From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #66 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Wednesday, February 13 2002 Volume 02 : Number 066 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Idaho [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 [Jer Fairall ] Re: [loud-fans] more movies [Stewart Mason ] [loud-fans] LOTR:FOTR [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review: "How September Came for Sinatra" [Jer Faira] Re: [loud-fans] LOTR:FOTR [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked [Michael Bowen ] Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked [DOUDIE@aol.com] FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked ["R. Kevin Doyle" ] Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] more movies ["Roger Winston" ] Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked ["richblath" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Idaho On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > P.S. I happen to agree with Sue that WAKING LIFE wasn't very good. > While I really liked the animation, 87.4% of the dialogue seemed > lifted from comments made by undergraduates in an introductory > continental philosophy class. As opposed to Shrek, whose fart-jokes and parody sketches gave it the gleam of dignity that we want from our Oscar winners. I agree that too many of the speakers in Waking Life were talking nonsense, but it barely detracted from the movie, because it was that particular *type* of nonsense which mimics the rhythm and logic of dreams. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:08:46 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 Roger Winston wrote: >It's a total crime that Steve Buscemi didn't get nominated for GHOST WORLD. Or Thora Birch (who did get a Golden Globe nomination). This weekend, Melissa and I were discussing 2001 movies, and GHOST WORLD was the only one we could come up with as a good "best picture" choice. Of course, there's a whole lot of things we haven't seen yet. Anyone else find it strange that in Terry Zwigoff's liner notes for the GW soundtrack, he reveals his undying, limitless hatred of... Bjork? Not Sting, not Led Zep, not boy bands, but *Bjork*? Huh? >This may be a record for me - I've only seen one nominated Best Picture >(LotR) this year. I refuse to see A BEAUTIFUL MIND because I hated THE >GRINCH so much and Ron Howard has a lot to answer for. And people have been >telling me to stay away from IN THE BEDROOM and MOULIN ROUGE. I like Altman >though (usually) so I should go see GOSFORD PARK. We're tempted to see A BEAUTIFUL MIND, despite its watering-down of Nash's life and pablum man Ron Howard behind the lens, simply because John Nash grew up in Bluefield, WV (as the city's welcome sign has told visitors since Nash got the Nobel Prize). Plus we like Russell Crowe's acting. We do want to see IN THE BEDROOM and GOSFORD PARK, and probably will in some near future. I know Sue and Joe hate MOULIN ROUGE in the way that Zwigoff hates Bjork, but Melissa and I still think it's worthwhile. It's very clear that Baz Luhrmann thinks he's being far more original and daring than he really is, and the hyperactive editing on the first sequence inside the club actually *detracts* from the film IMO (they go to all that work to present a first-class spectacle of costumes and dance, yet they don't let you see anything more than a split second?). That being said, Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor are as fabulous as the sets and costumes, and the film's magic moments like the absinthe fairy coming to life or the top hats flying out of the Moulin Rouge are worth the price of admission -- or the price of a DVD rental, Rog! Sharples astutely observes: >This isn't a criticism, but I've noticed this list tends to spend a lot of >time discussing what the writers think are flaws in films that are >entirely worthwhile and have more integrity than 99% of what is out there. >I'm pretty sure we're all aware of this (as Jeffrey mentioned), but I >think it's worth mentioning again. Like, the recent thread on YOU CAN >COUNT ON ME--while I found it interesting, I found myself cringing because >I think, sure, the movie has flaws but the rest of it so beautiful and >rare, so incredibly moving I'd hate for someone to skip it on that >account. Or to say, the movie only had its purported flaws thoroughly >dissected here because it was exceptional in the first place. I haven't seen YOU CAN COUNT ON ME yet, even though the V-Roys have three songs on the soundtrack and a rented copy of it from Netflix is sitting in my living room right now. But I know what you're saying. Noel Murray's reviews of GHOST WORLD and DONNIE DARKO for the NASHVILLE SCENE were like that -- incredibly snarky, nit-picky reviews focused on the flaws of those movies. I know Noel liked them both and thinks that they're more worthwhile than 99% of the other things out there, but if I was a more casual moviegoer and was using his reviews to decide whether or not to go to a movie, I would have thought "why waste money on these mediocrities?" However, I may be about to pull a Noel Murray, even though I hope I'm going to offer enough caveats to convey my true feelings about the movie in question... Part of the reason I haven't contributed to any LORD OF THE RINGS movie discussions, here or elsewhere, is that I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from seeing it. It may well be the best fantasy film ever, and it gets soooooooo much of the essence of the books exactly right that I was sometimes moved to tears just to see these long-treasured pictures in my mind come to life on-screen. I think *that* should guide anyone's decision on whether or not to see the film. For another gauge, take this: I saw it in the company of my siblings, their SOs/spouses, and my stepmom. Melissa, Jon, Ken, and I had read the books; Ki, Trey, Shay, and Floyd had not. Leaving out stepmom Elie, who slept through half the movie then declared that she didn't like it "because it was too confusing," our group was unanimously, overwhelmingly positive. Keep in mind that these folks are just as wordy and argumentative as I am, so you can imagine how rarely we'd all agree about *any* movie, yet all of us had a great time, whether we had read Tolkien or not. Yet I can't think of another film (though Lynch's DUNE comes close) where I've been more frustrated. I was willing to accept that they couldn't put every little passage on the screen and that emendations and abridgements might have to be made to fit the book into a three-hour movie. But when I finally saw the film, it struck me that most of the changes to the books were unnecessary and actually weakened the story and character development, without saving much in the way of time. It wasn't just that they left out whole episodes that make the books special (the Old Forest/Tom Bombadil/barrow wight sequence goes by the boards), they put in little bits of business to make Frodo look braver, yet left out actual incidents from the books that showed Frodo's essential goodness and courage better than what the filmmakers added! Expanding Arwen's role in the rescue at the ford might have helped justify Liv Tyler's salary and placated her (and/or her agent's) ego, but it altered the story for no good reason while making Frodo look like a helpless stiff. Merry and Pippin come off as comic relief fools, since the film omits every event where they demonstrated their resourcefulness and smarts -- leaving in Frodo's feinted move to Crickhollow, in which Merry and Pippin play key roles, would have balanced the scales nicely. The dialogue is very strong when it's word-for-word Tolkien, but anything added by the screenwriters seems amateurish and awkward by comparison. And there's at least a dozen more things I'd cite, but I think you get the idea. So what made it frustrating for me was that the film comes *this* close to being exactly right, everything I'd hope for in a LOTR movie, but it *needlessly* leaves out crucial elements. It would be one thing if I thought the changes saved a lot of time or truly made the film more entertaining for a mass audience -- I'm not a super-picky stickler Tolkien fanatic who would demand that not one thing be changed, and, for instance, I loved everything about EXCALIBUR even though it liberally departed from the source material. But what the LOTR filmmakers elide or amend *weakens* both story and character development. If they had botched the whole thing, I'd just cringe at first, then start laughing. But the things they get right are so done so well that it makes the film's shortcomings all the more vexing, because they could have easily gotten everything else right too. Anyone who's interested in the books should go see it and be prepared to be amazed, and I think it's an eminently worthy Best Picture nominee. But I can't help but wish that I could take the whole cast and do one more month of shooting. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:07:27 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 At 11:08 AM 2/13/02 -0600, Miles Goosens wrote: >Roger Winston wrote: > >It's a total crime that Steve Buscemi didn't get nominated for GHOST WORLD. > >Or Thora Birch (who did get a Golden Globe nomination). This weekend, >Melissa and I were discussing 2001 movies, and GHOST WORLD was the only >one we could come up with as a good "best picture" choice. Of course, >there's a whole lot of things we haven't seen yet. > >Anyone else find it strange that in Terry Zwigoff's liner notes for the GW >soundtrack, he reveals his undying, limitless hatred of... Bjork? Not >Sting, not Led Zep, not boy bands, but *Bjork*? Huh? I can understand it only as a reaction to DANCER IN THE DARK, which was in my opinion utter twaddle and a misuse of Bjork's talent. Richard Rodgers, she ain't... Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley The Lord is a man of war. _The Holy Bible: The Old Testament_, The Second Book of Moses, Called Exodus, chapter 15, verse 3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:00:56 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] more movies I said: >I know Sue and Joe hate MOULIN ROUGE in the way that Zwigoff hates Bjork, >but Melissa and I still think it's worthwhile. It's very clear that Baz >Luhrmann thinks he's being far more original and daring than he really is, >and the hyperactive editing on the first sequence inside the club actually >*detracts* from the film IMO (they go to all that work to present a >first-class spectacle of costumes and dance, yet they don't let you see >anything more than a split second?). Make that "a split second at a time." This past weekend we saw two (2) films. The first was BIRTHDAY GIRL, selected simply because Nicole Kidman is firing on all cylinders these days - -- acting, looks, everything. As expected, it was an agreeably slight movie along the familiar "woman isn't what she seems/wild woman turns button-down guy's life upside-down" lines. It's far more serious in tone than INTO THE NIGHT or SOMETHING WILD, though it has several laugh-out-loud moments ("They have Gran Turismo!"). Actually, it most strongly recalls B. MONKEY -- the English setting, the woman's underworld past (and present?), and the way things take a dark turn at the end, forcing the characters into some desperate choices. What makes it worthwhile are the performances from the four principal actors (Ben Chaplin, Nicole, and the guys who play Nicole's two Russian "friends"), who all nail their parts in a way that almost transcends the pedestrian script. Hey, Nicole's shoes from the final third of the movie are themselves almost transcendent. :-) Worth seeing, but more of a rental/nothing-else-at-the-movies "worth seeing." The second was a much-anticipated one in the Goosens household: THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS. We'd read the very mixed reviews for this one, but they were the kind of mixed reviews that made me think I'd really enjoy the movie, especially since I had loved the previous two Wes Anderson/Owen Wilson films, BOTTLE ROCKET and the unstoppable RUSHMORE. In fact, if it had been the equal of RUSHMORE, I would have glady given it Best-of-2001 props. Instead, the reviews were right. Wes Anderson's detractors have always been ready to level the charges of needless quirkiness and loose plotting. With BOTTLE ROCKET and RUSHMORE, I thought these charges were groundless. But THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, like Kevin Smith's DOGMA or Scorsese's CASINO, distills its creators' worst tendencies into one handy difficult-to-digest package. Wilson and Anderson apparently had so much fun creating these characters that they forgot to write a script. Imagine Wes and Owen sitting in an office, diagramming the Tenenbaum family tree on a whiteboard... Wes: Hey, let's make one of the siblings be adopted! Owen: Cool, then it'll be O.K. for her to be in love with Richie, because now they won't be blood relations... Wes: Yeah, and she's should be a child prodigy of some type too... how about making her... a playwright! Yeah, that's the ticket! Owen: Yeah, that's cool! But you know what would make her even cooler? Wes: Uh... if she was... BOTH: ... MISSING A FINGER! [Snoopy dance ensues] Owen: Uh, Wes, can I play Dignan again? Never have I seen a film that's so clearly ELEVEN CENTERLESS BUNDLES OF AFFECTATIONS IN SEARCH OF A STORY. Sure, family patriarch Royal's attempt to reingratiate himself into his family provides an organizing principal of sorts, but Anderson and Wilson seem to think that all they needed to do was to turn these wacky Tenenbaums loose and magic would ensue. Well, guess what? All that ensued, despite the best efforts of a genuinely talented cast, was two hours of characters who never come alive interacting with each other in ways that seem premise-heavy and truth-telling-lite. RUSHMORE had its zany moments, to be sure, but they grew out of well-realized characters; it's as though Anderson and Wilson decided that what made RUSHMORE special wasn't the way that even the zaniest developments grew naturally (if unexpectedly) out of the characters, but the zaniness itself. They couldn't have been more wrong. Despite a handful of amusing lines and scenes, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS is one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:44:56 -0800 (PST) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 > >It's a total crime that Steve Buscemi didn't get > nominated for GHOST WORLD. Agreed. I finally saw it over the weekend and really liked, if not quite loved, it. Buscemi's character and performance were certainly my favorite thing about it, though. Still, I was even more disappointed by Gene Hackman getting snubbed for ROYAL TENENBAUMS--which is most certainly my favorite movie that I've seen since YOU CAN COUNT ON ME--just as I was last year with Renee Zellweger not getting nominated for NURSE BETTY, whose nod this year for BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY I take to be sort of an apology nomination. The only things that really surprised me this year were a) GOSFORD PARK's strong showing, considering how vocally anti-Hollywood Altman is (and how notoriously political the academy tends to be), and b) AMELIE not getting a Best Picture nomination, since they usually like to nominate one foreign flick a year in the big category (see LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, etc). But then again, they're the Oscars. What can you expect? The Razzies are, as always, a lot more fun. My favorite nominee from this years lot: Worst Screen Couple: Mariah Carey's cleavage (Glitter) Jer np: Jimmy Eat World, "Game of Pricks" (GbV cover, from the UK single for "The Middle") ===== Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:56:28 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more movies At 12:00 PM 2/13/02 -0600, Miles Goosens wrote: >Sure, family patriarch Royal's attempt to reingratiate himself into his >family provides an organizing principal of sorts, but Anderson and Wilson >seem to think that all they needed to do was to turn these wacky Tenenbaums >loose and magic would ensue. Well, guess what? All that ensued, despite >the best efforts of a genuinely talented cast, was two hours of characters >who never come alive interacting with each other in ways that seem >premise-heavy and truth-telling-lite. RUSHMORE had its zany moments, to be >sure, but they grew out of well-realized characters; it's as though >Anderson and Wilson decided that what made RUSHMORE special wasn't the way >that even the zaniest developments grew naturally (if unexpectedly) out of >the characters, but the zaniness itself. They couldn't have been more wrong. While I understand Miles' point of view -- the first thing I said to Charity as we were leaving the theater was "Well, I can see why some critics thought this was too precious by half" -- I think that the film did exactly what Anderson and Wilson wanted it to, which is rewrite J.D. Salinger's Glass family stories just enough that they wouldn't get sued. If you look at it that way, the film was quite successful, since it's way less irritating and more fun than the Glass stories. Since I never got the impression that the filmmakers were interested in "truth-telling," believable characterization or plot, I didn't get upset about the fact that this movie is very light on all three. That's just not what they were going for, and I think that they accomplished what they set out to. Whether that was something they *should* have set out to do is, of course, up to debate. I agree with Jer, Gene Hackman (who I don't much like generally but was fabulous in this) was robbed. S ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:00:33 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: [loud-fans] LOTR:FOTR >So what made it frustrating for me was that the film comes *this* close to >being exactly right, everything I'd hope for in a LOTR movie, but it >*needlessly* leaves out crucial elements. I agree with this to some extent, although I have hopes that some of the omissions will make more sense when the trilogy is complete. >they put in little bits >of business to make Frodo look braver, yet left out actual incidents from >the books that showed Frodo's essential goodness and courage better than >what the filmmakers added! True... >Expanding Arwen's role in the rescue at the >ford might have helped justify Liv Tyler's salary and placated her (and/or >her agent's) ego, but it altered the story for no good reason while making >Frodo look like a helpless stiff. Here I disagree. I never thought it made sense to introduce a character just for the rescue, and I think having Arwen do it is actually an improvement. Frodo is just as passive in the book (understandable given that he's half-dead). >Merry and Pippin come off as comic >relief fools, since the film omits every event where they demonstrated >their resourcefulness and smarts -- leaving in Frodo's feinted move to >Crickhollow, in which Merry and Pippin play key roles, would have balanced >the scales nicely. This is true, but I my guess is that Jackson wants them to emphasize their growth in the next two films. I can accept that broader strokes are necessary in an epic film. Aragorn, who hardly changes at all in the books, also has what I think is the beginning of a character arc. Gimli, on the other hand, really does come off as a bit of caricature. >The dialogue is very strong when it's word-for-word >Tolkien, but anything added by the screenwriters seems amateurish and >awkward by comparison. And there's at least a dozen more things I'd cite, >but I think you get the idea. I can't really disagree, but to give the devil his due, here's something that totally surprised me in the film, but on reflection is an improvement: the moth. It's more deft, affecting, and concise than Tolkien's rather pedestrian and creaky method (involving yet another character who makes no other appearance) for getting Gandalf out of Isengard, and it shows someone applying the tiny bit of power he has left in just such a way as to make the difference--a nice echo of Tolkien's overall theme. What I will make no attempt to rationalize is the soundtrack. Ptui. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:02:43 -0800 (PST) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Swap Review: "How September Came for Sinatra" > Rainer Maria "Thought I Was" > Which album do I buy first? I can't recommend any of the older ones as I haven't heard them, but A BETTER VERSION OF ME was my #4 album of 2001. > Radiohead "Thinking About You" - What album is this > off of? PABLO HONEY (1993), which I'd take over KID A or AMNESIAC anyday. > Sponge "1,000 Times" > Is all their stuff this good? Well, no. Their albums tend to be a bit spotty but ROTTING PINATA (1994) and NEW POP SUNDAY (1999), which this is from, easily have enough good moments on them to justify the $5 you'd pay for a cut-out bin copies (which is where you're most likely to find them these days). If they ever get around to putting together a GREATEST HITS, though, it'll be a good one. > Beulah "Emma Blowgun's Last Stand" Is this from > "Handsome Western States?" Nope. WHEN YOUR HEARTSTRINGS BREAK (1999). This is one of my favorite songs to put on mixes. > The Promise Ring "Things Just Getting Good" - A few > years ago, I purchased a Promise Ring album and sold > it back within a week. Either my tastes have > changed, or I got the wrong album. This is from VERY EMERGENCY (1999). I haven't heard any of their older ones, so I don't know if this is representative or not but if you like this you'll probably like both VERY EMERGENCY as well as the new, just-released album by Promise Ring side project Vermont, CALLING ALBANY. > Barcelona "I Know What You Think of Me" > Which album do I get first? This is from SIMON BASIC (1999) but liking one Barcelona album probably means that you'll like *every* Barcelona album, so if you spot any of the others in the store instead you may as well grab 'em. > Jer, you make one hell of a swap CD. Thanks for > giving me a lot of new sounds to buy! And thank you for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed the CD so much!! Jer np: ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE ===== Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:22:41 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] LOTR:FOTR >Frodo is >just as passive in the book (understandable given that he's half-dead). Sorry to reply to myself, but I just remembered that this is wrong--in the book, Frodo shows defiance, and it's better. I still like Arwen though. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:01:44 -0500 From: Michael Bowen Subject: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/pazznjop/01/ http://www.bjork.com/specials/cocoon/video/ Compare, contrast, discuss. MB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:18:00 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked Michael Bowen on 2/13/2002 1:01:44 PM wrote: > http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/pazznjop/01/ Hey, U2 (#132) is tied with Unwound and is just before Destroyer. I don't know why that fascinates me, but it does. I'll sleep now. Is that a flower? Pretty! Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:18:56 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Bjork naked - --- Michael Bowen wrote: > http://www.bjork.com/specials/cocoon/video/ > > Compare, contrast, discuss. > > MB Ok. That was really, really weird. - - Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:27:53 EST From: DOUDIE@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked In a message dated 2/13/02 3:19:23 PM, rwinston@tde.com writes: << Hey, U2 (#132) is tied with Unwound and is just before Destroyer. I don't know why that fascinates me, but it does. I'll sleep now. Is that a flower? Pretty! >> I bet that would be because it was high up on last year's poll. s ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:30:49 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked Michael Bowen suggests: >http://www.bjork.com/specials/cocoon/video/ Presumably Bjork emerges from cocoon as what? A swan? Another disturbing Bjork video, though I like this one a bit better than the Pagan Poetry clip. It suits the mood of the song - is it just me or did they edit out a particularly (uh) orgasmic moment from the song for the video? I turned it down since I'm at work for that reason and didn't hear it... Maybe I am confusing songs from Vespertine. Anyone, lovely song that is not damaged by the video, which is always a comfort. R. Kevin Doyle Honolulu, HI ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:35:28 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked Why am I not surprised that Dylan was #1. Some surprises with both singles and albums. I am really glad Rodney Crowell made the top 40, The Houston Kid is a great album. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:51:04 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] LOTR: FOTR Tim Walters sez to himself: > >Frodo is > >just as passive in the book (understandable given that he's half-dead). > >Sorry to reply to myself, but I just remembered that this is wrong--in the >book, >Frodo shows defiance, and it's better. Hey, I wouldn't be so hep to what's in the book had I not recently reread the LOTR trilogy. I misremembered plenty of things myself. You're right about the moth, and there are several other nice moments in the film where Jackson has added something that fits right in, so Jackson adds as well as subtracts (I like how he executed the offstage-in-the-book Gandalf vs. Saruman fight!). And in case it wasn't 100% clear in the previous message, this film is full of imagination and wonder, and everything from how light looks in the Shire to opening the gates of Moria seems vividly *right.* If Chris Columbus had staged HARRY POTTER with a tenth of LOTR's style, it would have been vastly improved. Here's something I've been meaning to ask. When I was in grade school and read LOTR: FOTR the first time, it was on the strength of THE HOBBIT and a FOTR excerpt in a children's mag (CHILDREN'S DIGEST or CRICKET, most likely). The latter included Bilbo's farewell speech. For years, I remembered one of Bilbo's best lines as being something like "I have dwelt among you for many years, and have formed opinions of you all." When I reread the books (the very same copies I read the first time), this line wasn't there. I'm wondering if (1) it existed at all, (2) if it did, did it came from the magazine excerpt rather than the book -- could they have been drawing from a different edition or earlier draft? -- or most likely, (3) that line comes from another book entirely and in the haze of childhood memory, I just got it mixed up with Tolkien? later, Miles, who's replying via the archives since he hasn't gotten a smoe.org post (including three other very active lists housed there) in four hours ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:49:54 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > Why am I not surprised that Dylan was #1. I just got "Love And Theft" yesterday and while I don't entirely get the hype, I gather that my collection is missing about two decades of antecedent bad Dylan which might contribute to the feeling that a decent, thoughtful record with three brilliant songs on it constitutes a masterpiece. Or I'm just a Philistine. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:13:36 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked > I just got "Love And Theft" yesterday and while I don't entirely get the > hype, I gather that my collection is missing about two decades of > antecedent bad Dylan which might contribute to the feeling that a decent, > thoughtful record with three brilliant songs on it constitutes a > masterpiece. What are the three brilliant songs? The album didn't dent me at all upon first listen - I'd like to have something to look out for when I try again. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:14:11 -0800 (PST) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked I didn't get to vote, but here's how my picks fared: 1. Jimmy Eat World (67) 2. Atom & His Package (didn't chart) 3. Bill Janovitz (814) 4. Rainer Maria (218) 5. Ben Folds (48) 6. Sorry About Dresden (didn't chart) 7. Emm Gryner (747) 8. Black Box Recorder (76) 9. Kings of Convenience (120) 10. Dashboard Confessional (449) Now off to get some plug-in to see Bjork naked... Jer ===== Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:16:07 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 Miles Goosens writes: >Part of the reason I haven't contributed to any LORD OF THE RINGS movie >discussions, here or elsewhere, is that I wouldn't want to discourage >anyone from seeing it. It may well be the best fantasy film ever, and it >gets soooooooo much of the essence of the books exactly right that I was >sometimes moved to tears just to see these long-treasured pictures in my >mind come to life on-screen. Agreed. LOTR probably deserves the academy award nomination as much as 'Titanic' or 'Gladiator' did, perhaps a bit more than either of them, IMO. However, in light of "The Man Who Wasn't There," "Ghost World," "Memento," "Amelie" and "Monster's Ball" (or even, begrudgingly, "Black Hawk Down"), I question its nomination. Of course, I also would have decried 1939's Oscars had they nominated 'Wizard of Oz' over 'Gone with the Wind,' 'Dark Victory,' 'Goodbye, Mr. Chips,' 'Love Affair,' 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' 'Ninotchka,' 'Of Mice and Men,' 'Stagecoach,' or 'Wuthering Heights.' (all of these movies, including 'Oz,' were nominated that year) Yet, all these years later, 'Wizard of Oz' is arguably the most beloved of those films (even if they did give the Oscar to that stodgy old clunker, 'Gone With the Wind'). What do I know? If 50 years, people may very well remember "LOTR" as an all time film great, while "American Beauty" may end up being confined to the ranks of movies like "Breaking Away" or "Chariots of Fire." >It wasn't just that they left out >whole episodes that make the books special (the Old Forest/Tom >Bombadil/barrow wight sequence goes by the boards)... I was relieved not to see Tom Bombadil. Hate the guy. Hated him when I read the books, dreaded seeing him in the movie. Were I writing the script, he would also have been the first character to get the axe. > Expanding Arwen's role in the rescue at the >ford might have helped justify Liv Tyler's salary and placated her (and/or >her agent's) ego, but it altered the story for no good reason... Glorfindel (sp?) is a favorite character (embarrassing that I liked him but can't remember how to spell his name), but I thought this was a good choice. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the "Fellowship" is pretty much a boys club and that it was nice to see a girl doing something action oriented instead of standing around in a forest palace primping, I didn't miss Glorfindel in the film. It didn't harm the narrative to have Arwen rescue Frodo. Frankly, even if Glorfindel had rescued him, who is to say Jackman wouldn't have had Frodo be just as helpless? >Merry and Pippin come off as comic relief fools Indeed. Another writer has also made a point that Gimli is poorly developed in the film. Some characters are going to suffer in any translation from book to film. Legolas was similarly reduced in film, and don't get me started about Galadrial. I missed the whole section of Gimli falling in love with her. My favorite part of the book, period. For more on Merry and Pippen as indistinguishable back-up hobbits, let me suggest you visit the very funny "Secret Diary" site: http://www.livejournal.com/users/cassieclaire It is a live journal that Metafilter pointed me to. Search down for "Secret Diaries" of the various members of the fellow ship and related characters. Funny (if sophomoric) stuff. Anyhow, I realize that quibbling over these points is largely meaningless, as both Miles and I apparently loved the film, and I really got into (and largely agreed with) Miles' thoughtful critique. On a related subject, I love reading discussions consisting of nitty gritty criticism of films like "You Can Count on Me" (which I am still anxious to see). Far from turning me off on such films, these discussions make me think "Wow, there must really be something to the film to generate that much talk." Oddly, this has not filled me with a desire to see "Battlefield Earth." R. Kevin Doyle Honolulu, HI ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:30:33 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: re: [loud-fans] more movies Stewart: >While I understand Miles' point of view -- the first thing I said to >Charity as we were leaving the theater was "Well, I can see why some >critics thought this was too precious by half" -- I think that the film did >exactly what Anderson and Wilson wanted it to, which is rewrite J.D. >Salinger's Glass family stories just enough that they wouldn't get sued. >If you look at it that way, the film was quite successful, since it's way >less irritating and more fun than the Glass stories. What this tells me is that I should avoid J.D. Salinger's Glass family stories at all costs. >I agree with Jer, Gene Hackman (who I don't much like generally but was >fabulous in this) was robbed. Gene's in so many things (as per Robyn Hitchcock's "Don't Talk To Me About Gene Hackman") that I wouldn't want to see, much less endorse, all of them. But he was very, very good here, though his turn as Harry Caul in THE CONVERSATION is still my favorite Hackman performance. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:34:21 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more movies Miles Goosens on 2/13/2002 2:30:33 PM wrote: > What this tells me is that I should avoid J.D. Salinger's Glass family > stories at all costs. I'm thinking about making a movie out of the Salinger Glass Family stories. Does anyone know if I need to get permission to do that? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:43:06 -0000 From: "richblath" Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Sallitt" To: "Aaron Mandel" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:13 PM Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked > > I just got "Love And Theft" yesterday and while I don't entirely get the > > hype, I gather that my collection is missing about two decades of > > antecedent bad Dylan which might contribute to the feeling that a decent, > > thoughtful record with three brilliant songs on it constitutes a > > masterpiece. > > What are the three brilliant songs? The album didn't dent me at all > upon first listen - I'd like to have something to look out for when I > try again. - Dan > Me too! Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:03:41 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 Mr. Doyle sez: >LOTR probably deserves the academy award nomination as much as 'Titanic' or >'Gladiator' did, perhaps a bit more than either of them, IMO. However, in >light of "The Man Who Wasn't There," "Ghost World," "Memento," "Amelie" and >"Monster's Ball" (or even, begrudgingly, "Black Hawk Down"), I question its >nomination. Oooh, momentarily I had forgotten THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE -- hope I don't have to resign my Coen Brothers fan club membership! I thought it was excellent, and thought that Billy Bob would get an Oscar nod for it -- heck, he got *two* Golden Globe nominations. Didn't get Stuart Klawans' take in THE NATION that the film was about a deeply closeted gay, but I don't get most of Stuart Klawans' takes. I'd still rank GHOST WORLD above it. We liked MEMENTO quite a bit too, and I was surprised to see it only get one or two nods (original screenplay and editing?). That being said, I think we'd both pick GHOST WORLD and LOTR ahead of it. Upon further consideration, Melissa says her pick might be MULHOLLAND DRIVE. Me, I think getting a Lynch puzzle box is always a special occasion, but I'm not as thrilled with this one as I was with LOST HIGHWAY. It's great to see Lynch get a directing nomination, though. I agree that the differences between us on LOTR probably are small and not worth discussing. It's sad to see that you hate Bombadil! The parts of Tolkien that have to do with trees, sunshine, water, sunlight and other Very Old Things that go back beyond memory and almost beyond time... they just seem to be so crucial to everything Tolkien's about, and I've always connected with those parts of the books very strongly. Maybe it's because I spent so much time on the hillsides back home, in places that sometimes seemed just as ageless (and sometimes as malevolent -- was that root so close to me a minute ago?). I like it when Bombadil rescues the hobbits -- both from Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight. I like that he teaches them the Bombadil rhyme. I like Goldberry. I like that Tom calls the ponies names like "Wise-Nose" and "Swish-Tail," and that they never answer to any other names afterwards. However, now when I read the passages where Tom is singing songs that have "Tom Bombadillo" in the refrain, I always put it to the Gipsy Kings' "Bamboleo." This is just no good for the soul. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:08:56 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: re: [loud-fans] more movies Rog sez: >Miles Goosens on 2/13/2002 2:30:33 PM wrote: > >> What this tells me is that I should avoid J.D. Salinger's Glass family >> stories at all costs. > >I'm thinking about making a movie out of the Salinger Glass Family stories. >Does anyone know >if I need to get permission to do that? Now there's a Loud-Fans metathread if I've ever seen one! Listmembers who joined in 1999 or after will hopefully excuse me while I roll in the floor laughing -- and not pester Rog with letters about copyright law! (However, pestering him with pictures of Ron Jeremy should continue unabated.) Thanks, Rog! later, Miles ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #66 ******************************