Frodo's change from book to film

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

so basically you are telling me to shut up.

Not shut up, Fernie, but "refrain". There is a decided difference, just as there are decided differences in the book and movie character, as well as the opinions regarding said character and the film alter-ego.

The topic has been discussed here for over a decade, and folks are quite set in their views.

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Not shut up, Fernie, but "refrain". There is a decided difference, just as there are decided differences in the book and movie character, as well as the opinions regarding said character and the film alter-ego.

The topic has been discussed here for over a decade, and folks are quite set in their views.

I dont do ''refrain''. Either its on or its off. I dont do wishywashy tip toeing. But I will bow out of the discussion. I got this kind of treatment ovr at TORn, didnt like it when they told me what I could and couldnt say, and I dont like it now. I dont like being policed.

The irony is over there it was the Jackson fanboys telling me to refrain.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

I dont do ''refrain''. Either its on or its off. I dont do wishywashy tip toeing. But I will bow out of the discussion. I got this kind of treatment ovr at TORn, didnt like it when they told me what I could and couldnt say, and I dont like it now. I dont like being policed.

The irony is over there it was the Jackson fanboys telling me to refrain.

So, let me get this straight, "fanboys" over at TORn suggested you refrain on their site. Obviously, attacking the films in one form or another. So what do you do? Come to the Downs and take an equal but opposite tack and defend the films, or at least a specific film role, deciding to describe as "flimsy" a poster's concern about the degradation of that role in the film as opposed to the book.

Is that about right? Tailor your rhetoric to annoy a specific audience?

Meh. Do what you like. But don't expect civility if, as you say, you don't care for "wishy-washy tiptoeing". Toes can get stepped on, particularly in a venue where words and tone are often misjudged.

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So, let me get this straight, "fanboys" over at TORn suggested you refrain on their site. Obviously, attacking the films in one form or another. So what do you do? Come to the Downs and take an equal but opposite tack and defend the films, or at least a specific film role, deciding to describe as "flimsy" a poster's concern about the degradation of that role in the film as opposed to the book.

Is that about right? Tailor your rhetoric to annoy a specific audience?
.

No its NOT right, but thanks for the aggressive attitude.

I happen to love Jacksons LOTR but hate Jacksons Hobbit, so over at TORn I am persona non grata for daring to critisize The Hobbit, and persona non grata here for daring to defend LOTR. see its very simple, no need to get the hive mind on.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

I happen to love Jacksons LOTR but hate Jacksons Hobbit, so over at TORn I am persona non grata for daring to critisize The Hobbit, and persona non grata here for daring to defend LOTR. see its very simple, no need to get the hive mind on.

There are a lot of people here who like the LOTR movies; I would say they outnumber us critics.

It looks to me as if posters were responding to you by simply saying that ultimately a like/dislike of a particular actor's portrayal was a matter of opinion, which it certainly is.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It looks to me as if posters were responding to you by simply saying that ultimately a like/dislike of a particular actor's portrayal was a matter of opinion, which it certainly is.

I can prove it with mathematics, but it'd bore everyone to tears.

But...as the equation clearly shows, Frodo's Hurinness is dependent on the Gandalf/Istari wand ratio, and because Gandalf's character in the film is weaker (he is proned by the Witch-King), Frodo's character is, as a result, lessened.

Q.E.D.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

But...as the equation clearly shows, Frodo's Hurinness is dependent on the Gandalf/Istari wand ratio, and because Gandalf's character in the film is weaker (he is proned by the Witch-King), Frodo's character is, as a result, lessened.

Math to me is nearly as maddening and inexplicable as the female gender.
But if you can put your prowess to the question of why the 'unfunny' factor of the films rises in direct proportion to the amount of effort PJ puts into 'lighthearted' moments, you'll be more esteemed than if you figured out this.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by FerniesApple

No its NOT right, but thanks for the aggressive attitude.

I happen to love Jacksons LOTR but hate Jacksons Hobbit, so over at TORn I am persona non grata for daring to critisize The Hobbit, and persona non grata here for daring to defend LOTR. see its very simple, no need to get the hive mind on.

Hmmm...and you feel persecuted. You, of course, are as innocent as the driven snow. Whatever.

In any case, I do apologize for your feelings of inferiority and unease, and I welcome you to the Downs, where discussions are aggressively cordial.

[FerniesApple]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...and you feel persecuted. You, of course, are as innocent as the driven snow. Whatever.

In any case, I do apologize for your feelings of inferiority and unease, and I welcome you to the Downs, where discussions are aggressively cordial.

oooh! supercilious and passive aggressive, and an insult thrown in for good measure!
I bet you post on TORn too, fit right in with the hivemind mentality warding off newcomers to your tiny world if they dont tow the party line. It makes for an interesting sociological experiment at the very least.
Ill just wait around a bit until someone mentions the word 'troll' that usually activates the drones to buzz around.

All because I voiced my opinion. weird. and a bit sad.