Spoiler alert

[Cipher]

D@mn it, not every one has seem the new Lord of the rings movie so please say something like spoiler before you post main story plots:D Thanks.

[Chang Style Novice]

Dude, what would we post about in the LotR thread if not the LotR movie? I'm sorry if something got revealed that you didn't want to know but seriously, if you don't want to read about the movie, stay out of the thread.

[Cipher]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Dude, what would we post about in the LotR thread if not the LotR movie? I'm sorry if something got revealed that you didn't want to know but seriously, if you don't want to read about the movie, stay out of the thread.

I was trying to be funny. The thread I read was cool, like hey have you guys seen the new Lotr? it rocks, it is cool. And the next few threads say the same and the then someone is like yeah but it sucked when such and such got killed and etc. etc. So if it starts out with general info and then someon throws something in it's hard to tell. I'm just trying to say light heartedly to say "spoiler" or something if it needs one. I know, not enough smileys:) :cool: :D :) :D ;) :p hehe, sorry I had to do that:D

[MightyB]

Don't read the "Golem does BJJ" thread. Major spoiler, sorry dude.

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, i was the one that posted some detail about the movie. I still think that now the movies been out almost a week, it's totally fair to discuss the movie in the movie thread. It's what the thread is for, so you should know what to expect in it. I avoided the threads about the movie until I had a chance to see it, both here and elsewhere on the web, and I don't think it's outrageous for other folks to use the same strategy.

Anyway, if we stick to vague praise like "whoa, it's cool!" the thread won't have any content to speak of and just be a waste of space. The general rule I've noticed other places on the web is: "If you want to post spoilers before general release, put up a warning. If you want to avoid spoilers after general release, avoid the discussions." I don't think such a policy was discussed here, but it seems like pretty common sense to me.

[Cipher]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Well, i was the one that posted some detail about the movie. I still think that now the movies been out almost a week, it's totally fair to discuss the movie in the movie thread. It's what the thread is for, so you should know what to expect in it. I avoided the threads about the movie until I had a chance to see it, both here and elsewhere on the web, and I don't think it's outrageous for other folks to use the same strategy.

Anyway, if we stick to vague praise like "whoa, it's cool!" the thread won't have any content to speak of and just be a waste of space. The general rule I've noticed other places on the web is: "If you want to post spoilers before general release, put up a warning. If you want to avoid spoilers after general release, avoid the discussions." I don't think such a policy was discussed here, but it seems like pretty common sense to me.

:) Sure I agree totaly, there is no reason not to post details about the movie to discuse with other people, maybe just say something like *spoiler* in the subject line:D . Some of us are such recluses it takes a few weeks to see great movie releases:)

BTW: Chang Style Novice, I wasn't singaling you out. I actually had no idea you posted details, as soon as I saw it was something that could give movie plots I hit the back "back space" key like a crazy lunatic so I didn't even notice who posted it. Sorry if it seemed like I was pointing someone out. I think I will try and see it after Christmas this week. I really liked the first one and I have heard the second one is even better, so it should be a lot of fun to see.

About how long is the movie? I think the first one was close to 3 hours right?

[Chang Style Novice]

Three hours sounds about right, but I wasn't wearing my watch.

I had a biiiiig drink about an hour before the show started, and went for a slash during the previews. I had to pee again when the credits rolled. My recommendation - don't drink a 32 oz. lemonade before seeing it. And definitely make a pit stop while they run teasers for some crappy nonsense for next summer at you.

I can't believe the censor asterisks out w-h-i-z.

[SevenStar]

yeah, 3 hours sounds right - I'm probably going to see it again tomorrow, so I'll check if I do. I re-watched the first one over the weekend, and yeah, ti's three hours also.

Since the movie came out last wednesday, it's pulled in 101 million! It pulled in 61 mil over the weekend

[Cipher]

Oh man, I hate that when you have to water the dragon in the middle of a movie.

[Serpent]

What do you mean, spoiler warning?! The books were published over 50 years ago, ya illiterate godd@amn ignoramus!





































;)

[FatherDog]

<Handy>READ A BOOK!</Handy>

[Cipher]

Originally posted by Serpent
What do you mean, spoiler warning?! The books were published over 50 years ago, ya illiterate godd@amn ignoramus!;)

Haha, KISS MY @SS:D

[eulerfan]

I don't think anybody should feel bad about not reading those books. Tolkien was a p!ss poor writer. It is quite a testament to his creativity, the power of his characters and story, the world he created, that so many people will slog through his writing to get to it. I, for one, couldn't do it. That is some of the cr@ppiest writing I have ever come across.

[red5angel]

I guess eulerfan is looking for a fight....

So, Miss Fan, exactly how do you define a good writer? Obviously not by his success?

[eulerfan]

Like I said, he was successful because his story, characters and the world he created was so amazing, new and creative. It was so powerfully amazing that it transcended the bad writing.

When I say good writing, I'm talking about things like flow, voice, economy, stuff like that. It's almost independant of story and character. Really amazing writers can retell old, well known stories but do it so well that people are interested. Take Shakespeare. He didn't really have the imagination to come up with new stories. He retold a bunch of old ones. But he didn't have to come up with new stories. He was that good.

Deep breath. I'm not totally bashing Tolkien. I'm saying he had more imagination than Shakespeare.

But the guy did not write well. Sorry.

[Chang Style Novice]

Tolkien's problem as a writer, as I see it, is that he was most interested in his linguistic and historical inventions. From what I've read, the whole impulse to write LotR came from his invented languages (see the link Sevenstar gave elsewhere for the amazing amount of thought and energy he put into this.) So, when he came up with the story for LotR, he decided to make it the culminating epic myth of this world he had already invented. He went batsh!t crazy developing history, geography, religion, culture, and all that stuff - the Silmarillion apparently only scratches the surface of the background material he came up with. The story is pretty good, and reflects some of his own social concerns with industrialization, individuality, free will, and so on. But he couldn't resist the desire to pile on tons and tons of information about evermore places, characters, poems, songs, and so on. On the one hand, the weight of this data gives the trilogy a heft that most fantasy books lack. On the other, it sometimes crushes the progress of the narrative.

[eulerfan]

Yeah. I think economy is the main problem, too. Certainly not the only one. I've managed to get through Hugo and that guy wouldn't have known economy from a hole in the ground.

[red5angel]

hmmmm, well, I am not a huge Tolkien fan, I enjoyed his books but he is wordy and slow. However I don't think that makes him a bad writer. Of course it's all opinion...
Economy is one of those things I think you sometimes don't need to make a story good. Wordy writers can sometimes setup wonderfully rich environments, which is what it appears to me Tolkien was after.

However shakespeare my dear, blew on several levels as far as I am concerned, and his biggest problem in my view was his use of the language. So I understand where you are coming from :)

[eulerfan]

And Baryshnikov was a bad dancer because of the way he moved?
:D ;)

[red5angel]

LOL! I wouldn't compare the two actually. I feel the same way you do about Tolkien, about Shakespeare. He had an original idea with his flowery language but Shakespeare was a poet, not a writer....

[Sam Wiley]

I thought Tolkien was awesome as an author. But then again, I think several other authors that other people couldn't stand reading were awesome, too. Personally, I never had a problem with wordiness. I like detail. I sometimes pick up books by recent authors and feel that pieces of the story are missing, and the same goes with modern movies. I have greatly enjoyed the Rings movies so far, though I was a bit disappointed that the gift-giving scene in Lothlorien was cut for release. But then again, the movies are already three hours long each.

The only poetry I could ever stand of his, though, was the stuff written in Elvish. The stuff in English was pretty bad. I think the reason I liked his Elvish stuff better was that he invented the language to sound beautiful and musical, and the poetry was designed to exhibit those qualities.

I liked the fact that Gollum fought the way he did. I was pleasantly surprised. I can't wait to see the life and death fight between him and Frodo in Return of the King.

The battle at Helm's Deep was... spectacular. Did they ever tell Gimli's final count versus Legolas's?

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by red5angel
LOL! I wouldn't compare the two actually. I feel the same way you do about Tolkien, about Shakespeare. He had an original idea with his flowery language but Shakespeare was a poet, not a writer....

Mmmmm. When I hear that JC 'cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war' speech, I can almost taste the need for revenge bubbling up Anthony's throat like bile. The St. Crispin's day speech makes me want to go fight in a battle. His work affects me.

[KC Elbows]

I agree with Eulerfan, except I like Tolkein. It's my opinion that being an author involves half imagery and half writing. Tolkein was a paragon at putting the imagery of his world together. Shakespeare didn't often have to, because the imagery was already in the histories. Aside from that, I can't compare the two. Shakespeare, at the art of writing, was phenomenal, which Tolkein was not, but he did not need to be. He had ring wraiths.

I've got a friend who hates Frank Herbert. Says he writes like he's got a mouth full of marbles. I love Frank. Not in the literal sense, after all he's dead, and security is pretty tight at the graveyard since the last time I went off of my meds, but you know what I mean. I love him despite the lack of his corpse. And that's love.

[eulerfan]

Sure. Different people have different priorities for art.

I need really good lyrics to really enjoy music. If the lyrics are great, the music doesn't have to be spectacular. My best friend doesn't care much about lyrics at all. If the guitar work is spectacular, the lyrics can be 'roses are red'.

[Chang Style Novice]

But how do you feel about instrumental music? Or concrete' poetry, for that matter?

[ZIM]

The best explanation for Tolkien is he was writing about his graduate student days.

The story starts with Frodo: a young hobbit, quite bright, a bit
dissatisfied with what he's learnt so far and with his mates back home
who just seem to want to get jobs and settle down and drink beer. He's also very
much in awe of his tutor and mentor, the very senior professor Gandalf, so
when Gandalf suggests he take on a short project
for him (carrying the Ring to Rivendell), he agrees.

Frodo very quickly encounters the shadowy forces of fear and despair
which will haunt the rest of his journey and leave permanent scars on
his psyche, but he also makes some useful friends. In particular, he
spends an evening down at the pub with Aragorn, who has been wandering
the world for many years as Gandalf's postdoc and becomes his adviser
when Gandalf isn't around.

After Frodo has completed his first project, Gandalf (along with head
of department Elrond) proposes that the work should be extended. He
assembles a large research group, including visiting students Gimli and
Legolas, the foreign postdoc Boromir, and several of Frodo's own
friends from his undergraduate days.
Frodo agrees to tackle this larger project, though he has mixed
feelings about it. ("'I will take the Ring', he said,'although I do not
know why.'") Very rapidly, things go wrong...

[ZIM]

First, Gandalf disappears and has no more interaction with Frodo until everything is over.
(Frodo assumes his supervisor is dead: in fact, he's simply found a more interesting topic and
is working on that instead.)
At his first international conference in Lorien, Frodo is cross-
examined terrifyingly by Galadriel, and betrayed by Boromir, who is anxious to get the credit for the work himself. Frodo cuts himself off from the rest of his team: from now on, he will only discuss his work with Sam, an old friend who doesn't really understand what it's all about, but in any case is prepared to give Frodo credit for being rather cleverer than he is.

Then he sets out towards Mordor. The last and darkest period of Frodo's journey clearly represents the writing-up stage, as he struggles towards Mount Doom (thesis submission), finding his burden growing heavier and heavier yet more and more a part of himself; more and more terrified of failure;
plagued by the figure of Gollum, the student who carried the Ring before him but never wrote up and still hangs around as a burnt-out, jealous shadow; talking less and less even to Sam...

And thats enough! Merry Xmas! :D

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
But how do you feel about instrumental music? Or concrete' poetry, for that matter?

Well, obviously I was talking about rock music but there isn't a whole lot of classical music that I'm really apesh!t about. Albinoni's adagio, Moonlight Sonata, some but not a lot.

Concrete poetry is a bit too gimmicky for my taste.

ZIM, that was pretty cool but I was pretty clear that my beef wasn't with the story. It was with the way it was told.

[Xebsball]

speaking of instrumental...

god in heavens, steve vai on earth

[Chang Style Novice]

There is such a thing as instrumental rock music (although it's rather less common than the vocal stuff.)

Ventures, D!ck Dale, Booker T and the MGs, and so on.

But really, I was thinking about jazz when I wrote that.

xpost with Xebby, who likes Steve Vai for some reason.

[eulerfan]

Well, not a lot of instrumental jazz that I'm apesh!t about. I am ape**** about a lot of the jazz with vocals. Not a lot of instrumental rock that I'm apesh!t about.