[Jordan]

I think the Balrog would have been better represented by a real Balrog, so long as they could find one of appropriate age, and who had some physical acting. Preferably clown training.

Silly guy, everyone knows Balrog's aren't real.

[civilian_number_two]

ps, thanks for the substantive research, civilian number two.

Yeah. Google. +"jrr tolkien" +"based on england" Scan for appropriate link, read, cut, paste.

Took about five minutes. I love the internet!

[Ninja Duck]

ps, thanks for the substantive research, civilian number two. 

Yeah. Google. +"jrr tolkien" +"based on england" Scan for appropriate link, read, cut, paste.

Took about five minutes. I love the internet!

I'm typing this from the foreword to the second edition of Lord of the Rings, so it'll take a bit longer.

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, "The Shadow of the Past", is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.
The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion...

The foreword isn't dated or given an author's name, but the second edition was made around 1965/66. I thought there was something about how the scouring of the Shire didn't symbolize turmoil in England, but I couldn't find it.

[Despondent]

ps, thanks for the substantive research, civilian number two. 

just trying to give credit where due, no matter how little effort it apparently took. as for myself, I was in the garage going through boxes of books, trying to find this tolkien bio I've misplaced. As for the quote I recall, it hasn't appeared on this thread.

"Are you sure about that, Despondent? That Tolkien based Hobbits on the English? "

I was just pleased with the validation.

[Ninja Duck]

I was just pleased with the validation.

So was I; I never knew about those letters. Just showing why I thought the books had nothing to do with England. Tolkien's letters and the foreward seem to contradict eachother a little, don't they?

[Jordan]

Didn't the name hobbit originate from the name of Tolkiens street, Hob lane.?

[Ninja Duck]

On the back of a 50th anniversary edition of the Hobbit, it said that Tolkien just scribbled the line "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit" on something when he was bored at school. There could be a deeper reason for the name hobbit, though.

[Despondent]

It's official. Lotr is the best trilogy ever.

hang it up lucas. take off the helmet already. you're finished.


and yes, I know people will still line up for your movie. You might as well release it now. those people will still buy tickets and the people that hate your new films can hate Ep 3 now and get it over with. but messing with it in post production will not bring it to the quality of your competition so why not let it stand on the strength of the story and the acting. I mean, you're going to change it again anyway, right?

[barend]

sorry that was mew,
i usually post from work but i'm on holidays...

[barend]

that's right mew!!! :angry:

[civilian_number_two]

Hey while we're at it (by "it" I mean declaring that LOTR is officialliy the best trilogy ever), has anyone noticed this ridiculous ALIEN box set?

They're calling it the "ALIEN Quadrilogy." My question: is that even a word? I mean, sure, you can make a word of it, one of those hybrids of Roman prefix and Greek root, but there's always been a perfectly suitable, all-Greek word long ago welcomed into English, "tetralogy."

Is this the sort of thing that bugs anyone else? (By "this" I mean transparent efforts on the part of timid marketing types to invent words that they think, despite their not being real, will make sense to more people).

Anyway, in the box set they have an alternate version of each and every movie, so you can watch those embarrassing third and fourth installments two different ways each.

[Despondent]

do they have a russian roulette dvd version where you don't know which ending you'll get? that would provide the same sense of hope as going to a new sw prequel: "I just know it'll turn out better this time! It has to!" (in all fairness I'm playing along. I've only seen alien singular)

as far as playing with words (and letters,) alien + d = "denial." and, I can't look at aotc without thinking "chaotic"

incidentally, great points from the first lotr reports. from daffy denathor to the at-at attack. the fires, they did that in Mulan too. one more thing off topic. left the cineplex through the starbucks drive thru roadway. they have a tip jar at the drive thru window! now I've seen everything.

[Jordan]

JUST sat through 3 hours of the RETURN OF THE KING. Best movie! The battle scene was brilliant, the acting was great, and the shots of landscapes were breath taking.

I m sad now, no more LOTR : (

Damn you Jackson! why could you not break the 3 books into 10 movies!

[Supes]

Just saw RPTK also and can only agree. It has surpassed anything I hoped and the trilogy is now firmly settled as one of my top two of all time. I'll let you all figure out what the other one of my top two is.

All I can say is bring on PJ's The Hobbit!!!!