Telescope in Lord Of The Rings: ROTK!

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:45:55 +0000, Kevin Rehberg wrote:
snip
Did anyone else that has seen it catch the crude refractor (it's
basically an objective and a couple other elements held together with
sticks)in the foreground of one of the Rivendel? You can only see it
for a total of about 5 seconds, but it's still nice to see some type of
astronomy equipment in one of the greatest movies of all time.

I've seen the "real thing" - it's one of the props on show at the LotR
exhibition that's been in Wellington and London. Nicely made, sadly though
when I looked at it the two lenses didn't seem to line up at all... so it
wasn't ever going to work very well I shouldn't think.

Barns

Peter Jackson rendered Faramir as little more than a
bumbling bully. I'm almost reticent to see the third movie, but if it has a
telescope, I suppose I should.

Yes, you should. The third movie had one big change in the story, but nothing
earth shaking, and he stayed fairly true to the books. I was enthralled.


Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

Peter Jackson rendered Faramir as little more than a
bumbling bully. I'm almost reticent to see the third movie, but if it has a
telescope, I suppose I should.

Yes, you should. The third movie had one big change in the story, but nothing
earth shaking, and he stayed fairly true to the books. I was enthralled.


Richard Navarrete

Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22

Kilolani wrote:

Having read the books 28 times, I have to agree. The Two Towers, for
example, took one chapter of the book (Helm's Deep) and streched it to over
1 hour on the screen. Needless to say, they dropped a HUGE portion of the
storyline for that. Also the charaters in the book are pretty much
archetypical... Aragorn and Faramir are poet, historian, warriors...
unfailingly noble. Peter Jackson rendered Faramir as little more than a
bumbling bully. I'm almost reticent to see the third movie, but if it has a
telescope, I suppose I should.

The elves were, it seems, great astronomers. My 12.5" Dob is named
Morwinyon, the Elvish name for Arcturus--roughly translated as "the glint at
twilight."

So what star is Earendil?

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Kilolani wrote:

Having read the books 28 times, I have to agree. The Two Towers, for
example, took one chapter of the book (Helm's Deep) and streched it to over
1 hour on the screen. Needless to say, they dropped a HUGE portion of the
storyline for that. Also the charaters in the book are pretty much
archetypical... Aragorn and Faramir are poet, historian, warriors...
unfailingly noble. Peter Jackson rendered Faramir as little more than a
bumbling bully. I'm almost reticent to see the third movie, but if it has a
telescope, I suppose I should.

The elves were, it seems, great astronomers. My 12.5" Dob is named
Morwinyon, the Elvish name for Arcturus--roughly translated as "the glint at
twilight."

So what star is Earendil?

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Having read the books 28 times, I have to agree. The Two Towers, for
example, took one chapter of the book (Helm's Deep) and streched it to over
1 hour on the screen. Needless to say, they dropped a HUGE portion of the
storyline for that. Also the charaters in the book are pretty much
archetypical... Aragorn and Faramir are poet, historian, warriors...
unfailingly noble. Peter Jackson rendered Faramir as little more than a
bumbling bully. I'm almost reticent to see the third movie, but if it has a
telescope, I suppose I should.

The elves were, it seems, great astronomers. My 12.5" Dob is named
Morwinyon, the Elvish name for Arcturus--roughly translated as "the glint at
twilight."

"Jackie" wrote in message
news:cauEb.425431$275.1301997@attbi_s53...

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
...

I am taking the next two weeks off from work. The first thing on my list
of
things to do when nobody is looking, is to sneak off and see this movie
as
a
weekday matinee.

I saw the first two of this series of movies and I must admit that I don't
get the hype... should I have read the books first?? I know they've been
out
since before I was born, but I have to admit that I was not familiar with
the characters or names until the movies came out. Am I missing something
by
seeing the movies without having read the books first? The movies have
great
special effects, but the whole experience of viewing them left me flat in
just about every other way.

Jackie

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.



I saw the first two of this series of movies and I must admit that I don't
get the hype... should I have read the books first?? I know they've been
out
since before I was born, but I have to admit that I was not familiar with
the characters or names until the movies came out. Am I missing something
by
seeing the movies without having read the books first? The movies have
great
special effects, but the whole experience of viewing them left me flat in
just about every other way.

Jackie

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:59 GMT, "Enyo" wrote:

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.

An interesting observation, which truly shows the different ways people can
perceive the same thing. I've read LOTR many times; in my view no better book
has ever been written. Yet I have found the movies to be as utterly true to
story and character as I think it is possible for any movies to be, particularly
given the epic nature of the book. The limitations that are there (and I think
they are minor) are simply the result of the fact that there is far more
material and depth than can be fit into nine or ten hours of movie. This may
finally be the thing that motivates me to buy a DVD player- until now I have
felt no need (no movies I really wanted to own, no rental stores within 70
miles).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:18:59 GMT, "Enyo" wrote:

If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.

An interesting observation, which truly shows the different ways people can
perceive the same thing. I've read LOTR many times; in my view no better book
has ever been written. Yet I have found the movies to be as utterly true to
story and character as I think it is possible for any movies to be, particularly
given the epic nature of the book. The limitations that are there (and I think
they are minor) are simply the result of the fact that there is far more
material and depth than can be fit into nine or ten hours of movie. This may
finally be the thing that motivates me to buy a DVD player- until now I have
felt no need (no movies I really wanted to own, no rental stores within 70
miles).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Enyo" wrote in message


If you read the books you know the movie has little relationship to them,
other than some of the names are the same. The first 30 minutes of the
first movie was good. It then became apparent artistic license took over.
I would have walked out then except I was the driver with
my kids and some of their friends. They truly combined and perverted the
characters, plot and emphasis for the sake of their vision of what makes a
popular movie. I have not an will not see the second and third.


You should really take movies at face value. They aren't intended to
be mirror images of a book. Wouldn't a movie that replicated a book
be more than a little redundant? Could a movie that attempted that
ever really live up to what you have constructed in your imagination?
It's a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

They took the proper route with this trilogy. New Line Cinema had to
bet their entire company on the production of these three movies. The
type of epic you want could never exist because the production budget
would have still been over a quarter of a billion dollars, only nobody
would go see it and the production company would take a collosal bath.

I'm not knocking you being a purist, just trying to put it in a
perspective that you may not have thought of yet. You sound pretty
angry about the whole makeup of the trilogy. Maybe if you saw
these last two movies without any expectation of literal translation,
you would enjoy them on a whole different level - the level that
millions of LOTR fans are currently enjoying the trilogy on!


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG