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.
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.
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:) 
hehe, sorry I had to do that:D
Major Spoiler
Don’t read the “Golem does BJJ” thread. Major spoiler, sorry dude.
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.
Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
[B]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. [/B]
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?
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.
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
Oh man, I hate that when you have to water the dragon in the middle of a movie.
What do you mean, spoiler warning?! The books were published over 50 years ago, ya illiterate godd@amn ignoramus!
<Handy>READ A BOOK!</Handy>
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
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.
I guess eulerfan is looking for a fight…
So, Miss Fan, exactly how do you define a good writer? Obviously not by his success?
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.
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.
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.
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
And Baryshnikov was a bad dancer because of the way he moved?
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…