The Lord of the Rings

Peter wrote: Now Star Trek, on the other hand....

Hey Peter,what's a split infinitive?

You two would argue that the toothpicks were put upside down in the holder.

He could have cut it down to 5 minutes if he just had Gandalf teleport him to Mount Doom at the start. Doesn't matter what's in the middle- as long as the result is the same, right?

Jeez, boys, cant you see that Jackson was making a

FILM

some people here seem to be suggesting they could do better!

I have never in all my time on this forum read anyone state they could do better than Yes or Genesis, so why be so arrogant as to denegrate Jackson's achievement in making these films?
Some people here seem absolutely ignorant of the nature of movies.Jackson himself claims to be a massive fan of Tolkien and is known for his artistic integrity.Why can you not accept that there will be genuine reasons for him doing the fims as they are? What are you suggesting, that he deliberately changed some things just to piss the afficianados off?

Shocktaktix wrote: Jerkoff

Not just now love, I'm a bit tired!

Once in a while, there's a danger that we'll have a decent conversation around here.

RL: what are amateur reviews, after all? It's not like none of us have ever questioned the value of Yes or Genesis in these forums. Might as well apply our armchair quarterback skills to a film once in a while in between maligning (or praising) prog bands.

Shocktaktix: that doesn't apply to you.

I tried in every post on the film to make it clear that I think Jackson's achievement is amazing. I don't think I'm being too much of a purist or a geek...if that was truly the case, I could go off on dozens of other things which didn't match the books. I think Jackson faced considerable challenges adapting the books to the screen, and he was largely successful and accurate. But he neglected or altered a few very important things- and it was done at least in part with the idea of appealing to a mainstream audience, a stance to which I think most of us are generally opposed, at least in the musical realm.

Call me geeky, pretentious, or whatever...but think about a current pop star (even one who has some talent and skill- I don't want to downplay Jackson's ability) doing a remake of one of your favorite albums (oh, ITCOTCK, Fragile, BSS, Selling England, whatever you like), chopping it down to a quarter of its length and adding plenty of trendy modern twists to make it popular with the hip-hop/ numetal audience. I doubt there'd be a single member of the forums who wouldn't be tempted to express some kind of dissatisfaction, no matter how much of an achievement it was.

Reed Lover wrote: Peter wrote: Now Star Trek, on the other hand.... Hey Peter,what's a split infinitive?

A split infinitive is a question of style, not grammar. There is absolutely nothing wrong, grammatically speaking, with inserting an adverb or any other part of speech between to and the base form of a verb. All this started because some Victorian pedant with too much time on his hands decided that, as Latin has no split infinitives, English shouldn't either. The only problem with that is it's impossible to split a Latin infinitive, because the infinitive is only one word, as in ire - to go, or esse, to be.

Split infinitives often sound 'wrong', perhaps because they're used so rarely, but in some cases a split infinitive is the better choice. Captain James Tiberius Kirk put it best, when he described his 5 year mission - "To boldly go where no man has gone before." "To go boldly..." just isn't the same, and if you can't trust Captain Kirk, who can you trust?

Syzygy wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Peter wrote: Now Star Trek, on the other hand.... Hey Peter,what's a split infinitive? A split infinitive is a question of style, not grammar. There is absolutely nothing wrong, grammatically speaking, with inserting an adverb or any other part of speech between to and the base form of a verb. All this started because some Victorian pedant with too much time on his hands decided that, as Latin has no split infinitives, English shouldn't either. The only problem with that is it's impossible to split a Latin infinitive, because the infinitive is only one word, as in ire - to go, or esse, to be. Split infinitives often sound 'wrong', perhaps because they're used so rarely, but in some cases a split infinitive is the better choice. Captain James Tiberius Kirk put it best, when he described his 5 year mission - "To boldly go where no man has gone before." "To go boldly..." just isn't the same, and if you can't trust Captain Kirk, who can you trust?

Thank you Mr Bryson for allowing Sausages quote you without suing him!

Sometimes you try and bait one member and forget to remove the trap. Then some poor unfortunate nibbles at the bait and whumph,his sense of irony gets lopped off!

Syzygy wrote:  Just dug out my old copy of Mother Tongue - I hadn't realised how closely I was paraphrasing what Bryson wrote. Still, mediocrity borrows but genius steals as someone almost as brainy as what I am once said.

Just remember Reed always finds out. You can't get away with anything!

Remember my expose of the Danbo and Gdub scandal?

Great book BTW I must have read it half a dozen times.

tuxon wrote: I still not understand to what infinitives split into? (should try to keep away from the blue cheese that is)

Infinite halves,then infinite quarters it's obvious.

Just imagine an NFL game!