The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Asherdan on November 05, 2003, 05:01:03 pm
-
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s---uBhIrEa--/oqil2ysvksn6vmluk2of.gif)
-
Man, I can't wait to see the third Lord of the Rings film. It may end up being the only good movie I see this year (hopefully it'll be good).
-
I am trying to keep my hopes suitably low for "Return of the King," in the hopes that I will be pleasantly surprised. That said, if I happen to be near a theater doing it (plausible) and can get some friends to come with me (almost certain), I could handle the LotR Movie Marathon Thing -- maybe it'd all fit together better.
Anyway, is Reloaded a mandatory watch for Revolutions? I've been assuming as much, but is there any way to manage otherwise? (i.e. "having a rabid fanboy explain what happened in Reloaded" &c.)
-
Early reports are saying that Return of the King is the best of all three films. I can't wait. There's just no way it could possibly suck. The whole WETA team is just too on top of their game, and essentially they made the film all at once, and not even in order, so there are scenes in the third one that were shot before some scenes in the first installment.
The Matrix sequels are a big letdown, but how much could you really expect? The first film wasn't exactly Lawrence of Arabia.
-
If I don't make a minithon for LotR my day is planning out to where I watch the extended/special edition DVD of Fellowship and Two Towers and then proceed down to the local Monstro-Megaplex for RotK. As far as I'm concerned, this is what the proper use of a personal day from work consists of.
The only concern I have regarding RotK is some scuttlebutt I've caught that intimates the Scouring of the Shire and the Grey Havens sections of the book have been severely curtailed in the movie.
I heard that the re-released versions of Fellowship and TT will have the "deleted scenes" intigrated (such as the vitally important Gift of Elven Rope Scene).
But . . . but . . . that's just wrong! I remember reading RotK and thinking, "this is the climax, why are there so many pages left?" then hitting the whole Shire section.
-
Actually, the Extended Editions of each film will see a theatrical re-release - since they extended the actual prints and not just did it digitally for the DVD. I haven't seen the Two Towers EE yet, but I thought the Fellowship extended edition was far and away better than the theatrical edition.
-
Actually, the Extended Editions of each film will see a theatrical re-release - since they extended the actual prints and not just did it digitally for the DVD. I haven't seen the Two Towers EE yet, but I thought the Fellowship extended edition was far and away better than the theatrical edition.
Sorry, that's what I meant. That the minithon is supposed to include the EE versions so there wouldn't be any advantage in that respect to watching the DVD version.
-
There's much to be said for home theatre over public theatre - better snackage, unabashed snuggling with whomever you're watching with, pause for bathroom breaks, etc.
But I'd love to see the Extended Editions on the big ol' screen anyway.
And the Two Towers EE comes out on the 18th, but for some reason I received my pre-order two weeks early, so I have it sitting here. I just have to find time to watch it.
I was planning on taking the day off on the 18th to watch it marathon style, but I have a lot of work to do this week, so I may have to make room on Sunday or something.
-
I will confess to being a little irritated by the whole EE thing. Not that the extended cuts are bad -- no, it's that they're good and that some of the cuts made for the theatrical release (stuff like, oh, actually explaining who the hell Boromir is) are so retarded. I feel vaguely frustrated and gypped by the whole experience, as if I'd paid for my ticket only to get a trailer for the real movie, which of course I have to buy separately.
-
Maybe we should retitle this thread "How much I dislike The Matrix and love Lord of the Rings."
-
Maybe we should retitle this thread "How much I dislike The Matrix and love Lord of the Rings."
Don't get me started on my complaints about this movie.
Ok, ok, overall, I have to give it about an A-. Visually, it's an A++. For faithfulness to the book, it gets somewhere around a B. Some days I give it a C+ or B- remembering the lack of Bombadil, the overemphasis of the Aragorn/Arwen storyline and the complete butchering of Faramir's character. Other days I can consider the whole and be reasonably satisfied with the 80% or so of the story that they've faithfully reproduced.
Casting gets an A-/B+. My only problem is with Elijah Woods. That lil fucker looks like he's constantly about to break into tears. Frodo wasn't such a DAMN WIMP! It took massive cojones to do what he did. He wasn't sittin' around wringing his hands and weeping all the time. Frodo had some stones to him, dammit!
Everybody else I'm completely OK with. (at least so far.)
Oh God, I'm a LOTR geek.
-
I think the Lord of the Rings films are the best SF/Fantasy films since the original Star Wars Trilogy.
Anyway, I saw Revolutions again and I'm still of the opinion that it's clever, and there's a big pun that I didn't get at first (think binary numbers, Neo being "the One" and Agent Smith being a nihilist).
So, Revolutions isn't a good film, at ALL, but it's kind of brilliant in its own way.
People I've spoken to were saying there was too much dialogue and ponderous religious imagery, but at least the action sequences were good.
I thought there were too many action sequences and not enough ponderous dialogue.
I'll say this, spoiler free: if you've read Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation" then you already know how the film is going to end, as it mirrors Baudrillard's ideas of television EXACTLY.
But of course, we knew this going in.
-
My problem with the LotR EE's is they aren't extended enough. I was very relieved to see the gift of rope scene back, but I seem to recall Sam getting a look in the magic mirror too. I just assumed it would be a deleted scene, but noooo.
I think cutting Bombadil (sp?) was a good choice. I don't think mainstream audiences could've accepted him and it's not that huge of a section to cut out.
-
My problem with the LotR EE's is they aren't extended enough. I was very relieved to see the gift of rope scene back, but I seem to recall Sam getting a look in the magic mirror too. I just assumed it would be a deleted scene, but noooo.
Fanwanky time: this bodes not particularly well for the end of RotK, because Sam's vision in the mirror is of the events leading up to the Scouring scene. The random not-filming of this material worries me.
But I don't mind the Bombadil scenes of the book got cut; it really is pretty superfluous and cuttable, truth be told. Although I'm sad that Old Man Willow was also cut in the same swoop; sure, there's no way to integrate Willow without Bombadil, but dammit, Old Man Willow scared the crap out of me as a kid and he should have been on-screen.
Fan rant... OFF.
-
YES! Tom Bombadil got the short end of it, and too bad. Because the Barrow-Wight would have been hella cool.
No Radagast the Brown, either. No Bill Ferny in Bree, which would set up the scouring of the shire (which I doubt we see much of).
As for Movies with fightin' and stuff explodin'....It's all good, but without some on-screen boobage, it's all hollow and empty.
-
YES! Tom Bombadil got the short end of it, and too bad. Because the Barrow-Wight would have been hella cool.
Ohhh, the Barrow-Wights. God, what we've missed... must.. not... fangirl...
No Bill Ferny in Bree, which would set up the scouring of the shire (which I doubt we see much of).
God, this is another point. They more or less seem to have not filmed anything that would be indicative of the Scouring making it in, which worries me very much. If they cut the Scouring, I will be forced to be very angry indeed, as it's one of my make-or-break marks for RotK (that and the Shelob fight).
-
I dunno how realistic the Shelob fight could be. I mean, I've written Elbereth under my chair at work plain as day but it doesn't seem to be keeping the evil away from me.
-
Pre-emptive strike, here (Just call me Mr. Bush) --
Please, no spoilers.
I know, I know, anybody can read the book to find out what happens, and probably most of you have. But I have been expressly forbidden (by my spouse) to read RoTK before seeing the film -- although I have read the first two books so I know about Shelob, etc. So if you'd like to discuss the finer points of the storyline before the film comes out, please do the lesser geeks a favor and use white text (so that readers have to highlight the text in order to be able to read it). It's been OK so far, since we've all been speaking in generalities, but let's avoid getting too specific for the sake of us geeks who are putting off the third book until after the movie.
Yes, I'm being nitpicky. Thanks for humoring me.
-
I think you should read the book before the movie. Before, Before, Before. Otherwise your internal imagery is tainted by the movie (not that it's bad at all, but part of the point of reading a book is to create your own vision of the characters and events.) If you see the movie first what you imagine in you head when you read will belong more to Peter Jackson that to sweet 'lil J.L.D.
The book should be canonical, not the movie.
-
This is one of the few times I agree with the imagery-tainting argument. These movies have been faithful enough that it's a danger but with most movies they're so far removed from the book that the tainting just doesn't work for me.
When I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep I couldn't picture Harrison Ford if I wanted to. And Dune? Well, maybe the worms, but just a little.
-
I've not had my imaging tainted thus far. I read FoTR and TTT after seeing both movies, and I still can't picture the real Frodo as looking anything like Elijah Wood (although Sean Astin does make a wonderful Sam). I'm pretty good at separating film from print, and my imagination is vivid enough not to be bothered by someone else's notions of what is and isn't. I can certainly appreciate that other people have trouble letting go of imagery from a film when they tackle the book on which it's based, but I am blessed (??) with the kind of brain that completely forgets the entire moviegoing experience somewhere between the ending credits and the parking lot. (Which is maybe why I re-watch the same movies over and over...) But if I read about it, I'll never forget. So I can watch the movie and still be surprised by the ending of the book.
Thanks for the concern, tho...you guys are sweet :)
-
I still can't picture the real Frodo as looking anything like Elijah Wood (although Sean Astin does make a wonderful Sam).
I always pictured Frodo as staring into space a lot less than Elijah Wood does, personally.
That said, I'm cool with going spoiler-free. Most of the specific stuff we've mentioned in the thread anyway have been events from FotR that didn't make the cut into film, but I'm still fine with whiting out RotK spoilers.
Like the chapter where it turns out that Rosebud was Sauron's sled all along and then everyone dies.
(Edit: It appears that -- by my monitor, anyway -- whiting text doesn't perfectly spoiler-proof it. Ah, well.)
-
I still say read the book first. Every movie that I have seen where I read the book first made the movie a much more interesting experience. (Even the bad film addaptations were more interesting.) I totally agree with the notion that the book should be canonical. A movie can complement a book but never, ever the other way around.
How did you possibly avoid reading these books? I think I've read them all the way through at least 3 times plus the Silmarillion. I've had them since the late 70s. Easily the oldest, most dogeared and well loved paperbacks I own.
-
I have to agree about Sean Astin. He nailed Sam.
-
I have to agree about Sean Astin. He nailed Sam.
I heard he got Pat's brother-in-law too.
<snicker>
-
I completely disagree with those who say to read the book first.
The book is going to be more in-depth, contain more scenes (usually) that may not be in the film, and will fill in and enrich the film if read following.
If you read the book first you tend to spend the film comparing it with the book, expecting certain scenes to come up, finding yourself disappointed that they left out your favourite ancillary character, etc.
By viewing the film "fresh" you can enjoy the movie, and then deepen your appreciation for the material with the book.
I have found several times that having read the book first had ruined the movie for me, but never have felt the inverse - that viewing a film had ruined the book. And I often will read a book after having seen the film.
I remember sneaking into "Misery" after having read the book and being highly disappointed with the film, even though Kathy Bates looked pretty much like I imagined the character (even if Caan didn't) because a few things (minor things - it was a fairly complete adaptation) were different, didn't play out like I thought they should, etc.
Sometimes I wish I had never heard of Shakespeare before seeing Olivier's "Hamlet" for the first time.
Speaking of, I also am a firm believer of VIEWING plays of Shakespeare before you read them as text - which is of course their intention. They were meant to be seen performed.
I'm starting to think the same of novels.
But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.
-
How did you possibly avoid reading these books? I think I've read them all the way through at least 3 times plus the Silmarillion. I've had them since the late 70s. Easily the oldest, most dogeared and well loved paperbacks I own.
That's how. I was born in the late seventies, remember? I read The Hobbit twice for school and once on my own, but I've spent the vast majority of my life as a full-time student, which leaves precious little time for pleasure reading.
Incidentally, I have a list of books a mile long that I'll be diving into wholeheartedly after December 20. Ah, the sweet, sweet freedom of voluntary unemployment...
-
Interestingly, I disagree (with Jough above) for some of the same reasons:
I think literature outstrips film mankinds great art; the imagination will never be fully capturable on film and certainly no film can hope to fill everyone's vision. The book, on the other hand, allows you complete reign to imagine, and that is more powerful.
I love movies and I even love television - I think that good writing is of paramount importance for both - I prefer to experience the writing first and then see what kind of vision a filmmaker had of the story.
A good book I can make mine.
A film always belongs to the filmmaker.
-
But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.
I believe the thermos to be mankind's greatest acheivement.
-
But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.
I believe the thermos to be mankind's greatest acheivement.
People you're beliefs are way off on this subject. I have but two words for you: blow jobs
-
But of course I'm biased, since I believe cinema to be humanity's greatest achievement and finest art form.
I kind of agree with you there, I just think the main problem is the industry stops most of them living up to potential. I find very few films that I am completely happy with. Most of which are low budget.
I am kind of torn between films and books though. If I had to choose one to keep it would probably be books. But then I'd miss the great movies...
Well, thank god I don't have to choose!
-
See, I think you can make films "your own" just as much as books. I don't think the imagination is limited or stifled in the least because you can see what someone looks like, or see an image. With a GOOD film people will come away having not seen the same film because they brought their own perspective to it.
Don't think I'm ragging on books - I'm obviously a "reader" and always have two or three books that I switch between at any given time - but cinema is still in its infancy - even the best film can only be compared to a Henry James novel. We're still awaiting the James Joyce or D.H. Lawrence of cinema.
The human imagination is wonderful, but I don't experience art to delve into my own imagination. I see art (poetry, film, novels, painting) as an escape from self, as a temporary entry into someone else's imagination - that's what's so exciting about art to me.
-
Usually, Jough is right, a movie doesn't do a book justice, and the shortcomings can be distracting, but I think they have come as close as anyone ever has with LOTR. They took a few detours with the second movie, but I understand the logic of their choices. The Fellowship however, especially the scenes in the Shire and Lorian, are just about flawless. They mirrored my imagination perfectly.
~Paul
-
The Fellowship however, especially the scenes in the Shire and Lorian, are just about flawless. They mirrored my imagination perfectly.
For me at least, the Fellowship is a tricky one to tell. Having just finished watching again (long oevrdue), I was again struck by the imagery Jackson has taken from various versions. For instance the Hobbits' first encounter with the Nasgul, under the tree stump, being an almost perfect replication of the 70's animated version. Which as far as I'm concerned, became how I always picture it.
And things like Arwen summoning the cascade of water, following some of the art by... someone, done a good few years back.
There are a few other bits too.
But through that, and the fact that I'm not old enough to have read it before I saw the animated version, I don't know if those images are what I would have pictured, or whether they're imprinted on me. When I read the books, I pictured those bits just like that.
Admittedly, the other bits that had no prior imprint, I pictured very closely to the film, and thus I do agree, that Jackson has done about the best job of adapting a book to film ever. And, on a hugely difficult project too, since the books almost legendary!
On another note, I think one of the other great adaptations, that surpassed the book in this instance, was Blade Runner, from Do Androids Dream...
It was very different from how I pictured the book, but the original version is one of my all time favourite films. It's just a stunning piece of cinema. Alas, Ridley Scott got his ugly mitts on it again and destroyed it afterwards. I've noticed he likes to do that with his films!
-
On another note, I think one of the other great adaptations, that surpassed the book in this instance, was Blade Runner, from Do Androids Dream...
I really disliked the movie. I thought he changed the whole theme of the book, i.e. "the difference or lack therof between human and highly advanced machine" became "is Harrison Ford's character an android or not". Of course, I saw the film years after the concept of cyberpunk had come into its own, so I can't view it as the groundbreaking movie a lot of folks make it out to be.
-
i've seen this argument before, and that's why i like the director's cut so much better. he's clearly not an android, and though he has hunted androids, he obviously comes to the decision that any difference is too miniscule to matter. He doesn't run for fear of life, he runs to protect the object of his affection.
The studio cut butchers the film, and absolutely changes its point from that of the book and the director.
Mite, I may yet stop bustin' your chops. At every turn you impress me.
-
I thought the director's cut was an improvement, but I'm waiting for the upcoming DVD SE to make my final judgement on the film.
The problem with making short stories into films is that they're... well, SHORT. Not enough material there for an entire 2+ hour film.
-
Yeah, Mite, you put these clowns to shame. You should post more.
And I should probably post a little less.
-
Thanks, guys. I'm tryin', but I'm shy.
I still haven't seen the director's cut, and I've heard everybody say it's vastly superior. Maybe I should bump it higher on my to-watch list.
-
Shameful confession: I somehow have failed to see "Blade Runner" yet. I am, in fact, some kind of Philistine.
Director's Cut, Director's Cut... I'll remember that.
-
V-Adore, you can't be held responsible for having not seen any important film that was made and released before you were born.
Having said that, GET THEE TO THE VIDEO STORE POST HASTE!
But now I forget - is the DC the version with or without the cheesy voice-over?
-
But now I forget - is the DC the version with or without the cheesy voice-over?
Without. *sobs*
It's a detective movie, it's got to have the voice over!!!
I do realise I am in a minority preferring the original, which didn't have the god awful sunset ending! Oh, and the wobbly unicorn.
-
So Slink, basically what you're saying is that the film I remember so fondly is really a combination of the theatrical cut and the director's cut?
Dang.
I need that new DVD with the seamless branching and multiple audio options, then.
WHERE IS IT, WARNER BROS.? WHERE?
-
So Slink, basically what you're saying is that the film I remember so fondly is really a combination of the theatrical cut and the director's cut?
Well, fair enough I may be misremembering slightly, but it was certainly the original that had the voice over.
As you said, the sooner they release a set with both versions, the better.
OK, the sunset end was in the original theatrical release, but not the workprint version. It was tacked on by the studio.
The unicorn is in the DC only, not the theatrical release.
It sounds like the SE version, which features a cut far closer to the original one, pre release, might turn out to be what I've been waiting for. Though again, I liked the voice over, and that will probably still be missing.
So I was right on all but one bit - the ending.
-
Well, I don't know whether or not your question was rhetorical, jough, but here's a brief history of the rights ping-pong that is Blade Runner:
BR was originally a Warner Bros. release with the Ladd Company, but Embassy Pictures (owned at the time of the original release by Norman Lear, whose production partner Bud Yorkin owned partial screen rights to BR) had a minority stake in the film. Embassy originally released BR on video (the international theatrical cut, which to me is still superior to any existing version, was released to VHS and sublicensed to The Criterion Collection for several LaserDisc releases, while the theatrical version [albeit in pan-and-scan] was released under Embassy's own label on LD due to the format's time limitations).
The Embassy company changed hands numerous times--its television division later sold to Coca-Cola (later Sony Pictures Entertainment) and became ELP Communications, which is why when you first saw BR on television it opened with either the Embassy or Columbia Pictures Television logos. The theatrical and home video divisions became Nelson Entertainment (which released later editions of BR). Ultimately the home video rights to the Embassy library would fall under New Line Home Video (the last company to release the European cut of BR on VHS) and Columbia/Sony retained the television rights, while the theatrical rights went from company to company (DeLaurentis Entertainment Group, ParaFrance Communication S.A., PolyGram Pictures) before Studio Canal became the current theatrical and home video rights holders.
Warner would buy back the rights to BR, if only for the 1994 "director's cut" re-release. They also acquired the home video rights, but again only for the "director's cut" (which remains the only version available on video and DVD). While the original theatrical releases remain currently unavailable on video, Warner was allowed to make the U.S. theatrical and "director's cut" versions available for television (they currently lease BR for broadcast on cable's Sci-Fi Channel).
Where will it all end? Warner Brothers and Studio Canal in a steel cage. Frog fight!
-
I didn't like the first one all that much, but after seeing Two Towers I think I understood the need for so much set up. The second one was surprisingly good, even though I went with some total Tolken geeks and was prepaired to mock it just to annoy them.
Here's the contrast, the Matrix uses it's special effects to make things all slicked up and LOTR uses them to actually add to and improve the content.
-
Smells: I think you're right.
FeeReep: I heard the big planned SE was held-up due to rights issues, but that doesn't mean that I don't still want the big four-disc SE.
I refuse to buy the current non-anamorphic bare-bones DVD. I'm patient.
-
I didn't like the first one all that much, but after seeing Two Towers I think I understood the need for so much set up. The second one was surprisingly good, even though I went with some total Tolken geeks and was prepaired to mock it just to annoy them.
Here's the contrast, the Matrix uses it's special effects to make things all slicked up and LOTR uses them to actually add to and improve the content.
Except for the eye over Mordor. I just found that visual to be painfully lame.
-
God, this is another point. They more or less seem to have not filmed anything that would be indicative of the Scouring making it in, which worries me very much.
The scouring would be a great starting point for the inevitable 'Hobbit's of the Shire' animated series due to come in about in oh '05 I reckon.
~Paul
-
[puts fingres in ears]
La la la laaaaaaaaaaaa... I'm not listening....
[/fingres]
-
God, this is another point. They more or less seem to have not filmed anything that would be indicative of the Scouring making it in, which worries me very much.
The scouring would be a great starting point for the inevitable 'Hobbit's of the Shire' animated series due to come in about in oh '05 I reckon.
This certainly marks me as a gigantic canon dork, but I would adore (or would at least laugh at) a wackified animated series depicting the Shire between Our Heroes' departure and the Scouring. THRILL as Lotho enacts one wacky scheme after another!
... god, I'm so lame.
-
I get the feeling it would end up with hobbits looking scarily like ewoks. And probably sucking just as much!
-
Man, the Ewoks sure do take a beating.
I liked the little guys, although I thought they were pretty fugly. Evidently they were supposed to be cute. I guess I missed the memo.
-
I liked the little guys, although I thought they were pretty fugly. Evidently they were supposed to be cute. I guess I missed the memo.
My mom met an ewok.
-
I liked the little guys, although I thought they were pretty fugly. Evidently they were supposed to be cute. I guess I missed the memo.
My mom met an ewok.
Explain.
-
Explain.
She worked for the 'Disaster Support' group, post Lockerbie crash (we lived a couple of miles from Lockerbie up til about '94), and for some reason during this she met someone, I think a relative of one of the victims, who had played an ewok.
Not a very exciting story really.
And far less amusing than having met 'Pies' at the opening of my mates, briefl, internet gaming cafe. He was, I forget what callsign, but the fat X-Wing pilot in the first movie.
He was an asshole though.
Oh, she also managed, only just, to avoid meeting Prince Charles. She tried damned hard to avoid him too.
-
And far less amusing than having met 'Pies' at the opening of my mates, briefl, internet gaming cafe. He was, I forget what callsign, but the fat X-Wing pilot in the first movie.
He was an asshole though.
If this is "Wedge," I'm faintly amused. I have friends who are big Star Wars fans, and apparently Wedge is a major figure in most of the novels -- they fan over him to an extent that frankly worries me.
-
If this is "Wedge," I'm faintly amused.
Alas no. He was just a random fat bloke, who got like one tiny line.
I think he was like, Red Five or something. I'd have to rewatch it, and no one cares that much anyway!
-
And far less amusing than having met 'Pies' at the opening of my mates, briefl, internet gaming cafe. He was, I forget what callsign, but the fat X-Wing pilot in the first movie.
He was an asshole though.
If this is "Wedge," I'm faintly amused. I have friends who are big Star Wars fans, and apparently Wedge is a major figure in most of the novels -- they fan over him to an extent that frankly worries me.
It's almost gotta be Wedge.
Hmmm, Star Wars fans obsessing over a fat slobby guy who's sucessful as a fighter pilot. Wonder if we can figger out the psychology there?
-
Also, ever notice how much Wedge looks like George Lucas?
-
I'm pretty sure it wasn't Wedge; in the movies Wedge is a clean-shaven dark-haired guy. The fat guy they are talking about looks kind of like the John candy character in 'Spaceballs' without the ears and tail.
Wedge Antilles (http://mobz.org/starwars/image,976)
[Queen O'Geeks]My wife perused the script further and found your fat, friendly X-wing pilot on page 129. Red 6, Also known as Porkins. [/Queen O'Geeks]
Other Geeks Said this about Lt. Porkins (http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/jekredsixporkins/)
Homeworld:Bestine IV
Species:Human
Gender:Male
Height:1.8 meters
Weapon:Blaster pistol
Vehicle:X-wing starfighter
Affiliation:Rebel Alliance
Lieutenant Porkins bore the com-designation Red Six during the Battle of Yavin. This young Rebel starfighter pilot was a friend of Biggs Darklighter. Though his X-wing fighter was maneuverable enough to avoid the Death Star's sluggish turbolasers, a mechanical malfunction hampered his ability to dodge enemy fire. His fighter was hit by the Imperial weapons emplacement, bursting into fiery fragments, and killing Porkins immediately.
Here endeth the lesson.
-
My wife perused the script further and found your fat, friendly X-wing pilot on page 129. Red 6, Also known as Porkins.
God bless you. And your wife. And that book which I seem to have mislayed...
-
OK then, ever notice how much Lt. Porkins looks like George Lucas?
-
"Lt. Porkins." Huh. Well, I'm edified for the day.
Time to go find Star Wars fans and one-up them at their own game. Or possibly register ltporkinsestrogensquad.net.
-
Or possibly register ltporkinsestrogensquad.net.
Is that a veiled Microserfs reference? I'm trying to remember what Susan's 'Charlie's Angels' type feminism group was called in that.
(Could have done without the chunky days comments from them, but then all my girlfriends have had the same conversations around me so you're never safe.)
-
Or possibly register ltporkinsestrogensquad.net.
Is that a veiled Microserfs reference? I'm trying to remember what Susan's 'Charlie's Angels' type feminism group was called in that.
My intended reference was to all the fangirl cliques calling themselves "The (Favored/Sexy Male Character) Estrogen Squad," but I'll take obscure veiled references wherever I can get 'em.
-
To revive this long off-topic/dead thread, some relevant news that many of you have probably already seen:
Peter Jackson confirms that the Scouring was apparently never filmed and that the Saruman "wrap-up" material, all seven minutes of it, is being cut from the RotK theatrical release and will only be seen on the DVD. (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1068240351)
Part of me understands the cinematic pacing issues he's facing, but part of me has the vague feeling of being cheated. With each movie, the sensation that I'm really buying a ticket to a trailer and will have to shill out to see the real movie gets stronger and stronger... sigh.
-
And, unfortunately, Christopher Lee had to learn over the internet that he'd been completely cut out of the movie:
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2169839
Ouch.
-
Ouch indeed. Seems pretty grade-schooly, like getting your friend to break up with soemone for you.
-
And, unfortunately, Christopher Lee had to learn over the internet that he'd been completely cut out of the movie
Wow, that is stone cold. My faith level in PJ continues to drop...
-
Actually, this is just an AICN rumour, so Lee's scene could still be in the film.
There's evidently a petition now to "Bring Back Sarumon!" but I hope Jackson sticks to his guns, no matter what he decides.
-
That would be SarumAn, Jough.
SarumOn was the treacherous Digimon who used his magical powers and hypnotic voice to get other digimon to do his bidding.
-
Actually, this is just an AICN rumour
Of course you can always believe everything you read on the internet. Especially when they come from such official sources as those cited in this thread. Myself, I only trust content from FARK.
~Paul
-
Out of curiosity, August, how'd you know that?
Not that I'm not impressed.
-
I figured I wasn't spelling it right. The difference between us is that I didn't really care enough to look it up.
Not that that's the only difference. Heavens.
-
Out of curiosity, August, how'd you know that?
Not that I'm not impressed.
If you are asking how I knew the proper spelling of Saruman, it's because I regularly re-read LOTR. In fact, I'm currently reading it aloud to my daughters.
If, instead, you're asking how I knew about the Digimon, that I knew because I made it up. I know about Digimon in general because younger daughter used to watch the show.
-
I was pretty much asking about the second one, and that's a pretty valid explanation, so you're off the hook this time.
-
Whew. Another bogus prosecution evaded!
-
THIS TIME.
-
A rumor, eh Joe? Then explain this:
http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/default.asp?id=37020&c=w
I know full well that TWO websites would not fabricate information on the same news story.Notice the absence of direct quotations.