Rhys-Davies' scene-stealing, made the movie more entertaining and engaging. The bit with Aragorn's near death experience was another Jacksonian twist that added to the story. The Warg attack was sheer genius.
The biggest flaw in the movie is that it seemed as if Jackson were in a hurry to get to the battle at Helm's Deep, and so the rest of the story leading up to it, as well as the scenes with Sam and Frodo, felt as if they were there out of obligation. Gollum was certainly great, but once you got past the animatronics, there wasn't much there of either Frodo or Sam, aside from Sam's soliloquy. Certainly not what you found in Tolkien's work. I remember reading The Two Towers and then moving on to Return of the King and being a bit annoyed that the third installment didn't take up with Frodo and Sam at Cirith Ungol. Tolkien made their story more compelling than the battle at Minas Tirith. Hopefully, the final movie will spend more time with them. It is possible since Jackson has already done a lot siege scenes in the second movie, that he'll try to minimize it in the third film so as not to be repetitive.
One minor nitpick: If the orcs could scale bare columns in Moria like insects, then why did they need ladders and siege engines at Helm's Deep?
Best, P
2003-01-01 00:47 | User Profile
Well ... sure, Jackson and the other writers strayed a bit ... but a great film nonetheless. Jackson can't let things get too muddled in exposition, as that's generally how you lose an audience. Unfortunate in some cases, but that's the way it is.
**While watching, I couldn't help but think of the Two Towers as being comprised of ZOG and the NWO. Could even picture them, with the acronyms floating above each tower. And the whites fighting the evil emanating from these two forces in the forms of dark, dirty savages from the third world. ** I'm sure many of you had much the same thoughts. Of course, people can read into films whatever they like, but in this case, many many people are reading the same thing into this series of films. Hmmm.
Heritage Lost - there are two versions of LOTR - THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING on DVD. The more expensive version has footage that was cut from the theatrical release, so the movie is very, very long - but still great. The more expensive version also has more behind the scenes stuff, conceptual artwork, etc.
2003-01-01 07:26 | User Profile
The way they milk you for every dollar in DVD sales really is a disgrace. They know that true fans will want to get the DVD as soon as they can (like I bought the first version), so they release a "new & improved!" version later, knowing damn well that the temptation to see that tantalizing additional footage will force open the ol' wallet again....
Very jewish, that.
2003-01-01 07:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by heritagelost@Dec 31 2002, 14:57 ** There is no way in hell that the Comic Book like defense of Helm's Deep was a better action sequence than seen in Braveheart! Braveheart's battle scenes were many times more believable. **
The sight of rubber axes flapping in the breeze as the Scots ran screaming into battle put me off.
2003-01-01 18:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Current93@Jan 1 2003, 07:47 ** Aside from turning the virile Elven Prince Glorfindel into Liv Tyler I was upset by the total excision of the Farmer Maggot character and related scene. No chance that was in DVD was it? **
I've got the extended version. The only mention of Farmer Maggot is when Merry and Pippin run into Frodo and Sam. Putting Maggot in plot would have been difficult because he's essentially a digression, and while that works well for books, it can drag down a movie. Tom Bombadil got the axe for the same reason. It's a pity, but the limitations of the medium force the director's hand to cut out pieces like this. I have a feeling there's going to be a lot more cut out of the Return of the King, such as the Scouring of the Shire, which is a pity as well. As to Glorfindel, I think Jackson sufficiently atoned to elfkind for that by adding the Elf regiment at Helm's Deep.
Comparing the two versions of Fellowship, though, the theatrical release is the superior one. The extended version can really drag. It is worth watching if you're into Tolkien, but the uninitiated would have been turned off if it had run in the theatres. There is one continuity problem created by the editing that I caught in TTT: Gollum complains about the elfen rope burning, freezing and stinging him, but it's never explained why it does so.
Some more stuff: In the extended version of Fellowship, Sam gets the rope and we're led to understand it's magical. The extended version also fleshes out Gimli's conversion to the Lady of the Wood, and an opening scene introduces the hobbits more explicitly. If I'm missing something, I'm sure others can add.
Best, P
2003-01-01 23:51 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 31 2002, 11:34 ** One minor nitpick: If the orcs could scale bare columns in Moria like insects, then why did they need ladders and siege engines at Helm's Deep? **
In the making of FoTR, its explained that the Moria orcs are of a different variety than the rest. They were designed a bit different with larger eyes (for seeing in the dark) and so forth. The Uruks, et al, are really the only kind of orc than can withstand sunlight. Thus the Moria orcs would not be ideal for fighting such a battle.
2003-01-02 20:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Feric Jaggar@Jan 1 2003, 23:51 ** > Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 31 2002, 11:34 ** One minor nitpick: If the orcs could scale bare columns in Moria like insects, then why did they need ladders and siege engines at Helm's Deep? **
In the making of FoTR, its explained that the Moria orcs are of a different variety than the rest. They were designed a bit different with larger eyes (for seeing in the dark) and so forth. The Uruks, et al, are really the only kind of orc than can withstand sunlight. Thus the Moria orcs would not be ideal for fighting such a battle. **
Yeah, that would account for it. In the books, Saruman used Orcs from the Misty Mountains, too, but the movie's premisses don't necessarily have to be the same as the books'.
Best, P
2003-01-02 21:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 1 2003, 18:34 ** > Originally posted by Current93@Jan 1 2003, 07:47 ** Aside from turning the virile Elven Prince Glorfindel into Liv Tyler I was upset by the total excision of the Farmer Maggot character and related scene. No chance that was in DVD was it? **
I've got the extended version. The only mention of Farmer Maggot is when Merry and Pippin run into Frodo and Sam. Putting Maggot in plot would have been difficult because he's essentially a digression, and while that works well for books, it can drag down a movie. Tom Bombadil got the axe for the same reason. It's a pity, but the limitations of the medium force the director's hand to cut out pieces like this. I have a feeling there's going to be a lot more cut out of the Return of the King, such as the Scouring of the Shire, which is a pity as well. As to Glorfindel, I think Jackson sufficiently atoned to elfkind for that by adding the Elf regiment at Helm's Deep.
Comparing the two versions of Fellowship, though, the theatrical release is the superior one. The extended version can really drag. It is worth watching if you're into Tolkien, but the uninitiated would have been turned off if it had run in the theatres. There is one continuity problem created by the editing that I caught in TTT: Gollum complains about the elfen rope burning, freezing and stinging him, but it's never explained why it does so.
Some more stuff: In the extended version of Fellowship, Sam gets the rope and we're led to understand it's magical. The extended version also fleshes out Gimli's conversion to the Lady of the Wood, and an opening scene introduces the hobbits more explicitly. If I'm missing something, I'm sure others can add.
Best, P **
Everything in terms of story is stripped down in film. That's the way it goes. I would think that the explanation of Gollum's complaints was left out in the hope of shaving every second they could. In other words, the explanation is left to viewer, with many assuming Gollum is merely acting similar to a child that doesn't want to go somewhere with their parents, wear a particular pair of shoes, etc. A few seconds here, a few seconds there, it adds up.
The theatrical versions are in many instances superior to extended versions, etc. in terms of keeping the story tight. On very few occasions the story can be entirely different, as in THE PROFESSIONAL. Watch the director's cut (it's actual title is LEON) and the almost 30 minutes of footage turns it into an entirely different film.
2003-01-03 00:29 | User Profile
Here's the skinny...
Only redeeming virtue of Film is it's purely emotional... CAN'T be anything else...once it's depicted you EXPERIENCE it... because...
the preponderance of US is emotional, the miD-brain...
Here's the funny thing the 'ironic'... because the novel demands thought... the greatest have always sought... to link it, inextricably Emotionally... i.e., of course THEY'LL (a reader) will have to think, they'll have to imagine... that's what Language ignites... BUT as an author, be SO good, or good enough as to link it inextricably to the emotional base, also... for therein... it's NOT ephemeral...
Having said that then, Can you imagine... which you ought to be able to imagine, or at least thinking about it...since THESE are Words...not pictures... can you imagine then how GOOD film COULD BE? (i.e. going direct to the eternal emotional... always... what Faulkner in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech called, "the eternal truths of the heart.")
HEMINGWAY thought it was impossible to make the film medium THAT good... understanding-?-the above... it's Not next to reality, he believed... because we DO also 'think' in reality... And ONLY words can approach Painting THAT actual Picture... Even if words don't entirely, though, that process is at least more Akin to the real... ?
-?- How can you mend, a broken heart?How can a loser, ever win? How can you stop, the sun from shinning. What makes the world go around?
HOWEVER... in the meantime films apparently--(e.g. look at the box office)-- can alleviate, some of the Pain...
... I can "think" of better days... ? Though I'd rather go to the movies...
But I don't really feel I matter that much... fortunately, under G-d. It's a paradox...maybe then-?-I matter a little bit more? H O L L Y W O O D... thanks G-d.
2003-01-03 07:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by George@Jan 3 2003, 00:29 ** Having said that then, Can you imagine... which you ought to be able to imagine, or at least thinking about it...since THESE are Words...not picutres... can you imagine then how GOOD film COULD BE? (i.e. going direct to the eternal emotional... always... what Faulkner in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech called, "the eternal truths of the heart.")
HEMINGWAY thought it was impossible to make the film medium THAT good... understanding-?-the above... it's Not next to reality, he believed... because we DO also 'think' in reality... And ONLY words can approach Painting THAT actual Picture... Even if words don't entirely, though, that process is at least more Akin to the real... ?
**
We can all imagine how good film could be. Though it never will be, no matter who makes the films. Hemingway was right. Happy New Year, George.
2003-01-03 17:12 | User Profile
DITTO Roy... have a good one!!!! Somehow I think you will... I've been Rich, roy... I been Poor... HEMINGWAY was right about that too... rich ain't REALLY different... (sorry F. Scott) they just HAVE mo'Money...
2003-01-07 14:47 | User Profile
I know I'm a little late, but I just saw "The Two Towers" last night and I'm as blown away as after seeing "The Fellowship of the Ring". The racial overtones are overt in the film for us WN's who understand more what Tolkien may have been telling us back in 1937. The different races of White folk joining together to defeat the "dark" forces who desire to rule over them. I love it. The Nordic and/or Aryan looking cast is massively delightful. The references to Middle Ages chivalry and dress inspires pride in our Racial ancestors. To borrow from Feric Jaggar's signature, King Theoden narrates before battling the army of Saruman: "Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountains, Like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West, Behind the hills, Into shadow. How did it come to this?"
This quote stuck right in my head when I heard it. Also, I'm stunned that the filmmakers saw rightly to NOT have women in battle, especially Eowyn, niece of Theoden. They had the women and children hid away in safety, away from danger. I bet the feminists are cursing the producers souls even as we speak!
The Two Towers is a masterpiece.
2003-01-07 17:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Jan 7 2003, 09:47 ** Also, I'm stunned that the filmmakers saw rightly to NOT have women in battle, especially Eowyn, niece of Theoden. **
I hope you won't be upset then when you see her fighting a very menacing enemy in Return of the King, this next Christmas. Just think of her in the Boudicca mould.
2003-01-07 20:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Feric Jaggar@Jan 7 2003, 12:20 > Originally posted by xmetalhead@Jan 7 2003, 09:47 ** Also, I'm stunned that the filmmakers saw rightly to NOT have women in battle, especially Eowyn, niece of Theoden. **
I hope you won't be upset then when you see her fighting a very menacing enemy in Return of the King, this next Christmas. Just think of her in the Boudicca mould.**
Oh well, it was a short-lived anti-feminist dream, but I guess I can live with it since Eowyn is one pretty sexy redhead, real name Miranda Otto... [img]http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1184/MirandaOtto_Vespa_179569.jpg[/img]
2003-01-18 01:25 | User Profile
I wouldn't call Tolkien a feminist. Eowyn is no Xena. She goes to battle in disguise. When Eomer discovers her body (thinking her dead) he is overcome with grief and rage:
"Eowyn, how come you here? What madness or devilry is this? Death, death, death! Death take us all!"
This is not presented as the reaction of some chauvinist pig. It remains to be seen how Jackson will handle it.
2003-01-18 03:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by xmetalhead@Jan 7 2003, 15:49 ** ...since Eowyn is one pretty sexy redhead... [img]http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1184/MirandaOtto_Vespa_179569.jpg[/img]
**
I'll second that!!!!
2003-01-18 03:48 | User Profile
I sure hope he puts in the scene where she, after giving up all hope, laughs in the face of evil, tells evil to do it's worse, and along with the Hobbit, engages in the greatest, most poetic act, of the whole trilogy.
2003-01-18 06:48 | User Profile
I received this in an email today:
[url=http://sop.miskie.net/FILES/LOL/LOTR_Spoof.wmv]Lordy of the Rings[/url]
I believe you need Windows Media Player, but it's pretty funny.