Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Blogger wastes lunchtime in pedantic discussion about Peter Jackson. Ends up quoting Python.


Mike Taylor said...

In case anyone else is having trouble finding Andrew's contribution to this discussion, it begins with Comment #110, which is on the eleventh page, which you might be able to get to directly using this URL:

It continues with several more comments on subsequent pages, not all of which I have read yet.

And, hey, what about David Blunkett? And what about That Nice Mister Blair not being allowed to lock naughty people up for as long as we wants?

Charles Filson said...


I really liked your comments in post 124. Nice explanation. I wish I could have thought of saying that a time or two during arguments that I have had.

I think that you also bring up a good point in post 110. That a perceptive admirer of the work would not have tried to make it into a film. Makes me wonder why I get so excited when I hear that Narnia or Lord of the Rings is being made into a film.

I think perhaps its because film makes story communal.
I love Tolkien's works, and I have read the Lord of the Rings something like 10 times. Getting another persons first reaction to them though, makes them sort of new to me again, and it irritates most people to have me staring at them while they read. So film makes it a social activity. Maybe that is why we keep trying and keep being disappointed by the outcome.
I want to see somebody else's reaction to the story that I love so much, but then what I get to see is their reaction to a poor rendition of it.

Andrew Rilstone said...


Charles Filson said...

That's a riot.

But, damn! Now I know that Matthew dies. I hadn't gotten that far yet. ;-)

American Ronin said...

What depresses me is apparently no one called out the idiot who said in post #112 that Stephen King hated the Kubrick version of The Shining. When, had he read King's book Dance Macabre, he'd know that King love that movie despite the differences between it and the book. But that's a minor pet peeve completely off the main topic.

Unknown said...

So as not to introduce further tangent to the message board discussion, I will ask here if someone can enlighten me as to one of the final comments:

"I too am annoyed by the American usage of 'Professor' to refer to anyone with a university teaching role and the way it obscures the (British) concept of professorship."

Can someone tell about the "British concept of professorship" in this context?

If it helps, some examples of (my) American usage: I understand that the proper address in this case is "Dr. Tolkien." If he held a professorship but no doctorate, I would address him as "Professor Tolkien"; if he were a university instructor who was not a professor and had no doctorate, I would address him as "Mr. Tolkien"--but if I didn't know whether he was officially designated a professor (and didn't think he had a doctorate), I would probably say "Professor Tolkien" just to be on the safe side.

I'm not 100% sure that these are the according-to-Emily-Post correct usages, but it's what I've picked up from observation. No one tells young Americans how to do these things properly, of course. (We used first names with all our profs at my college, so I've only had to use this kind of formal address in correspondence with instructors I don't know.)

Louise H. said...

Professors are top bods in UK universities, (holding Chairs?). For instance in my physics dept there were about 15 lecturers (who were also researchers) called Dr and 2 professors, including the head of department, who also had doctorates but were called Professor. There were also hundreds of research assistants running around, most of whom were also Dr but had little to do with the students.

Anyone else with a doctorate is also a Dr but it is usually considered a bit pretentious to use Dr before your name except in an academic setting (and your wedding invites, of course).

Tolkien would have been called Professor. Addressing him as Dr would have been either a little rude or ignorant. I don't know whether he would have minded- after all who can tell anything about someone's views after they are dead ;-)

TM said...

On the subject of The Shining, in fact King did detest the Kubrick version, and he did later make his own version. And this version was, in fact, rubbish.

Whether King has since changed his mind, in the vein of Anne Rice's views on Tom Cruise, I couldn't say. But he was, to begin with, a vehement non-fan of the Kubrick film.