Slashdot Mirror

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/metech.htm

Concrete houses was Edison's great dream a hundred years ago; cheap and mass producable.
They never caught on then. Why would we think they'd catch on now?

Edison displayed a model of an attractive and plausible middle class home --- which was too expensive and complex to build. The final design was charmless and dispiriting.

The simplest sort of remodeling or repair work was difficult.

WHY DOLORES CHUMSKY HATES THOMAS EDISON

I don't know how I stumbled across this but here is an interesting theory about Tom Bombadil being Sauron. It's from a Usenet posting circa 1996.

You must be fucking terrified of interior concrete walls then.

Yes, because that would probably mean I was in prison or some other godawful unpleasant place.
I have never met a concrete wall that I like. It just struck me that this is sort of like Thomas
Edison's worst invention ever, the poured concrete house.

There have been instances of respected newspapers using The Onion as sources, not realizing that fine news source is humor. The Onion must hate that, it would be like when you make a joke comment on slashdot and it gets modded as "insightful".

Although it doesn't involve circularity, this is an instance in which the London Sunday Times printed "facts" from a spoof plot summary of The Lord of the Rings.

Who hasn't spent 30 minutes skimming a book trying to find THAT ONE PAGE!?

Dolores Chumsky's house leaks. There's no way to fix it. "Just try and get someone to come and make repairs," laments the Union, N.J., resident. "They may come in once, but they never come back." That's because Chumsky's innocent-looking suburban residence is a handyman's nightmare. It also stands as a monument to one of the most colossal flops in the history of scientific innovation. It is one of a dozen surviving examples of Thomas Edison's worst invention ever: the single-piece cast-concrete home.

Concrete homes, he said, would revolutionize American life. They would be fireproof, insect-proof, easy to clean. The walls could be pre-tinted in attractive colors and would never need to be repainted. Everything from shingles to bathtubs to picture frames would be cast as a single monolith of concrete, in a process that took just a few hours. Extra stories could be added with a simple adjustment of the molding forms. Best of all, the $1,200-dollar houses would be cheap enough for even the poorest slum-dwellers to afford.

A builder had to buy at least $175,000 in equipment before pouring a single house. Furthermore, nobody wanted to live in a residence that had been dubbed "the salvation of the slum dweller." Although Edison optimistically described an early model as "in the style of Francois I," it was more in the style of an oversized outhouse.Why Dolores Chumsky Hates Thomas Edison

But the cartoon sucked. Always sucked.

OK, let's review...

Transformers was aired in 1984. Cartoons (anime or otherwise) with good storylines were rare, if not unique. After all, what was the competition?
He-man? Voltron? Mazinger Z (pfft) ?

Transformers was written for young, gullible kids. Yes, it was also made to sell toys, but what difference does it make with other cartoons of today?

Anyway, it was a show about good vs. evil. And the evil characters were REALLY evil. I loved the way Megatron planned the destruction of the autobots, he was evil, and i just loved that (well actually i hated him, but you get the point). We rarely see characters like him today. And remember, in 1984, kids weren't aware of conspiracies, and intensive drama was definitely taboo. We were children! We didn't have to worry about terrorism, drugs, or our best friend committing suicide. We just wanted to play, have fun, and watch some TV.

Call me naive, but it was a show perfectly adapted for our young, innocent mindsets. And we loved it.

Edison was building "pre-fab" concrete homes in 1907. But his ultimate design was singularly ugly and dispiriting even as low-income housing. The simplest of household repairs and remodeling were a nightmare. Why Dolores Chumsky Hates Thomas Edison

A much easier summary of the Silmarillion can be found here.

The Tolkien Sarcasm Page give the best review ever of this movie, putting it down in the pit it so rightly deserves to be in.

already done

i wish i had the url, but it was bascially old film clips with new dialouge over it, Bogart was Frodo, Peter Lorre was Gollum, Sydney Greenstreet as Gandalf (a clip of him in a grey business suit in the beginning, later scenes in white)

anyone have the url?

Try this.

i just remembered where it was:

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/movie.htm

And we've known it since Thomas Edison tried it, at the turn of the last century.

If you were to throw a black cape and a tall hat on him, he could be a circus magician. Now, if you but a black cape and stovepipe hat on him, he'd look exactly like Snidely Whiplash

Am I the first to point to The Lord of the ... whatever ?! Tolkien's fens on rec.arts.books.tolkien have created a parody of the book. It's hilarious! Guaranteed to piss off any die-hard LOTR fanatic. It nearly pissed me off on a couple of occasions, but mostly it made me laugh.

Humorous diary of Saruman

If I were to write a reply to this post myself it would read much like this critique page, so I might as well just link to it instead: A critique of Bakshis LOTR

The elves just pulled a prank on those stupid dwarves.

At least quote the real source of the things you say.

Those kids... they think their internet is better then mine :/

And somebody should REALLY photoshop/gimp a picture of the One Ring with "Bad Mother F***er" inscribed in it.

(this is from Pulp Tolkien by the way,

and Mr. Coward copied this from here:

Well, it's either what I suggested or what you suggested. Yours is the more likely. This is one of those things that makes me think he's missed the point of the books somewhat.

I know all about the Tolkien Sarcasm Page, and have even directed a few hapless students to the synopses hosted there for their benefit. Hee.

Well said. Clearly I need to go read the Letters and Silmarillion again. (I wonder, then, what Jackson intends the eye-on-tower to actually be?) Christopher Lee reads the books once every year; I need to start doing the same again.

If you ever spot an eyeball with fingers, be sure to alert us all!

Be careful what you ask for. You may get it.

The first ever pre-fab homes were built by Thomas Edison for his own use.

In fact, Tom Bombadil is the Witch King of Angmar

Most compelling evidence:
2. You never see the two of them together.

Well, if the RIAA is repeating what Edison did, eventually we'll start putting criminals to death by playing some recent CDs at them until they die.

or kill themselves rather than listen?

(Aaaaack! It's a Pepsi Commercial! Hit the Mute! Hit the Mute!)

Just out of curiosity, have you listened to Laurie Anderson? Specifically Dance of Electricity?

Steuard Jensen has a differing opinion. Both Hargrove's and Jensen's essays are referenced in the The Encyclopedia of Arda entry.

From William D. B. Loos' essay:

As to Tom's nature, there are several schools of thought.

He was a Maia (the most common notion). The reasoning here is plain: given the Middle-earth cast of characters as we know it, this is the most convenient pigeonhole in which to place him (and Goldberry as well) (most of the other individuals in The Lord of the Rings with "mysterious" origins: Gandalf, Sauron, Wizards, and Balrogs did in fact turn out to be Maiar).

He was IlÃvatar. The only support for this notion is on theological grounds: some have interpreted Goldberry's statement to Frodo (F: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" G: "He is.") as a form of the Christian "I am that am", which really could suggest the Creator. Tolkien rejected this interpretation quite firmly.

T.A. Shippey (in The Road to Middle-earth) and others have suggested that Tom is a one-of-a-kind type. This notion received indirect support from Tolkien himself....

For the ill-informed conspiracy theorists out there, you might wish to read this.

And for those of you who say that public schools aren't turning out good work, you may wish to visit a less meticulous analysis (author unknown) from DPS.

You can actually watch the original version of Lord of the Rings which starred Peter Lorre as Gollum. And yes, somehow, this version of the movie was actually released before the books were. :)

Anyone who reads parent posters ramblings and starts thinking that maybe that Bakshi version is good, and maybe they should go find it so they can watch it, should read this page. Summary: it is not good. At all.

At least the Balrog did not have fluffy bedroom slippers...

Scandalous!

Check out the best recap ever.

"this synopsis has been endorsed by the prestigious London Sunday Times."

Am I the only one who has nightmares thanks to Bakshi?

I saw the animated movies as a kid, and wanted so badly to love them. And I could not make it through the second one, even as a nine-year-old with no preconceptions (other than from having read the book) and a suprisingly long attention span.

If anyone has doubts about how bad this version truly was, see here for a very funny review that doesn't pull punches.

Anyways, if the SciFi "Passage to Middle Earth" special is any indication, the Fellowship of the Ring will be incredible. So the ghost of Bakshi can finally be put to rest.

p.s I thought the Bashi film was terrible.

p.s I thought the Bashi film was terrible.

So, you want the Slashdot community to do your homework for you?

:)