Itaril

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

. Grownups can discuss anything without taking any offense whatsoever. So I write for adults.
.

Just bear in mind that though that this is not an adults only forum. It does have a family friendly policy. While many of the youngsters who joined perhaps because of the first films are now grown up, we do have some younger members and are likely to get more as the new films arrive. I am sure film cynics will have a particular desire to set them on the "true path" ie loving the books as the Prof wrote them and it would be a shame if parents, rightfully concerned about what their young are doing on line felt that this was not a suitable place for them.

I have found many of your posts pithy and extremely funny but some have been a bit near the knuckle and I have actually been suprised that they hadn't been picked up on. I am sorry if this sounds prissy but it is just a case of remembering that we aren't all grown ups and using language accordingly.

[Nerwen]

Misfortune Teller, I myself have very serious doubts indeed about these Hobbit films, which are starting to sound more and more like glorified fan-fiction– but it seems to me, too, that you could just as well discuss them– or even blast them, hey!– while being bit more civil and a bit less crude. Further– though it is fair enough for you to object to Tauriel as a likely Mary-Sue-action-girl–cliché– I regret to say that I've been getting more and more the impression from you of a certain degree of general hostility towards women– or at any any rate towards those who (even in fiction) step outside what you consider a woman's proper place to be. It may be wrong, but that's what I'm getting. I mean, so much of your negativity here seems to have been prompted by the mere addition of a female character, and also by her being a warrior or something (not unheard of in Tolkien's work, so I don't see why it should be in itself considered a travesty).

On a somewhat similar note: as I believe this is not the first time you've introduced a little piece about American foreign policy into a thread about film adaptations, I think I should tell you that it's pretty hard for a reader to know how to respond to this kind of thing. However strong this curious association of ideas may be for you, I doubt many other people share it, so I'm afraid it's just coming across as rather random and confusing, honestly.

I suppose what I'm really saying here is– rail against Jackson and his past and present efforts all you like, but please lighten up a bit, and maybe try and shed some of this extra baggage you seem to be bringing with you. Okay? How about it?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Make sure you get your Young-Elf-Lord + Elf-Chick-Security-Guard toys and posters as soon as they hit Toys-R-Us, Tolkienite consumers, even though you may have to wait another year to actually see these characters "intertwine" in Part Two of a shorter story by J. R. R. Tolkien in which they never appeared, either singly or together.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...ed/#more-62227

Toy-store-merchandize-tie-ins driving a story's narrative and characters may thrill consumers of crap commodities, but I prefer my literate entertainment -- like my drinking water -- pure and not polluted with Hollywood formula industrial waste.

We see them now together
Just like we long suspected:
Her coy, come-hither glances
Leave him (surprise!) erected.

I remember at the conclusion of the Lord of the Rings trilogy where a great many viewers -- including Jack Nicholson -- complained of the "multiple endings" that occurred after King Aragorn and his Elven Princess Arwen had their big kiss at his coronation. The film-makers had spent so much of the narrative trying to beef up this Hollywood romance angle -- hardly mentioned at all by Tolkien -- that the hobbits had become almost an afterthought. I see the same dubious dynamic at work with this completely unnecessary "thing" between the young (only a few thousand years old) Elf Lord Legolas and Itaril (Release 1.0) or Tauriel (Release 2.0) fan-fiction marketing ploy. Any time spent away from Bilbo Baggins makes The Hobbit less about one particular, exemplary hobbit and more about selling tie-in toys and video games to "Tolkienite consumers."

I would lampoon this ludicrous idea in even more scatological verse if only I knew how. Sometimes a dumb idea becomes so much a parody of itself that even poetic license cannot improve upon the inherent irony.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But, MisfortuneTeller,

Why don't you say what you really think? I mean, don't hold back...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Make sure you get your Young-Elf-Lord + Elf-Chick-Security-Guard toys and posters as soon as they hit Toys-R-Us, Tolkienite consumers, even though you may have to wait another year to actually see these characters "intertwine" in Part Two of a shorter story by J. R. R. Tolkien in which they never appeared, either singly or together.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...ed/#more-62227

I like this quote from the article:

[Thranduil's] appearance in the film, while not cannon, is certainly logical and perhaps even likely. His role in Jackson’s films are not yet clear.

Odds are it'll be a "cannon" all right, blowing a Smaug-sized hole into the concept of artistic integrity.

I'm just waiting for Transformer-style Beorn, going from man to bear, and back again. And will the Master of Lake-town come with a huge pile of gold to allow one to re-enact his running off to the wilderness and dying of dragon-sickness?