# A Fitting End!



## Maedhros

From the _Lays of Beleriand: Winter comes to Nargothrond_


> The summer slowly in the sad forest
> waned and faded. In the west arose
> winds that wandered over warring seas.
> Leaves were loosened from labouring boughs:
> fallow-gold they fell, and the feet buried 5
> of trees standing tall and naked,
> rustling restlessly down roofless aisles,
> shifting and drifting.
> The shining vessel
> of the sailing moon with slender mast,
> with shrouds shapen of shimmering flame, 10
> uprose ruddy on the rim of Evening
> by the misty wharves on the margin of the world.
> With winding horns winter hunted
> in the weeping woods, wild and ruthless;
> sleet came slashing, and slanting hail 15
> from glowering heaven grey and sunless,
> whistling whiplash whirled by tempest.
> The floods were freed and fallow waters
> sweeping seaward, swollen, angry,
> filled with flotsam, foaming, turbid, 20
> passed in tumult. The tempest died.
> Frost descended from far mountains
> steel-cold and still. Stony-glinting
> icehung evening was opened wide,
> a dome of crystal over deep silence, 25
> over windless wastes and woods standing
> as frozen phantoms under flickering stars.



Too sad that TTF eventually came down to this, but I guess that it is a fitting end.

El que siembra vientos, cosecha tempestad!


----------



## David Pence

Let me guess, this is another TTF is dead or dying post.

What is it this time? What rule is the last straw? Who left TTF, making it impossible to exist without? Is it that TTF is less active since all the 'movie fans' moved on to the next shiny object? I seem to remember that a big complaint was that TTF was too active. I've seen so many of these TTF is dead posts over the last four years it's ridiculous.


----------



## Aulë

Webmaster said:


> What is it this time? ... Who left TTF, making it impossible to exist without?


Probably me. 
But I'm back.....for a week.
So there's no need to burn the bridges and flee....for a week.


----------



## baragund

Ummm Rica, what is it that TTF has come down to? What end do you see that is so fitting?

btw, that's still a beautiful passage from the Lays although I don't see its applicability here.


----------



## Arvedui

I don't quite understand what your point is Maedhros. Could you please explain?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

As long as there are people who love Tolkien, the man, his works and the whole "atmosphere" that they create, TTF will survive. 

True, as new lovers come and find us, we will have to answer all of those "old" questions over and over (and over) again (Do balrogs _really_ have wings? Who exactly _is_ Tom Bombadil?), but we should be not only willing, but _happy_ to do so because with every new generation, Tolkien will have to be explained anew to those who are attracted to him. To whom much is given, much is required. Those who have chosen to be knowledgeable about Tolkien and his works have a responsibility to share that knowledge with those who are new to the subject. However, interestingly enough, the more we "share", the more we ourselves learn!

The only way TTF will truly "die" is if we allow ourselves to become stagnant, if we do not grow - in knowledge, insight and sharing if not in numbers, then we shall surely diminish and disappear. But in my opinion, there are too many restless and questing minds, too much curiosity, too great a desire to learn and grow, too splended a membership for that to happen.


----------



## Arvegil

Well, speaking as the newbie here, all sites have their up-side and their downside. The down-side here is that there is currently less traffic than one might desire. There is an up-side, as well: the amount of "fluff" posts is pretty low.


While I was not on this board at the time, I recall being on another board last year, this time. Quality posts were sinking to the bottom, ignored, while the same questions were being asked in 35 threads and the Orlando Bloom Fan Club spammed away. It is all a trade-off. While this board could certainly use new blood and/or more postings from current occupants, at least what is here tends to be worthwhile. I gave up for a while. I suppose the issue is whether enough people think this group is worth maintaining.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Webmaster said:


> ...I've seen so many of these "TTF is dead" posts over the last four years it's ridiculous.



That pretty much sums it up!

Barley


----------



## Aulë

Just as a little extra note...and because I feel like procrastinating....here's a few stats about member activity.

Of the 62 "Mighty Members":

14 are still active (myself, Cir, Eledhwen, Eriol, GW, Gil-Galad, greypilgrim, Elgee, Inder, joxy, Lhun, Maeglin, Mrs M & Walter).
10 have had three or less posts in the last 2 weeks.
4 have not posted in the last 2-4 weeks.
7 have not posted in the last 1-3 months.
9 have not posted in the last 3-6 months.
14 have not posted in the last 6-12 months.
4 have not posted in over a year.
Of the 7 Moderators and 3 Super Mods:

Aerin has posted twice in the last 6 months.
Arv is active.
Gandalf the Grey has not posted for 4 months.
Grond has not posted for 3 months.
Ol'gaffer is active.
Tally Mod is active.
Turgon has not posted for 2 months.
Gothmog is active.
Itchy is active
RD has not posted in over a month.
And of our almighty Admins:

Beorn has not posted in over a month.
Webmaster is active.
Food for thought?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Aulë said:


> Of the 62 "Mighty Members"...



What constitutes a "mighty member," post count? And if some of them haven't posted in such a long time, why are they still "mighty?" Not to blow my own horn, but I don't consider myself totally hydrocephalic, nor my posts totally jejune...

Barley


----------



## Aulë

Barliman Butterbur said:


> What constitutes a "mighty member," post count? And if some of them haven't posted in such a long time, why are they still "mighty?" Not to blow my own horn, but I don't consider myself totally hydrocephalic, nor my posts totally jejune...
> 
> Barley


Yes, I was actually wondering why you weren't a "Mighty Member" whilst I was compiling that list. The only thing I could fathom was that everyone who had 1000 posts at the time that WM added the "Mighty Member" feature was put on the list, and that anyone who has reached that number of posts since hasn't automatically been added.

Although the list serves no purpose whatsoever, perhaps an update is in order?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Aulë said:


> Yes, I was actually wondering why you weren't a "Mighty Member" whilst I was compiling that list. The only thing I could fathom was that everyone who had 1000 posts at the time that WM added the "Mighty Member" feature was put on the list, and that anyone who has reached that number of posts since hasn't automatically been added.
> 
> Although the list serves no purpose whatsoever, perhaps an update is in order?



Perhaps — and also, perhaps the Powers That Be consider me a mere upstart, the TTF equivalent of "_nouveau riche_" or are slapping my wrist for being such a troublemaker in the (alas, now non-existent) political/social threads...

Barley


----------



## Aulë

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Perhaps — and also, perhaps the Powers That Be consider me a mere upstart, the TTF equivalent of "_nouveau riche_"...
> 
> Barley


Yes, yes, maybe it's a non-violent protest of theirs in retaliation to all the fuss you caused in those religious and political threads?  For now you can take solace that you've got the highest post count out of all the non-Might Members!  Nevermind, now that they have all been shut down, it is becoming clear that you up up there with some of the best Tolkien loremasters in the forum. No fear- you're _social status_ isn't too far behind everybody's favourite Aussie on the forum...








A_V!!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Aulë said:


> ...your _social status_ isn't too far behind everybody's favourite Aussie on the forum...



You mean...Arthur Vandaley? :::_ducking and running_::: 

Barley


----------



## Aulë

Barliman Butterbur said:


> You mean...Arthur Vandaley? :::_ducking and running_:::
> 
> Barley


Yes, that's what the "A_V" was for at the bottom of the post. 
Hehe- I realised that my TTF social status wasn't too high when I was away for three months, and no one realised that I was gone!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Aulë said:


> Yes, that's what the "A_V" was for at the bottom of the post.
> Hehe- I realised that my TTF social status wasn't too high when I was away for three months, and no one realised that I was gone!



But you're back now!  And, what _did_ happen to Vandelay? Anybody know? I can only speak for myself, but I miss his superb posts! He doesn't answer his PMs...maybe he got bored or disgusted er sumpin'...

Barley


----------



## Aulë

Barliman Butterbur said:


> But you're back now!  And, what _did_ happen to Vandelay? Anybody know? I can only speak for myself, but I miss his superb posts! He doesn't answer his PMs...maybe he got bored or disgusted er sumpin'...
> 
> Barley


He's probably hiding in Tasmania somewhere, now that John Howard has been reelected. I wouldn't expect him back until some time in 2006.  A good chance for me to reclaim my "Favourite Aussie on the forum" mantle again. Hopefully I won't have to organise a 8 month long debating tournament to do so this time- those damn Ost-in-Edhilians still haven't recovered from their ego trip yet . Don't say a word, Arvy.....don't say a word!


----------



## Arvedui

*gloating*  


(notice how I didn't say I word?)


----------



## Aulë

Arvedui said:


> *gloating*
> 
> 
> (notice how I didn't say I word?)


You only won because you somehow bribed the judges... 
And the record between our two extinct Guilds remains at 2-2...and that Elessar's Choice debate still remains the highlight of my time at TTF! 


I suppose I can take solace in knowing that the GoT and GoS didn't win, and that the almighty Periaurans came runners up.....second comes right after first!


----------



## Halasían

*Re: A New Beginning!*



Webmaster said:


> Let me guess, this is another TTF is dead or dying post.
> 
> What is it this time? What rule is the last straw? Who left TTF, making it impossible to exist without? Is it that TTF is less active since all the 'movie fans' moved on to the next shiny object? I seem to remember that a big complaint was that TTF was too active. I've seen so many of these TTF is dead posts over the last four years it's ridiculous.


A big thumbs up to the Webmaster on this. Its kind of nice that its quieted down and the PJ movie swooners have moved on to the next shiny object. Amd the Bookers can be left to discuss (as pointed out.. over and over again) the finer points of the great literary trilogy and associated books...


----------



## Uminya

*grabs pitchfork*

Grab that defeatist scum! Hang'em from the nearest mallorn!


----------



## Thorin

As Treebeard says, "There are so few of us left..."

There are still a few that haven't deserted the forum.
Ciryaher, Ancalagon, Talierin, Lantarion, ReadWryt (thought I haven't seen him for a coon's age) and myself have been here since this forum started up in its current capacity (4 years). I existed before that at the old forum under the name Guibox. We are all still active. Grond and Walter have been around for almost as long and are still active.

There are many here who have seen the ups and downs of the forum and still it lives on. Before and long after the movies die.

Long live TTF!!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Thorin said:


> As Treebeard says, "There are so few of us left..."
> 
> There are still a few that haven't deserted the forum.
> Ciryaher, Ancalagon, Talierin, Lantarion, ReadWryt (thought I haven't seen him for a coon's age) and myself have been here since this forum started up in its current capacity (4 years). I existed before that at the old forum under the name Guibox. We are all still active. Grond and Walter have been around for almost as long and are still active.
> 
> There are many here who have seen the ups and downs of the forum and still it lives on. Before and long after the movies die.
> 
> Long live TTF!!



Cough, cough! Not mentioned....? Not here from the beginning, but still here nonetheless...


----------



## Beorn

*Tidbits*

Aule -- Almost all the mods you quoted which didn't have posts recently have been on in the past few days:

Aerin - Last Online 11-14-2004 07:23 PM
Arvedui - Last Online 11-15-2004 08:12 AM
Beorn - Last Online 11-15-2004 08:40 PM
Gandalf The Grey - Last Online 11-05-2004 06:15 PM
Gil-Galad - Last Online 11-15-2004 03:44 PM
Gothmog - Last Online 11-15-2004 07:07 PM
Ithrynluin - Last Online 11-15-2004 06:09 PM
Lhunithiliel - Last Online 11-15-2004 01:13 AM
Ol'gaffer - Last Online 11-15-2004 07:43 AM
Rangerdave - Last Online 10-28-2004 12:07 PM
Talierin - Last Online 11-15-2004 06:52 PM
Turgon - Last Online 11-15-2004 01:43 PM

Just because we may not post so often doesn't mean we're not active. The last time there was a day I _didn't_ read TTF was in early October because I was on vacation. The time before that was in early August when I was in Florida after Hurricane Charlie, and the time before that was probably sometime in May. I may not post publicly often, but I always read TTF, and do all kinds of stuff.

The Mighty Member list was just a joke, and the criteria for it are explained here.

Arthur_Vandelay was last online November 8th. 

And I can assure you that you will be seeing a lot more of me around in the coming months -- my term paper is on the poetry & songs in The Lord of the Rings, a project which I intend to use to become more involved than I have been recently.

TTF is definitely going slower...there's no doubt about that...it's back to the pace of things _before_ the movies...but slower isn't death. Slower means we can form a much closer community. Slower means we can have less policy and more discussion. Slower means we can have more Tolkien and less Jackson. Slower means we can have more of The *Tolkien* Forum than anything else.


----------



## Uminya

Holy shazbot, Thorin, I realized that I've been here for 5 years, which means that you and Lantifex have been here...at least that much! I think Lanty said he was here a few weeks before I, but I don't know how much longer you'd been here.

Half a decade! Wow!


----------



## Aulë

Ciryaher said:


> Holy shazbot, Thorin, I realized that I've been here for 5 years, which means that you and Lantifex have been here...at least that much! I think Lanty said he was here a few weeks before I, but I don't know how much longer you'd been here.
> 
> Half a decade! Wow!


Some of the current new members were still crawling around in diapers, and drooling all over Barney the Dinosaur toys when you joined....
Makes ya feel old, doesn't it?


----------



## Lhunithiliel

Aulë said:


> I suppose I can take solace in knowing that the GoT and GoS didn't win, and that the almighty Periaurans came runners up.....second comes right after first!


*gloating* 

(notice how I didn't say I word .... *aloud* !!!) (no fitting smily!)

* * * 

Good to have you back, Aussie!


----------



## Uminya

Aulë said:


> Some of the current new members were still crawling around in diapers, and drooling all over Barney the Dinosaur toys when you joined....
> Makes ya feel old, doesn't it?



*polishes his dentures and buffs the chrome finish on his walker*

What? Oh, no, it doesn't make me feel old...ok, yeah it does.


----------



## Thorin

Beorn!!! I forgot the infamous MikeB! He of the "OMG it was horrible!" trilogy! Sorry bud. You've been a vet on here too!


----------



## Bethelarien

Pfft. This isn't the end of TTF. I left, and now look! I'm kind of coming back!

Once this place grabs you, it doesn't let go, no matter how irritated you get with it. *sigh*

This doesn't mean I'm back.

Yet.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Bethelarien said:


> Pfft. This isn't the end of TTF. I left, and now look! I'm kind of coming back!
> 
> Once this place grabs you, it doesn't let go, no matter how irritated you get with it. *sigh*
> 
> This doesn't mean I'm back.
> 
> Yet.



That's what I like: _absolute certainty_ — almost — sort of...

Barley


----------



## baragund

Awww, c'mon Beth. Don't stay mad. There are a lot of folks here (like me) who miss you and would love to see you back.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

*Re: A New Beginning!*



Silvanis said:


> ...the PJ movie swooners have moved on to the next shiny object.



Hey! I resent that!






I'm still here


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

*Re: A New Beginning!*



Silvanis said:


> ...the PJ movie swooners have moved on to the next shiny object.



Snide, snide, snide — typical _purist_ snotty remark. By your (questionable) lights, I'm a "PJ movie swooner," and proud of it! And, _I'm still here too_ and plan to be for a long time. 

In point of fact, I daresay that the "swooners" outnumber the so-called "purists" worldwide by an embarrasing factor, to the point where the "purist" faction is simply irrelevant.

Tom Shippey, writing in _J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century_ says something that is directly applicable to your side of the aisle:

"The assumption seems to be that those of the right way of thinking (Susan Jeffrey's _literati_) will know without being told, and those of the other party do not deserve debate: classic tactics of attempted marginalization."

And again:

"Another feature of response to Tolkien [but in this case, to Peter Jackson] has been what I can only call simple snootiness, and what Orwell called the 'automatic snigger' of the English-speaking Establishment intellectual." (pp. 305, 307-8)

One more thing, Silvanis: using your term, I'm a stone "booker" as well, having been reading Tolkien's works repeatedly, steadily and deeply for over 40 years now, AS WELL AS enjoying PJ's movies. And — lest you perhaps misunderstand the situation — there are a _lot_ of us here who are in that particular boat, loud and proud about it! So settle down, Silvanis; things _have_ quieted down here as you said; let's keep it that way. 

Barley


----------



## Astaldo

I came here after the three movies (which I love them) and I also plan to stay here as more as I can.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Astaldo said:


> I came here after the three movies (which I love them) and I also plan to stay here as more as I can.



You betcha, buddy!!!

Barley


----------



## baragund

I'm in the same boat as Mr. B. I enjoy the movies for what they are yet understand that they do not and cannot completely replicate everything that Tolkien put into his writings.


----------



## joxy

baragund said:


> ....I enjoy the movies for what they are yet understand that they do not and cannot completely replicate everything that Tolkien put into his writings.


Which, for the nth time, no-one ever expected - that the films would replicate everything - the idea of trying is absurd.
The disagreement is between those who enjoy the films and see their faults, and those who enjoy them but do not see the faults.


----------



## Halasían

> The disagreement is between those who enjoy the films and see their faults, and those who enjoy them but do not see _... or want to see_ the faults.


Bingo! This hits it right on the head. Had a big discussion about this elsewhere that would be summed up so easily. Thank you.


----------



## Uminya

What gets me is that there are people who like the films more than the books...


----------



## Astaldo

It's everyone right to believe whatever he wants. If someone likes more the movies I don't think that we should have problems. But if he/she tries to persuade us (who prefer the books) that the movies are better then we have a problem.


----------



## joxy

Thanks for that Silvanis, and you were right to add "or want to see". Would you let me know where that other discussion was?
And if there really are people who prefer the films, then it's they who have the problem, no-one else!


----------



## Gothmog

This thread seems to be wandering from its original intent. Normaly I would try to stop such a thing. However, in this case it only serves to prove my view on the matter which is "What is an 'End'? It is but a beginning". Let us all hail the beginning of the future of TTF.


----------



## Astaldo

Maybe we could take the title of the Star Wars 4th movie "A New Hope".

Anyway. *HAIL THE BEGGINING OF THE FUTURE  *


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

_"The disagreement is between those who enjoy the films and see their faults, and those who enjoy them but do not see ... or want to see the faults."_

The disagreement was — still is, and will always be — between those who see a sufficiency of merit in the films despite the "PJ-isms" and those who don't.

Barley

PS: Those who take a quick look at my avatar will see that I've added to the menu!


----------



## SeeFarHalfElven

_It seems my long absence from the Forums has only deepened my interest in the wealth of comments and conversational threads. I joined across the sea, but had hardly begun to know anyone before my ship sailed away into the mists. _
_My eldest Grandson is now seventeen, a die-hard fan of LOTR and The Hobbit. We read the books together when he was a child and the movies seem to him like a rich dessert after a banquet. Only a Hobbit could enjoy the Middle Earth visuals so completely right on top of all that has gone before._
_'Filling up the corners...'_
_I was given a new link for people who read these books far beyond reasonable numbers of times. I seem to have inadvertently joined those ranks. All of Tolkien's works interest and energize me, but the three books of LOTR have deeply influenced my existence. _


----------



## Bethelarien

baragund said:


> Awww, c'mon Beth. Don't stay mad. There are a lot of folks here (like me) who miss you and would love to see you back.


Pfft. Sure. I don't know yet, I don't know how much I'd actually contribute. But strangely enough (or perhaps not), I really do miss this dusty old place, what with all the nice men to flirt with.


----------



## Arvedui

Bethelarien said:


> Pfft. Sure. I don't know yet, I don't know how much I'd actually contribute. But strangely enough (or perhaps not), I really do miss this dusty old place, what with all the nice men to flirt with.


You're most welcome


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

I do believe - although I could be wrong - that the film addicts referred to (that is, those moving on to the next "shiny object") are people who have no delight in Tolkien, but rather are attracted by the latest fad (no pun intended) and once that is over, move on to the next bit of entertainment "hype". Tolkien lovers who did - or did not - like the films were not the object of the comment. And let's face it, those who went all sloppy over this or that "hunk" and blathered endlessly about which cast member was more "gorgeous" are hardly likely to be interested in dusty old books when there is some other _new_ film about which to become enraptured.

To me, the comment had nothing whatever to do with the worth or lack thereof of the films themselves, but with those people who are in fact attracted by "the next shiny object" and therefore unlikely to remain active members.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

SeeFarHalfElven said:


> It seems my long absence from the Forums has only deepened my interest in the wealth of comments and conversational threads. I joined across the sea, but had hardly begun to know anyone before my ship sailed away into the mists.



Well, _welcome back!_ Looking forward to your further postings!

Barley


----------



## Ol'gaffer

I came for the films, I stay for the films, I love the films, and I see no reason for the death of the forum. Again, if one person leaves, it's no end, unless that person is the webmaster


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Ol'gaffer said:


> I came for the films, I stay for the films, I love the films, and I see no reason for the death of the forum. Again, if one person leaves, it's no end, unless that person is the webmaster



Jeeze — your sig's longer than your post! And wait till I tell Syd Fields you've abandoned him!

Barley


----------



## Ol'gaffer

Well, there wasn't really anything to say to this thread that I haven't said before. My signature on the other hand, has some important things to say and needs every line 

Tell Syd that his books continue to be a source for wisdom and inspiration every day.


----------



## baragund

Mrs. Maggott said:


> And let's face it, those who went all sloppy over this or that "hunk" and blathered endlessly about which cast member was more "gorgeous" are hardly likely to be interested in dusty old books when there is some other _new_ film about which to become enraptured.




Ahhh Mrs B, I can blather pretty endlessly about how gorgeous I found Liv Tyler's Arwen character. And the way she pitched her voice for that character would make reading the federal tax code sound like poetry. But I also happen to _love_ dusty old books.

It _is_ possible to be a devotee of Tolkien's writings, to seek the last shred of insight and wisdom that went into his creation of Middle-earth yet enjoy the films in their own right.


----------



## Bethelarien

Arvedui said:


> You're most welcome


Oooh, you'd better watch out, Arvy, or I'll be coming after you next!


----------



## Arvedui

I'm watching...


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

baragund said:


> Ahhh Mrs B, I can blather pretty endlessly about how gorgeous I found Liv Tyler's Arwen character. And the way she pitched her voice for that character would make reading the federal tax code sound like poetry. But I also happen to _love_ dusty old books.
> 
> It _is_ possible to be a devotee of Tolkien's writings, to seek the last shred of insight and wisdom that went into his creation of Middle-earth yet enjoy the films in their own right.



I am not referring to those who were addressing the actors with regard to their _performance_ in the films or even making mention of their physical characteristics which might - or might not - have been appropriate for the character involved. Rather, I am speaking about the "groupies" who are enchanted with certain actors to the point of silliness. I am sure you know to what I am referring and it has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with artistic merit or even the subject of the films and everything to do with mostly adolescent hormones!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

baragund said:


> ...Liv Tyler's Arwen character...the way she pitched her voice for that character would make reading the federal tax code sound like poetry.



! Ah _luvvit!!!_ 

I'm thinking about a lot of funny/suggestive continuations of this delectable line of thought, _none_ of which would (alas!) be appropriate for this family-friendly venerable venue!

Barley


----------



## Thorin

Ol'gaffer said:


> My signature on the other hand, has some important things to say and needs every line


Forgive me, Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs, but I am going way off topic here by dealing with gaffer's signature by the dreaded Phillipa Boyen.

What Ms. Boyen has failed to realize in their botching of Faramir's character is that Tolkien intended to show that there are some characters who do not have such an obvious moral ambiguity. In the contrast of good vs evil, each has their own players. Unlike the other humans in the book, Faramir acknowledges Eru in Ithilien and is a pupil of Gandalf and not his father, therefore he looks to Gandalf for his wisdom and common sense. He is patient and not impulsive "I spare a brief time to judge justly in hard matter" (TTT p. 273) He is different. He is a moral being. One who sees both sides of the equation, even in war. Boromir wanted power and his thirst for conquering made him fall to the ring's power. Faramir had no such ambitions and knew the power of corruption. Tolkien intended to show that good can and will triumph over evil and intended to show that through Faramir. Tolkien's full intention was to make him different than Boromir. Therefore, the choices they make would be different as well.

The value of truth is so important to Faramir that he wouldn't even go back on his word even to an enemy. It is not downplaying the power of the ring that Faramir does not go back on his word when he promised that he wouldn't take whatever it was that drove Boromir mad before he knew it was the ring and that it was in his presence, it is the integrity of Faramir's moral character that Tolkien gave him and showed to the readers that Faramir was different from all the others.

Boromir, with much less morals and integrity in his character didn't succumb to the ring despite his lust for power, for months after being in the ring's presence. Yet, a character so obviously portrayed and intended by Tolkien to have a much stronger disposition in character an morals is downplaying the power of the ring by not taking it, despite only being in its presence for merely a day or two??

Again, the movie makers have stripped logic and moral value out of what Tolkien fully intended to portray in his characters to show the contrast between good and evil both in situations and character.

Gimli, Aragorn, Gandalf, Boromir, Legolas and even the hobbits (who are much weaker than Faramir,save Gandalf and Aragorn) had more opportunity. Yet they didn't take the ring despite numerous opporunities and temptations. Only Boromir did after a looooong time.

There is no logical reasoning behind Boyen's comments, especially when talking about Faramir. They have neglected the literary value of Tolkien's intentions for a moral being in favor of the weak morals of all the other characters who succumb.

I recommend for all the book "Following Gandalf" by Matthew Dickerson. It is a fantastic book on the morals and values of LoTR. Excellent book.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Thorin said:


> There is no logical reasoning behind Boyen's comments, especially when talking about Faramir.



First of all, I agree with Thorin in the main. What needs to be kept in mind is why those changes were made in the first place: they wanted to make more of Denethor, so they built a whole soap opera around his lust for power, and invented Faramir's yearning to please his unpleasable father, even if it meant his own death. All needless, in my opinion, as were the outrageous scenes of Gollum framing Sam with the lembas crumbs. 

So since I don't hold with those two changes, I don't hold with Boyen's rationale either.

PJ said in an interview on the first DVD that he didn't want to bring his "garbage" into the film, that it was Tolkien's movie. Well, so much for that! That said, I still enjoy the movies on their own terms, knowing full well that PJ left his (at times very annoying and probably inevitable) fingerprint on them. Please let's _not_ start it up between the movie fans and the purists again! Been there, done that!

Now — can we get back to the original subject of this thread: mourning the death of TTF — yet again?

Barley


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Thorin said:


> Forgive me, Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs, but I am going way off topic here by dealing with gaffer's signature by the dread Phillipa Boyen.
> 
> What Ms. Boyen has failed to realize in their botching of Faramir's character is that Tolkien intended to show that there are some characters who do not have such an obvious moral ambiguity. In the contrast of good vs evil, each has their own players. Unlike the other humans in the book, Faramir acknowledges Eru in Ithilien and is a pupil of Gandalf and not his father, therefore he looks to Gandalf for his wisdom and common sense. He is patient and not impulsive "I spare a brief time to judge justly in hard matter" (TT.p273) He is different. He is a moral being. One who sees both sides of the equation, even in war. Boromir wanted power and his thirst for conquering made him fall to the ring's power. Faramir had no such ambitions and knew the power of corruption. Tolkien's full intention was to make him different than Boromir. THerefore, the choices they make would be different as well.
> 
> 
> The value of truth is so important to Faramir that he wouldn't even go back on his word even to an enemy. It is not downplaying the power of the ring that Faramir does not go back on his word, it is the integrity of Faramir's moral character that Tolkien made him so obvious with and above all other men, save Aragorn.
> 
> Boromir, a much less morals and integrity in his character didn't succumb to the ring, despite his lust for power, for months after being in the ring in its presence. Yet, a higher moral character is not supposed to take the ring even being in its presence for merely a day or two because it demeans the power of the ring?
> 
> Again, the movie makers have stripped logic and moral value out of what Tolkien fully intended to portray in his characters to make them different from others.
> 
> Gimli, Aragorn, Gandalf, Boromir, Legolas and even the hobbits had more opportunity and are much weaker than Faramir (save Gandalf and Aragorn), yet they didn't take the ring despite numerous opporunities and temptations. Only Boromir did after a looooong time.
> 
> There is no logical reasoning behind Boyen's comments, especially when talking about Faramir.


What one cannot understand, one cannot portray. Boyen (and Jackson) are relativists and not, like Tolkien, absolutists. Therefore, they see his portrayal of characters like Faramir (and Aragorn and eventually Gandalf) as "simplistic" and "unrealistic". After all, everyone _knows_ that such people simply _don't exist_ - except in childish fairy tales. 

Hence, the Jackson mermidons are able to portray the _darker_ characters better simply because they understand where they are "coming from". On the other hand, they have to take heroic characters and weaken them (Frodo and Theoden) or make them "conflicted" (Aragorn and Faramir) or clueless (Treebeard) or mere objects of "fun" (Merry, Pippin and Gimli). And if one character should become _more_ "heroic" (Aragorn in ROTK), then to keep the "balance" of "reality", another character has to become _less_ so (Gandalf in ROTK). 

Frankly, it is not surprising that these films turned out as they did for you had people "translating" the story who simply, in the end, did not understand it and so had to remake it in their own relativistic and worldly image. In that effort, I suppose one must say that they did a "good job".


----------



## Uminya

Now hold on there, Mrs. M. Just because someone enjoyed watching a film doesn't mean that they want to burn every copy of Lord of the Rings that they find. What you continue to be unable to comprehend is that people are capable of seperating movie and book, and enjoying both for their merits.

You seem to think anyone who likes the movies is an idiot, and unworthy, somehow, of ever comprehending Tolkien's genius. You have transcended being a "purist" (someone who dislikes the changes made in the film), apparently, and have leapt to the new heights of "elitist".


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

You are responding to a statement that was never made. I made no judgment regarding those who had no problem with Jackson & Co.'s interpretation of the story. I merely posited _why_ they were so clueless regarding Tolkien's characters. If you enjoyed what they did, all well and good. However, I don't think that even the most ardent FAD can claim that the films were true to Tolkien's characters!

However, we are getting "off track" (as usual) and back to the same old same old from the film threads. Criticism of the films is _*NOT*_ criticism of those who liked them. However, since we have been over this ground far too many times in the past and the same response seems to be forthcoming from FADs everytime some criticism of the films is presented, it is obviously pointless to continue making it. 

Back to the subject of the thread: I don't believe that the site will disappear even if the films eventually do. Unless of course, the WM gets tired of the whole thing and retreats to a monastery in Tibet!


----------



## Talierin

why in the hell has this turned into a movie thread?


----------



## Ithrynluin

Doesn't it always!?


----------



## Gothmog

Ok. we have now done the "Movie Thing" in this thread  Perhaps we should do "Balrog Wings" next.  If not back to the topic please.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Talierin said:


> why in the hell has this turned into a movie thread?


Bad luck?


----------



## Uminya

Well I think the liveliness of the debate that has spawned disproves Maedhros completely. Close the thread and let's take this to the playground!!

*dons T-Birds leather jacket and grabs whiffle-bat*


----------



## Walter

I don't think that what happened in this thread _disproves Maedhros_ at all. Rather, I think, Rica's post has been widely misunderstood.

I am not sure that there is more than a handful of members left on TTF who 

a) could match his in-depth knowledge of Tolkien's legendarium 

AND 

b) still seem to be willing to discuss this at a somewhat more detailed level here. 

And this could very well be, what he attempted to address in his post....


----------



## Bree friend

Greetings Tolkien Fans I'm new -today!--I have a question i've always wanted to ask other ardent fans that my friends and relatives haven't been able to answer.It is something I noticed in tfotr movie. Just for the record I read the books for the first time in 1972 and am thrilled withthe movies (PJ is brilliant) Back to the question Do you think in the Bree scene in the rain when the hobbits first arrive in Bree, do you think that rain-drenched guy on the right in the street is a cameo appearance by Peter ??? If so, how cool is that!! just like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies He would always have a tiny cameo in each film. Please reply i'm looking forward to asking a few more similar questions of you.Sincerely Bree friend


----------



## Thorin

Talierin said:


> why in the hell has this turned into a movie thread?


You're looking right at him! This cursed, thick headed dwarf is the culprit!  

I gleefully take responsibility for this going off track. I had to respond to gaffer's signature that he deemed so worthy of everyone's attention. I figured it was time that I started a misleading track rather than have to deal with bringing it back on track like I have the past four years.  

And just for Barliman, and the mods wanting to keep this on track....

Balrog's don't have wings! WHOOHOOOO!!!!


----------



## Uminya

Well, Walter, maybe if Comrade Maedhros, all-knowing master that he is, would grace us once more with his presence and clarify himself, we would not have had such a discussion as we did.

Burgeoisie scum.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

I'm very tempted to say that once again all the responses that I got for defending the changes cinematically speaking, concentrated on the books as if they're common knowledge that everyone knows. That not a single person thought about how it works cinematically to audiences not familiar with the story other than the basic plot. 

But I won't say it, nuh-uh, I won't


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Ciryaher said:


> Now hold on there, Mrs. M. Just because someone enjoyed watching a film doesn't mean that they want to burn every copy of Lord of the Rings that they find. What you continue to be unable to comprehend is that people are capable of seperating movie and book, and enjoying both for their merits.
> 
> You seem to think anyone who likes the movies is an idiot, and unworthy, somehow, of ever comprehending Tolkien's genius. You have transcended being a "purist" (someone who dislikes the changes made in the film), apparently, and have leapt to the new heights of "elitist".



Oh boy, here we go again...  Hell, let's start up the religion and politics threads again too!

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Bree friend said:


> ...Do you think in the Bree scene in the rain when the hobbits first arrive in Bree, do you think that rain-drenched guy on the right in the street is a cameo appearance by Peter ???



Absolutely! He holds a carrot, and if you listen, fires a belch at the audience! He's also in the Battle of Helm's Deep (TTT), hurling a spear and wearing a fierce face!

More important, welcome, O Newcomer, to the asylum!

Barley


----------



## joxy

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Now — can we get back to the original subject of this thread:....


Yes, as long as there's time for me to say that I was planning to make a brief riposte to the absurdity of P Boyens' shallow thinking, but now I am grateful to you, and to Thorin, for saying it all, far better than I could have done.


----------



## Bethelarien

Oh, for the love of all that is holy.

It's ridiculous things like this that made me leave the forum in the first place. No matter what the topic is, certain people always manage to turn it into some huge debate bashing Jackson and the movies. That was not, nor is it now the point of this thread. Time was when the mods would have been much stricter about staying on topic and either moved or closed this thread. I guess things have changed. But for the love of God, let's not get into this _again_. It's pointless. You're never going to change each other's opinions, so give it a bloody rest.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Bethelarien said:


> ...for the love of God, let's not get into this _again_. It's pointless. You're never going to change each other's opinions, so give it a bloody rest.



As the geologist said, "My sediments exactly!"

::: _makes one more valiant attempt to drag the subject back into line_ :::

I say: *Resolved:* TTF is too well established to _ever_ just fade away, for any reason whatsoever. In fact, just in the last several days I noticed at least two, perhaps three new members, all of whom look like serious contenders, heavy hitters all!

Barley


----------



## Gothmog

Bethelarien said:


> Oh, for the love of all that is holy.
> 
> It's ridiculous things like this that made me leave the forum in the first place. No matter what the topic is, certain people always manage to turn it into some huge debate bashing Jackson and the movies. That was not, nor is it now the point of this thread. *Time was when the mods would have been much stricter about staying on topic and either moved or closed this thread. I guess things have changed*. But for the love of God, let's not get into this _again_. It's pointless. You're never going to change each other's opinions, so give it a bloody rest.


Beth. You seem to think that the Mods are on-line at all times and able to check out each thread after each individual post. This is not the case. This thread has indeed wandered and you can find a gentle hint from myself to all posters about this a couple of posts up. Since that post I have not had the chance to recheck the thread and it is very likely that any other Mods looking at it would have left the managment of it to me since despite its wandering there has been nothing in it to require immediate attention.

However, since the "Hint" did not work:

Any further posts continuing the "Movie Arguments" will result in a thread cleaning that will involve the removal of *all* such posts.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gothmog said:


> ...since the "Hint" did not work:
> 
> Any further posts continuing the "Movie Arguments" will result in a thread cleaning that will involve the removal of *all* such posts.



Ooooooooh! A "thread cleaning???" I get _frissons_ just thinking of it! 

(And, my post #78 on this thread still stands! Will no one rise to the occasion?)

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

joxy said:


> ...I am grateful to you, and to Thorin, for saying it all, far better than I could have done.



You are *too kind* — _no one_ puts things more uniquely nor inimitably that you do, m'friend!

Barley


----------



## SeeFarHalfElven

_It is barely noon here, and there are still more posts to read before I go. It seems the time ran out on this thread without my realizing. Apologies to the esteemed mocerators._

_Many of my Island Friends are hampered in joining the Forums. Believe that I am considered quite adventurous for joining. To date, i am reading far more posts than I contribute, and learning new things every login. It is good to be part of the vast collected mindforce focused on this man's works._


----------



## Gothmog

> Ooooooooh! A "thread cleaning???" I get frissons just thinking of it!
> 
> (And, my post #78 on this thread still stands! Will no one rise to the occasion?)




I agree with your view in post #78 I believe that TTF is indeed to well established to simply fade away.

SeeFarHalfElven:
Time has not yet run out on this thread.  Welcome to the TTF and I hope that soon you will have the time to join in as well as read the threads here. I look forward to that time.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott

Post 78: Good pun although that phrase might be considered an oxymoron since I find all puns irritating. Howevever, once in a while a relatively good one does occur. But as I am married to an unrepentant (and frankly lousy) punster, I mostly find them irritating.

Post 78: Statement about the Forum. I agree, so I didn't feel the need to "reply"

Re: film disputes: If members wish to continue the debate (and new members sometimes also join in), as it is considered "Tolkien related", I fail to see why we should be blamed when it chances to happen. I don't suggest that such topics of debate should be _initiated purposely_ outside of the film threads, but when somehow it gets "introduced" into a topic - provided, of course, that there is a reasonable basis for its introduction and that it isn't simply "stuck in" to cause controversy - then the members should be allowed to at least complete their thoughts before returning to the original thread. In this way, "newbies" can get an idea of certain positions by members of longer standing without accessing all the past threads. 

If others are interested in developing the topic further or at least hearing about it in greater depths, they can access those threads or start a thread of their own asking those questions that interest them. However, no one should be so sure that all of this has been "heard before" by those involved in the discussion. New members may be accessing the threads and hearing what the various members have to say for the first time. And, of course, for those who "don't want to hear it", well all they have to do is simply "skip over" the controversy and they will be spared.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Mrs. Maggott said:


> ...I find all puns irritating. ... I am married to an unrepentant ... punster...



*'Pun my word,* what a calamity! (I love your good husband already! He and I know that the more atrocious the pun, the bigger the grimace it elicits, the better it is!) 

Barley


----------



## joxy

Gothmog said:


> Any further posts continuing the "Movie Arguments" will result in a thread cleaning that will involve the removal of *all* such posts.


Ol'Gaffer, a moderator, has attached to all his posts a long quotation which is in itself a source of controversy, and which was the reason for the diversion in this thread.



Bethelarion said:


> ....certain people always manage to turn it into some huge debate bashing Jackson and the movies.


There has been no "huge debate", and there has been no "bashing".
What there has been is "agreement to differ", among friends, as B-B, generous as always, suggests in his posting #81.


----------



## Gothmog

joxy said:


> Ol'Gaffer, a moderator, has attached to all his posts a long quotation which is in itself a source of controversy, and which was the reason for the diversion in this thread.
> 
> 
> There has been no "huge debate", and there has been no "bashing".
> What there has been is "agreement to differ", among friends, as B-B, generous as always, suggests in his posting #81.


I am, and indeed was, aware of the reason for the diversion of the thread into the movie argument. I did not object to this (in fact I was considering a comment in similar vien to Thorin's post myself  ). However, at the point where I felt that enough had been said on the subject in *this* thread I posted a comment suggesting that view.

After this, as the posts continued to wander from the topic of the thread I posted stating that there had been enough of the movie on this thread.


----------



## Arvedui

I guess that that is not a pun?


----------



## Maedhros

> What is it this time? What rule is the last straw? Who left TTF, making it impossible to exist without? Is it that TTF is less active since all the 'movie fans' moved on to the next shiny object? I seem to remember that a big complaint was that TTF was too active. I've seen so many of these TTF is dead posts over the last four years it's ridiculous.


Since I'm a tolkien fan, I will use Tolkien's poetry instead of my own words:
_Mar Vanwa Tyaliéva_


> We knew that land once, You and I,
> and once we wandered there
> in the long days now long gone by,
> a dark child and a fair.
> Was it on the paths of firelight thought
> in winter cold and white,
> or in the blue-spun twilit hours
> of little early tucked-up beds
> in drowsy summer night,
> that you and I in Sleep went down
> to meet each other there,
> your dark hair on your white nightgown
> and mine was tangled fair?





> But why it was there came a time
> When we could take the road no more,
> Though long we looked, and high would climb,
> Or gaze from many a seaward shore
> To find the path between sea and sky
> To those old gardens of delight;
> And how it goes now in that land,
> If there the house and gardens stand,
> Still filled with children clad in white —
> We know not, You and I.
> And why it was Tomorrow came
> And with his grey hand led us back;
> And why we never found the same
> Old cottage, or the magic track
> That leads between a silver sea
> And those old shores and gardens fair
> Where all things are, that ever were —
> We know not, You and Me.



As to answer the question about who left TTF?



> Glad was Eärendil to greet Tuor, and Tuor most fain of his child; but said Eärendil: "I am thirsty, father, for I have run far − nor had Hendor need to bear me." Thereto his father said nought, having no water, and thinking of the need of all that company that he guided; but Eärendil said again: "'Twas good to see Maeglin die so, for he would set arms about my mother − and I liked him not; but I would travel in no tunnels for all Morgoth's wolfriders." Then Tuor smiled and set him upon his shoulders. Soon after this the main company came up, and Tuor gave Eärendil to his mother who was in a great joy; but Eärendil would not be borne in her arms, for he said: "Mother Idril, thou art weary, and as a warrior among the Gondolindrim in mail I won’t ride like old Talagand!" and his mother laughed amid her sorrow; but Eärendil said: "Nay, where is Talagand?" − for Talagand had told him quaint tales or played drolleries with him at times, and Eärendil had much laughter of the old Elf in those days when he came many a day to the house of Tuor, loving the good wine and fair repast he there received. But none could say where Talagand was, nor can they now. Mayhap he was whelmed by fire upon his bed; yet some have it that he was taken captive to the halls of Morgoth and made his buffoon − and this is an ill fate for a noble of the good race of the Elves. Then was Eärendil sad at that, and walked beside his mother in silence.


----------



## joxy

Gothmog said:


> ....as the posts continued to wander from the topic of the thread....


As long as Ol'G's postings have six lines of silliness from Mrs PJ attached to them, *every* thread he posts to will wander into film.


----------



## Ithrynluin

joxy said:


> As long as Ol'G's postings have six lines of silliness from Mrs PJ attached to them, *every* thread he posts to will wander into film.



Through no fault of his own. If people cannot restrain themselves to post about certain topics in certain fora, that is wholly their own fault, and the posts in question shall receive moderation.

Whether the contents of someone's signature is silliness or not according to your judgement or mine, is also completely irrelevant.

And since this thread does not seem to serve any apparent purpose, it is being closed. However, those with a strong desire to express themselves with longish book quotes, are more than welcome to do so in one of the many book sections around the place.


----------

