Lord of the Rings

Posted by: Anonymous

Lord of the Rings - 12/19/01 02:59 AM

I got back a little while ago from a midnight showing ... a wonderful movie. It was more emotional than I was expecting. It really does a good job of getting across the heart of the books.<br><br>The changes (from the books) are mostly in the details. The plot is basically intact, aside from the well-publicized omissions like Bombadil.<br><br>Ian McKellen has more acting ability in one eyebrow than most actors do in their whole bodies.<br><br>Come prepared for a long one. The lights went down right at midnight and, counting previews etc., came up at 3:10. Still, it's a briskly paced movie.<br><br>Go see it!<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 12/19/01 06:56 AM

Many thanks for your comments! <br><br>It's nice to hear someone who has read the works of the Poet has such a positive view.<br><br>Not surprisingly there seems to be a deluge of TLOR articles on the net this a.m. The most interesting one I've seen thus far relates the impact of the movie on the New Zealand economy:<br><br>http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,49246,00.html<br><br>(And the private section of The Tolkien Society site, for members only, seems to be awash with messages from those who also did the midnight viewing bit. Most are positive. This is a scholarlship oriented group, not a "fan" group per se.)<br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>"The box said 'Requires Windows XP or better' so I bought a Macintosh." - Anonymous<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by 128K_Mac on 12/19/01 10:42 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Lord of the Rings - 12/19/01 08:10 AM

What can I say? It must be great to be a Kiwi!<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/11/02 02:10 PM

yoyo52<br><br>So have you seen it?<br><br>Who else has seen it?<br><br>How many times? <br><br>Everyone on the net is passing out superlatives.<br><br>I haven't seen it. <br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/11/02 08:52 PM

Yes, I did see it, and thought it is very well done. There are some things that are just brilliantly translated to film--the horses in the flooding river, Legolas skimming over the snow while the others sink up to their necks, the world of the Shire, the transformation of Isengard into a kind of industrial cess pool. Some things seem visually odd--for instance, Elrond's house made me think the director had wandered into a set left over from Heidi--very Tyrolean, almost kitsch. I can't wait to see what they do with Ents . There are some things that folks who think of JRRT as a second Moses and of LOTR as a second Pentateuch will find irritating. I'm not a purist, though, so I didn't mind liberties with the text, like Arwen rather than Elrond causing the flood or the cutting out entirely of Tom Bombadill. The one thing that I didn't like was the transformation of Saruman into an agent of Sauron right from the outset, but that's not enough to make me think the movie falsifies the book. The women were pretty weak, but then that's nothing new in regards to Tolkein, who (in the fine old Oxford don tradition) seems not to know what to do with women besides make them pure and ethereal. Of course, we haven't met any human females yet.<br><br>I've only seen it once, though, and would very much like to see it again. It is very good at sweeping the audience into the action, but for someone who knows the books, a first viewing inevitably becomes something like a comparison and contrast essay. I think seeing it a second time, now that I know what's in and what's not, what's altered and what's the same, will make me like it even more. I'd definitely recommend that you see it. However, I would definitely not take a very young child to it. Some of the scenes are really horrific, especially down in dwarf land. There were some young kids in the audience when we went, and those poor kids were quaking in their boots when it was over.<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/11/02 09:47 PM

Thank you for your comments. I fear that having grown up with LOTR as part of my childhood that I might react to some of the changes like I would to having Huck and Jim driving a ski boat down The river. <br><br>Sooner or later I shall give in I suppose. My daughter, 27, has seen it six or more (likely more) times and wants to adopt Gandalf as a father, replacing me. <br><br>She has not however taken my grandchildren, my eldest grandsons being age 4.<br><br>The scene with Gandalf and the Balrog I would truly like to see, among others. Liked your characterization of "the transformation of Isengard into a kind of industrial cess pool." LOL <br><br>But have been shoring up my resolve with the 1975 reprint of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (also includes Pearl and Sir Orfeo) in order to maintain a conservative attitude towards the movie. <br><br>But LOTR without Tom Bombadil? I dunno. Am also interested to see the reason, presumably expediency in advancing the plot, of the elevated role of Arwen.....at least there is no gratuitous nude scene. <br><br>Ents ! ! ! Ents are one of the finest inventions in literature IMO and I love to listen to the recordings excerpted from LOTR read by the Poet himself and speaking the role of the Ent to the hobbits.<br><br>No "background" on the Wizard, Saruman, is, I suppose, inevitable due to constrictions of time, but no Tom Bombadil???<br><br>There should be one particular human female, Eowyn, on the horizon who the director/writer/producer best deal with as is her due or the Clan of Tolkien may rise up and smite him! <br><br>Much like the Lady Galadriel Aragorn's bride to be is characterized as a Fair Maiden in King Arthur's court. I wonder where Tolkien derived such characterizations? <br><br>Nothing in this world is sacrosanct, but I'll let my comment about Huck Finn travelling down The river in a "modern raft" as my comment on such matters. Yea, though I be tarred and feathered, there are only a few heresies I will not stand for. <br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/11/02 10:16 PM

I guess I understand why they decided to drop Tom--in fact, the whole section from the time they leave "civilization" and end up besieged by the Nine is dropped--no barrows, either. One result is that the movie really doesn't give a good idea of just how long all the action is taking, but on the other hand it does move the plot forward pretty fast (which, considering that the movie is 3 hours long, may not be a bad idea in a the world of Big Bird ).<br><br>I love Sir G and the GK! It's a tough poem for a lot of college kids nowadays because it's so subtle in its persentation of just how sappy Sir Gawain is. I love the whole business about G's shield, with its five-fold fives, and its image of the Blessed Virgin, and its sanctity and its symbolism: and then, when Sir G finally gets on the road, the stuff that's most significant is how to keep the bloody armor from rusting! I think a lot of students end up being a little like Sir G himself--they take the whole thing so seriously that they miss the joke, just as Sir G does. And Pearl is one beautiful poem. Makes me sort of sad that the alliterative revival and/or northern dialects of Middle English died.<br><br>On a different note, I spent a lot of the day listening to a couple of candidates for jobs at my school, one in ecological sciences and the other in theater. They were both absolutely terrific. I'm on the ecology search committe, and think my colleagues will agree with me that the guy today was the best, and I know that the folks in the theater search thought the woman today should have been hired last week. I really really hope both accept job offers here!<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/11/02 10:25 PM

The curious thing about the 1975 edition I found and started to reread is that it's paperback, first one out in 1975, but appears never to have been read. (?!?)<br><br>I can only think I somehow bought a duplicate copy at the time. It is yellowed somewhat but I can tell from the spine it's never been read.<br><br>Reading it is deja vue all over again. <br><br>What are you doing up so late? Glad your search committee interviews went well.<br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/11/02 10:32 PM

[quoteWhat are you doing up so late?[/quote]<br><br>Hey, it's friday night: I'm living it up <br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/13/02 04:56 PM

Glad to see this thread come back to life. I went to see the film a week or so ago, and I still really liked it. This time I took my girlfriend, who has not read the books, and she thought it was very good. She had no trouble following the story... the only time I had to "help her out" whas when the Fellowship was approaching the Falls of Rauros and she gripped my forearm in fear. I had to tell her "don't worry, they know the waterfall is there."<br><br>By and large I think PJ made good compromises when you grant that some of the book had to be left out. I was a little surprised to see Saruman's role expanded as it was, but I think it helps those who are unfamiliar with the books.<br><br>I was OK with most of the changes from the book, with a few exceptions. I was surprised at one of the alterations during the Breaking of the Fellowship (I won't spoil it for you, 128k), and I wasn't sure it quite rang true.<br><br>As for the books: I own two sets: a cheap Ballantine paperback version I bought as a kid back in 1980 (the front of FOTR came apart on me), and another set by Houghton Mifflin I bought about five years ago. It's sort of interesting because they're paperback, yet they have dust jackets. Never encountered that before.<br><br>I looked for a long time for that second set because so many of the paperback versions of LOTR are of such poor quality. For example, there's a current Houghton Mifflin paperback edition that is bound quite nicely, but the type is somewhat muddy and the print on most pages is slightly off-kilter -- unacceptable.<br><br>I have cast a covetous eye on a $70 single-volume edition bound in red "leatherette" (perhaps an allusion to the "Red Book"?) and including a slipcase. Seems quite nice -- the print quality seems quite good, and the page numbers and titles are in red ink! -- even though I assume "leatherette" is a fancy way of saying "synthetic." Maybe someday soon...<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/13/02 06:25 PM

CaseCom,<br><br>I certainly respect your opinion and that of yoyo52 regarding the movie.<br><br>Still haven't seen it. Am beginning to believe I won't, nor the next two movies either.<br><br>I've literally read hundreds of reviews on the Inet of the movie by now. I think I knew the screen play's plot before the movie was shown. Most of the well known books written about the movie were written by members of The Tolkien Society.<br><br>Actually the plot, some of the more interesting features, etc. were in wide circulation last summer.<br><br>I've probably read LOTR three dozen times, the Hobbit several dozen times, The History of Middle Earth twice, the Silmarillion maybe five times, etc. etc. for The Lost Tales and The Unfinished Tales, Farmer Giles of Ham and Tom Bombadil. The "number of readings" is a wild guess. I would challenge yoyo52, for example, to try to guess how many times he's read Beowulf or Canterbury Tales. <br><br>My generation, the 1960's, "discovered" Tolkien. There probably wasn't an English major on the campus, probably not one in the Humanities, that didn't have some rag tag paperback copy of something by the Professor with us at all times. The English department had about ten "clubs." One for example had members who enjoyed reading Chaucer aloud to the others. The Tolkien Club had 100 times as many members as the other clubs combined. No course of any kind was offered in the Department in those days on Tolkien.<br><br>With yoyo52's "reminder" I did dig around and discover that I first read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight translation by Tolkien, his translation of Beowulf, and I believe that's when I first encountered The Monsters and the Critics which yoyo52 mentions as useful in his classes on Beowulf. I don't think it was a text in the course (two actually) I had but I stumbled onto it in the library and later bought it.<br><br>My best, "reading set" of LOTR and Hobbit is a four volume set published by Urwin in the UK in the 1970's. It's very nice and was a special editon. Over Christmas my mother found a three volume set of LOTR in paperback that was extremely worn and obviously well read. From the date of printing, and from the location, The Grandchildren's Room, I know it belonged to one of my three kids. It's possible all three may have shared it. I still have the original paperbacks of three of the four which I purchased in the 1960's. They're disintegrating. <br><br>Coincidentally I purchased one of the $70. single-volume (red cover) copies of LOTR in an after Christmas sale maybe ten years ago at B. Dalton. (Don't ask what I was doing in a B. Dalton.) I thought it would make a nice future gift and it still sits on my bookshelve sealed in some plastic covering. The "sale" price was $15.00. It's the same one you mention. Dozens are for sale all the time on eBay, The Tolkien Society stocks it, Amazon & BN have it, etc. It's been rather popular and appears to be of very high quality.<br><br>Sounds like all you have to do is get on my Christmas gift list. <br><br>Actually I'm saving it for my grandchildren. I've been buying a number of books post-Christmas when I find them on sale, Tolkien and others. I don't recall seeing that later edition of the one I have offered at a specal price, although you might want to check one of the many booksellers who list on eBay or the "used" (often new) listings on Amazon. The latter place is where I've bought many books. Many times booksellers around the country will undercut Amazon's price and list it in the "used" section. See the same page on Amazon where a book is listed and click on the "buy it used" link. I bought/ordered a very nice looking copy, this one slightly used, of Joyce's Ulysses in hardback today. The price was less than that for the paperback. <br><br>I usually only buy special order books from Amazon and BN anymore. I often special order from Fatbrain because their service is better than BN (which owns Fatbrain.com). I've started buying virtually everything "buy it used" on Amazon or on eBay. I normally buy only from booksellers which can be recognized by their user name or list of other books for sale. Both sites have rating systems.<br><br>I've given up on Amazon and Yahoo Auctions. eBay is the best place in the world IMO to buy first editions which I collect for 20th century English fiction and poetry. You learn who the reliable sellers are and I never buy anything without using PayPal which "insures" I'll get the item described. I've spent a good deal of my life haunting book shops on the left and right coasts for books. The ones in California are now much better than they were, but I still find the shops in New England the best place to find rare books in a first edition, first issue copy.<br><br>Houghton Mifflin has a set of hardback LOTR (don't recall if Hobbit too) that is of good quality. Probably the best place to shop for really nice quality copies is The Tolkien Society. If nothing else you can use their description to search on BN or Amazon. They have at least three very nice editions on their present list, as well as several of "standard" quality like the Houghton Mifflin. The Brits seem to have a greater interest in quality books than we do and the Society has always had high quality editions.<br><br>I received a book from the Society yesterday, a rare (especially in the U.S.) first edition of Vol. 8 from The History of Middle Earth in UK first edition. My twelve volume set is now short only two in the UK version, but they are rapidly becoming collector's items. Both the US and UK set of all twelve volumes is available in the very high quality three volume set (the History) on eBay at prices which are sometimes quite good. I have both of these two sets. But I'm not really a serious Tolkien collector and don't know if I want to pay the price for the two missing volumes from the 12 volume UK set. I also have the 12 volume US set.<br><br>As mentioned, the red special edition you've looked at appears to be of very good quality. With the plastic wrapping on it I can't tell what the actually cover material is but it does appear to be very nice.<br><br>But the movie? I don't know. I continue to procrastinate. I belong to one of the Tolkien forums and have two college students, both young women, who badger me every time I post about going to see the movie. Both are intent on rescuing me from the perfidy of my ways. And they are very devoted fans. One is majoring in Anglo-Saxon and I think has read more translations of Beowulf than I knew existed. I've lost the URL, unfortunately, but one of her professors has a two year old child who can recite Beowulf. In the original.<br><br>The web site is really quite remarkable. I'd intended to post it for the benefit of yoyo52 because I thought he'd be interested. Remarkable. I have two bright grandsons, age 4, who enjoy retrieving the "book of Mr. Sam" (Life on the Mississippi) for me to read to them, but they're not exactly quoting lengthy passages from it. And Sam Clemens didn't write in Old English. <br><br>Your girlfriend had no fear of the massed hordes of Orcs? <br><br>Am told that and Gandalf doing combat with the Balrog is a bit distressing to some. I picked up a very nice graphic of that scene somewhere and sometimes use it for my desktop pattern.<br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/13/02 08:09 PM

What did you think of the introductory section of the movie, CaseCom? I thought it was useful for folks who hadn't read the books. Did your girlfriend think so? A lot of that material came from Silmarillion.<br><br>Like 128_Mac, I've read the books many many times. My first reading I still remember, back in the summer of 1966. I remember that I stayed up all night finishing Two Towers, then went to the nearest bookstore, which happened to be at the bus depot in Coral Gables, Fla., as soon as the buses started running the next morning, and then read half-way through Return of the King before I collapsed. Between that summer and the next, I must have read LOTR some six times. My parents were getting divorced then, and it was a great way not to pay attention to all that mess. And then my mother remarried, and the books helped a lot in dealing with my jerky step father.<br><br>I wish I could recapture the feeling of that first reading, though!<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/13/02 08:58 PM

I think dramatizing the background of the Ring in the beginning of the movie was a wise move. That info is in the Silm, but it's also presented in FOTR as explication by Gandalf and Elrond (to Frodo in Bag End, and later to the Council at Rivendell). Following the book in this manner I think would have slowed the movie down too much.<br><br>I think the biggest weakness of the film is the lack of "alone time" character development for the four hobbits; you don't really get to know Merry and Pippin that well because everything between Bucklebury Ferry and Bree is skipped over. But again, it's a compromise I probably would have made too if I were in PJ's position.<br><br>I was introduced to LOTR in the sixth grade by a middle-school teacher. Our lunch hours were split into two parts: in one half you ate lunch, the other half you took part in an activity, the offerings for which ranged from the purely recreational (playing foosball) to more scholarly (a special optional extension of Spanish class for those who were taking Spanish).<br><br>My favorite activity was one where the teacher (one of my favorite teachers) would read fantasy novels aloud to the class. You could do homework or doze off in the back if you wanted, but I was among the kids sitting up front hanging on every word of "The Hobbit," "Fellowship," the first couple of books in the Xanth series by Piers Anthony, and "the Wizard of Earthsea" by Ursula K. LeGuin (the first book in the Earthsea trilogy, which I highly recommend).<br><br>Anyway, I promptly went out and bought that Ballantine paperback edition of LOTR and devoured the whole thing. I vividly remember first reading "Return of the King" as I traveled to New York for my grandfather's funeral; I couldn't put it down. That would have been spring of 1981, when I was 11 years old. In short order I read LOTR four times. Got the Silm, too, and read that at least twice.<br><br>Then a few years ago I picked up that new LOTR edition, which I reread, and I also discovered a CD set of that BBC production that was recorded sometime in the '80s (with Ian Holm as Frodo -- excellent). Just last week I picked up "Unfinished Tales" at Barnes & Noble. I'm not sure I'll ever make it to the "History of Middle-earth" series; I hate to say it but it seems a little too daunting.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/13/02 09:24 PM

The BBC series of 1981 is presently being rebroadcast on Channel 4, BBC.com, Saturday mornings as I recall. Two of the thirteen episides have aired, but eleven remain. <br><br>I think I like the NPR series of LOTR better, but only because I heard it first.<br><br>I believe part of the intro to the movie is taken from The Unfinished Tales, something to do with one of the elder elves. Brain fade.<br><br>Sadly, per yoyo52's comment, there's no way to recapture that first reading.<br><br>Having finished rereading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the Pearl I've started rereading The Book of Lost Tales, two books actually. I've always like them because they contain some of the Professor's earliest writing as well as some of his last.<br><br>I believe he wrote the first tale (as found in vol. 1) about age 19 or 20, just before leaving for the Battle of the Somme.<br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/16/02 07:56 PM

Am starting to reread The Lost Tales, Vol. 1.<br><br>It's amazing to read some things written by the Poet when he was 20, about 30 years before the finishing of LOTR. Some of the Tales could quite easily be tucked into The Hobbit or LOTR.<br><br>Or more accurately they fit into The Silmarillion which of course is where Christopher Tolkien placed many similar pieces.<br><br>Many of the Tales do not have the "right" place name, names for the Noldor, etc., but there's no mistaking what is being read. Christopher simply wasn't able to fit the tales in the two volumes and the stories in The Unfinished Tales into The Silmarillion for one reason or another.<br><br>Great fun. <br><br><br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.
Posted by: Entish

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/16/02 09:25 PM

hrmm<br>the damn thing has not yet arrived in my corner of Fangorn... so I am still hanging out.. er standing around I could swim to New Zealand faster than it is taking to get here from Sydney<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/16/02 09:55 PM

I know Ents are a mighty patient folk, and I'm sure you're no exception--but this is really an outrage worthy of Saruman <br><br>edit: spelling (what else!)<br><br>And that's true too.--Shakespeare, King Lear<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 01/17/02 00:56 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Entish

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/19/02 07:29 AM

yeah hroom......<br>Why Harry Potter only just arrived in downtown Fangorn.<br>How he managed that while he was already on his honeymoon, with the highly estimable ex miz Rowlings frown I am still perplexed.<br>So its anyone's guess just how long it will take the damn thing (LOTR) to arrive in the shire.<br>Where's Strider when you need him?<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/19/02 07:56 PM

Alas you rural aussies never get a break. Suggest you save money and not attend the festivities of Mrs. Potter's son so that you can see Gandalf when (if) it finally makes appearance.<br><br>Was reading on a Tolkien forum a message left by a Czech college student. He's seen LOTR about six times in Prague. <br><br>Thot that might brighten your day. <br><br>The edit: Almost screwed up and had "kiwis" in place of aussies." Whew. <br><br>128k_Mac<br><br>The box said "Requires Microsoft Windows or better" so I bought a Macintosh.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by 128K_Mac on 01/19/02 11:00 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/29/02 05:29 AM

Ah, it will arrive sooner or later, old mate. We even had it opening weekend in smalltown Nebraska. :)<br><br>AlgæS
Posted by: Entish

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/30/02 12:17 AM

It's here, it's here!<br>It finally arrived this week<br>will try to see it at least once<br>then sit around glum for another six months awaiting the second installment<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 01/30/02 04:05 PM

So how was the movie? You've had time to see it three times by now. <br><br>I notice the monthly publication of The Tolkien Society contains a number of "reviews." They're quite unlike most I've seen at the fan sites. For one thing there are two negative reviews, the first out of hundreds I've seen.<br><br>For those who have following my mental gyrations at various times, some supposed to be thoughtful, others smelling of insidious intellectualism, and the list goes on and on, much like the road followed in the writings of the Poet.<br><br>Hmmm....that's a bit of a bloated comment itself.<br><br>Let's try: I've just about beaten this issue to death.<br><br>Latest update: Am off the fence straddling position taken earlier. I'm not going to see it. I can read. <br><br>The book is a good one. It's something that lives in my imagination. My imagination has long since fixed certain thoughts I have about Middle Earth. They were put there by the Poet. This other medium called the cinema is of a different sort. I don't want to know about some "other" Middle Earth. I can't conceive of it being as interesting.<br><br>And I can still read.<br><br>I am pleased that 99.9% of those who have seen it seem to like it. It also appears to have substantially increased the readership of the Poet's work.<br><br>That's definitely a plus for the movie. But I've already read the book.<br><br><br><br>[color:blue]128k_Mac</font color=blue><br><br>Men say they know many things; but lo! they have taken wings--The arts and sciences, and a thousand appliances; The wind that blows is all that any body knows. [color:blue]Henry David Thoreau</font color=blue><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 02/04/02 09:31 PM

Have you seen it yet? I keep forgetting to ask you. smile <br><br>AlgæS
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 02/04/02 09:40 PM

Surely you don't mean me?<br><br>(no)<br><br>THE EDIT: Where's the delete button? I've lept afore lookin' (?? is my syntax correct?) Ah yes, on the message it states to whom the "reply" was corrected.<br><br>Damn, I keep thinking people care whether or not I see the movie. Obviously not. So much for egotism. It is a difficult cross to bear at any rate.......<br><br>[color:blue]128k_Mac</font color=blue><br><br>Men say they know many things; but lo! they have taken wings--The arts and sciences, and a thousand appliances; The wind that blows is all that any body knows. [color:blue]Henry David Thoreau</font color=blue><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by 128K_Mac on 02/05/02 00:58 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Lord of the Rings - 02/04/02 09:42 PM

This is one of those rare opportunities when I get to play the roll of intellectual elistist and I plan to work it for all I can get. <br><br>[color:blue]128k_Mac</font color=blue><br><br>Men say they know many things; but lo! they have taken wings--The arts and sciences, and a thousand appliances; The wind that blows is all that any body knows. [color:blue]Henry David Thoreau</font color=blue><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

no - 02/04/02 09:48 PM

I was referring to our good friend the Ent from the island near New, er, Middle Earth. He's not said if he's seen it and I spoke with him earlier but forgot to ask, yet again.<br><br>AlgæS