Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

West Lancs looks like a LAB hold on small turnout – politicalbetting.com

168101112

Comments

  • sladeslade Posts: 1,669
    Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).
  • Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

    Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

    There won't be a series 2, sadly.

    (The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

    Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

    There won't be a series 2, sadly.

    (The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

    Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.
  • HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,984
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

    To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.
    Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.
    Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

    In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.
    But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


    Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

    'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

    'Go back!' he whispered.

    'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

    'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

    Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,013
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    After certain people wetting their knickers at the prospect of Mad Vlad nuking the world earlier, this hours long delay is even more amusing.

    Oh to be a fly on the wall of what's going on behind the scenes in recent week. Putin must surely be getting to Bruno Ganz levels of anger and delusion.

    That is an authentically fuckwitted post. Sure, it's long, long odds against Vlad nuking London and it's also a no-lose bet because if he does, who is going to be posting on what PB to point out what an arse you are? But this "hur hir hur knicker wetters" stuff is pure, unadulterated, way out there wankerdom, because grown ups actually sit up and take notice when the odds shorten from 9000-1 to 25-1, even if both is still long odds against.

    There's a well loved poster here who spent Dec 2019 saying Hur hur hur, like Trump is actually going to resort to violence to overturn the result like the bedwetters say he was. After 6/1/20 he went quiet for a couple of weeks to work on the what I MEANT was script. Not gonna name him, mistake Anaboda could make.
    There ends a Party Political Broadcast for the PuritanBedwetters Party

    Even if odds have shortened from 9000 million -1, to 25 million -1, "sitting up and taking notice" isn't what grown ups do. How exactly are you taking up and taking notice? Are you practicing your duck and cover manoeuvres? Are you practicing how to hide under your desk if the big one comes?
    Barty, you are a dickless little fuckwit. I spend most of my spare time, which is actually most of my time, practising a hobby which, I was pleased to learn the other day, is 20 times more dangerous than motorbike racing. That is how timorous I am. So fuck off. Go on, march on Moscow so we can see what a man you are.
    You seem very angry for a pink children's character. Nonetheless your earlier analysis of Truss was faultless despite 'Root describing it as a diatribe.
    Yeah, but I do think I am closer to the ideal walk it/talk it ratio of 1/1 than Barty gets.

    I was way understating it about Truss, as of course you realise.
    Indeed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,189
    slade said:

    Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).

    I think I would take my chances with nuclear war if the alternative was being stuck in Tenerife for ever. La Gomera was beautiful however
  • Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

    Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

    There won't be a series 2, sadly.

    (The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

    Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.
    I wouldn't bother, it got cancelled after one season, no point investing your time watching it.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    He cant win. Goes to Aus first, what a snub to our nearest ally.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,710
    slade said:

    Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).

    I’m probably utterly fucked here in Turkey at the moment. Ah well. I’ll enjoy the wine whilst I can
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,605

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

    To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.
    Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.
    Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

    In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.
    But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


    Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

    'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

    'Go back!' he whispered.

    'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

    'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

    Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.
    That's at the end of Book 1. It's afterwards he seems to fade into the background.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497
    edited September 2022

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    Surely you'd appreciate his efforts to bring France into the Commonwealth, as part of his eventual plans to resurrect the ancient claims from the Treaty of Troyes, as Driver and Malmesbury suggests?

    Baby steps. The man is more cunning than we thought.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

    Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

    There won't be a series 2, sadly.

    (The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

    Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.
    I wouldn't bother, it got cancelled after one season, no point investing your time watching it.
    I can live with that.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,984
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

    To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.
    Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.
    Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

    In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.
    But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


    Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

    'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

    'Go back!' he whispered.

    'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

    'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

    Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.
    That's at the end of Book 1. It's afterwards he seems to fade into the background.
    Somewhat - but in the films all Frodo is good for is putting on the Ring at the wrong moment.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,669
    HYUFD said:

    slade said:

    Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).

    I think I would take my chances with nuclear war if the alternative was being stuck in Tenerife for ever. La Gomera was beautiful however
    It's a bit like Corfu - some bits are quite nice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or a movie that would be 5 hours long.

    What was a big error was not wrapping up the Saruman plot in the theatrical version. It only took 5 minutes!
  • HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

    https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    I never got around to it. I don't think I should now.

    Then again, Good Omens the show was very good.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

    To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.
    Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.
    Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

    In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.
    But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


    Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

    'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

    'Go back!' he whispered.

    'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

    'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

    Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.
    That's at the end of Book 1. It's afterwards he seems to fade into the background.
    Somewhat - but in the films all Frodo is good for is putting on the Ring at the wrong moment.
    My wife disliked the films because she thought Frodo was a whiny, snivelling brat. Even now many years after seeing it, if they come up in conversation she'll pull a look and say how terribly Frodo treated Sam over the bread.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

    To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.
    Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.
    Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

    In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.
    But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


    Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

    'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

    'Go back!' he whispered.

    'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

    'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

    Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.
    That's at the end of Book 1. It's afterwards he seems to fade into the background.
    Somewhat - but in the films all Frodo is good for is putting on the Ring at the wrong moment.
    I love the movies, and think they hold up well, but even at the time I thought they made Frodo too much of a weedy drip. The point about him at least trying at the ford I always thought was important. Too soft and young.

    I know people, though, who didn't like Eowyn looking scared shitless as she took on the Witch-King, on the basis she was meant to be more fearless. But I think it played a lot better as they filmed it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,041

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

    Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

    There won't be a series 2, sadly.

    (The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

    Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.
    I wouldn't bother, it got cancelled after one season, no point investing your time watching it.
    I can live with that.
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    I never got around to it. I don't think I should now.

    Then again, Good Omens the show was very good.
    Yes, and we’ll received by fans. I ‘think’ Neil had more control/input.

    For The Watch they reused a set from another production which hugely affected the feel of the show. And rewrote the essential nature of main characters (who originally were to have been only tangential to the main stories). Skys versions of Going Postal, Hogfather etc are far closer to Pratchet and much easier for fans. So much so that a lot of the fancy dress was from Going Postal.
  • Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-
    state-visit-destination-might-surprise/


    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    More of an insult to Liz “jury’s out” Trussticles
  • Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

    Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

    There won't be a series 2, sadly.

    (The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

    Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.
    I wouldn't bother, it got cancelled after one season, no point investing your time watching it.
    I can live with that.
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    I never got around to it. I don't think I should now.

    Then again, Good Omens the show was very good.
    Yes, and we’ll received by fans. I ‘think’ Neil had more control/input.

    For The Watch they reused a set from another production which hugely affected the feel of the show. And rewrote the essential nature of main characters (who originally were to have been only tangential to the main stories). Skys versions of Going Postal, Hogfather etc are far closer to Pratchet and much easier for fans. So much so that a lot of the fancy dress was from Going Postal.
    Sky's Going Postal was fun, and didn't take itself too seriously, which is kind of the whole point of Pratchett.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,013
    slade said:

    Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).

    Just volcanos and mega tsunamis to concern yourself with.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.
    Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

    To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.
    Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.
    Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

    In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.
    But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


    Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

    'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

    'Go back!' he whispered.

    'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

    'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

    Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.
    That's at the end of Book 1. It's afterwards he seems to fade into the background.
    Somewhat - but in the films all Frodo is good for is putting on the Ring at the wrong moment.
    Yeah, they did get Frodo wrong.
    Not as bad as the slapstick buffoon they turned Gimli into, though.
    The rest of the characters were good, though.
    Apart from Elrond.
    And they destroyed Denethor.
    And Faramir.
    Merry and Pippin had their downsides exaggerated a bit too much.
    And Fangorn turned into an easily manipulated moron.
    Aragorn came over well until he suddenly murdered an emissary under truce, which rather destroyed his entire theme.



    Okay. They got Gandalf and Boromir right. I’ll give them that.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    kle4 said:

    Meanwhile, at fantasybooks.com supporters of Liz Truss are angrily sparring with the Starmerites.

    Would love it if that’s true…
  • kle4 said:

    Meanwhile, at fantasybooks.com supporters of Liz Truss are angrily sparring with the Starmerites.

    LOL.

    Though as it happens my first political arguments online were off topic conversations from a forum then linked to at wheeloftime.com so you never know!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,189
    edited September 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    It won't, as Carlotta states George VIth also went to France on his first State Visit.

    The Queen made State visits to Panama and Libya before visiting a Commonwealth country.


    In any case a visit to a Commonwealth realm by the King is not technically a State Visit anyway as he is its Head of State.
  • HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

    https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
    Bless you, you sweet innocent child, international travel is much different today to 1937.
  • CNBC - Putin postpones surprise speech to Russians for unknown reasons

    Russian President Vladimir Putin failed for unknown reasons to deliver a nationally televised speech that would have been his first since the invasion of Ukraine earlier this year.

    Putin has postponed the speech, which was expected to discuss the situation in Ukraine, until Wednesday, according to a Telegram post by Sergei Markov, a former advisor to the Russian leader,

    “Go to sleep,” wrote Margarita Simonyan, the editor of RT, a Russian state media outlet, on her own Telegram account.
  • BREAK: Around 200 people, mainly Muslims, have arrived outside the Durga Bhawan Hindu Centre in Smethwick, West Mids - one bottle has been thrown although the situation has calmed slightly for now. There is a growing police presence @SkyNews

    https://twitter.com/danwnews/status/1572274698813313027
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    I know, that Alec Guinness chap is terrible. Wasn’t he replaced for some of the later films? You can see why…
  • kle4 said:

    Meanwhile, at fantasybooks.com supporters of Liz Truss are angrily sparring with the Starmerites.

    IIRC a few months ago on railforums they really were discussing AV and other voting systems.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497
    Anyway, I'm just hoping that terribly dull Dune movie does well in its second part, as I want to see them go on to tackle a main character turning into a giant worm tyrant over 3000 years, and then a galactic conflict (that we barely see) between a devious controlling sisterhood and their rivals who controled people through sexual enslavement, before an utterly incomprehensible plan involving raising clones of dead characters to combat some ancient AI.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,057

    HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    He cant win. Goes to Aus first, what a snub to our nearest ally.
    It's a no brainer really - France: 2 or 3 days. Aus/NZ: 2 or 3 weeks. Obviously you can do the former first.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,497

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    I know, that Alec Guinness chap is terrible. Wasn’t he replaced for some of the later films? You can see why…
    It wasn't him I was thinking of, though you can tell he doesn't give a shit for the film.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,060

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    House of the Dragon is pretty good. Paddy Considine steals every scene he is in as the King. Theres some wokery and some fucking your niece incest
    Cool! Thanks

    I mean cool that it’s good, not that incest is cool. OBVS
    Re incest, I'll take your word for it, I've never tried to find out.

    But yes, House of the Dragon is perfectly watchable.

    The Lord of the Rings is really not.
    Whaaaaaaaaaat? You are so wrong. Rings of power is best middle earth ever. Even better than Tolkiens Middle earth. The series is pacy, amazing to look at amazing on the ear, very well storyboarded with good dialogue and brilliant acting (that comes from good writing teams and lots of rehearsal) and brilliant direction, I’m loving it and can’t get enough of it. I recommend everybody to give the first four episodes a go, most people will enjoy this.
    Tolkien’s phoey writing, and Jackson’s Theme Park films, don’t have motivation or emotional depth in characters - but these rings of power writers put real earth into middle earth through real motivation for action, where you distrust others for previously being on the wrong side, hate your predecessors and family for backing the wrong side - just like leave and remain split all PBers can relate to - where the motivation of the character the orcs call father is he wants power and to become a God - just like Boris Johnson! Tolkiens writing and Jackson’s films never achieve such richness in motivation and purpose behind everything going on, as they are trying to achieve here.

    And everyone is on board with it, right approach or copyrights or not.

    https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    kle4 said:

    Anyway, I'm just hoping that terribly dull Dune movie does well in its second part, as I want to see them go on to tackle a main character turning into a giant worm tyrant over 3000 years, and then a galactic conflict (that we barely see) between a devious controlling sisterhood and their rivals who controled people through sexual enslavement, before an utterly incomprehensible plan involving raising clones of dead characters to combat some ancient AI.

    I’d want Chris Chibnall on board.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    I know, that Alec Guinness chap is terrible. Wasn’t he replaced for some of the later films? You can see why…
    It wasn't him I was thinking of, though you can tell he doesn't give a shit for the film.
    I recall seeing him talk about it. Don’t think he was a fan of sci if.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    I know, that Alec Guinness chap is terrible. Wasn’t he replaced for some of the later films? You can see why…
    It wasn't him I was thinking of, though you can tell he doesn't give a shit for the film.
    Though he gave a shit for the rest of his life from the payday he made from it. He got possibly the best deal any actor has ever made in the history of Hollywood for that movie.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    Putin’s special address is as successful as his “special operation”. Lol.

    https://twitter.com/kiraincongress/status/1572319334600704000
  • What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,476
    edited September 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    It won't, as Carlotta states George VIth also went to France on his first State Visit.

    The Queen made State visits to Panama and Libya before visiting a Commonwealth country.


    In any case a visit to a Commonwealth realm by the King is not technically a State Visit anyway as he is its Head of State.
    You sensible response is mere fodder for Eagles’ crass ‘comedy’ Francophobia

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    Meanwhile in Russia: pundit on state TV asserts that all Western leaders who want to sanction Russia and teach the Russian people a lesson are Nazis: Joe Biden, Olaf Scholz, Sanna Marin, Ursula von der Leyen et al.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1571987573614219265

    I always wondered about that Biden.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    Playing cricket on Sept 20th. Damp around, so damp pitches = movement. Plus results pitches to get essential points. See also Hants vs Kent.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,171
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    That match was a disaster for me. I was in hospital recovering from surgery for a few days and expecting TMS to provide lots of entertainment. An hour later it was all over. Tragic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    edited September 2022
    Migrants flown to Massachusetts file class action lawsuit against DeSantis and other Florida officials in federal court…
    … The lawsuit alleges that DeSantis and his accomplices engaged in "a premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme centered on exploiting [the migrants] for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial and political interests."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1572319313813721089
  • What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    That match was a disaster for me. I was in hospital recovering from surgery for a few days and expecting TMS to provide lots of entertainment. An hour later it was all over. Tragic.
    Ouch, I had tickets for day 3 and 4 for the Headingley Test in 2000 against the Windies.

    Was going to be my relaxation before I moved house and started my first ever job.

    Got the tickets refunded but didn't get the hotel or train money refunded.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
    Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    edited September 2022

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    That match was a disaster for me. I was in hospital recovering from surgery for a few days and expecting TMS to provide lots of entertainment. An hour later it was all over. Tragic.
    Ouch, I had tickets for day 3 and 4 for the Headingley Test in 2000 against the Windies.

    Was going to be my relaxation before I moved house and started my first ever job.

    Got the tickets refunded but didn't get the hotel or train money refunded.
    I think that was the one where I set off driving from Norwich (to Wiltshire) and the WI didn’t make it to London…
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,199
    edited September 2022
    The thing that always amuses me with Star Wars is just how wildly different James Earl Jones and Alec Guinness were paid for it.

    Alec Guinness got paid double his normal fee and famously gets 2.25% of the royalties made by George Lucas in perpetuity, earning him about £50 million, more from that one movie than the rest of his career combined.

    James Earl Jones's agents thought the movie would be a flop. He was paid just £5000 for being the voice of Darth Vader.

    Still I assume James Earl Jones has found a way to deservedly cash in on it since, he doesn't seem to have done too badly in the end.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,396
    edited September 2022

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    That match was a disaster for me. I was in hospital recovering from surgery for a few days and expecting TMS to provide lots of entertainment. An hour later it was all over. Tragic.
    Ouch, I had tickets for day 3 and 4 for the Headingley Test in 2000 against the Windies.

    Was going to be my relaxation before I moved house and started my first ever job.

    Got the tickets refunded but didn't get the hotel or train money refunded.
    I think that was the one where I set off driving from Norwich (to Wiltshire) and the WI didn’t make it to London…
    Yup, the two day test.

    61 all out in their second innings in 26.2 overs.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    https://twitter.com/BobbyDugnutt111/status/1572325235478695937
  • The thing that always amuses me with Star Wars is just how wildly different James Earl Jones and Alec Guinness were paid for it.

    Alec Guinness got paid double his normal fee and famously gets 2.25% of the royalties made by George Lucas in perpetuity, earning him about £50 million, more from that one movie than the rest of his career combined.

    James Earl Jones's agents thought the movie would be a flop. He was paid just £5000 for being the voice of Darth Vader.

    Still I assume James Earl Jones has found a way to deservedly cash in on it since, he doesn't seem to have done too badly in the end.

    If only you knew the power of the Daft Side!
  • What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    https://twitter.com/BobbyDugnutt111/status/1572325235478695937
    LOL
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    That match was a disaster for me. I was in hospital recovering from surgery for a few days and expecting TMS to provide lots of entertainment. An hour later it was all over. Tragic.
    Ouch, I had tickets for day 3 and 4 for the Headingley Test in 2000 against the Windies.

    Was going to be my relaxation before I moved house and started my first ever job.

    Got the tickets refunded but didn't get the hotel or train money refunded.
    I think that was the one where I set off driving from Norwich (to Wiltshire) and the WI didn’t make it to London…
    Yup, the two day test.

    61 all out in their second innings in 26.2 overs.
    Or 70 miles, as I like to record it!
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
    Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.
    Yeah TFA is just Star Wars remade which was fun, but I wasn't too fussed with The Last Jedi which was quite disappointing. Especially considering Empire Strikes Back is the best of the series.

    Rise of Skywalker was pretty good though I thought.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,243
    edited September 2022

    kle4 said:

    Meanwhile, at fantasybooks.com supporters of Liz Truss are angrily sparring with the Starmerites.

    IIRC a few months ago on railforums they really were discussing AV and other voting systems.
    The political debate on TotalRL forums is an insight into the more intellectual end of the Red Wall.
  • I'm putting money into Biden as POTUS 2024 this evening.

    If Putin goes tactical nuke and Biden handles it well and gets us through this nightmare without actual WWIII then his chances are massively increased imho.

  • TazTaz Posts: 6,569
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    House of the Dragon is pretty good. Paddy Considine steals every scene he is in as the King. Theres some wokery and some fucking your niece incest
    Cool! Thanks

    I mean cool that it’s good, not that incest is cool. OBVS
    Re incest, I'll take your word for it, I've never tried to find out.

    But yes, House of the Dragon is perfectly watchable.

    The Lord of the Rings is really not.
    Whaaaaaaaaaat? You are so wrong. Rings of power is best middle earth ever. Even better than Tolkiens Middle earth. The series is pacy, amazing to look at amazing on the ear, very well storyboarded with good dialogue and brilliant acting (that comes from good writing teams and lots of rehearsal) and brilliant direction, I’m loving it and can’t get enough of it. I recommend everybody to give the first four episodes a go, most people will enjoy this.
    Tolkien’s phoey writing, and Jackson’s Theme Park films, don’t have motivation or emotional depth in characters - but these rings of power writers put real earth into middle earth through real motivation for action, where you distrust others for previously being on the wrong side, hate your predecessors and family for backing the wrong side - just like leave and remain split all PBers can relate to - where the motivation of the character the orcs call father is he wants power and to become a God - just like Boris Johnson! Tolkiens writing and Jackson’s films never achieve such richness in motivation and purpose behind everything going on, as they are trying to achieve here.

    And everyone is on board with it, right approach or copyrights or not.

    https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power
    A little bit too heavy-handed and unsubtle, old bean.
  • HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

    https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
    Bless you, you sweet innocent child, international travel is much different today to 1937.
    Five days to cross the Atlantic in 1937 was hardly an eternity.

    But I suspect the larger point is being missed. These visits are taken on the advice of the government.
  • HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

    https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
    Bless you, you sweet innocent child, international travel is much different today to 1937.
    No point to the stupid fucking Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking country (by mother tongue), the USA, or our closest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,171

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
    Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.
    My problem with TFA was just the massive sigh I let out in the cinema when I realised it was just literally the original film again done slightly differently. It looked the part, but I had to mentally rescore the prequels for at least attempting original stories.

    But at least TFA is semi-watchable, whereas after that was just a mess.

  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
    Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.
    Yeah TFA is just Star Wars remade which was fun, but I wasn't too fussed with The Last Jedi which was quite disappointing. Especially considering Empire Strikes Back is the best of the series.

    Rise of Skywalker was pretty good though I thought.
    Rise of Skywalker is total bollocks, to put it mildly.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,243

    What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    Playing cricket on Sept 20th. Damp around, so damp pitches = movement. Plus results pitches to get essential points. See also Hants vs Kent.
    Not the way to groom Test cricketers, mind.
    If we must play till September's end, how about playing the CC in prime season?
    Can tack the One Day Cup and T20 and Hundred onto the beginning and end.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,199
    edited September 2022

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
    Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.
    My problem with TFA was just the massive sigh I let out in the cinema when I realised it was just literally the original film again done slightly differently. It looked the part, but I had to mentally rescore the prequels for at least attempting original stories.

    But at least TFA is semi-watchable, whereas after that was just a mess.

    Rise of Skywalker wasn't a mess and it joined the dots well I thought.

    Though it was weird watching Carrie Fisher in it, considering she'd passed away before the release of Last Jedi, I didn't know she'd filmed her parts for that too and had deliberately avoided spoilers and so hadn't read that she was a part of it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    Cripes, it’s all happening tonight.

    It is the first time we have seen Iranian protesters fighting back in this way. It's another "first of its kind" in the recent protests in Iran. And it's not just this video, there are dozens of them something has fundamentally changed in the protests in Iran.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ErshadAlijani/status/1572320104200966144
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,916
    Nigelb said:

    Migrants flown to Massachusetts file class action lawsuit against DeSantis and other Florida officials in federal court…
    … The lawsuit alleges that DeSantis and his accomplices engaged in "a premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme centered on exploiting [the migrants] for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial and political interests."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1572319313813721089

    That sounds more Trump than sane from the 'sane Trump'.
  • Zara Sultana MP

    My train to Leeds for tonight's Enough is Enough rally has been stopped just outside London for the last 3 hours. I'm sorry not to be there, Leeds! 😭

    Just another reminder that we need to bring rail into public ownership and make it fit for the future! 🚄

    LNER
    Replying to @zarahsultana and @eiecampaign
    I am sorry for the delay, Zarah. This was due to damage to the overhead electric wires meaning services could not move around Stevenage, but services are now on the move. On your other point, LNER is owned by the DfT after the franchise was handed back in 2018. ^Cameron



    https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1572313997931585538

    LOL! People like Sultana and our own CHB sometimes seem to think "public ownership" is a magic bullet that will fix all problems now and in the future.

    It doesn't.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    edited September 2022

    I'm putting money into Biden as POTUS 2024 this evening.

    If Putin goes tactical nuke and Biden handles it well and gets us through this nightmare without actual WWIII then his chances are massively increased imho.

    I think there are other and better routes to Biden running again, and winning, than Putin lobbing a nuke.

    FWIW, if his health holds (obv not a total given), the he’ll run again, IMO.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,402
    edited September 2022
    West Lancashire was one of Neil Kinnock's gains from the Conservatives at the 1992 election, reducing the Tory majority from 102 to 21.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Migrants flown to Massachusetts file class action lawsuit against DeSantis and other Florida officials in federal court…
    … The lawsuit alleges that DeSantis and his accomplices engaged in "a premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme centered on exploiting [the migrants] for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial and political interests."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1572319313813721089

    That sounds more Trump than sane from the 'sane Trump'.
    DeSantis is just a pale imitation. I don’t think he’s much better.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107

    Zara Sultana MP

    My train to Leeds for tonight's Enough is Enough rally has been stopped just outside London for the last 3 hours. I'm sorry not to be there, Leeds! 😭

    Just another reminder that we need to bring rail into public ownership and make it fit for the future! 🚄

    LNER
    Replying to @zarahsultana and @eiecampaign
    I am sorry for the delay, Zarah. This was due to damage to the overhead electric wires meaning services could not move around Stevenage, but services are now on the move. On your other point, LNER is owned by the DfT after the franchise was handed back in 2018. ^Cameron



    https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1572313997931585538

    Ouch.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,622

    HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

    https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
    Bless you, you sweet innocent child, international travel is much different today to 1937.
    Five days to cross the Atlantic in 1937 was hardly an eternity.

    But I suspect the larger point is being missed. These visits are taken on the advice of the government.
    Nowadays it takes seven. Although they could still do it in five.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,060

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    House of the Dragon is pretty good. Paddy Considine steals every scene he is in as the King. Theres some wokery and some fucking your niece incest
    Cool! Thanks

    I mean cool that it’s good, not that incest is cool. OBVS
    Re incest, I'll take your word for it, I've never tried to find out.

    But yes, House of the Dragon is perfectly watchable.

    The Lord of the Rings is really not.
    Whaaaaaaaaaat? You are so wrong. Rings of power is best middle earth ever. Even better than Tolkiens Middle earth. The series is pacy, amazing to look at amazing on the ear, very well storyboarded with good dialogue and brilliant acting (that comes from good writing teams and lots of rehearsal) and brilliant direction, I’m loving it and can’t get enough of it. I recommend everybody to give the first four episodes a go, most people will enjoy this.
    Tolkien’s phoey writing, and Jackson’s Theme Park films, don’t have motivation or emotional depth in characters - but these rings of power writers put real earth into middle earth through real motivation for action, where you distrust others for previously being on the wrong side, hate your predecessors and family for backing the wrong side - just like leave and remain split all PBers can relate to - where the motivation of the character the orcs call father is he wants power and to become a God - just like Boris Johnson! Tolkiens writing and Jackson’s films never achieve such richness in motivation and purpose behind everything going on, as they are trying to achieve here.

    And everyone is on board with it, right approach or copyrights or not.

    https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power
    A little bit too heavy-handed and unsubtle, old bean.
    Young bean still - and wear this heavy hand

    It’s the same argument you shouldn’t recreate the original performance of Beethoven 9 using original instruments and orchestral size and careful attention to Beethovens manuscript, timings and notes, we should only hear The 9th now with all the 20th century built in, it doesn’t belong to Beethoven anymore, it belongs to us now. That’s right isn’t it? Same with rings of power - more is found than lost through translation in the right hands, as rings of power amply demonstrate 🧝‍♀️
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,625
    edited September 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Cripes, it’s all happening tonight.

    It is the first time we have seen Iranian protesters fighting back in this way. It's another "first of its kind" in the recent protests in Iran. And it's not just this video, there are dozens of them something has fundamentally changed in the protests in Iran.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ErshadAlijani/status/1572320104200966144

    The optimist in me wonders: are we on the cusp of another 1989?

    Autocracies are having a hard time of it at the moment. That feeling a few years ago where we all wondered if democracy was necessarily going to triumph everywhere after all seems to have faded a little.

    Russia seems to be heading for a reckoning. Belarus must surely be on the cusp of democratic change. Ukraine is permanently now in the Western sphere of influence. The Middle East becomes progressively less geopolitically important as the world heads towards net zero. Regimes like Iran offer nothing to their growing young populations and must surely be as fragile as ever. China’s regime is clearly safe but the country doesn’t seem quite so economically invincible anymore.

    Meanwhile the number of dictatorships in Africa declines year after year and the coup count diminishes. Trump may be heading behind bars, Bolsonaro - not a dictator, but Trumpian in his strongman instincts - is on the slide and Erdogan looks close to being politically finished.

    Finally militant Sunni Jihadism seems finally to be on the wane after IS’s caliphate collapsed and Al Qaeda remains a shadow of its former self.

    So we could see, unexpectedly, one of those big leaps forward?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    More legal trouble for Florida Republicans.

    Michael Shirley, a former consultant for Seminole County tax collector Joel Greenberg, has been indicted on federal fraud and bribery charges.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/JeffWeinerOS/status/1572253595801890816

  • Nigelb said:

    I'm putting money into Biden as POTUS 2024 this evening.

    If Putin goes tactical nuke and Biden handles it well and gets us through this nightmare without actual WWIII then his chances are massively increased imho.

    I think there are other and better routes to Biden running again, and winning, than Putin lobbing a nuke.

    FWIW, if his health holds (obv not a total given), the he’ll run again, IMO.
    Definitely a load of better routes, as in more desirable.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.
    Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

    Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.
    Fellowship of the Ring didn't feel like a 3 hour movie, it whizzed past

    Two Towers 100% did feel like a 3 hour movie.

    Return of the King had an incredible, jaw droppingly bold ending, a perfect meditation on heroism and a meta commentary on the difficulty of adapting a well known and loved literary work. And Jackson just couldn't fucking leave it alone and ruins it and it does kind of spoil my feelings towards the film.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited September 2022
    As far as movies go only Source Code fucks the ending worse than Return of the King in terms of delivering something perfect and then ruining it.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    I never got around to it. I don't think I should now.

    Then again, Good Omens the show was very good.
    Yes, Good Omens was the best fiction in years.
    The Watch made me genuinely angry. I could only stand five minutes. But I'm sure if I hadn't read, and loved, the books, it would have been fine, possibly even watchable by the srandards of modern telly.
    There are no works of fiction I love like Pratchett's, and no characters I love than the Watch. IT DOES NOT NEED MODERNISING.
  • Putin will be on at 9am tomorrow say kremlin pool reports.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112

    Nigelb said:

    I'm putting money into Biden as POTUS 2024 this evening.

    If Putin goes tactical nuke and Biden handles it well and gets us through this nightmare without actual WWIII then his chances are massively increased imho.

    I think there are other and better routes to Biden running again, and winning, than Putin lobbing a nuke.

    FWIW, if his health holds (obv not a total given), the he’ll run again, IMO.
    Definitely a load of better routes, as in more desirable.
    And more likely, I think.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cripes, it’s all happening tonight.

    It is the first time we have seen Iranian protesters fighting back in this way. It's another "first of its kind" in the recent protests in Iran. And it's not just this video, there are dozens of them something has fundamentally changed in the protests in Iran.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ErshadAlijani/status/1572320104200966144

    The optimist in me wonders: are we on the cusp of another 1989?

    Autocracies are having a hard time of it at the moment. That feeling a few years ago where we all wondered if democracy was necessarily going to triumph everywhere after all seems to have faded a little.

    Russia seems to be heading for a reckoning. Belarus must surely be on the cusp of democratic change. Ukraine is permanently now in the Western sphere of influence. The Middle East becomes progressively less geopolitically important as the world heads towards net zero. Regimes like Iran offer nothing to their growing young populations and must surely be as fragile as ever. China’s regime is clearly safe but the country doesn’t seem quite so economically invincible anymore.

    Meanwhile the number of dictatorships in Africa declines year after year and the coup count diminishes. Trump may be heading behind bars, Bolsonaro - not a dictator, but Trumpian in his strongman instincts - is on the slide and Erdogan looks close to being politically finished.

    Finally militant Sunni Jihadism seems finally to be on the wane after IS’s caliphate collapsed and Al Qaeda remains a shadow of its former self.

    So we could see, unexpectedly, one of those big leaps forward?
    I wish I could be quite so optimistic, but share the hope.
  • What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

    Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

    That match was a disaster for me. I was in hospital recovering from surgery for a few days and expecting TMS to provide lots of entertainment. An hour later it was all over. Tragic.
    Ouch, I had tickets for day 3 and 4 for the Headingley Test in 2000 against the Windies.

    Was going to be my relaxation before I moved house and started my first ever job.

    Got the tickets refunded but didn't get the hotel or train money refunded.
    I think that was the one where I set off driving from Norwich (to Wiltshire) and the WI didn’t make it to London…
    I was puzzled for a moment as to why you were involved in a race, with curious rules, against the Women's Institute.
  • Zara Sultana MP

    My train to Leeds for tonight's Enough is Enough rally has been stopped just outside London for the last 3 hours. I'm sorry not to be there, Leeds! 😭

    Just another reminder that we need to bring rail into public ownership and make it fit for the future! 🚄

    LNER
    Replying to @zarahsultana and @eiecampaign
    I am sorry for the delay, Zarah. This was due to damage to the overhead electric wires meaning services could not move around Stevenage, but services are now
    on the move. On your other point, LNER is owned by the DfT after the
    franchise was handed back in 2018. ^Cameron



    https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1572313997931585538

    Sick burn but still didn’t spell her name right, even though it’s in her twitter handle

    #thickies
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,189

    HYUFD said:

    Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

    King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

    Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

    He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

    It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring
    But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.
    Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

    https://www.royal.uk/george-vi
    Bless you, you sweet innocent child, international travel is much different today to 1937.
    No point to the stupid fucking Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking country (by mother tongue), the USA, or our closest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
    There is, not least to reduce Chinese influence in its members
  • Zara Sultana MP

    My train to Leeds for tonight's Enough is Enough rally has been stopped just outside London for the last 3 hours. I'm sorry not to be there, Leeds! 😭

    Just another reminder that we need to bring rail into public ownership and make it fit for the future! 🚄

    LNER
    Replying to @zarahsultana and @eiecampaign
    I am sorry for the delay, Zarah. This was due to damage to the overhead electric wires meaning services could not move around Stevenage, but services are now
    on the move. On your other point, LNER is owned by the DfT after the
    franchise was handed back in 2018. ^Cameron



    https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1572313997931585538

    Sick burn but still didn’t spell her name right, even though it’s in her twitter handle

    #thickies
    Unless you’ve haven’t got the spelling right?!?! Shirley not
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I have found the characterisation of Galadriel pretty good. Those who claim she was not ambitious nor a warrior have clearly only ever read the LoTR version of her. This is someone who led a rebellion against her elven kin and who stated quite openly that her ambition was to carve out a realm in Middle Earth where she could rule. She was not just some aethereal fairy floating around the woods.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,112
    Someone just noted that Bond is no longer On Her Majesty’s Service.
    He first appeared in public, of course, in 1953.

    Is @Leon going to lose it over the change of pronoun ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Alistair said:

    As far as movies go only Source Code fucks the ending worse than Return of the King in terms of delivering something perfect and then ruining it.

    I have just watched the original Halloween, and Jeeeesus. The first 5 minutes are quite exciting, 10 minutes where it turns out he has escaped are adequate and then it's just Yeah I am just so totally babysitting on the end of this landline, innit. So glad everyone involved died horribly.
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

    Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

    Ta muchly

    Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

    It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.
    I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

    That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

    The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.
    I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
    So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

    Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…
    It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.
    Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

    Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

    *Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.
    The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.
    Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.
    My problem with TFA was just the massive sigh I let out in the cinema when I realised it was just literally the original film again done slightly differently. It looked the part, but I had to mentally rescore the prequels for at least attempting original stories.

    But at least TFA is semi-watchable, whereas after that was just a mess.

    Rise of Skywalker wasn't a mess and it joined the dots well I thought.
    Can I have some of what you're smoking please?

    Bringing back Palpatine undid the story arc of both the original trilogy and the prequels.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,621
    Nigelb said:

    Someone just noted that Bond is no longer On Her Majesty’s Service.
    He first appeared in public, of course, in 1953.

    Is @Leon going to lose it over the change of pronoun ?

    On Their Majesty's Service?
This discussion has been closed.