Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
'What Say You?' ~ Hobbit Movie Reports, Rumours & Rumblings ~ 11th Aug 07 ~ Two Directors?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Sunflower
Valinor

Aug 18 2007, 8:49am

Post #76 of 87 (331 views)
Shortcut
For more comparisons.... [In reply to] Can't Post

..Sorry, I don't want to have too long a post so I'm splitting this up.

Funnily enough the same type of debate is currently going on in the Harry Potter fan world. There's a lot of debate over Daniel Radcliffe's portrayal of Harry in the film of Order of the Phoenix. In perticular many fans are disappointed that a key scene at the end, with Harry storming and raging at Dumbledore in his office, after the death of Sirius, to the point of smashing furniture, is toned down to a quiet conversation of a few sentences, while he is unneccessarily angry in other scenes. (and as far as caracters go, let's not even get STARTED on Richard Harris's Dumbledore in the first 2 films vs Micheal Gambon's Dumbledore in the rest of the films! We can all just think God we had Chris lee and Ian for all 3 rings films! You want an epic debate....!)

In the Book Order of the Phoenix (OOTP), Harry is much angrier, lashing out at and often alienating Ron and Hermione. In the book it is suggested that this is the result of his inabilty to deal with or come to terms with the growing "parasitic" (as Dumbledore describes it to Snape in the now-famous Deathly Hallows chapter "The Prince's Tale", surely the finest chapter put on a page in recent memory), connection between himself and Lord Voldemort (LV.) But in the film, even as his anger is toned down we are at a loss to understand him even more as this connection grows beucase until the end we are not provided with an explanation for it. We have been less prepared. It is interesting to see Dan onscreen struggling to contain Harry's demons, because by his own admission, Dan prefers the dark; this was the first performance of hishe liked. (Funny, I have to agree--there might be the germ of a great actor in this kid after all.) So even as he followed David Yates's orders to keep harry sympathetic (many fans don;t like "book Harry" at all at that point in the story, at least until Sirius dies.) he allows him hut enough darkness and angst to keep t fresh and intruiging. It;s an interesting example of the conflict between directorial and an actor
s interpretation of a character.

As to "continuity", you can all thnak God again that LOTR had one (or a team of the same ) directors, and it wasn't farmed out like the HP films are. While many applaud the various "stamps" each director puts on the HP tale, I'd have preferred Cuaron or Yates to direct all 7..the narravtive flows are glaring...
Believe it or not, (but it's true), many HP fans wish Jackson would direct Deathly Hallows...I have to gently remind them that won;t be possible..hopefully Howard SHore could do the score for Deathly Hallows though! There's no director for 7 yet so the slot of composeris still open!


Sunflower
Valinor

Aug 18 2007, 12:39pm

Post #77 of 87 (254 views)
Shortcut
PPS. [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry for all the typos above. I was VERY TIRED and just hit post and didn't bother to check errors....


weaver
Half-elven

Aug 18 2007, 1:36pm

Post #78 of 87 (264 views)
Shortcut
lots and lots of thoughts from you! [In reply to] Can't Post

You know, now that I think about it, I had similiar reactions to the Sil when it came out as I did to the SW prequels -- both were so markedly different and far less accessible than the stories I had been exposed to in both of those "worlds" that it was hard to relate to them at first.

I don't have a problem with the concept of the SW prequels -- it's actually quite a good mythology -- but the films don't work for me at all as a way of relating the tale of the fall of Anakin Skywalker. The prequel storyline is sort of like an opera, and might have worked best presented in that way -- instead, Lucas seems to have tried to infuse it with the "gee whiz" factor and humor of the original three movies, and the combination just doesn't work (for me). As a result, I'm just not engaged enough with the characters or story to suspend my disbelief and enter Lucas's story, no matter how technically sophisticated he presents it.

The Sil, by comparison, is something that I've found a way to connect with once I got used to the different style. It's kind of like Shakespeare or the Old Testament for me -- once I got some grounding in the language and formality of its structure, it drew me in. But that was only because I let go of my preconceptions about what Middle Earth "should" be from LOTR and the Hobbit -- and Tolkien of course brought the Sil into the those works and not vice versa. I was never able to do that with the SW prequels because they kept trying to link with the original Star Wars films instead of distancing themselves from them.

Weaver



Patty
Immortal


Aug 18 2007, 2:42pm

Post #79 of 87 (262 views)
Shortcut
Well put, Lily... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that's often the case in argu- er discussions.

Riding with the Rohirrim!


squire
Valinor


Aug 18 2007, 3:35pm

Post #80 of 87 (376 views)
Shortcut
No, Tolkien would never have gone for that [In reply to] Can't Post

"Some who have read the book...have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of...the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

Tolkien knew all about the popular modern trend of making heroes and leaders explicitly vulnerable, conflicted and ambivalent about their roles, and he wanted nothing to do with it. Of course, his Aragorn is implicitly conflicted numerous times in the story, though this is perhaps only clear on second or third readings. But even when a younger man he never doubted his heritage as the right King of all the West; he thrilled to it and only doubted if it might come about.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 18 2007, 6:38pm

Post #81 of 87 (310 views)
Shortcut
Citation please. [In reply to] Can't Post

"Some who have read the book...have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of...the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."

Tolkien knew all about the popular modern trend of making heroes and leaders explicitly vulnerable, conflicted and ambivalent about their roles, and he wanted nothing to do with it.


For my part I'll cite Letter #26 where Tolkien highly praises David Lindsay's fantasy novel "A Voyage to Arcturus". Quite frankly there's few heroes as "explicitly vulnerable, conflicted and ambivalent about their roles" as Maskull of Tormance. Picture a murderous Thomas Covenant.


But even when a younger man he never doubted his heritage as the right King of all the West; he thrilled to it and only doubted if it might come about.

So why didn't he take it after he subdued the Corsairs? He was loved by the people and the Steward. It was there for the taking. Instead he chose exile.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



Sunflower
Valinor

Aug 19 2007, 2:00am

Post #82 of 87 (309 views)
Shortcut
Thanks folks.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Weaver for the kind words. I repeat, my Old Boardname was Fimbrethil and I posted pretty much in Main, so you don't "know" me. Moreover I am sorry that even after 6 yrs of fandom I have yet to personally meet a TORN member. I know many have made lifelong friendships here, and I perfectlyunderstand why. It's what has happened with U2 fandoI've been a U2 fan for most of my life, and let me tell you, I thought only once in a lifetime could the heart swell with that kind of feeling, that emotion and love. I can't explain it, but Jackson and crew did something magical; the effects I can only describeas the same when experiencing the nand live the first time. To those of you who know what I mean, it is unique in this world. To those who don't....well, we have to find away to get you to the next tour. Now we fans HAVE to know what goes on with the band every day, we have started social and political events, we are joined together in a great worldwide family. Becuase we are trying to give something beautiful back to some people who unexpectedly, and with all their hearts, gave something beautiful to us, and we graspat the bits of beauty we can find.

Regarding the Sil, I'm actually amzed at myself for first reading it at 17 and understanding almost everythingSmileExcept keeping track of the Elf migrations and whose kingdom was whose and where....Gondolin, Beleriand? What the heck?:) And of SW, you hit the nail on the head, Weaver: "faster, more intense." Reportedly, Irvin Kershner's Empire was at least a half hr longer and had some great dramatic scenes.Lucas chided him for "ruining his movie." Or was it the other way around?I forget. What is curious to me is why the Tolkien-inspired Lucas--(by his own admission; he continued to write all the outlines, notes and scripts for the SW films in a red spiral notebook, the 1972 and 1974 ones while sitting in a tree, and the whole SW Saga is taken from a mysterious document entitled "Journal of the Whills"--according to the 1977 Sw novel, and inspiring 30 yrs of fans to ask, "who/.what are 'the Whills'?" This is the whole 'Red Book' literary conceit again!) -why did Lucas, who had such grand mythic ambitions, not take the Tolkien "fantasy as hsitory" approach? This is I think not for lack of courgage; it's a fatal dicotomy that said "yes, I must create a new myth/fairy tale for a modern world which has lost faith in whimsy and is drowning in cynicism." Thus the strange conflcit of SW is that it is a grand myth scaled down, consciously, becuase of the author;s need to "comfort" his audience. Lucas waswriting post-Vietnam and the Bomb; Tolkien, on the heels of a conflcit far more terrible. It is interesting because you would have expcted Tolkien and Lewis, the personal survivors fo the suprmeem horrosrs, to attempt to retreat into a gentler, somewhat more infantile outer shell, as Lucas did but instead they had the courage to face it head-on with maturely presented works. Lucas, on the other hand, was born after that violent era and knew nothing but peace, security and plenty, the worst event in hislife ebing a car accident. (The same could not be said of Spileberg, whose films even at their most whimsical were actually more Tolkineian in their drakness---ET being perhaps the darkest thing he's ever writtn, next to Munich and of course Schindler.) In which case we have to ask: what is better, thr workof art presented in "the heat of the moment", or the one decades after, which has had the hindsight and benefit of "breathing space"? For Americans, it usually is the latter; just as we can never come up with true noir, never having experienced it except in the 1860's, the rest of the world could never have come up with the direct, in your face, glacial hell of Schindler's List. Only somene far enough removed, "on the outside": coud have captured the big picture. Which reinforces my belief that 95% of American cinema is crap but the 5% that is the proverbial gem at the bottom of the coal mine that no-one else can find, b/c of our historic islolation and breathing room. Does thismake American cinema better? Nope---the rest of the world is currently being infected by Suburbiana. But when we DO do it right.....


FarFromHome
Valinor


Aug 20 2007, 8:25am

Post #83 of 87 (251 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Letter #26 where Tolkien highly praises David Lindsay's fantasy novel "A Voyage to Arcturus". Quite frankly there's few heroes as "explicitly vulnerable, conflicted and ambivalent about their roles" as Maskull of Tormance.


I haven't read David Lindsay's novel, but I would agree with your general point, even based on the conflicted, ambivalent characters like Turin in the rest of Tolkien's own work.

I doubt if Tolkien was thinking of the "modern" idea of vulnerable heroes when he wrote his tit-for-tat response to the critics of LotR. Those critics would mostly have come from the intellectual end of the literary spectrum, so I assume he was referring to the nihilistic, godless view of the world that was the dominant literary viewpoint in the mid-20th century.

On the other hand, both squire's assumption:


Quote

he never doubted his heritage as the right King of all the West; he thrilled to it


and your own:


Quote
Instead he chose exile.



both seem to me to be personal interpretations. If pushed to decide, I think my own interpretation would be that Aragorn's deepest motivation was to carry out the duty laid on him by the father of his beloved, and thereby win his bride. But maybe that's just because I'm female! I think the fact is that we never see inside book-Aragorn's head - we have to judge him based on what he lets others see, which allows us to impose our own feelings onto him. Like Tolkien's technique with the landscape (where, instead of giving us precise, personal impressions he tends to give us generic ones that allow us to visualize the details that appeal most strongly to us), I think he does the same with many of the characters, including Aragorn. Somehow he's able to make both the landscape and the characters vivid and alive, without limiting the interpretations the reader can impose on them. Peter Jackson's treatment of the character of Aragorn is more precise, since he does show us both what he's feeling and what he lets the outside world see. Still there's some of the ambiguity left, as our discussions prove. And even more so, in the Frodo/Sam/Gollum storyline, where people can have quite different interpretations of the motivations of the characters, and yet each interpretation works on its own terms. It all depends where your sympathies lie.

(Specifically on your "exile" point, I think that Aragorn cannot claim the south kingdom until the prophecy comes true, i.e. until the Ring is found. Like all Tolkien's good characters, he accepts his duty wholeheartedly and willingly, but his duty is to carry on guarding the north kingdom and making sure the line of kings is not broken until the moment of destiny arrives. Luckily for him, that moment arrives in his lifetime, since once he's given his heart to a woman who is unattainable to anyone but the King of Gondor and Arnor, he has to either win the crown or see his line die out - in Tolkien's world transferring his affections, or marrying without love, would surely be unimaginable for a hero.)


...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.


Darkstone
Immortal


Aug 20 2007, 2:55pm

Post #84 of 87 (271 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

I doubt if Tolkien was thinking of the "modern" idea of vulnerable heroes when he wrote his tit-for-tat response to the critics of LotR.

Well, probably Tolkien’s most scathing critic was Edmund Wilson (“Oo, Those Awful Orcs!”). But surely that didn’t mean Tolkien hated Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, and F. Scott Fitzgerald just because Wilson greatly admired them! I for one refuse to believe Tolkien was that small minded.


Those critics would mostly have come from the intellectual end of the literary spectrum, so I assume he was referring to the nihilistic, godless view of the world that was the dominant literary viewpoint in the mid-20th century.

And Jackson’s films are far from nihilistic or godless.


On the other hand, both squire's assumption and your own both seem to me to be personal interpretations.

As is Jackson’s films. And I think the point here is that the idea "I hate them so Tolkien would have hated them too" is just as fallacious as "I like them so Tolkien would have liked them too."


If pushed to decide, I think my own interpretation would be that Aragorn's deepest motivation was to carry out the duty laid on him by the father of his beloved, and thereby win his bride.

Well, frankly I’d rather Arwen and Aragorn had told Elrond to stick it and eloped to Bree. But admittedly that’s a more progressive view that’s been hammered into me by the ladies of my life.


Specifically on your "exile" point, I think that Aragorn cannot claim the south kingdom until the prophecy comes true, i.e. until the Ring is found.

Dunno. After all, Elrond has to send Elladan and Elrohir to remind him of Malbeth’s prophecy, so that would seem to indicate that it’s not exactly in the forefront of Aragorn’s thinking. In either case Aragorn did indeed chose exile. One can only imagine how much more prepared Gondor would have been had Aragorn rather than Denethor ruled all those years. After all, the real point of being king is to serve and protect your people. My point is that Aragorn walked away from that responsibility no matter what excuses we may make for him.


Like all Tolkien's good characters, he accepts his duty wholeheartedly and willingly, but his duty is to carry on guarding the north kingdom and making sure the line of kings is not broken until the moment of destiny arrives.

He would still have those duties even if he became king. If anything he’d be able to perform them even better because he’d have more authority.


Well, anyway, I still think that like how Niggle eventually came to appreciate Parish’s decidedly different viewpoint of his beloved vision, so might Tolkien have appreciated certain wildly different aspects of Jackson’s viewpoint. After all, despite his avowed disdain for his "deplorable cultus":

“Even the nose of a very modest idol (younger than Chu-Bu and not much older than Sheemish) cannot remain entirely untickled by the sweet smell of incense.”
-Letter 336

Then again, maybe Tolkien was just blowing smoke in Leaf by Niggle, but I don’t like to think that.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”



FarFromHome
Valinor


Aug 20 2007, 5:51pm

Post #85 of 87 (252 views)
Shortcut
Lots to agree with here. [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, probably Tolkien’s most scathing critic was Edmund Wilson...

I can see that Wilson's views would make him hostile to Tolkien's fantasy. In fact left-wing critics have always attacked him, and still do here in the UK. I don't know what Tolkien thought of Hemingway, Faulkner or F. Scott Fitzgerald, but I'm sure he didn't hate them - he just says he doesn't enjoy reading some other kinds of literature, and I'm speculating that this would particularly be the "godless" extreme of 20th century literature spectrum, like Sartre or Beckett, rather than the more mainstream authors you mention. Although I think he says somewhere that he doesn't even like Shakespeare (I've always thought that remark might have been misinterpreted though).

And Jackson’s films are far from nihilistic or godless.

Totally agree. That was meant to be my point - that Tolkien might well have appreciated Jackson's films, because they do have a lot of the qualities he admired. He didn't dislike the idea of vulnerable heroes at all, as far as I can see. But he may well have disliked some of the ideas in social-realist literature. He didn't say he hated them, though, did he? Just that it wasn't to his taste.

[On the other hand, both squire's assumption and your own both seem to me to be personal interpretations.]
As is Jackson’s films. And I think the point here is that the idea "I hate them so Tolkien would have hated them too" is just as fallacious as "I like them so Tolkien would have liked them too."


That's what I meant to say - that Jackson's is a personal interpretation, and a very interesting one at that. I guess you're right that we can't judge whether or not Tolkien would have liked the films based on whether we do or don't. That would be a bit too easy! I do think that he found it very hard to distance himself from LotR, though, and in his Letters sometimes is quite vehement about misinterpretations people make, although some of them seem quite reasonable. I like to think that he would have approved at least in theory of what Jackson did, even if he would have had a hard time seeing his story in someone else's hands. He seems to have wanted his story to go on and inspire others, and in one of his Letters he does say that it's no longer his, and must make its own way in the world.

Well, frankly I’d rather Arwen and Aragorn had told Elrond to stick it and eloped to Bree. But admittedly that’s a more progressive view that’s been hammered into me by the ladies of my life.

Yes, I have to say I have a hard time with this duty-bound approach to love and marriage. But it's essentially what Tolkien had to do with Edith, isn't it? But Aragorn is all about duty, I think. In the movie, he sees his duty differently - he thinks it's his duty to give Arwen up for her own good, and he thinks it's his duty to stay in the background and help others with the Quest, rather than going after power for himself. But the movies take the view that you can be mistaken in your duty, and may have to change your mind, whereas in the book a character's duty tends to be pretty clearly laid out before them.

One can only imagine how much more prepared Gondor would have been had Aragorn rather than Denethor ruled all those years. After all, the real point of being king is to serve and protect your people. My point is that Aragorn walked away from that responsibility no matter what excuses we may make for him.

Well, one absolute necessity is not to seize power illegitimately. That would do nobody any favours. I'm not sure whether Aragorn could have claimed the throne sooner or not - but I think (and it's the movies that gave me this idea, with their repeated imagery of the Sword and the Ring) that the Sword could not be reforged until the Ring was found, at which point he could set out on the road to redeem Isildur's weakness valiant defeat.

Well, anyway, I still think that like how Niggle eventually came to appreciate Parish’s decidedly different viewpoint of his beloved vision, so might Tolkien have appreciated certain wildly different aspects of Jackson’s viewpoint.

I like to think so too. Whether he would have had the perspective to do it in life, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure he would have approved in theory. I wonder what Tolkien would have made of PJ? Or of a tour of Weta workshop? Here are people as obsessive about detail, and about storytelling, as he was himself. I'd be disappointed in him if he hadn't been pleased and flattered with the skill and dedication that his story had inspired.

...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Aug 20 2007, 8:24pm

Post #86 of 87 (298 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien and Shakespeare. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Although I think he says somewhere that he doesn't even like Shakespeare (I've always thought that remark might have been misinterpreted though).


I think the phrase is "cordially dislike" -- Tom Shippey notes these are the same words that Tolkien uses about allegory, despite his own use of allegory on several occasions. Tolkien's opinion of Shakespeare seems mixed. In Beowulf and the Critics, he acknowledges the quality of King Lear, and in the Letters, he praises a performance of Hamlet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Discuss The Children of Húrin in the Reading Room, June 11-October 14.


Sunflower
Valinor

Aug 22 2007, 7:13am

Post #87 of 87 (311 views)
Shortcut
Hm. [In reply to] Can't Post

I wonder what Tolkien would have made of us--we Netizens, and TORN people in particular. I'd like to think of us as a step above his experience of the "deploarable cultus"--how many of us have pilloried Jackson's home, etc. I don't think Tolkien hated his more extreme fans; just was genuienly bewildred at their intensity. I'd like to think we's progressed a bit beyond the rabid horders who climbed over his garden fence. Witness the resepct with which a lot of her fans treat Jo Rowling. As to the NEt itself.....someone once wrote a hilarious "email" sent by Tolkien to his fans, deploring the declining state of literacy? Hilarious because it was both so Tolkien and so TRUE. ,,.

Regarding Aragorn and marriage, I think that he would have happily eloped with Arwen had it not been for the fact that without the desruction of the RIng, they'd all end up dead eventually, or worse, enslaved, so that duty thing had its merits. This IS a morality tale, after all. As far that pesky "Duty" thing goes, this goes hand in hand with the sex and romance thing,. Too many people criticize Tolkien for being woefully weak in the romance department and WAYYYY behind the times when it came to depicting women. HOW MANY TIMES would I love to remind people that Tolkien came from a generation that was young NEARLY A CENTURY AGO and heck, up until the late 60s, women even in the U.S. were expected to graduate from high school and get married like good little girls. Tolkien could no more write "contemporary" romance than we could write of ebing housefraus. And to those who say that many modern authors in his generation tried to do just that, I still can't think of any finer ATTEMPT to write a "modern" character than Eowyn, a woman who didn;t need the entry of Aragorn into her life to dream of going into battle and doing what men did--and actually do it. In my mind Eowyn is as "modern" a character as Scarlett O'Hara--a character of course written by a woman. And as far as "wilting like a rosebud" as soon as she fell in love with Faramir, I don't think it was that. WHAT is wring with someone who chooses to lay down the sword and become a healer? I don't think she stopped being who she was.


If anything, Tolkien goes farther than even most contemporary authors in suggesting that far from being "liberated" themsleves by women's self-proclaimed "liberation", man is utterly incomplete without woman, and cannot be himself without her. None of his "dysfunctional" male characters are happy husbands. The sadness of Elrond, the lonlieness of Theoden, and the bitterness and anger of Denethor are all testiment of this. One gets the feeling that they wouldn't be who they were if their wives were alive. To me this seems to suggest that a man needsa woman more than versa vice. Again, this would be the Edith thing, and considering that he had a happy lifelong marriage (something that I think Christopher is bitter about) I'd toss a coin at it anyday. Subtle statements from Tolkien are the most powerful ones, and this is to me the most powerful "femenist" statement. As for literary romance---what would you expect, a graphic, "romance novel" style depiction of King Elessar's wedding night? (come to think of it---don't think we Viggo fans haven't gone there, esp with Viggo, who has only to walk into a room to leave the inert bodies of women on the floor in his wake--and the fact that the man has absolutely no ego, in a Hollywood sense, and is utterly un-selfconscious about it all, makes him doubly...um....(thinks of description of a controversil scene from Viggo's next film, a David Cronenberg production, that is already muich discussed.....*my mind is traveling some sinful roads---STOP it, Ms. Flower!!TongueWinkEvil.....

Coming from a generation where "hookups" are what passes for romance and 2 or every theree marriages end in divorce, and you probably couldn';t depict onscreen INTIMACY (NOT romance) if they paid you twice as much because you never knew what it was in your life, I'd take the "off camera" sex and wooing any day of the week. In some cases it's batter if it retains its poetry and mystery, and yes, its HOLINESS. In my mind, Faramir's courtship speech makes up for everything. It wasn't flowery poetry--he was speaking from the soul and it bespoke a deep hunger that was more than sexual or romantic. True, it was a "wartime love"speech that might be alien to those of us who grew up in times or peace but then again, why couldn't peacetime love be this way?

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.