Observations: Lord of the Rings

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 17

Observations: Lord of the Rings

Author:

moriveth

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jan 05, 2002

Comments:

Although this non-"nerd" had to be driven to extremes of boredom before consenting to view Lord of the Rings, I will admit that the film (if hardly a cinematic masterwork) was substantially better than expected. Below I list a few observations, both positive and negative, of the film.

More diaries by moriveth

	What is Adequacy?
	Review: Abstract Algebra, 2nd Edition
	Hijackings, Anthrax, Arizona Diamondbacks
	Classic Poetry--for our time
	Taking the Internet to Lands Uncharted
	The Ethics of Human Cloning
	Hackers: A Personal Perspective
	Tribute to Wank5est
	The Cold, Hard Facts of Geekdom
	It's time to rise up, stand tall, and confess:
	Adequacy is like sex
	Rhyme of the Rabid Fanboy

I found myself focused on Ian McKellen's brilliant portrayal of the wizard Gandalf--somehow managing to show the steel beneath the genial exterior. The movie wouldn't have been half as good without him (McKellen, that is, not the rather unoriginal character of Gandalf). I hope they can find a place for McKellen in the other two films.

Elijah Wood, as Frodo, needs to open his bright blue eyes a little wider--his efforts were unconvincing. Also, I don't think he spends nearly enough time staring, fascinated yet horrified, at the One Ring.

The goblins and orcs were portrayed one-dimensionally, with the camera never getting beyond the superficial exteriors to show us the thoughts and emotions of these intriguing beasts. Similarly, the clear-cut apocalyptic battle between Good and Evil is so cliched and tiresome, not to mention unrealisitic.

The 3-hour film desperately needed an intermission. If I get two in Tristan und Isolde, surely there is no reason why one couldn't be worked into Lord of the Rings.

A few plot holes added to my irritation. For example, why doesn't anyone have the gonads to use the damn Ring? Sure, it corrupts the bearer, etc. But after Gandalf, say, uses the Ring to destroy Sauron, who cares if he goes around muttering about his "precioussssss" for the rest of his life?

Lastly, while Peter Jackson is fairly talented, and surely has a bright future, it's a pity a more visionary director like George Lucas couldn't have tackled Lord of the Rings.

	misunderstanding of the story (none / 0) (#1)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 03:57:31 PM PST

	yes the characters are a bit stereotypical of a fantasy story - elves, goblins, wizard, evil warlord, etc. But it is a fantasy story, although I dont see the Lord of the Rings ownership to fame other than the fact its a hell of a long story. "Also, I don't think he spends nearly enough time staring, fascinated yet horrified, at the One Ring." Also as you know from the story, hobbits are more immune to the corrupting powers of the ring. This is because of the nature of their characters - they dont have any desire for power. Any other creature would spend time staring fascinated at the ring - Gollum did this enough of this in The Hobbit for my liking - but to a hobbit it is just a ring and the fact it is the 'one ring' doesnt impress their simple minds until it starts corrupting them much later. "The goblins and orcs were portrayed one-dimensionally, with the camera never getting beyond the superficial exteriors to show us the thoughts and emotions of these intriguing beasts." True but most stories treat goblins and orcs this way. They are considered thoughtless - almost zombielike soldiers of evil usually. Actually I wanted them to win though. As a compromise there is lots of time spent examining the mind of gollum who isnt too unlike the goblins only a lot more smarter. "The 3-hour film desperately needed an intermission" too right. "why doesn't anyone have the gonads to use the damn Ring? Sure, it corrupts the bearer, etc. But after Gandalf, say, uses the Ring to destroy Sauron, who cares if he goes around muttering about his "precioussssss" for the rest of his life?" The ring is the ultimate evil - gandalf wouldnt risk wearing it in case it corrupts him. The power he possesses would make him a great evil indeed. He wouldnt go around mutting his "precious", he would be worse than sauron. The ring may very well allow him to kill Sauron but its corruption would then lead him to want the power Sauron had - in other words it would make Gandalf take Saurons place. Remember the film is difficult to do - it is trying to turn a basically 2D long drawn out fantasy story into a in depth, quick, movie. The difficulties of trying to make it seem they were travelling vast distances across the world would put me off attempting directing it straight away. I thought the best bit of the film was the Mines of Moria. The most unrealistic part of the story I find is that so few 'heros' get killed when faced with so many orcs and goblins (I thought the film overdid the number of them). But they are supposed to be the best warriors of their races though I suppose. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Brush up on yo history foo!!! (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:22:26 PM PST

	1. LotR is not stereotypical fantasy. For some reason, Tolkien was original. You just happen to know a couple thousand authors who's eyes glowed with $$$$ and said "hmmmm." Not to trash a good author, but Terry Brooks' novels have quite a similar story to Tolkiens... a little too similar. 2. The plot is definitely not 3d. Read the books and you will discover master plot work on multiple levels of complexity. Otherwise than that, you make sense. However people who watch a movie and assume the book is bad are pathetic. You know not of what you speak.

	Terry Brooks (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 07:09:35 AM PST

	Terry Brook's novels have absolutely no similarity to Tolkien's, other then they are of the same genre. Have you actually read these two sets of books?

	Gonads (none / 0) (#2)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 04:25:05 PM PST

	Thanks to a Windows crash, much of what I was going to respond to has been taken by someone else. But I wish to clarify a few points. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings story is the first modern fantasy story, which is why you find many of the elements one-dimensional and cliche. Tolkein used them before they were cliche, and other writers have since over-used them. Tolkein also goes into greater detail about many of the elements you felt were woefully inadequate, but Peter Jackson forced you to suffer through 3 hours and still couldn't fit everything in from the first book. That should give you some idea of how much detail there is to this world. Tolkein undertook what literary circles call "world building," in that he was focused on the land of Middle Earth and its fate, rather than zooming in on a single plot and using the world as backdrop for it. He's on record as claiming to have written LotR to use the language he created for Elves; like Klingon, it's a wholly artificial and complete language designed for the race. Last but not least, in the books Frodo originally offers to give the One Ring to Gandalf. Gandalf immediately and vehemently refuses. He states that he could take the Ring and rid the world of darkness, after which he would become the new Dark Lord because of the corrupting influence of the Ring. It was called Isildur's Bane because in the first war against Sauron, Isildur took the Ring from Sauron but refused to destroy it, instead intending to use it. In the end, it betrayed him and got him killed. Frodo kept the Ring and volunteered to destroy it because he was already in possession of it. The Ring already had its hooks into him, and as Gandalf put it in the books, his uncle Bilbo was the only person in history ever known to willingly give it to another. A troll's true colors.

	Thank God someone knows what they are talkng about (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:08:21 PM PST

	Tolkien knew his shit. The Hobbit started as one sentence on a blank exam sheet he was correcting... He got asked for a sequel.. Hence LotR. His basis for the story was the ring from Gollum and his "Elvish History" that he had been compiling. His son, Christopher, after Tolkien's death released a collection of these stories in the book "The Silmarillion". Your history of middle earth will mostly be there. As was said, this story cannot be cliche because it defined the genre. If you really want a good thesis on the history of these stories and how Tolkien's works came about, read the book "Tolkien: Author of the Century" It is obvious that if you felt you could only watch this movie if you were really bored, it is obvious you have a lacking intelligence. I don't means this disrespectfully, but you're the kind of person who would say computers would ruin the world if you didn't know how to use one. Don't hate on this literary, now movie, classic. Read the books, then watch the movie. You'll be amazed at what you can learn when you leave your mouth closed until you know what the hell you're bitching about.

	Tolkien a literary master? Who are you kidding? (none / 0) (#21)
	by moriveth on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:23:34 PM PST

	"[I]f you felt you could only watch this movie if you were really bored, it is obvious you have a lacking intelligence" has to be the funniest thing I've seen all year. I was perspicacious enough to realize that Tolkien's prose was abysmal (and let's not even mention the "poetry") when I was 12. So what if I haven't read Tolkien's aggressively mediocre saga, or even thought about it, in a couple decades? Does this make me inferior to fantasy-addled, syntax-mangled hippies like you? Do you have any idea what the masterworks of 20th Century literature actually were? Do names like "Proust" and "Joyce" ring a bell? At all? So which of us has "a lacking intelligence?"

	Lord God Jesus Christ... (none / 0) (#22)
	by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:33:30 PM PST

	Do not ever again mention "Joyce" and "literature" in the same sentence. That is absolutely horrid. If there is one author that deserves a kicking, it is Joyce. Any other Joyce haters here? Please? P.S. Proust? I don't know what to say. Your post is so preposterous that it's borderline trolling. Be honest, are you doing this on purpose? -- Peace and much love...

	I'm aware of your opinion, dear tkatchev (none / 0) (#23)
	by moriveth on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:47:15 PM PST

	I believe you were previously attempting to argue that T. S. Eliot didn't write poetry. You're certainly welcome to your iconoclastic definitions, however tiresome their expression might be. Perhaps you are simply limited in your ability to appreciate true mastery of the English language. The rest of us will keep reading Joyce, whose Ulysses is the greatest English-language novel of the 20th century.

	Copyright infringement time. (none / 0) (#24)
	by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:00:46 PM PST

	OK, I'm calling your bluff: - God, isn't he dreadful? he said frankly. A ponderous Saxon. He thinks you're not a gentleman. God, these bloody English. Bursting with money and indigestion. Because he comes from Oxford. You know, Dedalus; you have the real Oxford manner. He can't make you out. O, my name for you is the best: Kinch, the knife-blade. He flung up his hands and tramped down the stone stairs, singing out of tune with a Cockney accent: O, won't we have a merry time Drinking whisky, beer and wine, On coronation, Coronation day? O, won't we have a merry time On coronation day? Warm sunshine merrying over the sea. The nickel shaving-bowl shone, forgotten, on the parapet. Why should I bring it down? Or leave it there all day, forgotten friendship? The proud potent titles clanged over Stephen's memory the triumph of their brazen bells: et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam: the slow growth and change of rite and dogma like his own rare thoughts, a chemistry of stars. Symbol of the apostles in the mass for pope Marcellus, the voices blended, singing alone loud in affirmation: and behind their chant the vigilant angel of the church militant disarmed and menaced her heresiarchs. A horde of heresies fleeing with mitres awry: Photius and the brood of mockers of whom Mulligan was one, and Arius, warring his life long upon the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and Valentine, spurning Christ's terrene body, and the subtle African heresiarch Sabellius who held that the Father was Himself His own Son. Words Mulligan had spoken a moment since in mockery to the stranger. Idle mockery. The void awaits surely all them that weave the wind: a menace, a disarming and a worsting from those embattled angels of the church, Michael's host, who defend her ever in the hour of conflict with their lances and their shields. Hear, hear. Prolonged applause. Zut! Nom de Dieu! I am sorry, but this isn't "mastery of the English language". It's shitty writing, plain and simple. Joyce is a shitty writer. I think any sensible person would agree with me. The snippets I posted speak for themselves, really. -- Peace and much love...

	Copyright infringement time. (none / 0) (#25)
	by tkatchev on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:01:31 PM PST

	OK, I'm calling your bluff: - God, isn't he dreadful? he said frankly. A ponderous Saxon. He thinks you're not a gentleman. God, these bloody English. Bursting with money and indigestion. Because he comes from Oxford. You know, Dedalus; you have the real Oxford manner. He can't make you out. O, my name for you is the best: Kinch, the knife-blade. He flung up his hands and tramped down the stone stairs, singing out of tune with a Cockney accent: O, won't we have a merry time Drinking whisky, beer and wine, On coronation, Coronation day? O, won't we have a merry time On coronation day? Warm sunshine merrying over the sea. The nickel shaving-bowl shone, forgotten, on the parapet. Why should I bring it down? Or leave it there all day, forgotten friendship? The proud potent titles clanged over Stephen's memory the triumph of their brazen bells: et unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam: the slow growth and change of rite and dogma like his own rare thoughts, a chemistry of stars. Symbol of the apostles in the mass for pope Marcellus, the voices blended, singing alone loud in affirmation: and behind their chant the vigilant angel of the church militant disarmed and menaced her heresiarchs. A horde of heresies fleeing with mitres awry: Photius and the brood of mockers of whom Mulligan was one, and Arius, warring his life long upon the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and Valentine, spurning Christ's terrene body, and the subtle African heresiarch Sabellius who held that the Father was Himself His own Son. Words Mulligan had spoken a moment since in mockery to the stranger. Idle mockery. The void awaits surely all them that weave the wind: a menace, a disarming and a worsting from those embattled angels of the church, Michael's host, who defend her ever in the hour of conflict with their lances and their shields. Hear, hear. Prolonged applause. Zut! Nom de Dieu! I am sorry, but this isn't "mastery of the English language". It's shitty writing, plain and simple. Joyce is a shitty writer. I think any sensible person would agree with me. The snippets I posted speak for themselves, really. -- Peace and much love...

	Can we be serious? (none / 0) (#26)
	by moriveth on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 11:13:01 PM PST

	I haven't even glanced at your "example," because it is clearly irrelevant. Suppose that the passage you quote is utter dreck (which, since it is written by a master like Joyce, is surely not the case). Yet even Beethoven composed a Wellington's Victory. If the opinion of numerous distinguished literary critics isn't good enough for you, tkatchev, what is?

	Brilliant literary knowledge there. (none / 0) (#27)
	by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 12:46:22 AM PST

	The passage in question is bits from Ulysses. I deliberately picked random passages from the first few pages of the book, to give everyone a rough estimate of what Joyce's writings are like. The fact that you cannot even recognize the writing style of your idol when presented, speaks volumes for the quality (i.e. utterly humiliating lack of) of Joyce's works. And no, I do not care for the confused ramblings of idiot literary critics. (The same ones that tried to ban Joyce just fifty years ago.) Sadly, they do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. -- Peace and much love...

	No, you're not the only one, tkatchev. (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 02:19:10 AM PST

	I did recognize the quotes from the first chapter, the scene in the tower. And I'd probably be able to place most other citations you'd care to make between "Stately, plump Buck Mulligan..." and "...yes I said yes I will yes." And I didn't have to refer to the text to quote those lines. With that said, though, I think Joyce definitely needs to be taken off of the pedestal that he has been propped up on lo these many years. Proust I don't feel qualified to comment on, as I haven't read him in the original, but he seems a bit closer to my ideal than Joyce. Don't get me wrong, I like Joyce's awareness of spoken language, I appreciate his semi-autistic scholarship, and his attempt at documenting the subconcious or the "internal voice" is interesting, but I think his best piece was The Dead. That puts him on a par with Maupassant, which is no faint praise, but I don't think he can be compared to Shakespeare. Or Twain, for that matter.

	Deer tkatchev, (none / 0) (#33)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 09:54:11 AM PST

	I am quite convinced: Joyce is a second-rate hack. If only he were half as good as Stephen King, or even Pynchon!

	Indeed if he were. (none / 0) (#34)
	by tkatchev on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 10:23:05 AM PST

	Stephen King is a brilliant writer, better by far than Joyce. The fact that King writes absolute tripe doesn't diminish his writing talent any. You really need to differentiate between writing ability (i.e. aesthetics) and the meaning of the work. One can write brilliantly about useless, adolescent tripe; (for example, Stephen King) on the other hand, one can write deeply philosophical works using an absolutely horrid, childish literary language. (Tolkien, for example.) You, sir, are an amateur. Please leave the craft of arguing to those that know what they are talking about. -- Peace and much love...

	tkatchev's mastery of the art of argument: (none / 0) (#35)
	by moriveth on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 01:13:37 PM PST

	"I never lose an argument! I bore my 'opponents' to tears through relentless application of illogic and ignorance, and eventually I get the last word! I'm...I'm...intelligent!" It's almost enough to make me pity the hapless nathan. I'm going to go read some postmodernist criticism to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.

	how sweet! (none / 0) (#37)
	by nathan on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 10:57:04 PM PST

	Don't worry, though, Moriveth. I've got plenty of hap. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	shrug (none / 0) (#32)
	by nathan on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 07:25:16 AM PST

	I like Joyce a lot. Ulysses isn't a perfect novel, but it's a very good one. My favorite novel is Infinite Jest, but it's pretty obvious to me that there's more to Ulysses, even though I do find it tough going. And for the record, I did recognize your citations. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	While I have no doubt... (none / 0) (#3)
	by Slobodan Milosevic on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:11:43 PM PST

	That you put a lot of thought into the writing of this piece, I would have liked to have a bit of insight into the reasoning behind how George Lucas could have done a better job with the given material.

	The dialog, for one, could use improvement (none / 0) (#4)
	by moriveth on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:22:40 PM PST

	Arwen: "I love you." Aragorn: "I know."

	Lord of the Rings II -- Return of the Orcs (5.00 / 3) (#7)
	by Lint on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:45:20 AM PST

	But this time they'd be computer generated orcs. The Hobbits are replaced with actual midgets in googly-eyed muppet costumes. And, of course, the final, dramatic climax: Sauron: I am your father. Frodo: NOOoooooooooooo! Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	Lesse (none / 0) (#5)
	by Winter on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:00:27 PM PST

	While i agree that the movie wasn't magic (i feel as though i wasted the three hours, and felt similar on the second viewing) i must agree it was still excellent. The problem, as you so nicely illustrate (though unintentionally) is that anyone who hasn't read the book won't be able to appreciated it entirely and those who have won't like it because of the way it relates to the book. Here's a point-by-point: "(McKellen, that is, not the rather unoriginal character of Gandalf)" While it's true that Gandalf's character is both somewhat flat in the film and no longer original: it was at one time pretty much the only one like it. The reason it's so cliche now is because of the excellent way the character was done initially. "Elijah Wood, as Frodo, needs to open his bright blue eyes a little wider" Ok, i sort-of kind-of agree here. The reason he isn't as horrified by it is that he hasn't really wrapped his mind around the true nature of it. Hopefully it will get better, but i'm not holding by breath. "The goblins and orcs were portrayed one-dimensionally" Wait for the second movie. That one should help out a bit. Still, they're orcs. They don't really have depth. That's kind of what they are. I don't really think this is a weakness of the story, but maybe it is. "The 3-hour film desperately needed an intermission." That would have been nice. No complaints here. "For example, why doesn't anyone have the gonads to use the damn Ring? Sure, it corrupts the bearer, etc." "Hi, my name is moriveth and i completly missed the point of the character of Boromir." Gandalf couldn't use the ring (nor Galadriel, if you were paying attention) because they wouldn't spend the rest of their lives muttering about "the precioussss" but rather ruling in the place of Sauron. "Lastly, while Peter Jackson is fairly talented, and surely has a bright future, it's a pity a more visionary director like George Lucas couldn't have tackled Lord of the Rings." "Hi, my name is moriveth and i live under a bridge and am rather fond of goat meat"

	Re: your confusing comment . . . (5.00 / 2) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:34:51 AM PST

	"While i agree that the movie wasn't magic (i feel as though i wasted the three hours, and felt similar on the second viewing) i must agree it was still excellent" This statement is so full of paradoxes that I have trouble believing that a sentient mind created it. Apparently, this critic has three simultaneous yet totally exclusive beliefs rampaging around in his head: one, that the movie "wasn't magic", i.e., it was only a so-so movie; two, that the move was a total waste of three hours of his short life; and three, that the movie was "still very excellent." Which one is it? I'm confused. BUT THEN YOU WENT TO SEE IT AGAIN. That blows my mind. That's six hours of confusion. I do agree with some of this critic's comments on the complaints of the original posting, but I think all of the postings have ignored the major point. Peter Jackson managed to take one of the most influential, original and intelligent books of the English language - the first in a series which has spawned the commercial fantasy industry, an underground cult movement and numerous graduate theses in linguistics - and translate it into a successful movie. An awe-inspiring feat. I am heartened by this postings, for if this is the most heated criticism you can cook up for him, Peter Jackson has done very well indeed.

	As the author of the above comment (none / 0) (#8)
	by Winter on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:09:36 PM PST

	Though it may appear there are paradoxes in my original statement, this is untrue. Please examine it again.

	Well, yeah.. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 12:27:11 AM PST

	Obviously any film of the Lord of the Rings trilogy should have been directed by either Ed Wood or Andrei Tarkovsky, but seeing as they're both dead, I figure the story's pretty safe in the hands of the man responsible for Meet The Feebles.

	power of the ring (none / 0) (#10)
	by gloin1st on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:13:41 AM PST

	<i>A few plot holes added to my irritation. For example, why doesn't anyone have the gonads to use the damn Ring? Sure, it corrupts the bearer, etc. But after Gandalf, say, uses the Ring to destroy Sauron, who cares if he goes around muttering about his "precioussssss" for the rest of his life? </i><p> No one could really do anything good with the ring and would certainly not be the lord of evil after using it. The ring really only obeys Sauron and the user would only become Saurons zombie, the ring would not get rid of Sauron. They say that time makes the difference, but age doesn't make you a man.

	Actually Hobbit came later (none / 0) (#13)
	by gloin1st on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 02:22:38 AM PST

	LotR was written befor Hobbit. Hobbit was written later kind of an intro to the LotR. They say that time makes the difference, but age doesn't make you a man.

	Hey, wait a minute. (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:31:39 AM PST

	I thought you said you'd gone away, and that this site wansn't worth coming back to. What gives? What changed your mind, pal? Do you suddenly find the content of this site more compelling, or are you not getting enough "feedback" (ie, personal attention) at "friendlier" sites?

	going away what? (none / 0) (#30)
	by gloin1st on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:30:27 AM PST

	No I said I would not come often not more then once a month I believe, but then LotR discussion grabbed my attention :) They say that time makes the difference, but age doesn't make you a man.

	have a clue please (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:15:52 AM PST

	First of all The Hobbit was published in 1934. Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 It was written as a sequal to the Hobbit. The Silmarillion, was edited by his son, Christopher. It was published posthumously by his son in 1977. Try reading the forward in LOR and you call yourself Gloin 1st..

	No, you have a clue please. (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:00:25 PM PST

	The Lord of the Rings was not a sequel to the Hobbit (which was first published in 1937). LOTR was a work-in-progress long before the Hobbit was ever published. Your facts are fairly straight about the Silmarillion. Try reading beyond the forward in LOTR. While Gloin1st's comment wasn't well worded, it was mostly accurate. Get off his back.

	clues in various places (none / 0) (#31)
	by gloin1st on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:39:06 AM PST

	well I did not talk anything about publishing of the books, only the order they were written in, Hobbit was written later, period They say that time makes the difference, but age doesn't make you a man.

	You missunderstand this literary masterpeice (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:02:44 AM PST

	firstly, George lucas is a terible writer, you cannot begin to compare Lucas to Tolkein or ANY adaptation of it. you also do not understand the ring. in a metaphoric since the ring is like our own sin, constantly tempting us to do the wrong thing, and eventualy if we indulge in our temptation that sin will consume us. Just like the ring, if Gandalf uses the ring it will soon consume him. i do agree i would have liked an intermission. now if frodo stared at the ring for long it would have only made the movie longer so these to statments ( the one about the movie being too long) of yours answer themselves and defeat each other. i agree compleatly Ian McKellen was the perfect gandalf. i dissagree with the statement that gandalf was an "unoriginal character" the movie adaptation of gandalf was not good nor bad, yet still gandalf was a very simbolic and deep charicter. to argue this is simply a waste of time. being a LOTR fan you are lucky this post was not in Quenya or Sindarin

	My god, behold the brains (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:53:51 PM PST

	I agree with you totally. Quenya or Sindarin. I am impressed! Nossë nar lá handa!

	Savants, Idiots (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:43:38 PM PST

	It is agonizingly obvious which of you have read the books, and which ones haven't. You know you are. If you are bashing on the movie with reckless abandon, with no attention to detail, you have not read the books, you CAN NOT appreciate the movie. If you have made intelligent comments and criticisms, and included good support, you have read the books. If you didn't like the movie, and HAVE read the books - you know who you are. It is my personal opinion that anyone who has not read the books SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SEE THE MOVIE. You have no idea what you are watching. The fact remains - some of you folks sound like complete imbeciles. For the love of God, educate yourselves. I hope you are outraged reading this statement - you should be. Get a clue, you'll feel better. Furthermore, for you simpletons who worship George Lucas and spit on Peter Jackson, you don't know what you are talking about either. Peter Jackson did a wonderful job with the toughest book-to-movie transition EVER. No other piece of literature is as deep as Lord of The Rings. George Lucas could not do it. He was great once, but has sold out. Watch Episode One, it's horrible. Watch the news also. N' Sync walk-ons in Episode Two? Lucas is spent. He has given all he had. Finally, an intermission would have ruined the flow of the story. Take a pillow. Get a grip. Read the books beforehand.

	I have to disagree there (none / 0) (#20)
	by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 10:21:28 PM PST

	Jackson's purpose in filming LotR was to bring the book to those who hadn't read it, and weren't likely to. You have to admit: Tolkein's work is rather daunting to those who aren't into fantasy, or aren't into reading in general. Suggesting that people who haven't read the book avoid the movie would defeat the purpose. No translation from book to movie (and vice-versa) is going to be perfect. They're different mediums. Period. You don't get the depth you expect from a book in the movie, and you don't get the sensory splendour you expect from a movie in the book (imagination is important, but many people rely on tangible cues). Jackson didn't make the perfect movie. That's acceptable. It was a daunting task, and I doubt anyone could have done a better job. It was still an excellent effort, and I look forward to buying my own copy on DVD. A troll's true colors.

	I'm confused (none / 0) (#29)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 03:21:22 AM PST

	Please explain your title. Specifically, when you berate people for being "savants", what do you understand the word to mean?

	Mr Gibbins. Brady Bunch? (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 03:50:51 PM PST

	i read your very strange atricle titled "is your son a computer hacker?" was this a joke? your family all has names from the Brady Bunch and you have six kids? it is very odd indeed, unless it was a joke. if it was a joke i congradulate you, i laughed long and hard at that aticle and its in false points, like the one about AMD and Bonzi Buddi, flash. the list goes on and on.......... in case you didn't know your article made it on TV, a few nights ago. on The Screen Savers(http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/) The link to the article from the tech tv web site can be found here : http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/siteofthenite/story/0,24330,3367063,00.html

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.