the mysterious death of Frodo's parents

no just in Columbo. I always feel sorry for the criminals, and thats not a good sign.

Columbo was great You better be careful (or more crabbit), Petty, or we shall have a new Most Crabbit award winner next time!

Now Ringdrotten! No need for those sort of doubting words! I dont think the odd outburst of misplaced female annoyance can compare to the true male art of beng crabbit, that takes decication and lots of buckie.

edit add- Besides Ive been pulling double duty being crabbit at PJ liberals on the Hobbit Movie News forum too- so in fact I've been twice as crabbit as last year. And anyone who says otherwise is claimed!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Now Ringdrotten! No need for those sort of doubting words! I dont think the odd outburst of misplaced female annoyance can compare to the true male art of beng crabbit, that takes decication and lots of buckie.

To be fair, most of your rants are about the glorious Peter Jackson, who is kinda of a big deal in a Tolkien forum, like it or not! I mean, if this was a 19th century period drama forum (or any type of forum really ) I think all of our rants would be equally frequent- just about general stuff we hate! It's just that, one of the main discussions of this site is Peter Jackson's upcoming films- who you don't like! If we take away him, are you still the most crabbit? Okay, possibly, but it's not as definitive y'know?


(((I have the most to be crabbit about anyway; I mean how am I ever going to get the chance to meet my future husband if he stays in every night to watch repeats of Firefly? Break into his house?? HAHAHA!! )))

Ally- are you implying away from PJ's LotR's I'm...nice!? When there's the English and the weather, and midgies, and running out of buckie, and tax and politicians, and bills, and fat people who walk two abreast on pavements withtheir fat friend at 2mph! I think not!

(((And watching Firefly is a good sign- shows good taste)))

ha ha you tell him Ringo! Theres nothing that can compare to my crabbits about Yates and his excremental Harry Potter films and Columbo, that detective dung beetle.

Mrs Figg wrote: ha ha you tell him Ringo! Theres nothing that can compare to my crabbits about Yates and his excremental Harry Potter films and Columbo, that detective dung beetle.

Awww, Yate's Harry Potter was great! Beautifully directed! Admittedly, they felt rushed at times, but that's just because how long & detailed the books are! I just can't believe someone doesn't have the same opinion as me!

Ally if it didnt make me so crabbit there could be something quite endearing about your lack of critisims. Im kinda glad to know its not just PJ you see no fault in-is it universal or is there a beloved book turned to film you hate hiding away somewhere?

It must be nice to like what Yates did to my beloved Harry. I wish I could, but I cant forgive him for destroying the magic, and making everything so murky, its like watching everything through a muddy puddle.

Ha! and I always thought HP was more like looking into a magic mirror that reflected back all the stuff she'd ripped off and cobbled together.

Try and out-crabbit me would you?! And that HP insult was just off the top of the barrel full of crabbit I have about HP. You only think some of the films suck-I'm crabbit about the entire things existence.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ally if it didnt make me so crabbit there could be something quite endearing about your lack of critisims. Im kinda glad to know its not just PJ you see no fault in-is it universal or is there a beloved book turned to film you hate hiding away somewhere?

One thing you should know about me: I don't read that many books! No, but the thing is a lot of the books I've read and liked are off me liking a film & then I'll go and read the book. My awareness of the Potter books were largely influenced by watching the first few films as a kid which got me into the books around the third of fourth book, and the same applies to LOTR.

As a child I only remember the stuff I loved. notably ITV's Enid Blyton's Famous Five. There's a few teen fiction adaptations that I've read later that I feel could have been better; Eragon was poor, as was The Golden Compass and the first Percy Jackson film. But I don't make an effort to talk about things I don't like for the sake of it.


(((Gotta disagree with you Mrs Figg, HP totally nailed the themes and concept of the books, which is no easy feat!))

I really don't see what there is about harry potter that makes you crabbit, Petty. Tolkien ripped off things too, like half of Norse and Celt mythology. My only complaint about her is that she's a little over inventive, risking the self-consistency of her world. when so many things are easy, why should anything be hard? But the packaging is so charmingly done it doesn't bother me most times.

When I read Tolkien I can see the influences. When I read HP I can see sometimes even see the particular passage she has lifted her idea from- Tolkien does it wth subtly and all the skill sof a myth maker- she does it by the shoveful and without much of the subtley or skill.

HP books

And where is the subtlety in taking all the dwarf names from one poem, they are even listed up one by one?

Ally wrote:But I don't make an effort to talk about things I don't like for the sake of it.

Well, there's the difference between you and Petty!

I'm not at all well-read in British children's literature of the mid-20th century so a lot of Petty's specific complaints about originality in earlier threads have gone over my head. However, I think that Rowling nonetheless came up with an engaging story and world, though obviously that's a subjective experience. Her world isn't as rigorous or thoroughly developed as Tolkien's, but there's a big difference between that and "bad". And at the risk of committing blasphemy, I'll go out on a limb and say I care more about and feel a greater connection to the characters of HP than those of LOTR, though I like both.

That said, everything about my HP experience is tinted by nostalgia and the role it played in getting me interested in reading, fantasy, and all that stuff when I was like five so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

some good points guys.
Ally I totally agree with you about Eragon, Golden Compass and Percy Jackson. The books are soooooooo much better, i was very much looking forward to the Golden Compass and was very disappointed with the result, and I cant put my finger on why it was such a boring film, the scenography was spectacular, the actors were top notch, the screenplay was I believe by someone top notch (cant remember at the moment, was it Tom Stoppard?), it should have been a wow but it was a blah, and I love the Percy Jackson books, but the film was instantly forgettable, Percy in the film was dull very dull.

Eldo I love Harry Potter, it is truly magical, it has put a spell on me like no other, and I too relate more to the characters, they are nearer to our experience and are so real and heartwarming, I love the Weasleys. I like the literary references too, its fun recognizing them.

Halfwise, they are charming, its true.

Amarië wrote: And where is the subtlety in taking all the dwarf names from one poem, they are even listed up one by one?

But some of 'em are spelled differently: Dvalin versus Tolkien's Dwalin for instance.

Now that's subtle!

The subtle comes about in use of these things- when Tolkien uses some things- even when I know of the original stroy or source I miss it in Tolkien becasue of how he puts it to use. When read about Hogwarts and could as well be reading pasages form Tom Brown's Schooldays she is using the school, the type of school and setting for all the same purposes the orignal author did-(a type of school and teaching system I should mention has not existee din the Uk since th etime sof Tom Brown) she does nothing new to it except add magic. Just one exaample off the top of my head.

I think there are still similar schools today Petty, what about Eton and Harrow?

and anyone could 'just add magic', but she adds much more than that, she adds characters to care about.

Its more than just an old school setting- the bully and how he acts and even speaks, The teachers and other features- if you are at all famailar with Tom Browns schooldays it feels like your reading a poor sequal but written by an amatuer and with added magic. Or at least thats how it felt to me.

I actually avoided reading the books for years and years, I didnt like all the hype, I couldnt believe they could be so good, and then one time on holiday I needed something to read and the only book in English I could find was The Philosophers Stone, so reluctantly I bought it thinking I was going to be very unimpressed. But the thing grabbed me, it was strange, it felt like real magic had put me under its spell, I had to read the next ones, as soon as I got home I dashed to the bookshop and got the lot, (it was up to the 5th book) and after I had finished them I felt almost bereaved like I had lost something. Strange the only other book that has given me that reaction is LOTR.

You have to remember this is a story aimed squarely at kids, Petty (and its influence casts a spell over most adults as well who still remember being a kid). That wouldn't be much of an excuse except that it works: nothing has turned kids back onto reading the way Harry Potter has. It's sort of like CasaBlanca: the movie is actually distinguished by NOT being original, but by packaging so many archetypical themes in a way that ended up being irresistible. Rowling did the same thing: she pulled together what her feelings told her would work from whatever sources, and created an ensemble that got the job done so perfectly that millions of kids smuggled the books under their covers to read them by flashlight after lights out.

In a less flattering light it can also be compared to the movie Titanic: Cameron knowingly and even heavy-handedly put in themes that would make teenage girls swoon. We can pick it apart as being candy-coated and blatantly obvious in its manipulations, but it sure got the job done for the target audience. The difference I think is Cameron was deliberately being manipulative, while Rowling I think was letting herself feel out the story more by intuition. In that sense, it makes it legitimate.