Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:48:30 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:51 -0600 > > >The young think they know everything and are uninhibited in expressing > >that. > > Generalizing is a bad thing Robert. For me personally, I acknowledge my > shortcomings, as well as my own merits. Which is admirable, but you won't totally "get it" until you're a little older. Unless you're *really* exceptional. I was a fair bit like you seem to be, when I was 20 or 21, and I acknowledge now that I didn't have as much of a handle on it as I do now. Perhaps you are right Julia. And if you are, then I guess I won't understand until I "grow up". Your merits, as I see them from your posts so far, are laudable. Your shortcomings as they come through in your posts will probably be reduced noticeably in 5 years. Thank you. I do try. > >Older people are much the same, but experience gives one reason to > >have doubts that "The Facts" are set in stone. To me, they seem to be > >set in silly putty and are waiting for a new days paradigm. > > I know what you mean, though perhaps in a more shallow frame of reference. I > can draw those parallels to myself, from the time I was in high-school up > until now. I also realize the deep water is yet to come; or so I'm told. Extrapolate high school-to-now by a doubling, at least, and that's what you can look forward to when you reach the ripe age of 30 or so. At least, this was *my* experience. :) Julia Only time will tell. In closing though, let me just say that I have always had a knack of seeing situations from many angles. The ability to see the world through a childs, adults, seniors or a dead mans eyes has been a gift of mine for quite some time. Even the eyes of an animal. Perhaps you may one day read that story. Of course I may just be delusional, but I tend to believe in myself at least a little. -Travis "thanks for the kind words" Edmunds _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 07:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > >*grin* I love being inconsequential. It takes all the > responsibility > >off > >me ^_^ > > > > That my friend, is an interesting statement. I hope you > don't terribly > mind if I use it my travels? As for the responsibility of > this particular > topic in the here and now, it falls to you. A question has been left > unanswered... Nah, go ahead. When my name change goes through, though, just make sure to continue creditting "Jeffrey Miller" ;) As to your question, I'm lame and delete email consistently. If you resend it to me privately, I promise I'll repond :) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:51 -0600 > > >The young think they know everything and are uninhibited in expressing > >that. > > Generalizing is a bad thing Robert. For me personally, I acknowledge my > shortcomings, as well as my own merits. Which is admirable, but you won't totally "get it" until you're a little older. Unless you're *really* exceptional. I was a fair bit like you seem to be, when I was 20 or 21, and I acknowledge now that I didn't have as much of a handle on it as I do now. Your merits, as I see them from your posts so far, are laudable. Your shortcomings as they come through in your posts will probably be reduced noticeably in 5 years. > >Older people are much the same, but experience gives one reason to > >have doubts that "The Facts" are set in stone. To me, they seem to be > >set in silly putty and are waiting for a new days paradigm. > > I know what you mean, though perhaps in a more shallow frame of reference. I > can draw those parallels to myself, from the time I was in high-school up > until now. I also realize the deep water is yet to come; or so I'm told. Extrapolate high school-to-now by a doubling, at least, and that's what you can look forward to when you reach the ripe age of 30 or so. At least, this was *my* experience. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:51 -0600 From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:51 -0600 > > You see, I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage due to my age. I'm only 21, and > I'm only now beginning to immerse myself into the things I really enjoy. > > -Travis Ahhh.Well that explains a lot. Haha. There is nothing wrong with being young except that you are at a bit of a disadvantage when talking to people who have had much more time to explore the world. Oh, I couldn't agree more. I certainly recognize that fact, which is why I posted my thoughts on it originally. The young think they know everything and are uninhibited in expressing that. Generalizing is a bad thing Robert. For me personally, I acknowledge my shortcomings, as well as my own merits. Older people are much the same, but experience gives one reason to have doubts that "The Facts" are set in stone. To me, they seem to be set in silly putty and are waiting for a new days paradigm. I know what you mean, though perhaps in a more shallow frame of reference. I can draw those parallels to myself, from the time I was in high-school up until now. I also realize the deep water is yet to come; or so I'm told. Please don't take the above as criticism, its an observation based of remembrances of my youth. I think a lot of the older people here could say similar things phrased in a quite different way. Hey, thanks for any and all observations past-tense and yet to come. In any case I appreciate the energy you bring to the discussions and your unique point of view. xponent Old Enough To Be Your Father Ya Little Scalawag Maru rob Thank you very much Robert. You are quite the troubadour, I must say. I as well, appreciate your own unique point of view, as well as your openness, and kindness in accepting me the way you did. -Travis _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
At 01:13 PM 1/10/2004, you wrote: Vilyehm Teighlore wrote: > > Or in Scotland you wake up with a blue ribbon tied Debbi replied: > I Dunno Wher Ya Bin, Milad, But I See Ya Won Firs' > Prize! Maru;} Funny this song should come up now... There are a lot of different versions of that last line. "I don't know where ya bin my boy," "my friend," even changing the word order to "Lad (or boy or friend) I don't know where ya bin" And oddly enough, the song was not written by a Scot, but by an American folk singer named Mike Cross, born in Tennessee and raised in the Appalachian mountains who took up guitar playing after giving up a college golf scholarship to follow his girlfriend to the college of *her* choice. He picks up the story there: We broke up when I was a freshman. I'd given up my golf scholarship and even sold my clubs, so I had to find something to replace them. I think that's why I took up the guitar. I needed a new passion in life. http://www.mikecross.com/ By strange coincidence (yet another example of list synchronicity), I just recently purchased a used copy of "Dr. Demento 20th Anniversary Collection: The Greatest Novelty Records Of All Time." The Bryan Bowers recording of "The Scotsman" is the second song on the first CD of the two-CD set. Reggie Bautista The version I have has "Lad I donna know where ya bin" From that story I wonder if any his songs are about the power of P. Kevin T. - VRWC Insert joke about child of a goddess here ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
Vilyehm Teighlore wrote: > > Or in Scotland you wake up with a blue ribbon tied Debbi replied: > I Dunno Wher Ya Bin, Milad, But I See Ya Won Firs' > Prize! Maru;} Funny this song should come up now... There are a lot of different versions of that last line. "I don't know where ya bin my boy," "my friend," even changing the word order to "Lad (or boy or friend) I don't know where ya bin" And oddly enough, the song was not written by a Scot, but by an American folk singer named Mike Cross, born in Tennessee and raised in the Appalachian mountains who took up guitar playing after giving up a college golf scholarship to follow his girlfriend to the college of *her* choice. He picks up the story there: We broke up when I was a freshman. I'd given up my golf scholarship and even sold my clubs, so I had to find something to replace them. I think that's why I took up the guitar. I needed a new passion in life. http://www.mikecross.com/ By strange coincidence (yet another example of list synchronicity), I just recently purchased a used copy of "Dr. Demento 20th Anniversary Collection: The Greatest Novelty Records Of All Time." The Bryan Bowers recording of "The Scotsman" is the second song on the first CD of the two-CD set. Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> > You see, I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage due to my age. I'm only 21, and > I'm only now beginning to immerse myself into the things I really enjoy. > > -Travis Ahhh.Well that explains a lot. There is nothing wrong with being young except that you are at a bit of a disadvantage when talking to people who have had much more time to explore the world. The young think they know everything and are uninhibited in expressing that. Older people are much the same, but experience gives one reason to have doubts that "The Facts" are set in stone. To me, they seem to be set in silly putty and are waiting for a new days paradigm. Please don't take the above as criticism, its an observation based of remembrances of my youth. I think a lot of the older people here could say similar things phrased in a quite different way. "The present makes the past look different" In any case I appreciate the energy you bring to the discussions and your unique point of view. xponent Old Enough To Be Your Father Ya Little Scalawag Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:25:45 -0800 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 08:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > Yes and no. I agree with what Jeffrey said pretty much 100%, > but my point is > completely different, rendering Jeffries argument's > inconsequential. *grin* I love being inconsequential. It takes all the responsibility off me ^_^ That my friend, is an interesting statement. I hope you don't terribly mind if I use it my travels? As for the responsibility of this particular topic in the here and now, it falls to you. A question has been left unanswered... >If you > specifically look at what he said, and compare it to my > question posed the > other day, you will understand my point of view. Y'know, Travis, several of us did just that, and still didn't understand. That's why we asked you to elaborate a little. :( -j- I refuse to elaborate until such time as you, Jeffrey overextend yourself and answer my question. I have this strange feeling though, that you have already overextended yourself in supporting your own argument. You are not completely to blame however, as your points are good points. Also they are truthful, in-depth views of art and artistic interpretation. But they simply don't apply to what I say. -Travis "nothing personal" Edmunds "Give me a man or woman who has read a thousand books, and you give me an interesting companion. Give me a man or woman who has read perhaps three, and you give me a dangerous enemy indeed." _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:28:48 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:28:44 -0600 > > > >Quick question: Have you seen "Blade Runner" and read _Do Androids > >Dream of Electric Sheep?_? > > > > Julia > > Nope. Any good? I ask because it goes back to the "movie based on the book" discussion. "Blade Runner" is based on _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_. The movie took all sorts of liberties and did a lot of really cool stuff, and I'm wondering what you'll think of it all once you've seen the movie and read the book. Julia yes, that was a suggestion You see, I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage due to my age. I'm only 21, and I'm only now beginning to immerse myself into the things I really enjoy. -Travis _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:29:34 -0600 Cry "ribbit!" and unleash the frogs of war. (I own a button with this on it.) Julia That's so nerdy it's actually kinda cool... -Travis "kinda" Edmunds _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
On 9 Jan 2004, at 11:13 pm, Miller, Jeffrey wrote: I ask because it goes back to the "movie based on the book" discussion. "Blade Runner" is based on _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_. The movie took all sorts of liberties and did a lot of really cool stuff, and I'm wondering what you'll think of it all once you've seen the movie and read the book. For that matter, Blade Runner is one of the few clear-cut examples where a Director's Cut is vastly superior to the original At least, that *I* can think of. Sergio Leone's _Once Upon a Time in America_ has a 227 minute director's cut that was chopped to 139 minutes by the studio for the original US release. The full version is a great movie, the short version isn't... But the rest of the world saw the full version, so I suppose it doesn't count. And Jennifer Connelly, in her first movie, played the younger version of Elizabeth McGovern. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> > I ask because it goes back to the "movie based on the book" > > discussion. > > > > "Blade Runner" is based on _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_. > > > > The movie took all sorts of liberties and did a lot of really > > cool stuff, and I'm wondering what you'll think of it all > > once you've seen the movie and read the book. > > For that matter, Blade Runner is one of the few clear-cut > examples where a Director's Cut is vastly superior to the original At least, that *I* can think of. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julia Thompson > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:29 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > I ask because it goes back to the "movie based on the book" > discussion. > > "Blade Runner" is based on _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_. > > The movie took all sorts of liberties and did a lot of really > cool stuff, and I'm wondering what you'll think of it all > once you've seen the movie and read the book. For that matter, Blade Runner is one of the few clear-cut examples where a Director's Cut is vastly superior to the original -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 08:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > > > >From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:19:09 -0800 > > > > > > > >Hey, Shakespeare was what *I* was gonna drag out next ;) > > > >-j- > > Drag it out. Nah... too much effort, not enough payoff. Besides, someone already did just that. :) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 08:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > Yes and no. I agree with what Jeffrey said pretty much 100%, > but my point is > completely different, rendering Jeffries argument's > inconsequential. *grin* I love being inconsequential. It takes all the responsibility off me ^_^ >If you > specifically look at what he said, and compare it to my > question posed the > other day, you will understand my point of view. Y'know, Travis, several of us did just that, and still didn't understand. That's why we asked you to elaborate a little. :( -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:28:44 -0600 > > > >Quick question: Have you seen "Blade Runner" and read _Do Androids > >Dream of Electric Sheep?_? > > > > Julia > > Nope. Any good? I ask because it goes back to the "movie based on the book" discussion. "Blade Runner" is based on _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_. The movie took all sorts of liberties and did a lot of really cool stuff, and I'm wondering what you'll think of it all once you've seen the movie and read the book. Julia yes, that was a suggestion ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:19:09 -0800 > > > > > > > >Hey, Shakespeare was what *I* was gonna drag out next ;) > > > >-j- > > Drag it out. > > -Travis "cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war" Edmunds > > Well as long as they're poodles... Cry "ribbit!" and unleash the frogs of war. (I own a button with this on it.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:19:09 -0800 Hey, Shakespeare was what *I* was gonna drag out next ;) -j- Drag it out. -Travis "cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war" Edmunds Well as long as they're poodles... _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:11:10 -0600 I think that I see the difference in what Travis just wrote and what he appeared to be saying earlier. I don't think there is a difference whatsoever. I'm still making the same point. People have a right to want what they want about movies. I see no reason why someone says that they are bothered the divergence of a movie from a book But, to me, Travis's earlier comments indicated some objective problem with the movie because it didn't follow the book more closely. Yes and no. I agree with what Jeffrey said pretty much 100%, but my point is completely different, rendering Jeffries argument's inconsequential. If you specifically look at what he said, and compare it to my question posed the other day, you will understand my point of view. -Travis "a Saturn Vue is the worst view" Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:28:44 -0600 Quick question: Have you seen "Blade Runner" and read _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_? Julia Nope. Any good? -Travis _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >You snooze, you lose. :-) > > > > > >Dan M. > > Indeed. > > > > -Travis > Or in Scotland you wake up with a blue ribbon tied > to. > > Vilyehm Teighlore The upshot is that falling into a drunken sleep while on holiday _should not_ involve wearing a kilt, at least not if inquiring minds are aboot... I Dunno Wher Ya Bin, Milad, But I See Ya Won Firs' Prize! Maru;} __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/8/2004 6:50:28 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >You snooze, you lose. :-) > > > > > >Dan M. > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > -Travis > > > > Or in Scotland you wake up with a blue ribbon tied to. Ah, thank you for reminding me of one of my favorite songs. I needed a bit of cheer-up Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
In a message dated 1/8/2004 6:50:28 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >You snooze, you lose. :-) > > > >Dan M. > > > > Indeed. > > -Travis > Or in Scotland you wake up with a blue ribbon tied to. Vilyehm Teighlore ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:39:13 -0600 You snooze, you lose. :-) Dan M. Indeed. -Travis _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
- Original Message - From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:19 PM Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 04:11 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > I think that I see the difference in what Travis just wrote > and what he appeared to be saying earlier. > > People have a right to want what they want about movies. I > see no reason why someone says that they are bothered the > divergence of a movie from a book But, to me, Travis's > earlier comments indicated some objective problem with the > movie because it didn't follow the book more closely. *nod* That I understand.. what I have trouble following is the ustiication for declaring that the -only- way to judge it is on the degree of discrepancy. > Stories are retold all the time. Shakespeare retold a number > of stories, and his work is better remembered than the > original. Faust has been retold many times. West Side story > stands on its own, and should not be considered a failure > because Maria lives. Hey, Shakespeare was what *I* was gonna drag out next ;) You snooze, you lose. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 04:11 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > I think that I see the difference in what Travis just wrote > and what he appeared to be saying earlier. > > People have a right to want what they want about movies. I > see no reason why someone says that they are bothered the > divergence of a movie from a book But, to me, Travis's > earlier comments indicated some objective problem with the > movie because it didn't follow the book more closely. *nod* That I understand.. what I have trouble following is the ustiication for declaring that the -only- way to judge it is on the degree of discrepancy. > Stories are retold all the time. Shakespeare retold a number > of stories, and his work is better remembered than the > original. Faust has been retold many times. West Side story > stands on its own, and should not be considered a failure > because Maria lives. Hey, Shakespeare was what *I* was gonna drag out next ;) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
- Original Message - From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:43 PM Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 04:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >> Is this perchance a valid statement, after watching a film >> which has been adapted from a book?: >> >> "I didn't really like the movie because it deviated too much >> from the book" >Travis, I don't understand how you think this illuminates your position to >me. Posting an obvious truth, and pointing to it as "proof" that someone >I'm wrong? *boggle* If you want to actually talk about >this, lets talk about it. Otherwise, I'll smile and shake my head sadly >that I missed an opportunityto understand what your point was when I'm watching tRotK >on DVD next fall and enjoying it. :) I think that I see the difference in what Travis just wrote and what he appeared to be saying earlier. People have a right to want what they want about movies. I see no reason why someone says that they are bothered the divergence of a movie from a book But, to me, Travis's earlier comments indicated some objective problem with the movie because it didn't follow the book more closely. Stories are retold all the time. Shakespeare retold a number of stories, and his work is better remembered than the original. Faust has been retold many times. West Side story stands on its own, and should not be considered a failure because Maria lives. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:43:11 -0800 Travis, I don't understand how you think this illuminates your position to me. Posting an obvious truth, and pointing to it as "proof" that someone I'm wrong? *boggle* If you want to actually talk about this, lets talk about it. Otherwise, I'll smile and shake my head sadly that I missed an opportunity to understand what your point was when I'm watching tRotK on DVD next fall and enjoying it. :) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Jeffrey, please. I intend not to employ an arsenal of weapons which are mightier than "the sword".(I'm sure you comprehend the allusion) I have considered many possible avenues down which to travel, in order to best illuminate my position, and decided on the shortest and the simplest. This avenue I chose is one that leads us to the heart of the city, so to speak. It is directed towards the core of this little debate, and seeks to bring forth my point, which holds truth in DIRECT scrutiny of the DIRECT position I take. You see, I agree with many of the things you have said. However you completely miss the point of my argument. So again I ask you to answer my question with a yes or a no, and to provide a brief explanation of your answer. Once that is done, I can then reply to you in the manner in which you seek. -Travis _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 04:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > >From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:20:39 -0800 > > > Lets not be coy Jeffrey. I find myself asking why you do not > commit to the truth? Obviously, its because I hate America and everything it stands for. > Is this perchance a valid statement, after watching a film > which has been adapted from a book?: > > "I didn't really like the movie because it deviated too much > from the book" Travis, I don't understand how you think this illuminates your position to me. Posting an obvious truth, and pointing to it as "proof" that someone I'm wrong? *boggle* If you want to actually talk about this, lets talk about it. Otherwise, I'll smile and shake my head sadly that I missed an opportunity to understand what your point was when I'm watching tRotK on DVD next fall and enjoying it. :) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Horn, John > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 07:34 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > From: Miller, Jeffrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Cat in the Hat - ok, this may be a bad example, as it was a > > DREADFUL film, but if you were to make a film that was > > faithful (as you define it) to the source book, it would be > > about 10 minutes long, and be a glorified music video for the > > spoken word version of the text. GRinch Who Stole Christmas, > > a fairly decent adaptation, also strays from the source > > material wildly, yet no one complains about that. Why? > > My daughter did. About an hour into "The Grinch" she leaned > over to me and asked "Is he ever going to go steal the > presents?" I had to agree with her. *Grin* ah, from the mouths of babes.. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:20:39 -0800 Lets not be coy Jeffrey. I find myself asking why you do not commit to the truth? Or at least the truth insofar as a concrete declaration is true in relation to the topic at hand. I understand however that perhaps you do not clearly see my point of view. You said so yourself! So allow me my attempt at shedding some light on this by asking you yet another question.(offensiveness is not my intent) Is this perchance a valid statement, after watching a film which has been adapted from a book?: "I didn't really like the movie because it deviated too much from the book" A simple yes or no will suffice, followed by a brief explanation of your answer. I encourage you to think long and hard over this question, the truth (if such a word is accurate here) absolutely hinges on it. -Travis "a great truth can, and eventually will be expressed as a cliche..." Edmunds _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> From: Miller, Jeffrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cat in the Hat - ok, this may be a bad example, as it was a > DREADFUL film, but if you were to make a film that was > faithful (as you define it) to the source book, it would be > about 10 minutes long, and be a glorified music video for the > spoken word version of the text. GRinch Who Stole Christmas, > a fairly decent adaptation, also strays from the source > material wildly, yet no one complains about that. Why? My daughter did. About an hour into "The Grinch" she leaned over to me and asked "Is he ever going to go steal the presents?" I had to agree with her. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
Jan Coffey wrote: > Unfortunately the third movie did not hold together ~without~ the > books. If you did not have the books as a point of reference, the > movie seemed split and fragmented. Without the battle for the shire, > the last 3 minutes of the movie were somehow tacked on and mostly > useless. I must have spent an hour after the movie explaining to > everyone what happened in the book after they left MT and especially, > where the heck Mithrandir, Frodo, Bilbo, and the Elves were off to on > the boat, and more importantly ~why~ they had to go. Even people who > had read the book didn't pick up on Mithrandir being the "3ed ring > bearer". > > I don't know if it was just the way I read the books, but I never > imagined The army from under the mountain as being "pirates of the > Caribbean "-esk I had imagined them as corporeal and able to be > wounded. So the green mass sweeping up MT was a bit ~too~ DEM for me > (DEM as it was). My mother would disagree with you. She's never read the books and didn't see the first two movies. After she stopped sniffling at the end of the movie, she said that after the first 45 minutes or so, she had figured out what THIS movie was about. I DID talk her into watching the first two at home with her two grandsons who got both extended versions for Christmas. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of Elvis Review Re: my mini review
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/5/2004 5:59:35 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Have you read Forrest Gump, and can you imagine what trash the movie would > > > have been if it had followed the book? > > > > No, but that's one of the many books waiting to be read. :) > > > > I figure I ought to some day, just that particular day hasn't arrived > > yet. > > > > Julia > > Put it lower on your list, or wait until you are in a wicked state of mind. > > The movie has an uplifting theme. > > The book is all about a stupid guy who gets lucky and gets laid a lot. If I ever finish one of the two fiction books I started last week, that might be a good follow-up. I'm assuming it won't require much brainpower to stay into. Julia fried, but at least I haven't hit the "head about to explode" point today ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
At 08:28 PM 1/5/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/5/2004 5:57:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I'm looking for a blond wig and a meat cleaver---just in case that while > > you're sitting at the metaphorical table, you metaphorically start to play > cards. > > Wig? Did you say "wig"? > > Reminds me of the commercial for Wig Newtons -- the wonderful taste of > fruit & hair > > Julia This reminds me: Anyone know where to get an Isaac Newton-type wig real cheap? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
In a message dated 1/5/2004 5:57:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I'm looking for a blond wig and a meat cleaver---just in case that while > > you're sitting at the metaphorical table, you metaphorically start to play > cards. > > Wig? Did you say "wig"? > > Reminds me of the commercial for Wig Newtons -- the wonderful taste of > fruit & hair > > Julia I'm not blonde. And neither was Harpo, I think William Taylor Never abbreviate 'American' as 'Merkin' unless you know exactly what you're getting into... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of Elvis Review Re: my mini review
In a message dated 1/5/2004 5:59:35 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Have you read Forrest Gump, and can you imagine what trash the movie would > > have been if it had followed the book? > > No, but that's one of the many books waiting to be read. :) > > I figure I ought to some day, just that particular day hasn't arrived > yet. > > Julia Put it lower on your list, or wait until you are in a wicked state of mind. The movie has an uplifting theme. The book is all about a stupid guy who gets lucky and gets laid a lot. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/5/2004 3:29:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Quick question: Have you seen "Blade Runner" and read _Do Androids > > Dream of Electric Sheep?_? > > > > Julia > > Have you read Forrest Gump, and can you imagine what trash the movie would > have been if it had followed the book? No, but that's one of the many books waiting to be read. :) I figure I ought to some day, just that particular day hasn't arrived yet. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/5/2004 3:24:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > > > Here we are, both sitting at a table > > > with a concept smack dab in the middle of that table staring > > > us down. Like > > > it or not the concept is there. Yet you deny it's existence, > > > whilst viewing it with your own eyes. > > > > I'm unsure if you're actually claiming I deny the existence of the story, > or > > if you're constructing a metaphor of some sort. :-? > > I'm looking for a blond wig and a meat cleaver---just in case that while > you're sitting at the metaphorical table, you metaphorically start to play cards. Wig? Did you say "wig"? Reminds me of the commercial for Wig Newtons -- the wonderful taste of fruit & hair Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
In a message dated 1/5/2004 3:29:45 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Quick question: Have you seen "Blade Runner" and read _Do Androids > Dream of Electric Sheep?_? > > Julia Have you read Forrest Gump, and can you imagine what trash the movie would have been if it had followed the book? William Taylor And the trashing of Enemy Mine inbetween the short story and the novelization. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
In a message dated 1/5/2004 3:24:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > > Here we are, both sitting at a table > > with a concept smack dab in the middle of that table staring > > us down. Like > > it or not the concept is there. Yet you deny it's existence, > > whilst viewing it with your own eyes. > > I'm unsure if you're actually claiming I deny the existence of the story, or > if you're constructing a metaphor of some sort. :-? I'm looking for a blond wig and a meat cleaver---just in case that while you're sitting at the metaphorical table, you metaphorically start to play cards. Vilyehm Teighlore -- That's my take. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
Travis Edmunds wrote: > > >From: "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:38:24 -0500 > > > >>From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >: > >>opinion on the trilogy, plus throwing in a friendly jab. And as to my > >>opinion, I don't think you can really make any judgement on the movies, > >>unless you compare them to the books, which is the true receptacle of the > >>Lord Of The Rings story. This is just my own opinion... > > > >I disagree. Although, personally it's hard for me to see the films in any > >light besides how faithful/unfaithful it is to the books, I don't think > >that's the only, or even primary, criteria for anyone but hardcore fans of > >the novel to use. Movies really do have to stand on, and should be judged > >by, their own merits. There's tons of movies out there based on books, > >which I've never read, and it's silly to think I couldn't make a judgement > >on them because of that. > > > >For example, I think The Green Mile was a fantastic film, and Firestarter > >was lousy, but I've never read those Stephen King works, and think it would > >be silly to judge them purely in terms of their faithfulness to their > >original works. And for most people it will be the same for LOTR, even if > >we hardcore fans have a hard time seeing it that way. > > > > You make some good points. And I tend to agree in a generalized way. However > my argument lies not in movies as movies, but in books as movies. For > example, a film that is NOT based on a book (for our purposes we shall call > it a stand-alone film) can indeed be judged by your gereral criteria. > However, a film that is based on a book must, I repeat must be scrutinized > in relation to that book itself. As I said, a book (especially one adapted > to film) is the true receptacle of a story. Therefore it is a little > capricious and downright flawed to look at the situation any other way. > Unless of course one hasn't read a particular book that has been adapted to > film, and subsequently judged the film based on the merits of films alone. > That is quite understandable. > > -Travis "it's all about the story, really" Edmunds Quick question: Have you seen "Blade Runner" and read _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 01:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > > >From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:50:24 -0800 > > > > > > > > > > > > You make some good points. And I tend to agree in a > generalized way. > > > However my argument lies not in movies as movies, but in books as > > > movies. For > > > example, a film that is NOT based on a book (for our purposes > > > we shall call > > > it a stand-alone film) can indeed be judged by your > gereral criteria. > > > However, a film that is based on a book must, I repeat must > > > be scrutinized in relation to that book itself. > > > >Why? > > > > > Why you ask? Well, your post allows little to no room for any sort of interpretation of the films as works of art in and of themselves, and instead categorizes them only as translations. You also narrowly define the criteria in which one can interpret them in such a fashion to define the conversation down to an automatic negative result. Asking "why" you insist that one work of art that is based on another can only be judged based upon its relationship to the original work is hardly "sanguine" or a "wave" (I'm not even sure what that means..) > Allow me instead to answer your question with a question of my own: I generally find that discussion technique to be rather poorly used and a tad offensive, but I'll bite and try to answer you. > Do you deny that the story of The Lord Of The Rings is > contained in the books themselves? No, I do not, although I do dispute that the story is the sole measure of the work. I also deny that your definition of what constitutes the "story" of LotR is accurate. You seem to only want to use the measure of the literal words, in which case any attempt at creating a film version of a text will fail. > Here we are, both sitting at a table > with a concept smack dab in the middle of that table staring > us down. Like > it or not the concept is there. Yet you deny it's existence, > whilst viewing it with your own eyes. I'm unsure if you're actually claiming I deny the existence of the story, or if you're constructing a metaphor of some sort. :-? > In fact it is open to an infinite > number of interpretations in regard to the reader-writer relationship > involved with literature. But that is not of what I speak. I > speak simply of > the adaptation of a book to a film. It is in that adaptation > that of course > no real consensus of derivitave or reinterpretive art needs > to reflect > anything other than the secondary artists interpretations of their > experience of the art. However the fact remains that in > interpreting this > art one must also be faithful to the story. Is this not so? No, I don't believe that's true. It is the job of the artist, if they are truly acting within the bounds of "art" (whatever THAT means, which is another converstaion perhaps) to reinterpret the original work. If they fail to do so, what you get instead is Harry Potter movies - laundry lists of everyone's favorite scene. Such "adaptations" are failures; what's the point of using a different medium to retell the same exact story in such a fashion that fails to account for the limitations and freedoms offered by both the new medium as well as the source medium? Cat in the Hat - ok, this may be a bad example, as it was a DREADFUL film, but if you were to make a film that was faithful (as you define it) to the source book, it would be about 10 minutes long, and be a glorified music video for the spoken word version of the text. GRinch Who Stole Christmas, a fairly decent adaptation, also strays from the source material wildly, yet no one complains about that. Why? To my mind, Jackson's (and hiw writers') vision of what to HIM was important about the material, what he chose to highlight, explore, and yes, chose to cut, is interesting and illustrative of the original material - it is celebratory, not degenerative. This happens all the time with music, when one musician covers anothers song; if they stray from what is set forth in the original, is that incorrect? Is it wrong when a symphony orchestra with only 7 violins attempts a piece written with a vio
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:50:24 -0800 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 08:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > You make some good points. And I tend to agree in a > generalized way. However > my argument lies not in movies as movies, but in books as > movies. For > example, a film that is NOT based on a book (for our purposes > we shall call > it a stand-alone film) can indeed be judged by your gereral criteria. > However, a film that is based on a book must, I repeat must > be scrutinized in relation to that book itself. Why? Why you ask? How perfectly sanguine. I could now attempt to roll over your wave with a large one of my own, but it's downright defeatist, and most assuredly impossible. Allow me instead to answer your question with a question of my own: Do you deny that the story of The Lord Of The Rings is contained in the books themselves? Coming from an educated art background, there's very little basis for insisting that any single >source is a "true receptacle" of the art, nor any real consensus that derivitave or reinterpretive art >needs to reflect anything other than the secondary artists interpretations of their experience of >the art. I cannot claim to know as much about art in general as you do. As for art specific, I will meet you eye to eye. Here we are, both sitting at a table with a concept smack dab in the middle of that table staring us down. Like it or not the concept is there. Yet you deny it's existence, whilst viewing it with your own eyes. The artistry of The Lord Of The Rings is undoubtedly open to interpretations from many angles. In fact it is open to an infinite number of interpretations in regard to the reader-writer relationship involved with literature. But that is not of what I speak. I speak simply of the adaptation of a book to a film. It is in that adaptation that of course no real consensus of derivitave or reinterpretive art needs to reflect anything other than the secondary artists interpretations of their experience of the art. However the fact remains that in interpreting this art one must also be faithful to the story. Is this not so? To do otherwise would be impetuously irresponsible. Moreover if the books themselves aren't the true receptacle of the story, and the story is of what I speak, then what is? >So, who's right? -j- You evade the true essence of this debate. It's not about who's right. It's about what's right. Do not misinterpret me however. I recognize of course that in adapting a book to film, the filmmaker makes his own interpretations, and that in and of itself causes the film to reflect his ideas as well as Tolkiens'. But don't you see? I'm groping for middle ground here, whereas you are taking the side of impossibility. No, there is no master consensus of artistic interpretation, but the story is still the story. If this were not so, then to say that "the movie deviated from the book" would be a falsehood, an impossibility. Whereas we know that it is in fact a truthful possibility. -Travis "direct yourself at the core of an idea as opposed to the flashy words accompanying it" Edmunds _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >From: "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > >Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:38:24 -0500 > > > >>From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >: > >>opinion on the trilogy, plus throwing in a friendly jab. And as to my > >>opinion, I don't think you can really make any judgement on the movies, > >>unless you compare them to the books, which is the true receptacle of the >As I said, a book (especially one adapted > to film) is the true receptacle of a story. Therefore it is a little > capricious and downright flawed to look at the situation any other way. > Unless of course one hasn't read a particular book that has been adapted to > film, and subsequently judged the film based on the merits of films alone. > That is quite understandable. > I could not help but feel somewhat jipped by the third movie. I went to see the film with several who had not read the book, including some a slight bit too young to have much interest in the books as of yet. Unfortunately the third movie did not hold together ~without~ the books. If you did not have the books as a point of reference, the movie seemed split and fragmented. Without the battle for the shire, the last 3 minutes of the movie were somehow tacked on and mostly useless. I must have spent an hour after the movie explaining to everyone what happened in the book after they left MT and especially, where the heck Mithrandir, Frodo, Bilbo, and the Elves were off to on the boat, and more importantly ~why~ they had to go. Even people who had read the book didn't pick up on Mithrandir being the "3ed ring bearer". I don't know if it was just the way I read the books, but I never imagined The army from under the mountain as being "pirates of the Caribbean "-esk I had imagined them as corporeal and able to be wounded. So the green mass sweeping up MT was a bit ~too~ DEM for me (DEM as it was). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 08:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review > > > You make some good points. And I tend to agree in a > generalized way. However > my argument lies not in movies as movies, but in books as > movies. For > example, a film that is NOT based on a book (for our purposes > we shall call > it a stand-alone film) can indeed be judged by your gereral criteria. > However, a film that is based on a book must, I repeat must > be scrutinized in relation to that book itself. Why? Coming from an educated art background, there's very little basis for insisting that any single source is a "true receptacle" of the art, nor any real consensus that derivitave or reinterpretive art needs to reflect anything other than the secondary artists interpretations of their experience of the art. Read up on Pop Art (Warhol and Lichtenstein, especially) as that's a good example of artists re-expressing Art imitating Life. Is Warhol's Campbells Soup Can portrait any /less/ art because it is an expression of his experience of the object, or is it greater art than, say, what Picasso might have done with the same subject, because of his fidelity to the source? Would you similarly dismiss the paintings of the Impressionists or Abstracts or Minimalists? That is, would you dismiss Seurat's famous paintin Grande Jatte (http://artchive.floridaimaging.com/s/seurat/jatte.jpg) as only comparable to the "original" lazy summer afternoon which hey painted, which can ergo only be discussed in such terms by people who were there on that exact afternoon to experience it, and compare that moment against the painting? Further, the very notion that that there is a "true receptacle" of the story of LotR is misguided; as a pure text, yes, we can say this line or that event is quantifiable, but in sum the text must be taken as an experiential work, as many things in this world outside of science and computers are practically judged. Some people read Tolkien and are disturbed by the blatant racism implicit in the story. Some are moved by the heart-achingly beautiful mythic reality woven through the narrative, brought low by crass humanity. Some are roused by the martial heroics of its masculine characters as they strut and stride their way towards saving the precious spark of Good. So, who's right? -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:38:24 -0500 From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : opinion on the trilogy, plus throwing in a friendly jab. And as to my opinion, I don't think you can really make any judgement on the movies, unless you compare them to the books, which is the true receptacle of the Lord Of The Rings story. This is just my own opinion... I disagree. Although, personally it's hard for me to see the films in any light besides how faithful/unfaithful it is to the books, I don't think that's the only, or even primary, criteria for anyone but hardcore fans of the novel to use. Movies really do have to stand on, and should be judged by, their own merits. There's tons of movies out there based on books, which I've never read, and it's silly to think I couldn't make a judgement on them because of that. For example, I think The Green Mile was a fantastic film, and Firestarter was lousy, but I've never read those Stephen King works, and think it would be silly to judge them purely in terms of their faithfulness to their original works. And for most people it will be the same for LOTR, even if we hardcore fans have a hard time seeing it that way. You make some good points. And I tend to agree in a generalized way. However my argument lies not in movies as movies, but in books as movies. For example, a film that is NOT based on a book (for our purposes we shall call it a stand-alone film) can indeed be judged by your gereral criteria. However, a film that is based on a book must, I repeat must be scrutinized in relation to that book itself. As I said, a book (especially one adapted to film) is the true receptacle of a story. Therefore it is a little capricious and downright flawed to look at the situation any other way. Unless of course one hasn't read a particular book that has been adapted to film, and subsequently judged the film based on the merits of films alone. That is quite understandable. -Travis "it's all about the story, really" Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> NOTE PLENTY OF SPOILERS AT THIS POINT, since I think that everyone has had a chance to see the movie. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS 1) Overall, I think that The Two Towers is the best movie.The Fellowship of the Ring might have been good, but in my mind it was too slow, too confusing, and most of the great special effects were given away in the previews. The Return of the King was hyped a little less, and less was given away, so I place it in the middle. In fairness, I should note that my single most memorable moment from reading the entire Ring Trilogy was the meeting of the Ents - so The Two Towers probably had a bit of an advantage in that department for me. Nevertheless, I just found The Two Towers more intense, more fluid, more believable, and with overall the best battle scenes I had ever seen. For me, compared to the battle at Minas Tirith, the Helm's Deep Battle in TTT was a bit more satisfying and realistic, but it was dwarfed in terms of sheer spectacle. As long as it was, the Minas Tirith battle was too short to really fully show what happened. As usual in this movie, I suspect far more footage was filmed than was actually put into the move, so I'm hoping for more to be shown in the extended edition. O.k., I know that Gandalf is not supposed to be around in The Two Towers (which is one thing that ruined the climax to The Fellowship of the Ring for me - as I *knew* that Gandalf was supposed to "perish" in the pit with the balrog.), but by the second movie I'm not sure what you mean by this. Gandalf certainly is around in the TTT novel. The Balrog scenes with Gandalf are pretty much faithful to the books. The only real difference being that the movie shows the battle up front, while in the book, Gandalf tells it by flashback when he later meets up with Aragorn. But Gandalf meets up with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli right where he's supposed to. 2) In my mind the movie was too long... and too short. 3.5 hours is definitely a long time to sit in a crowded theatre, especially with 20 minutes of advertisements tacked on.At the same time, you could just tell that this movie was squeezed into the timeframe, as the storytelling was often choppy. Yes, all 3 movies seem slightly choppy to me because of this. The TTT extended edition fixes this greatly with 45 extra minutes of footage. I'm told the FOTR extended edition does the same for the first film, but I haven't seen it yet. And I'm betting the extended edition of ROTK will fix a lot of quibbles I have with the third movie. As just one example, where did the Eagles suddenly come from? I think they might have been in the first movie... but that was two The eagles arriving deus-ex-machina is a running thing in the LOTR world. They show up in the Hobbit, one rescues Gandalf in the Fellowship, and they show up at the Black Gate and to rescue Sam in ROTK. IIRC, the're a large moth that presages their arrival at the Gate, similar to the one Gandalf "spoke with" when trapped at Orthanc in Fellowship. years ago... an eternity. Overall, I would much rather have preferred that they go the "Gettysburg" route, make it a full four hours+, and put in an intermission.Or why not even make it two separate movies we are about making money after all, right? - and there is plenty of material in The Lord of the Rings to make the books into four movies. The initial plan was to split LOTR into two movies, and it was considered very risky at the time. When the studio saw how well it was going, it expanded the budget to allow for 3 films, but the situation was a huge gamble. They were spending $300 million to produce 3 films all at once without knowing how any of them would do. If LOTR flopped, it would mean the end of the studio. While I would have loved to see 4 movies, I doubt they would have been willing to gamble $400 million, and also, I'm not sure if there would be any good split-points to break the story into 4 parts. The ending of the movie is simply interminable. Maybe I have become a jaded American I guess you'd agree with Bemmzim then about being glad the scouring of the shire was not included; that'd have added at least another 15 minutes to the end, I'd guess. I'm glad the conclusion wasn't rushed. I really hate movies that have their big finale and then feel it necessary to immediately end the movie on that note. Sometimes some wind-down is nice to see. moviegoer, and maybe I shouldn't have caught a 10:30 showing, but after the raging climax. 3) The Army of the Dead is a major disappointment. Now, to be clear, I did not recall this scene at *all* from my reading of the novels a decade ago so I almost half-wondered if they were added in, but that seemed unlikely to me.Nevertheless, the story line just simply did not seem believeable. The Army of the Dead is part of the novel, but they do not fight at Minas Tirith. They drive
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : opinion on the trilogy, plus throwing in a friendly jab. And as to my opinion, I don't think you can really make any judgement on the movies, unless you compare them to the books, which is the true receptacle of the Lord Of The Rings story. This is just my own opinion... I disagree. Although, personally it's hard for me to see the films in any light besides how faithful/unfaithful it is to the books, I don't think that's the only, or even primary, criteria for anyone but hardcore fans of the novel to use. Movies really do have to stand on, and should be judged by, their own merits. There's tons of movies out there based on books, which I've never read, and it's silly to think I couldn't make a judgement on them because of that. For example, I think The Green Mile was a fantastic film, and Firestarter was lousy, but I've never read those Stephen King works, and think it would be silly to judge them purely in terms of their faithfulness to their original works. And for most people it will be the same for LOTR, even if we hardcore fans have a hard time seeing it that way. _ Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:58:17 -0500 I think that I mentioned in my piece that having read the books 10 years ago, I was almost completely uninterested to how faithful the movie stayed to the deatils of the book. Actually, I am quite sure that I did. JDG I'm also quite sure of it myself. However I was just giving MY opinion on the trilogy, plus throwing in a friendly jab. And as to my opinion, I don't think you can really make any judgement on the movies, unless you compare them to the books, which is the true receptacle of the Lord Of The Rings story. This is just my own opinion... -Travis _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
JDG wrote: >>>1) Overall, I think that The Two Towers is the best movie. Travis replied: > >Hear that? It's the sound of your whole argument going right out the window. > > Sorry I couldn't resist. On a serious note though, in an attempt to > >divulge my opinion on the trilogy, let me say that IMO "The Two Towers" was > >the worst as opposed to the best. It deviated too much from the actual > >story-line. Fellowship was for the most part faithfull to the book, same as > >ROTK. JDG responded: > I think that I mentioned in my piece that having read the books 10 years > ago, I was almost completely uninterested to how faithful the movie stayed > to the deatils of the book. > > Actually, I am quite sure that I did. I have a friend at work who reads the books every year and The Two Towers is unquestionably his favorite book. The extended version of The Two Towers is also his favorite movie of the trilogy, even with all of the changes. Just thought I'd toss that in there. Reggie Bautista De gustibus non est disputandum Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
At 04:23 PM 1/3/2004 -0330 Travis Edmunds wrote: >>1) Overall, I think that The Two Towers is the best movie. > >Hear that? It's the sound of your whole argument going right out the window. > Sorry I couldn't resist. On a serious note though, in an attempt to >divulge my opinion on the trilogy, let me say that IMO "The Two Towers" was >the worst as opposed to the best. It deviated too much from the actual >story-line. Fellowship was for the most part faithfull to the book, same as >ROTK. I think that I mentioned in my piece that having read the books 10 years ago, I was almost completely uninterested to how faithful the movie stayed to the deatils of the book. Actually, I am quite sure that I did. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:25:00 -0500 1) Overall, I think that The Two Towers is the best movie. Hear that? It's the sound of your whole argument going right out the window. Sorry I couldn't resist. On a serious note though, in an attempt to divulge my opinion on the trilogy, let me say that IMO "The Two Towers" was the worst as opposed to the best. It deviated too much from the actual story-line. Fellowship was for the most part faithfull to the book, same as ROTK. However as a pure movie ROTK was, for lack of a better word awesome. So in that respect, and taking into account that it is very difficult to 100% faithfully render a book into a movie, ROTK is the best flick of the series. -Travis "quite a simple conclusion actually" Edmunds _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
NOTE PLENTY OF SPOILERS AT THIS POINT, since I think that everyone has had a chance to see the movie. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS I haven't read the books in probably 10 years so I probably have a different perspective on this than msot.I pretty much know the story, but I'm certainly not going to notice much in the way of additions and deletions. So, some thoughts: 1) Overall, I think that The Two Towers is the best movie.The Fellowship of the Ring might have been good, but in my mind it was too slow, too confusing, and most of the great special effects were given away in the previews. The Return of the King was hyped a little less, and less was given away, so I place it in the middle. In fairness, I should note that my single most memorable moment from reading the entire Ring Trilogy was the meeting of the Ents - so The Two Towers probably had a bit of an advantage in that department for me. Nevertheless, I just found The Two Towers more intense, more fluid, more believable, and with overall the best battle scenes I had ever seen. O.k., I know that Gandalf is not supposed to be around in The Two Towers (which is one thing that ruined the climax to The Fellowship of the Ring for me - as I *knew* that Gandalf was supposed to "perish" in the pit with the balrog.), but by the second movie I am completely over this, and it is just plain the best movie in my mind - unusual for the second movement of a trilogy to be sure. 2) In my mind the movie was too long... and too short. 3.5 hours is definitely a long time to sit in a crowded theatre, especially with 20 minutes of advertisements tacked on.At the same time, you could just tell that this movie was squeezed into the timeframe, as the storytelling was often choppy. As just one example, where did the Eagles suddenly come from? I think they might have been in the first movie... but that was two years ago... an eternity. Overall, I would much rather have preferred that they go the "Gettysburg" route, make it a full four hours+, and put in an intermission.Or why not even make it two separate movies we are about making money after all, right? - and there is plenty of material in The Lord of the Rings to make the books into four movies. The ending of the movie is simply interminable. Maybe I have become a jaded American moviegoer, and maybe I shouldn't have caught a 10:30 showing, but after the raging climax. 3) The Army of the Dead is a major disappointment. Now, to be clear, I did not recall this scene at *all* from my reading of the novels a decade ago so I almost half-wondered if they were added in, but that seemed unlikely to me.Nevertheless, the story line just simply did not seem believeable.The worst part is after The Army of the Dead arrives at the harbor and engages in a pitched battle with the arriving Army of Bad Men (?) and then arrives at the main battlefield and simply sweeps across the battlefield in a green wave, securing the victory.Huh?immediately afterwards, as Aragon releases the Army of the Dead, the battliefield has already been cleared of all bodies, and indeed the men of Gondor and Minis Tirith who held the battlefield long enough for the Army of the Dead to arrive are NOWHERE to be seen. What's up with that Overall, it was just a major, major disappointment for me to see this battle end with ghosts sweeping across the battlefield, and the bravery and courage of the men who held the battlefield instantly and utterly forgotten. 4) Overall the battles were somewhat disappointing. Agree totally with whomever mentioned that the Army of Aragon at the Battle of the Black Gate looked like a pitiful force that simply had no chance. Much of the battle at Minis Tirith had a bit of a "been there - seen that in the last movie" feel to it. I also couldn't help but feel that I was going to be seeing jet-skis and Ewoks bringing down The Walkers.Unfair, I guess but once again, it definitely felt like I had already seen this battle scene once before - albeit in a different trilogy.Also, there were numerous time inconsistancies in the leadup to this battle, in all the journeys back and forth - someone aught to have fact-checked the script, as the _multiple_ inconsistincies just became jarring.Furthermore, perhaps the most memorable battle moment I had from reading the books was the arrival of Gandalf the White.There's definitely no way it could have the same effect in the movie with Gandalf never "dying" in the first place, but overall I just felt that the movie failed to deliver that moment.I don't know if the "Woman of Gondor" (whose name I can never remember) killing the Lord of the Nazgul moment was in the book, but that was the highlight of the battle scenes for me - even she did nearly step on the line. 5) I've heard that Sam Gamgee is getting some Best Supporting Actor buzz - which I think would be greatOf course, I still hope tha
Re: my mini review
Bryon wrote: The anti-industrial angle doesn't bother me at all. It's a running theme that Saruman is a spoiler of nature, so it's no surprise he'd do the same to the Shire. But then, The Lorax is one of my favorite stories, so maybe that disqualifies me from judgement on this. I don't really see it as ant-industrial. First of all, Sharky's regime is a brutal dictatorship run by a collection of the worst of the Shire and mercenaries from elsewhere, so it's really anti authoritarian. Secondly, the excesses taken in industrial arena are well beyond the pale - they arenât just building a manufacturing capability, they are raping the land, so its really anti _irresponsible_ industry. Do we think that if Tolkien had his way there would be no mill at all, or would there be a mill that operated in such a manner that it did not sully the landscape and pollute the stream? I'd argue the latter. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: my mini review
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/31/2003 6:07:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I was originally upset when I heard the Scouring was not only not in the > movie, but not even filmed. That part of the books is one > of my very favorites I am glad they removed the scouring. I thought it was a stupid anti-climax in the book. Hell they have beaten Sauron and the hobbits are the heroes of middle earth. How could they not get rid of Saurimon and his henchmen? It is also an incredibly heavy handed anti-industrial screed. I know that this is the subtext of the book but it can be ignored if one chooses to. I'm with George - I like the scouring a lot and don't find it anti-climactic. To me, the SotS does two cool things: 1) It really highlights how much Frodo & pals have changed over the course of the story. They are not even close to being the same people they were before they left. 2) They solve the problem themselves, using their own leadership and courage, and facing down their enemy. That's the crux of it. They could *easily* have withdrawn, gotten word to Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn or even Eomer and had a large army ride in to get rid of the bad guys (or maybe Gandalf himself do it). Heck, those guys would be *obligated* to provide that kind of help if asked for it, given the hobbit's contributions! Instead, they choose to handle it themselves, despite the very real danger: while they *are* the heroes of middle earth, no one in the Shire really knew/cared about that, and that fact alone certainly wouldn't solve the problem for them, or prevent Saruman's much-larger men from trying to kill them. To me, the hobbits prove themselves and how far they've grown, by making this choice. The anti-industrial angle doesn't bother me at all. It's a running theme that Saruman is a spoiler of nature, so it's no surprise he'd do the same to the Shire. But then, The Lorax is one of my favorite stories, so maybe that disqualifies me from judgement on this. -bryon Maybe Saruman was manufacturing thneeds in the Shire? Maru _ Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet access. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: my mini review
In a message dated 12/31/2003 6:07:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The Scouring of the Shire was cut, and was not filmed. The Shire is in > > fine shape when they arrive. Despite that, the ending does not feel > > truncated. The movie continues for about 20 minutes past the destruction > of > > the ring, with Aragorn's coronation, and the some Shire scenes, including > > Frodo and Gandalf's departure at the Grey Havens 4 years later. Even > though > > I miss the scouring, it's a satisfying ending. > > > I was originally upset when I heard the Scouring was not only not in the > movie, but not even filmed. That part of the books is one > of my very favorites I am glad they removed the scouring. I thought it was a stupid anti-climax in the book. Hell they have beaten Sauron and the hobbits are the heroes of middle earth. How could they not get rid of Saurimon and his henchmen? It is also an incredibly heavy handed anti-industrial screed. I know that this is the subtext of the book but it can be ignored if one chooses to. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: my mini review
I watched it twice while I was in the States. Comments within. Bryon Daly wrote: > I just got back from seeing Return of the King (played hookey from work!), > and seeing no one's commented on it yet, I thought I'd post some of my > thoughts. I'll try to keep spoilers segregated to a separate section at the > bottom for those who are concerned about that. > > Capsule summary: Awesome. I'm still digesting it, but I'm thinking this was > the best of the three. The three LOTR-heads I saw it with felt that even > more strongly than I did. There were again some deviations from the book, > but they weren't as jarring as those in TTT, and for sure two of the biggest > missing pieces were filmed and are certain to be included on the extended > edition. > Awesome is a good word, but may not be sufficient. Tolkien lovers can forget the minor deviations from the book, this final chapter is something to behold. > Random thoughts: > -While the beginning of the movie has a slower pace, once it gets going, it > just rips along. It didn't feel like a 3 hour and 20 minute movie at all. > Concur! This is a short movie. > - I heard a rumor that the version of ROTK originally submitted to the MPAA > was 4:40 long. That suggests a *lot* of stuff was filmed, but cut for time. > Hopefully it will all show up in the extended edition. > I truly hope for the entire thing to come out in the extended edition, and SOON. > - The special effects were extremely impressive, and better-looking that > FOTR and TTT. Some of the Minas Tirith shots that *had* to be models or > matte shots looked totally real. The Battle of the Pelennor was very > impressive. > The battle scenes in TTT were very good, but almost pale in comparison with those in this movie. Shelob is real! > - If you enjoyed Legolas' acrobatics in the last two films, he has a very > cool scene in this one, less silly than the > sliding-down-the-stairs-on-a-shield one at Helm's Deep. Overall, though, > there seems to be less screen time for Legolas, and for Gimli as well. > > - Fortunately, while Gimli has some funny lines, he doesn't come across as > slapstick as he did in TTT. And, blessedly, no dwarf-tossing references > this time. > Gimli has one tremendous line that brings an eruption of laughter during a very tense battle scene. > - Bring a hanky with you. There are some very emotional scenes. > Grown men can and do shed a tear. My wife and my mother (who didn't see the first two movies) were both moved to tears as well. > - I just got a chill recalling the beacon-lighting scene. The > cinematography is simply amazing. > I simply must visit New Zealand. > --- > > Possible spoliers below: > > - The Saruman scene was cut, but was filmed and PJ has stated it woul be on > the EE. In the movie, Pippin still does find the palantir, gets into > trouble with it, and has to leave with Gandalf, so the major course of > events remains the same. > > - The House of Healing scene(s) was cut, but was filmed and PJ has stated it > also would be on the EE. > > - The Scouring of the Shire was cut, and was not filmed. The Shire is in > fine shape when they arrive. Despite that, the ending does not feel > truncated. The movie continues for about 20 minutes past the destruction of > the ring, with Aragorn's coronation, and the some Shire scenes, including > Frodo and Gandalf's departure at the Grey Havens 4 years later. Even though > I miss the scouring, it's a satisfying ending. > I was originally upset when I heard the Scouring was not only not in the movie, but not even filmed. That part of the books is one of my very favorites. However, they did the ending (endings) well. The loose threads are tidied up nicely. You leave feeling you watched the end of the Third Age. > - The Paths of the Dead are still in it, but changed a fair bit. The > changes are somewhat for the worse, but not in a way that significantly > changes the eventual outcome. > > - Some of Sam's adventure rescuing Frodo is cut out. From the way it is > edited, I'm guessing a lot of it was filmed but cut for time. Sam's role as > Frodo's protector is highlighted, and very touching at times. I was very > gratified to see it wasn't minimized at all. > One thing I got out of this, even more than in the book, was the moral strength of Sam. He really does save the day. > - Gandalf's stand-off with the Witch-King at the gate of Minas Tirith is > (inexplicably) cut out. My friend says he actually saw the scene in one of > the previews, so it was filmed and will most likely show up in the EE. > > - The pukel-men are cut out. I have no idea if any of that was filmed. > > - If you are worried (as I was, as it's a favorite scene of mine) about > Eowyn and Merry's confrontation with the Witch-King, don't be. It follows > the book closely. > > - We get to see the whole Smeagol/Deagol ring-finding scene, with Andy > Serkis (who does Gollum's voice) playing the pre-goll
