Or are you too full of pride to admit you were wrong?
There are two issues here: is it morally right to simply copy work without permission which someone else has spent time (time==money by opportunity cost) producing, and is it legal?
Legal is pretty clear-cut in the US but not as important as the ethics.
I'm actually divided on the subject and, as a programmer, I can see that on the one hand a world where all software was GPL'd would be a better one for society as a whole, programmers could share ideas in the form of code and science would advance. But, as an artist (in the sense that programming is a creative act of design and often of ascetics [sp?]), I find myself asking "what do I use to pay for food?".
Imagine that a writer submits a manuscript to a publisher and gets rejected. A year later a book appears in print and its exactly the same as his M.S. Well, most people would say that that's unjust, and I'd agree with them.
Yet, according to "FreeUser" that's fine, after all the author has lost nothing, he still has his manuscript to flick though.
Well, I don't buy that and I've yet to see any reason to accept that that is not theft, legally and - more importantly - morally.
A lot of the the real GPL-fanatics see software as being like pure mathmatics, simply an expression of things built into reality like prime numbers and gravity. In that model it makes sense that copyright is depreciated: you can't stop other people using gravity. But this denies the creative part that the individual programmer brings to it, and that programmer needs money to keep on producing software.
Musical harmony is a fact of life, but that doen't mean that Mozart deserved to die a pauper just because he remained a composer instead of moving into publishing.
What really wound me up about the original post is that FreeUser simply declared by fiat that copying creative works is not theft and that anyone that says otherwise is some sort of whining lowlife. It's just not that black and white.
If some people want to remain purely programmers and charge money for that, what's the problem? Just don't buy it if you don't agree, but don't steal it either. I personally don't place copying restrictions on most of my code, and when I do it's laxer than the GPL but I'll be damned if I'll let little fascists like FreeUser tell me I can't if I want to.
No. You were defining taking (or copying) something because you want it as theft, then using that definition to 'prove' that taking something because you want it is theft. Classic circular reasoning, and a sure sign of a very limited intellect.
I did not do that, you are using a petty and pedantic interpretation of what I said in order to avoid addressing the issue. Again.
Desire, curiosity, even by mistake, to name just three of a dozen or more common reasons. So not only is your definition circular, it ignores huge swaths of reality in the process (as most tautologies tend to do).
Acting on desire or curiosity to steal something is hardly a great defence, so the huge swathes of reality I'm ignoring comes down to accidental copies, hardly the issue at hand.
Even replicating something you earnestly desire does not, and never has, equalled "theft" or "stealing" in the English language, or under U.S. law.
Read US law before making assertions about it:
Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 107:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
...
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
So, yep, it is against the law in the US; taking a copy will have an impact on the market at least insofar that you have reduced it by one persion who could reasonably be assumed to have been a paying customer otherwise. UK law is in flux at the moment as EU laws shift but the end result will almost certainly be the same as US law.
Get rid of copyright and you get rid of the need for a license such as the GPL.
Read the GPL again. Copyright serves the aims of the GPL, without it we would be much worse off. The GPL's main function is to enforce the "commons" of software. It does this by using copyright to force people to re-release modifications. Without copyright there is nothing to enforce this turn-and-turn-about approach to software and the GNU/EFF's aims fail. Large companies would be able to take code and use it to produce binaries with no source code and there would be nothing you could do about it.
You've had four posts on this thread and have single-mindedly avoided the question of why a person should be denied payment for work when that work is used by someone else, if that's what they ask for. You've tried sematics, pedantry, ad hominem argument, pretending you didn't understand what I was saying, insults, and blank refusal to answer direct simple questions on your irrational claim that you should be protected by copyright and others shouldn't.
Hint: The above is circular reasoning. Look it up. ("You wanted to use the product, that is why you stole it, therefor it is theft"?)
For your education, of course, I wasn't using circular reasoning, I was demonstrating the tautological fact that one takes something because one wants it. Are claiming that you copy other people's work because you don't want it?!
As for your GPL troll... your ability to remain ignornant on that subject while reading slashdot indicates a level of deliberate obtuseness normally reserved for Microsoft astroturfers and Trolls, a level of intelligence beneath that of the average non-human primate, or both.
In other words, you can't think of a reason why you should be allowed to ignore my requirements for copying while I have to honour yours (as enshrined in the GPL) so I must be a troll again. You have read the GPL, haven't you? You are aware that it places restrictions on copying the work, aren't you?
Ever heard of reasoning, or is it just something that happens to other people?
Lost potential sales does not, and never has, equaled theft,
It's not a potential sale, it's an actual one. You wanted to use the product (that's why you stole it), you took it, you didn't pay. Theft.
As long as the sale is potential you can't have already taken the item, can you? By the same token, once you've taken the item the (uncompleted) sale is a fact.
What possible interest has the GPL for you? If you don't believe accept that I can place the very basic restriction of paying for a copy on my work why should I give a flying fuck about what restrictions you want to put on your work? Why not just release it PD?
There's a world of difference between saying "I don't agree with your restrictions so I'll go elsewhere" and "I don't agree with your restrictions so I'll just ignore them and take what I like".
When someone violates copyright they are not stealing anything. Neither the original creator, nor those who comply with the creator's copyrights, nor those others who do not, are being deprived of anything.
Apart from money, that is.
Your argument only works if the price of the thing stolen is so high that a single sale would cover the cost of making it and if that sale had already occured. Pretty stupid argument.
Copyright violation is theft and if you have a problem with that you could always try making your own music/software/books/movies/TV shows/artworks/plays/photographs/magazines etc.
It seems that the Linux Elite forgot that many that use computers could care less about programming. They could care less about shell scripts, perl, and whatnot. They would like ease of use over everything else. They want a GUI, not a CLI for their apps.
What you are saying is that most people want the lowest common denominator, least power but least learning system they can get away with. That's true. But why should I care?
If you want to spend money to go where you want in a taxi while I can get everywhere I want by driving myself then why should either of us be bothered by the other's choices?
A GUI without a CLI is just a waste of silicon to me, but as long as you're not trying to force me to use such a system I'm happy.
...lighter and "looser" than the standard text typefaces (Adobe Times Roman in particular),
Times is not a standard text typeface, it is a standard newspaper typeface and is buck-ugly and tiresome to read on normally proportioned pages. NEVER use Times as a body face unless you're being charged a great deal too much for your paper or postage!
No, it isn't the point at which her people's sacrifice becomes clear you clot. Read the first book again. Then read the series again. Then come back and apologise when you realise how carefully and slowly Tolkien reveals the sacrifice of the elves.
Page 384, Galadriel talking about Nenya to Frodo:
Yet if you succeed, then our power is diminished and Lothlorien will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep it all away. We must depart into the West, or dwindle...
The fact is that "doing it for money" means NOTHING when discussing the artistic merit of any movie, book, or other artwork.
Unless that's the only reason.
And of course you don't answer my point about the first movie being about Frodo's choice - because you don't have an answer
It had more to do with going for the train but also this gets off the subject and into debating the book's meaning. It can be argued that the story in the book is indeed about Frodo's choice but I would say that the book is more concerned with duty than choices; and with the loneliness and sacrifice that can come from duty.
This brings us back to your previous comments about Tolkien getting it wrong in the book by not having Aragorn debating about whether he wants his destiny or not. That's fine for a different story but it is a very republican idea which has no place in Aragorn's story which is meant to be an idealistic vision of monarchy. Aragorn is the king, as was his father before him. In this world view the idea of Aragorn resenting his role makes no more sense then him wondering if the sky's the right colour.
In the book this is the reason that there is no real tension from Aragorn to Boromir but only from Boromir to Aragorn: Arogorn is the king and Boromir's opinion is irrelevant, if Boromir was unhappy about Aragorn's height Aragorn would have no more reason to cause friction than he does when he resents Aragorn's kingship. That's not to say Aragorn is insensitive to it, just that there is very little he can or wants to do about it; it's Boromir's problem, not his.
The book is not really about being given or fighting for your destiny, it's about living with it and accepting it and not abusing it.
I secretly liked the film, but got a lot of kudos from poo-pooing it, making me the "Tolkien expert" of my peer group.
My peer group includes several Tolkien experts, one of whom liked the film; I was looking forward to the film and went the first night I could get tickets. As I've said before: as a film in its own right it's fair but as an adaption it was a waste of my and the studio's money. I thought that the background technicians did some great work and the acting was good to perfect but the foreground technicians (screenwriter and director) were clearly hacks doing a job they had no interest in. Perhaps they were just very bad at their jobs and in fact were sincere but I can't believe anyone that had any feeling for their work could be so dull.
God damn that Peter Jackson for not making the film in my head. Now, I can't intelligently explain why the film in my head would be better, but I'll know it when I see it and FotR was not it. So bah to Peter Jackson and more power to me and my wanky commentary on the film's "failings".
This is, obviously, closer to the truth. It is nearly impossible to sit through all the hype and advertising for FotR without imagining what it's going to be like. But I don't think it was an unreasonable to hope for a faithful retelling of the story in its main parts. After all, what's the point of spending all that money on the rights to the book if you don't want to film it? I mean, the alternative is to believe that they bought the rights to the book so that they could trade off the name?!
So, yes, Jackson didn't make the film in my head, which was much better, to me at least. More to the point, he didn't film what was in Tolkien's head which was better than both.
As to the fight scenes, the number of fight scenes is the same in the book an the film (at least there are no new ones in the film), but they are greatly lengthened to the point of tedium. The fight in Moria just went on forever, as did the one at the falls. Did we really lose Radagast the Brown and Farmer Maggot, not to mention the Black Breath, in order to watch Legolas riding around on the back of the cave troll? Was Lothlorian cut to ribbons so that we could see Jackson's homage to Predator?
AND, my dad probably is bigger than your dad.
TWW
PS If you really want to continue at any length my email is just the above initials twice with an @ sign between and ".cx" at the end. I used to display it but got too much spam.
In the first book, it really makes no sense at all why Gandalf chooses Frodo. He has his reasons of course, wizardly and no doubt wise. But we don't know what they are.
But it becomes clear a two major turning points: the ford and the falls. In both cases Frodo makes important choices on his own. In the film both are skipped (He's rescued at the ford and asks Aragorn's advice at the falls, both greatly weaken his character).
The first film is ABOUT Frodo's choice - not Gandalf's
Nope. It's about getting a fast buck in.
It doesn't matter a damn that Galadriel was holding a ring
It matters because that is the point at which her people's sacrifice becomes clear. Her personal backing away from temptation is one thing, but there is more at stake than the negative of not getting more power; in fact she is going to let Frodo undo the last kingdom of the elves and lead them into myth.
I'm sure that the film covered what you got out of the book as it's pretty clear you didn't understand the depths of the book, but that's your problem.
The movie is, in fact, the best possible translation of an unfilmable book. Yes, that's right, I said unfilmable and I mean it.
Bakshi put more of the first book into an hour of his aborted attempt than Jackson got in to four hours of his drivel. That does not make me feel that the book, especially with Jackson's budget, is "unfilmable".
The difference is, Bakshi tried and failed, his was a mess but an honest mess, Jackson's mess was dishonest - it didn't even try to adapt the book.
Learn something about film writing you putz.
Well, I'm sure you're William Goldman behind that AC so you won't be surprised to learn that adapting a story is all about compression; it's impossible to translate a piece of fiction of any length onto the screen in a sort of one-to-one way so things get compressed. Characters get merged, events are blurred together or removed etc etc. A screenwriter and director have to choose what to do to get the story told in the time available. There are compensations, of course. Tolkien had to spend pages describing things that can be displayed instantly on the screen.
A good example of this in the film was Rivendell: it was exactly how I imagined it from the book and this was established in a single, 2 or 3 second, long shot which represented a great deal of text from the book. But generally, the compression wins out.
The test of the adaption is what was taken out and what was left in and what new material had to be introduced to cover over the knife marks.
Jackson consistantly removed anything which introduced depth to the characters: Frodo's strength in the face of death, Aragon's destiny, even (unbeliveablely) the fact that Galadriel had one of the great rings on her hand while talking to Frodo!
The material left alone was some dialog, scenery, names and the visual appearance of most characters (almost all of which was done well, very well).
The material added was utter crap: fight scenes, pointless conversations and the silly "super-orc". A ten year old could write better filler.
And yet, Jackson had more than any other adapter has ever had: 4 hours of screen time and the budget of a small African nation to film less than 400 pages of book!
I'm not talking about putting Bombadil back in (it would have been nice in a 12 hr total length to have some of the "unusual" stuff but even in 12 hrs somethings have to go), I'm talking about Bree and Merry's encounter with the Nazgul, or vitally important plot points such as Sam's vision in the Mirror of the events which later do come true in the Shire, or, come to that, Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship which they have in the boats but which we don't see being given out. But at least we had a long fight scene in Moria to make up for it!
Better still, you might be able to go back to the cinema and enjoy the flawless and utterly brilliant Fellowship of the Ring.
Yes. And I'm the "fan-boy" am I?
It was neither flawless nor brilliant, it was a wasted opportunity. As a film it is mediocre and as an adaptation it stank.
I've mentioned this several times and, I think, gone some length to justify my position as to what was wrong with the film. No one has challenged any of the points I've made. Instead I get called names by AC's and modded as a troll (on, no, my karma's down to 49, what a shame!).
Come, on, then, justify your claim that FotR is "Flawless"; demonstrate your expertise in the art of film making (or even logging-in).
Perhaps it's your reading comprehension that's at fault?
Yes, that's right. I thought Frodo's character developed in the first book, that Gandalf and Sauman didn't get into a ridiculous punch-up, that the Balrog didn't rescue the fellowship from the orcs, that Frodo defied the Nazgul alone at the ford (thus proving that Gandalf's faith was justified) instead of being rescued, that Galadriel made it clear that Frodo was the doom of the elves but that they still would help him, that the Nazgul were dangerous, that no one had time to stop and play balance-the-5000 ton-pilar-of-rock while escaping from Moria, that the watcher in the lake deliberately locked them into Moria, that the Council of Elrond made some sense, that Aragon's sword was reforged from the shards of Narsil, that The Shire didn't have dancing mountains in it, that the travellers actually noticed the stone trolls in the woods, and that the damn story actually worked.
Silly me, I must be damn near illiterate if I thought I saw all those things in the book when the great Peter "Just Get To The Next Fight Scene" Jackson didn't.
get rid of command line (creates a huge way of exploiting between processes)
Unfortunately, I want to exploit the applications on my machine. I could just buy a pocket calculator and get rid of my computer - that would be secure too.
If security is paramount, to exclusion of all else,
Which it never is. If security is paramount to the exclusion of all else you simply leve the computer switched off.
I'm computing in the real world, you are clearly computing in the MacWorld.
Note: comparing the startup speed of software with completely different sets of functionality makes no sense.
It does when the extra "functionality" of one (Gnome) is of no value whatsoever; WindowMaker is a far better working environment than Gnome/KDE/Windows will ever be.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't. I'd also argue that many DTP pre-press manipulations are easier with a CLI than a GUI.
I use a GUI every day for things it's good for, and a CLI everyday for (non-admin) things it's good for. You need both.
TWW
There are two issues here: is it morally right to simply copy work without permission which someone else has spent time (time==money by opportunity cost) producing, and is it legal?
Legal is pretty clear-cut in the US but not as important as the ethics.
I'm actually divided on the subject and, as a programmer, I can see that on the one hand a world where all software was GPL'd would be a better one for society as a whole, programmers could share ideas in the form of code and science would advance. But, as an artist (in the sense that programming is a creative act of design and often of ascetics [sp?]), I find myself asking "what do I use to pay for food?".
Imagine that a writer submits a manuscript to a publisher and gets rejected. A year later a book appears in print and its exactly the same as his M.S. Well, most people would say that that's unjust, and I'd agree with them.
Yet, according to "FreeUser" that's fine, after all the author has lost nothing, he still has his manuscript to flick though.
Well, I don't buy that and I've yet to see any reason to accept that that is not theft, legally and - more importantly - morally.
A lot of the the real GPL-fanatics see software as being like pure mathmatics, simply an expression of things built into reality like prime numbers and gravity. In that model it makes sense that copyright is depreciated: you can't stop other people using gravity. But this denies the creative part that the individual programmer brings to it, and that programmer needs money to keep on producing software.
Musical harmony is a fact of life, but that doen't mean that Mozart deserved to die a pauper just because he remained a composer instead of moving into publishing.
What really wound me up about the original post is that FreeUser simply declared by fiat that copying creative works is not theft and that anyone that says otherwise is some sort of whining lowlife. It's just not that black and white.
If some people want to remain purely programmers and charge money for that, what's the problem? Just don't buy it if you don't agree, but don't steal it either. I personally don't place copying restrictions on most of my code, and when I do it's laxer than the GPL but I'll be damned if I'll let little fascists like FreeUser tell me I can't if I want to.
TWW
I did not do that, you are using a petty and pedantic interpretation of what I said in order to avoid addressing the issue. Again.
Desire, curiosity, even by mistake, to name just three of a dozen or more common reasons. So not only is your definition circular, it ignores huge swaths of reality in the process (as most tautologies tend to do).
Acting on desire or curiosity to steal something is hardly a great defence, so the huge swathes of reality I'm ignoring comes down to accidental copies, hardly the issue at hand.
Even replicating something you earnestly desire does not, and never has, equalled "theft" or "stealing" in the English language, or under U.S. law.
Read US law before making assertions about it: Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec 107:
So, yep, it is against the law in the US; taking a copy will have an impact on the market at least insofar that you have reduced it by one persion who could reasonably be assumed to have been a paying customer otherwise. UK law is in flux at the moment as EU laws shift but the end result will almost certainly be the same as US law.
Get rid of copyright and you get rid of the need for a license such as the GPL.
Read the GPL again. Copyright serves the aims of the GPL, without it we would be much worse off. The GPL's main function is to enforce the "commons" of software. It does this by using copyright to force people to re-release modifications. Without copyright there is nothing to enforce this turn-and-turn-about approach to software and the GNU/EFF's aims fail. Large companies would be able to take code and use it to produce binaries with no source code and there would be nothing you could do about it.
You've had four posts on this thread and have single-mindedly avoided the question of why a person should be denied payment for work when that work is used by someone else, if that's what they ask for. You've tried sematics, pedantry, ad hominem argument, pretending you didn't understand what I was saying, insults, and blank refusal to answer direct simple questions on your irrational claim that you should be protected by copyright and others shouldn't.
In short: fuck off.
TWW
For your education, of course, I wasn't using circular reasoning, I was demonstrating the tautological fact that one takes something because one wants it. Are claiming that you copy other people's work because you don't want it?!
As for your GPL troll ... your ability to remain ignornant on that subject while reading slashdot indicates a level of deliberate obtuseness normally reserved for Microsoft astroturfers and Trolls, a level of intelligence beneath that of the average non-human primate, or both.
In other words, you can't think of a reason why you should be allowed to ignore my requirements for copying while I have to honour yours (as enshrined in the GPL) so I must be a troll again. You have read the GPL, haven't you? You are aware that it places restrictions on copying the work, aren't you?
Ever heard of reasoning, or is it just something that happens to other people?
TWW
It's not a potential sale, it's an actual one. You wanted to use the product (that's why you stole it), you took it, you didn't pay. Theft.
As long as the sale is potential you can't have already taken the item, can you? By the same token, once you've taken the item the (uncompleted) sale is a fact.
What possible interest has the GPL for you? If you don't believe accept that I can place the very basic restriction of paying for a copy on my work why should I give a flying fuck about what restrictions you want to put on your work? Why not just release it PD?
There's a world of difference between saying "I don't agree with your restrictions so I'll go elsewhere" and "I don't agree with your restrictions so I'll just ignore them and take what I like".
TWW
Apart from money, that is.
Your argument only works if the price of the thing stolen is so high that a single sale would cover the cost of making it and if that sale had already occured. Pretty stupid argument.
Copyright violation is theft and if you have a problem with that you could always try making your own music/software/books/movies/TV shows/artworks/plays/photographs/magazines etc.
TWW
TWW
What you are saying is that most people want the lowest common denominator, least power but least learning system they can get away with. That's true. But why should I care?
If you want to spend money to go where you want in a taxi while I can get everywhere I want by driving myself then why should either of us be bothered by the other's choices?
A GUI without a CLI is just a waste of silicon to me, but as long as you're not trying to force me to use such a system I'm happy.
TWW
"Come back, come back; to Mordor we will take you"
"Stick it up your invisible arse!" (I don't have the book handy but I think that's what Frodo said).
Good old Dave Sim. Pity about issues 201+.
TWW
Times is not a standard text typeface, it is a standard newspaper typeface and is buck-ugly and tiresome to read on normally proportioned pages. NEVER use Times as a body face unless you're being charged a great deal too much for your paper or postage!
TWW
Page 384, Galadriel talking about Nenya to Frodo:
The fact is that "doing it for money" means NOTHING when discussing the artistic merit of any movie, book, or other artwork.
Unless that's the only reason.
And of course you don't answer my point about the first movie being about Frodo's choice - because you don't have an answer
It had more to do with going for the train but also this gets off the subject and into debating the book's meaning. It can be argued that the story in the book is indeed about Frodo's choice but I would say that the book is more concerned with duty than choices; and with the loneliness and sacrifice that can come from duty.
This brings us back to your previous comments about Tolkien getting it wrong in the book by not having Aragorn debating about whether he wants his destiny or not. That's fine for a different story but it is a very republican idea which has no place in Aragorn's story which is meant to be an idealistic vision of monarchy. Aragorn is the king, as was his father before him. In this world view the idea of Aragorn resenting his role makes no more sense then him wondering if the sky's the right colour.
In the book this is the reason that there is no real tension from Aragorn to Boromir but only from Boromir to Aragorn: Arogorn is the king and Boromir's opinion is irrelevant, if Boromir was unhappy about Aragorn's height Aragorn would have no more reason to cause friction than he does when he resents Aragorn's kingship. That's not to say Aragorn is insensitive to it, just that there is very little he can or wants to do about it; it's Boromir's problem, not his.
The book is not really about being given or fighting for your destiny, it's about living with it and accepting it and not abusing it.
I secretly liked the film, but got a lot of kudos from poo-pooing it, making me the "Tolkien expert" of my peer group.
My peer group includes several Tolkien experts, one of whom liked the film; I was looking forward to the film and went the first night I could get tickets. As I've said before: as a film in its own right it's fair but as an adaption it was a waste of my and the studio's money. I thought that the background technicians did some great work and the acting was good to perfect but the foreground technicians (screenwriter and director) were clearly hacks doing a job they had no interest in. Perhaps they were just very bad at their jobs and in fact were sincere but I can't believe anyone that had any feeling for their work could be so dull.
God damn that Peter Jackson for not making the film in my head. Now, I can't intelligently explain why the film in my head would be better, but I'll know it when I see it and FotR was not it. So bah to Peter Jackson and more power to me and my wanky commentary on the film's "failings".
This is, obviously, closer to the truth. It is nearly impossible to sit through all the hype and advertising for FotR without imagining what it's going to be like. But I don't think it was an unreasonable to hope for a faithful retelling of the story in its main parts. After all, what's the point of spending all that money on the rights to the book if you don't want to film it? I mean, the alternative is to believe that they bought the rights to the book so that they could trade off the name?!
So, yes, Jackson didn't make the film in my head, which was much better, to me at least. More to the point, he didn't film what was in Tolkien's head which was better than both. As to the fight scenes, the number of fight scenes is the same in the book an the film (at least there are no new ones in the film), but they are greatly lengthened to the point of tedium. The fight in Moria just went on forever, as did the one at the falls. Did we really lose Radagast the Brown and Farmer Maggot, not to mention the Black Breath, in order to watch Legolas riding around on the back of the cave troll? Was Lothlorian cut to ribbons so that we could see Jackson's homage to Predator?
AND, my dad probably is bigger than your dad.
TWW
PS If you really want to continue at any length my email is just the above initials twice with an @ sign between and ".cx" at the end. I used to display it but got too much spam.
Oh, just go and read the book, will you?
TWW
But it becomes clear a two major turning points: the ford and the falls. In both cases Frodo makes important choices on his own. In the film both are skipped (He's rescued at the ford and asks Aragorn's advice at the falls, both greatly weaken his character).
The first film is ABOUT Frodo's choice - not Gandalf's
Nope. It's about getting a fast buck in.
It doesn't matter a damn that Galadriel was holding a ring
It matters because that is the point at which her people's sacrifice becomes clear. Her personal backing away from temptation is one thing, but there is more at stake than the negative of not getting more power; in fact she is going to let Frodo undo the last kingdom of the elves and lead them into myth.
I'm sure that the film covered what you got out of the book as it's pretty clear you didn't understand the depths of the book, but that's your problem.
Try reading it again when you're older.
TWW
+5 Insightful!
TWW
The movie is, in fact, the best possible translation of an unfilmable book. Yes, that's right, I said unfilmable and I mean it.
Bakshi put more of the first book into an hour of his aborted attempt than Jackson got in to four hours of his drivel. That does not make me feel that the book, especially with Jackson's budget, is "unfilmable".
The difference is, Bakshi tried and failed, his was a mess but an honest mess, Jackson's mess was dishonest - it didn't even try to adapt the book.
Learn something about film writing you putz.
Well, I'm sure you're William Goldman behind that AC so you won't be surprised to learn that adapting a story is all about compression; it's impossible to translate a piece of fiction of any length onto the screen in a sort of one-to-one way so things get compressed. Characters get merged, events are blurred together or removed etc etc. A screenwriter and director have to choose what to do to get the story told in the time available. There are compensations, of course. Tolkien had to spend pages describing things that can be displayed instantly on the screen.
A good example of this in the film was Rivendell: it was exactly how I imagined it from the book and this was established in a single, 2 or 3 second, long shot which represented a great deal of text from the book. But generally, the compression wins out.
The test of the adaption is what was taken out and what was left in and what new material had to be introduced to cover over the knife marks.
Jackson consistantly removed anything which introduced depth to the characters: Frodo's strength in the face of death, Aragon's destiny, even (unbeliveablely) the fact that Galadriel had one of the great rings on her hand while talking to Frodo!
The material left alone was some dialog, scenery, names and the visual appearance of most characters (almost all of which was done well, very well).
The material added was utter crap: fight scenes, pointless conversations and the silly "super-orc". A ten year old could write better filler.
And yet, Jackson had more than any other adapter has ever had: 4 hours of screen time and the budget of a small African nation to film less than 400 pages of book!
I'm not talking about putting Bombadil back in (it would have been nice in a 12 hr total length to have some of the "unusual" stuff but even in 12 hrs somethings have to go), I'm talking about Bree and Merry's encounter with the Nazgul, or vitally important plot points such as Sam's vision in the Mirror of the events which later do come true in the Shire, or, come to that, Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship which they have in the boats but which we don't see being given out. But at least we had a long fight scene in Moria to make up for it!
Better still, you might be able to go back to the cinema and enjoy the flawless and utterly brilliant Fellowship of the Ring.
Yes. And I'm the "fan-boy" am I?
It was neither flawless nor brilliant, it was a wasted opportunity. As a film it is mediocre and as an adaptation it stank.
I've mentioned this several times and, I think, gone some length to justify my position as to what was wrong with the film. No one has challenged any of the points I've made. Instead I get called names by AC's and modded as a troll (on, no, my karma's down to 49, what a shame!).
Come, on, then, justify your claim that FotR is "Flawless"; demonstrate your expertise in the art of film making (or even logging-in).
Didn't think so.
TWW
Yes, that's right. I thought Frodo's character developed in the first book, that Gandalf and Sauman didn't get into a ridiculous punch-up, that the Balrog didn't rescue the fellowship from the orcs, that Frodo defied the Nazgul alone at the ford (thus proving that Gandalf's faith was justified) instead of being rescued, that Galadriel made it clear that Frodo was the doom of the elves but that they still would help him, that the Nazgul were dangerous, that no one had time to stop and play balance-the-5000 ton-pilar-of-rock while escaping from Moria, that the watcher in the lake deliberately locked them into Moria, that the Council of Elrond made some sense, that Aragon's sword was reforged from the shards of Narsil, that The Shire didn't have dancing mountains in it, that the travellers actually noticed the stone trolls in the woods, and that the damn story actually worked.
Silly me, I must be damn near illiterate if I thought I saw all those things in the book when the great Peter "Just Get To The Next Fight Scene" Jackson didn't.
TW
At least Lucas had it and lost it; Jackson wouldn't know where to look for it.
TWW
Actually, judging by the first film, I wonder if he can read.
TWW
Don't forget all time wasted swapping those bloated libraries in and out of memory to make room for some actual data.
TWW
Well, whose opinion did you think I was using? In case you hadn't noticed /. is full of opinions; do you really need to be told that?
TWW
KDE as an environment is bloated and slow and contributes nothing to productivity that WM doesn't do better.
The longer you have KDE (the very epitomy of "obscure functionality") running the more time you've wasted waiting for it.
TWW
Unfortunately, I want to exploit the applications on my machine. I could just buy a pocket calculator and get rid of my computer - that would be secure too.
If security is paramount, to exclusion of all else,
Which it never is. If security is paramount to the exclusion of all else you simply leve the computer switched off.
I'm computing in the real world, you are clearly computing in the MacWorld.
TWW
It does when the extra "functionality" of one (Gnome) is of no value whatsoever; WindowMaker is a far better working environment than Gnome/KDE/Windows will ever be.
TWW
Windowmaker loads in a fraction of a second on my 300mhz uniprocessor box.
TWW
TWW