The Return Of The King

[bigguyinpasadena]

I have to say from the start that I am not a fan or follower of this movie franchise.I saw the first one on DVD-fell asleep halfway through,and never bothered watching what I had missed.I never saw the second installment.

So went to the very nice movie house here in Pasadena(the Paseo Pacific)and Saw The Return Of The King as it should be seen,on a big screen with great sound.

This has to be the faggiest movie I have seen in years.The guys all looked like they were all ready to kiss each other at many points in the movie!There were many good looking fellas,bit no nudity(not even a ripping wrestling match with shirts off)bur still you could cut the sexual tension with a knife.

Big epic film that I would recomend for those that like such things.

[bigguyinpasadena]

I have to say from the start that I am not a fan or follower of this movie franchise.I saw the first one on DVD-fell asleep halfway through,and never bothered watching what I had missed.I never saw the second installment.

So went to the very nice movie house here in Pasadena(the Paseo Pacific)and Saw The Return Of The King as it should be seen,on a big screen with great sound.

This has to be the faggiest movie I have seen in years.The guys all looked like they were all ready to kiss each other at many points in the movie!There were many good looking fellas,bit no nudity(not even a ripping wrestling match with shirts off)bur still you could cut the sexual tension with a knife.

Big epic film that I would recomend for those that like such things.

[JamesK840]

I love the series, and this is the best movie of it by far. Hopefully it will get Best Picture and Best Director this year, as the three together are certainly an unprecedented accomplishment.

 

But it opens with one male character addressing another male as 'my love'... Then there was the 'your Sam' bit. Did I miss something in the books about most Hobbits (and river folk, who are not so very different, after all) being at least bi?

 

Is it Peter Jackson pushing an agenda? Not that there's anything wrong with that... ;o)

[Trixie]

Yes, I think the director realized they were pushing it a bit. That's probably why they rushed Sam back to the Shire and married him off at the end. But still, I think that was how the hobbits' friendships were portrayed in the books. Grand, heroic relationships, such as those in Arthurian legend, which I'm sure inspired Tolkien.

Trix

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>Yes, I think the director realized they were pushing it a

>bit. That's probably why they rushed Sam back to the Shire

>and married him off at the end.

 

My take too.

 

The homosexual tension was a strong undercurrent that wasn't all that 'under'. To be sure, three hetero relationships were presented as little more than an afterthought , no doubt in an attempt at 'fair and balanced reporting' and to provide 'warm fuzzies' to the broader community.

 

Amazing flick from story telling to art, costuming, tech direction... even the acting was pretty good. A hanky burner for those so inclined. And all for a matinee price of under $5 for stadium seating in a shire a little outside of Boston.

[BewareofNick]

My boys and I walked away from the movie with the general impression that bisexulaity was a way of life amongst the Hobbitts. It was very obvious how much Merry and Pippin love each other. Even more so of how completely devoted Sam is to Frodo. I think they choose a wife out of neccesity, at least some do, to perpetuate the species. At the end though, it seemed that while Sam was happy with his wife and children, he would have given it all up for Frodo.

 

Orlando Bloom as Legolas is perhaps the most stunningly beautiful man I have ever seen.

 

Though he's not mentioned much, John Rhys-Davies as Gimli was a hoot. I have loved him ever since his days as Professor Arturo on Sliders.

 

There was some brief nudity from Elijah Wood. I am sure marc anthony was pleased with that

 

I kept thinking throughout the film what a lucky old queer Ian McKellan is to work with all these beautiful men,

 

The only thing that I found distracting in the film was the Elf King. I kept expecting him to put sun glasses on and say 'Welcome back, Mr. Anderson. We missed you.'

[phage]

>The only thing that I found distracting in the film was the

>Elf King. I kept expecting him to put sun glasses on and say

>'Welcome back, Mr. Anderson. We missed you.'

 

Isn’t Hugo What’s-His-Name one of the Queens from ‘The Adventures of Pricilla, Queen of the Dessert?” I find the thought of him in a neon colored wig and sequined platforms MUCH more distracting!

[TightBodyTouch]

The Return Of The KinK... leave it to gay men

 

I think it's great that bigguypasadena prefaces his remarks by admitting his unfamiliarity with the text and story line in Tolkien's work. It does not however excuse the ridiculous claims that there is any homosexual undertone in Return of the King. Those of your agree with him only help to perpetuate the sad notion that he proposes. You also show that you haven't learned the amazing power of the cinematic experience. Suspending believability, allowing yourself to witness the relationships between characters, and in a case of literature-turned-celluloid such as this, experiencing the movie as the screenwriter and director see fit to develop the final package is one of the joys of modern entertainment.

 

Jackson's third film to showcase Tolkien's loved work is not only visually stimulating and artfully interpretive but it also tends to be accurate when compared with the original text. Samwise holds Frodo is the highest regard and anyone who has a close, beloved friend might also do the same. Samwise also gets married and has children, it's not an effort for the film's character to make himself less gay. Have any of you read it?

 

As for men referring to each of with terms of endearment, you clearly haven't met anyone hailing from the United Kingdom. I dare you to try and sleep with anyone who calls you "love", you may be in for a rude awakening. It's an acknowledgment of kinship, warmth... Fellowship. Get it?

 

I'm continually surprised and made happy when as I trek through life to find myself recognizing likenesses in other men, commonality among people, and yes, community among gay men. But I don't care for gay men who seek to point out streaks of gayness in any form of affection among men. Witnessing great bonds between male characters, this film specifically, is to catch a glimpse of the key players frought with emotion, fatigued by a journey with relationships strengthening through time. Of course there is tension that you can cut with a knife. Familial tension among father and son, battle of evil over the will of man, and disention among mortals. No sex, no issue of men's thwarted desires for each other, no story of gay love on a rocky cliff.

 

When gay men go around claiming sexual energy exists between us all then it's no wonder that heterosexual men may be reticent to embrace us. If we seek to label the tension among comrades as sexual tension then it's no surprise that gay men still find it hard to befriend one another. Let's not misinterpret all that we see on screen and in our own surroundings, rather look to understand the powerful relationships among us and how real bonds are tied tight at the heart.

 

TJ in Denver

[BewareofNick]

RE: The Return Of The KinK... leave it to gay men

 

>I think it's great that bigguypasadena prefaces his remarks

>by admitting his unfamiliarity with the text and story line in

>Tolkien's work. It does not however excuse the ridiculous

>claims that there is any homosexual undertone in Return of the

>King. Those of your agree with him only help to perpetuate the

>sad notion that he proposes.

 

Obviously, you didn't see the movie or at the very least are incapable of understanding what you saw.

 

>You also show that you haven't

>learned the amazing power of the cinematic experience.

>Suspending believability, allowing yourself to witness the

>relationships between characters, and in a case of

>literature-turned-celluloid such as this, experiencing the

>movie as the screenwriter and director see fit to develop the

>final package is one of the joys of modern entertainment.

 

We have learned it. You just refuse to acknowledge that each person's experience is unique, even with some commonalities. The fact that several of us picked up on this is testimony to that. What troubles you is that we all do not agree with your version and that threatens your delusions of control.

 

>Jackson's third film to showcase Tolkien's loved work is not

>only visually stimulating and artfully interpretive but it

>also tends to be accurate when compared with the original

>text.

 

Perhaps the only thing we all agree on.

 

>Samwise holds Frodo is the highest regard and anyone who

>has a close, beloved friend might also do the same. Samwise

>also gets married and has children, it's not an effort for the

>film's character to make himself less gay. Have any of you

>read it?

 

Again, your lack of understanding shines through. You are perhaps aware that Jackson did not put everything in Tolkein's work on the big screen. We know that Sam getting married was not something that was created by Jackson. However, noting the homosexual element between the Hobbits, Jackson made sure to include the ending where Sam gets married so as not to appear to be unfaithful to Tolkein's story. The homosexual element is there whether you agree it is or not. Your agreement is neither necessary nor required.

 

>As for men referring to each of with terms of endearment, you

>clearly haven't met anyone hailing from the United Kingdom. I

>dare you to try and sleep with anyone who calls you "love",

>you may be in for a rude awakening. It's an acknowledgment of

>kinship, warmth... Fellowship. Get it?

 

Yes, ot it could be an acknowledgemnet of the deeper homosexual content therein.

 

>I'm continually surprised and made happy when as I trek

>through life to find myself recognizing likenesses in other

>men, commonality among people, and yes, community among gay

>men. But I don't care for gay men who seek to point out

>streaks of gayness in any form of affection among men.

 

Perhaps one day when you are comfortable with your own homosexuality, it will cease to cause you discomfort. Sexuality is not an either or proposition. It is more akin to a sliding scale.

 

>Witnessing great bonds between male characters, this film

>specifically, is to catch a glimpse of the key players frought

>with emotion, fatigued by a journey with relationships

>strengthening through time. Of course there is tension that

>you can cut with a knife. Familial tension among father and

>son, battle of evil over the will of man, and disention among

>mortals. No sex, no issue of men's thwarted desires for each

>other, no story of gay love on a rocky cliff.

 

The bonds between Aragorn and Gandalf, between Gimli and Legolas were present, though I detected no homosexual tension there at all.

 

>When gay men go around claiming sexual energy exists between

>us all then it's no wonder that heterosexual men may be

>reticent to embrace us.

 

It's becaue they fear it.

[bigguyinpasadena]

RE: The Return Of The KinK... leave it to gay men

 

Sorry if I stepped on your delicate sensabilties there TJ.

I state again,IMO(this is a given when critiquing any art form)

The Return Of The King is the faggiest movie I have seen in a long time-And I see lots of "queer"films.

I understand that this will offend-upset some Trilogy fans-but that is how I percieved the movie-as did several others on this board.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Is homosexual love always about sex?

 

TJ,

 

I am the first to admit that each of us has our own shade of rose when it comes to the lense of our perspective. Also, the suspension of disbelief is an essential part of the enjoyment of many films, and it was certainly essential for this one. However, that supsension ususally deals with physical laws of existence and action. If character interaction is not believable then films are almost universally deemed as duds.

 

This film wreaked of genuine heart-felt love of one man for another. Is such love always a 'sexual' love? Surely not. There is love of parents and love of children and love of siblings. Their is also love of close friends and fellow man -- akin in rough aspects to the love of siblings, if not as deep whatever that means. Rarely, there is also deep-felt love of one for another, a more intimate love that transcends the typical love of 'friends and family'. A pure love that connects the souls of two individuals. This is neither precluded from familial love nor is it guaranteed. This love is on a totally different plane from that of sexual 'love' and although the two can intersect they need not. This is what I glimpsed through my lense. Maybe I'm due for an update of my prescription shade.

 

It is my impression that the expression between men of such an intimate though nonsexual love has not been well received during modern times. Maybe that was because it appeared to be more or to come to close to the forbidden love. Maybe such love is not true homosexual love but I tend to think that society at large would be quick to label it as such. I think I do too because of the depth of intimacy, even without the baggage of sexual acts.

 

One POV FWIW.

[giovoni]

RE: Is homosexual love always about sex?

 

Tampa,

 

I cannot speak for TJ though on this issue and through discussions about the movie and this thread I think we see closely to the same mark. This non-sexual love between men of the same sex is exactly what was shown throughout the entire movie. It was in my opinion very well done and it's too bad that some gay men have to immediately label the tension here as "sexual." It IMO cheapens what was shown and what was meant. No male pair in the movie was about to kiss each other. I didn't get the impression through any of the acting or dialogue that this implication was there either.

 

The point that TJ was trying to make and one that I would echo is that the reason many straight men are reluctant to express this non sexual love is that as soon as they do you can be sure that a chorus of gay men will be waiting to start chanting something like "Sam and Frodo sitting in a tree, K I S S I N G" Etc.. Certainly there are occasions where closeted straight men who in another facet of their lives spew vitriol against homosexuals while having sex secretly with other men and in these cases outing them is something I really enjoy seeing. This is not the case here.

 

Just because these men grew to love each other through their battles does not mean that they were ready to begin making out or that they had to go off and get married to repress homosexual feelings. The love you describe is exactly what TJ and I saw. Your post and TJ's are the first in this thread to bring it up. The rest try to ascribe sexual activities and sexual feelings to this genuine love between men.

 

If anyone wants to actually read characters that are REALLY gay in an otherwise fantasy setting go read the Last Herald Mage series by Mercedes Lakey. (don't' anyone accuse me of equating her with JRR Tolkien though. ..... her writing is ok but does not approach his)

 

Gio in Denver

[Bilbo]

RE: Is homosexual love always about sex?

 

I think that the men from Denver have hit this one on the head. Bravo, TJ and Gio. It helps to remember when Tolkien was writing this story, too, during the World War, where the German front "was won on the playing fields of Eton." Really, BigGuy, I have this strange feeling that if we were to follow your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion here, then we would expect to find more gay men and sissies in the rugby clubs than on the stage.

 

I had to chime in to agree and cheer my team on. I'm sorry this is a shot over my shoulder as my horse races off out of earshot for a week, but that's just the way it is.

[Trixie]

RE: Is homosexual love always about sex?

 

Oh dear, this thread is quickly becoming a mountain out of a hobbit-hill. It's useless to debate whether fictional pseudo-humans such as hobbits might have "alternative" sexual feelings.

It's also highly unlikely that J.R.R. Tolkien intended any sort of homosexual undercurrent in his writing.

It is interesting to see how "romantic" Ie; valiant or heroic relationships between men are interpreted in this day and age. It is the crux of so many western myths and legends... one can only wonder whether the pathos between two heroes is being scandalized by the possibility that it could include sexual desire, or whether it is a disservice to preclude such a notion.

It reminds me in a way of high school, when the potheads used to argue ceaselessly as to whether the "weed" the hobbits favored in smoking was marijuana or not. The movie made a clever nod to that as well.

It's a realm of fantasy, so those who want to go to bed dreaming of big-footed little people locked in passionate embraces should do so, by all means!

Trix

[BobbyB]

RE: Is homosexual love always about sex?

 

>so those who want to go to bed dreaming of big-footed little people locked in >passionate embraces should do so, by all means!

 

Big feet, ay? Hmmm....

 

- BobbyB

[trilingual]

RE: Is homosexual love always about sex?

 

Well, when I read the books eons ago I thought there was a smoldering gay subtext, and still do. The heavily male-male camaraderie, the virtual absence of women characters (and the few who do appear are largely ethereal and sexless, compared to the rough-and-tumble, sweaty male characters), etc.

 

The subtext may not have been deliberate on Tolkien's part, but we need to remember who Tolkien was: an Oxbridge don at a time when the elite British universities were still a very male-oriented world with a lot of closeted bisexual behavior. Who knows what Tolkien may have done himself as an undergraduate, or while he was still in public school, or what repressed urges he may have had? He's certainly "male-centric," if there's such a word: his male characters come to life; his female characters tend to be pretty artificial constructs. Also, as a scholar of the form, Tolkien certainly was aware of the overtly gay relationships of some characters in the great mythological epics he took as his models for LOTR. Does that make LOTR gay? Not really, but there's certainly a whiff of something other than rock-ribbed heterosexuality about the relationships described in the book. And that may explain, in part, why I loved the trilogy so much when I was 16 years old, and why I still love it now that I'm over-56! :-)

[Guest gentle guy]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

 

I've been stewing about this one...

 

I agree with TJ, Gio, and Bilbo. The Lord of the Rings is not about homosexual love, explicit or implicit. If you know anything about Tolkien, LOTR is about friendship, redemption, the sinful pride of men, and the evil of technology when it goes out of control and separates us from nature. It is obviously about the struggle between good and evil. It is not about sex. As Bilbo pointed out, the Zeitgeist of Middle Earth is WWII and the recovery from that war. Furthermore, Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and his religious beliefs often find their way into his work--LOTR has TWO Christ-figures in Frodo and Gandalf. With Tolkien, spiritual themes are much more relevant than sexual ones.

 

The joy of literature is that different people can read different meanings from the same works, and share those interpretations and learn from each other. However, to state categorically that LOTR is in part about homosexual love is eisegesis at its worst. To paraphrase Freud's apocryphal line to Ferenczi, sometimes a friend is just a friend.

 

I personally love gay fiction and novels that contain gay characters and relationships. The Lord of the Rings does not fit into these categories. (I am VERY good at sniffing out homosexuality in literature--got me through adolescence, lol.)

 

And IMHO, to accuse TJ of internalized homophobia for expressing his opinions was out of line and insulting.

[bigguyinpasadena]

RE: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

 

I cannot comment on the books-they never were of any interest to me.

I was commenting on the film,and giving MY IMPRESSION of WHAT I SAW ON THE SCREEN.

Using an Roman Catholic Oxford don as the model of heterosexual ideals?That might raise a few eybrows.

Faggiest movie I have seen in years.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

 

>I've been stewing about this one...

>

>I agree with TJ, Gio, and Bilbo. The Lord of the Rings is not

>about homosexual love, explicit or implicit. If you know

>anything about Tolkien, LOTR is about friendship, redemption,

>the sinful pride of men, and the evil of technology when it

>goes out of control and separates us from nature. It is

>obviously about the struggle between good and evil. It is not

>about sex.

 

Let's all let out a big 'ol DUH![/font size] here for those who have apparently not ben reading or comprehending some of the postings here. No one here has posted in any way shape or form that LOTR is about sex, gay or otherwise.

 

>As Bilbo pointed out, the Zeitgeist of Middle

>Earth is WWII and the recovery from that war. Furthermore,

>Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and his religious beliefs

>often find their way into his work--LOTR has TWO

>Christ-figures in Frodo and Gandalf. With Tolkien, spiritual

>themes are much more relevant than sexual ones.

 

Again, duh! However, the two need not be mutually exclusive. The fact that SO many people walked away from the film with the idea that there might be more going on between the Hobbits than meets the eye suggests that it is a valid interpretation of what was going. It certainly doesn't make it the only valid interpretation of it. It certainly does not make the interpretation invalid.

 

>The joy of literature is that different people can read

>different meanings from the same works, and share those

>interpretations and learn from each other. However, to state

>categorically that LOTR is in part about homosexual love is

>eisegesis at its worst. To paraphrase Freud's apocryphal line

>to Ferenczi, sometimes a friend is just a friend.

 

Again, the point went sailing past your head faster than one of Legolas' arrows. No one here said the movie was about homosexual love, just that there was a homosexual subtext to some of the relationships. Not that there's anything wrong with that.....

 

But what makes it so wrong to you that some of us see it there? The idea that it "cheapens" the movie or Tolkein is sheer stupidity. Each person walks away from any good book or movie with their own interpretation of it. The homosexual subtext doesn't cheapen anything. For those of us who picked up on it, it made the experience much richer because "we" were there. It wasn't the focus. It wasn't a pivotal plot point. We were simply there and that's enough.

 

>And IMHO, to accuse TJ of internalized homophobia for

>expressing his opinions was out of line and insulting.

 

It was perfectly in line and the insulting was intentional. But I'd hate to cheapen the discussion by daring to assume the homosexual subtext. After all, TJ knows exactly what was in Tolkein's heart and mind when he wrote the book. The rest of us are just "cheapened" little faggots who have been put in our place by the self loathing amongst us.

[giovoni]

And sometimes a jerk is just a jerk

 

>It was perfectly in line and the insulting was intentional.

>But I'd hate to cheapen the discussion by daring to assume the

>homosexual subtext. After all, TJ knows exactly what was in

>Tolkein's heart and mind when he wrote the book. The rest of

>us are just "cheapened" little faggots who have been put in

>our place by the self loathing amongst us.

 

>"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or >that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only >unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American >public." - Teddy Roosevelt

 

Bravo, You're not only insulting but proud of being insulting to those who disagree and to someone who sought nothing more then to enrich your understanding of what you may have seen in the theater, (or read). But you don't stop at being proud of insulting those who seek to begin or join a dialogue. You follow it up with your signature quote which might coax well meaning people with differing views then yours to join such a dialogue in the mistaken belief that you actually believe that differing views and a discussion of such views leads to a greater understanding on all sides. Such a person may be one who doesn't post here much because of an impression that it's just a knitting circle type arrangement in which he will be at the best ignored and at the worst insulted for adding his views to the table.

 

Although the proof didn't come from who I thought it might I must go to TJ today and admit that I was wrong and he was right. Too bad.

 

Gio in Denver

[Doug69]

RE: And sometimes a jerk is just a jerk

 

>Such a person may be one

>who doesn't post here much because of an impression that it's

>just a knitting circle type arrangement in which he will be at

>the best ignored and at the worst insulted for adding his

>views to the table.

 

I personally found this discussion interesting and the proof of that, for me, is that both sides said things which I found convincing and insightful. I went back and forth in terms of who I thought was right, which is the hallmark of a good discussion.

 

But I think it's a shame that you want to ruin that by coming here and claiming that all these mean people were saying insulting things to poor, innocent TJ -- who was just intersted in open dialogue and civil communication -- given that TJ's post was quite aggerssive and insulting to those who held the other view; the following are a few excerpts from his first post:

 

<<I think it's great that bigguypasadena prefaces his remarks by admitting his unfamiliarity with the text and story line in Tolkien's work. It does not however excuse the ridiculous claims that there is any homosexual undertone in Return of the King.>>

 

<<Those of your agree with him only help to perpetuate the sad notion that he proposes.>>

 

<<You also show that you haven't learned the amazing power of the cinematic experience.>>

 

<<As for men referring to each of with terms of endearment, you clearly haven't met anyone hailing from the United Kingdom. I dare you to try and sleep with anyone who calls you "love", you may be in for a rude awakening. It's an acknowledgment of kinship, warmth... Fellowship. Get it? >>

 

<<But I don't care for gay men who seek to point out streaks of gayness in any form of affection among men.>>

 

So, TJ comes here and patronizingly and insultingly says that those who disagree with him about the presence of homosexual overtones in this film are advocating "ridiculous" ideas; are perpetuating a "sad notion"; that they just don't "get it"; that he "doesn't care for gay men" who think this way; and generally that they are sad because they haven't developed lofty faculties for appreciating literature the way TJ has.

 

In other words, he came here to tell everyone who saw homosexual overtones in this film that they are sad, ignorant, primitive, and "ridiculous" - and, worst of all, that they're to blame for straight men's homophobia because gay men like this want to introduce sex into everything.

 

Now, personally, I don't find anything excessive in what TJ said; it's just aggressive advocacy on his part. But to come here and act like TJ is a kind, little flower who was just seeking peaceful dialogue - and then all these mean, awful people insulted and attacked him -- is really untenable in light of what really happened and what TJ actually said.

 

It was a good debate, especially for this forum. Why not just leave it at that and not try to turn your boyfriend into some victim where you have to jump in and defend his honor from the bad people who insulted him?

[giovoni]

RE: And sometimes a jerk is just a jerk

 

Doug,

 

There is a difference between being aggressive, which TJ certainly is, and being intentionally insulting ... and then puffing out your chest and being proud of it.

 

"Sad, ignorant, primitive, and 'ridiculous'" TJ used Sad and ridiculous, which I'm sure he still believes. No where did he claim anyone is primitive or ignorant though I think he could legitimately do so. Moreover, no where would he or has he come on and claimed to be proud of the fact that someone was insulted.

 

Finally I'll never be ashamed of taking time to defend TJ. I'm acutely aware of your revulsion of couples who are in love enough that they display that fact occasionally. Your eloquent artwork has demonstrated this in the last week in fact, I'm not sure why it was deleted actually as its absence unfairly makes you look better . You obviously lack this support or whoever you have isn't interested in the message center or in defending you when you can't. This will never stop me from doing the same for TJ. He is not delicate, he is not a flower, he is actually fairly thick skinned. But I'll never stop defending him where I see fit. This is one of those cases.

 

In any case I'm glad you chimed in, you're without question the one on this board who would recognize going to far when you see it.

 

Gio in Denver

 

 

Gio in Denver

[BewareofNick]

RE: And sometimes a sycophant is just a sycophant

 

>Bravo, You're not only insulting but proud of being insulting

>to those who disagree and to someone who sought nothing more

>then to enrich your understanding of what you may have seen in

>the theater, (or read). But you don't stop at being proud of

>insulting those who seek to begin or join a dialogue. You

>follow it up with your signature quote which might coax well

>meaning people with differing views then yours to join such a

>dialogue in the mistaken belief that you actually believe that

>differing views and a discussion of such views leads to a

>greater understanding on all sides.

 

I do, but TJ had no interest in a dialogue. He made quite clear that I was a silly little faggot and that anyone who found even the tiniest bit of homosexuality in the movie was obviously stupid. To suggest that TJ was some little innocent whom the big bad posters harangued is to be intellectually dishonest. Your defense of him is touching, as it shows your willingness to bend logic and reality to conform to your lover's wishes. Your real distress comes from the fact that someone dared contradict your man. Tj wants a dialogue? Fine. Let him stand up for himself. I'll even get him a box so he can look me in the eye.

 

> Such a person may be one

>who doesn't post here much because of an impression that it's

>just a knitting circle type arrangement in which he will be at

>the best ignored and at the worst insulted for adding his

>views to the table.

 

Which TJ did rather well. Then again, at 5'4", perhaps TJ himself is just a slightly overgrown Hobbit.

[trilingual]

RE: Back To The Topic

 

Six of us saw it last night here in Rio (where it opened yesterday). I thought it was brilliant. Some of the imagery is absolutely stunning. Much more action than the earlier films (it seemed like constant battles) but somehow the story continued to move forward and in spite of its length the film flew by! I was so riveted I didn't even get up to go to the john!

 

There are a few things I probably would have done differently, but maybe they'll turn up in the extended version when it's eventually released. Mostly though, the imagery lived up to the amazingly detail in the books. So many films are instantly forgettable after you've seen them once. Not these. They'll last as long as people love film and epic tales.

[Trixie]

RE: Take it to the Straights

 

I'm curious as to whether the straight folk saw any indication that the hobbits were hot for each other. I think we should all ask our homosexually-challenged friends about this, and report our findings here.

There's always a chance that we gay folk are "seeing what we want to see" in the movie. But, I wonder if straights were pulling at their collars just a wee bit over those long, meaningful gazes the hobbits held in to each others' eyes.

Trix