Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Ruinel]

You sonofa... $%$@#$^@$%^!$%$#^@#$^@^!!!!!

Nope... not cooled down yet....

Edit:

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Fiesty. ];-)

Ooooooohhhhh, yeah.... and untamable.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

From dictionary.com and thesaurus.com:


Here is the entry, for further perusal:
Enhance

Entry: enhance
Function: verb
Definition: improve
Synonyms: add to, adorn, aggrandize, amplify, appreciate, augment, beautify, boom, boost, build up, complement, elevate, embellish, embroider, enlarge, exaggerate, exalt, flesh out, heighten, increase, intensify, lift, magnify, pad, pyramid, raise, reinforce, strengthen, swell, upgrade

Also, they listed enhance as a synonym of improve.

When faced with providing a concise definition for "enhance" the word chosen was "improve".

Here is the link to the entry, for further perusal:
Enhance

en·hance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hns)
tr.v. en·hanced, en·hanc·ing, en·hanc·es
To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features: computer software enhanced with cutting-edge functionalities.

Here is the link to the entry, for further perusal:Improve

im·prove ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-prv)
v. im·proved, im·prov·ing, im·proves
v. tr.
To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better.
To increase the productivity or value of (land or property).
To put to good use; use profitably.

As I have provided a link for all of my sources, my congratulations to you, if you manage to convincingly accuse me of lying or twisting, hiding, or manipulating the actual definition.

[Elf Girl]

I see Ruinel has been enlightened as to why we all hate BB so much...

[mithrand1r]

Elf Girl,

I would not use the word "hate" when refering about BB, although I strongly disagree with many of his views of PJ&co. LOTR movies, among other things.

One area I will give BB credit is his devotion to his point of view, even when it appears at times to be a lost cause.

Sincerely,
Anthony


Edited to make more sense.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

But you see, Tolkien's Frodo was able to overcome his fear, and go on to confront the forces of Darkness.

Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Not nearly as badly as PJ's Aragorn. He didn't hide from his heritage, like a coward afraid what he was.

Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

Now, that is just false. I posted before, but BB seems to have ignored it, as he does with an awful lot of our posts. Must be those he has no rebuttal for. Maybe he pulled one together, and thus brought it up again?

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad."

To me, this is very, very little like the movie version. It seems to me that this is another example of PJ's habit of "monsterizing" anything possible.

Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White.

Gandalf I didn't think was that bad, though he didn't seem gruff enough to me. Gandalf the Grey was most certainly gruff. And Gandalf the Grey did seem more authoritative in the book. But I didn't think he was bad, at all.

Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Geez, this is ridiculous...I suppose you're definition of "credible evidence" is that which agrees with you? There has plenty. But is it made of no value or worth because it does not agree with you?

I think this makes the third time I've asked this. Let's see if BB is decent enough to answer: Why do you feel it so damnably necessary that no-one else is allowed to have an opinion different from your own? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that everyone is a little copy of yourself?

[Artanis]

Please everyone, don't start another flame war Isn't this supposed to be a discussion? I don't see why BB should not try to argue his POV.

What was Tolkien's vision? I think his idea of Middle-Earth is very well visualised in the movies. The scenery is beautiful and detailed. The historical setting is well told. And the big outlines are there: Death, being enhanced through sacrifice, the power of nature, the importance of having faith, and trust in inner strength.

Some of the characters I have more trouble with though. Merry, Pip and Gimli were all to much of 'comic relief'. I also agree with those who said Aragorn had too much self-doubt about his inheritance and what strength was in his blood. That is, compared to the book, where his self-doubt was about his abilities as a leader of the Fellowship, when the loss of Gandalf lay heavy on him. On the other hand, movie-Aragorn grows from FotR to TTT to be more like book-Aragorn, and that is a good sign. Faramir is of course different from the book, and I don't know how to justify this change.

On the other hand, Boromir was great. His pride was there, and his fatal lust for the Ring, but also his kindness, and his doubts and fear regarding his beloved city. I too loved the scene where he first met Aragorn in Rivendell, and the scene where they speak together in Lórien.

Frodo is also well portrayed. He is appointed to a task that seems to big for him. He is terrified of doing what he knows he must - leave the Fellowship and continue to Mordor alone. His strife with himself as shown in the movie is heartbreaking.

All this is of course only my pov.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
He Did <- Link to the (locked) thread.

Ah, memories. *wipes away a tear*

[Ruinel]

Sorry about the outburst. But I can't say that BB didn't deserve it. You certainly can't say a thing like that (PJ improved on Tolkien) without some backlash in a 'Tolkien' forum. Sheesh!

[Lizra]

I really like Theoden in the movies, but I haven't had time to reread and study the difference between Movie Theoden and book Theoden. I am very (yum) attracted to movie Theoden...so somethings up? Or no.....It's quite difficult to carry on about the themes of the movie, without seeing the last installment!

(oh yes, Sheanna......anytime you want to introduce me to your uncle... )

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lizra
I really like Theoden in the movies, but I haven't had time to reread and study the difference between Movie Theoden and book Theoden. I am very (yum) attracted to movie Theoden...so somethings up? Or no.....It's quite difficult to carry on about the themes of the movie, without seeing the last installment!

(oh yes, Sheanna......anytime you want to introduce me to your uncle... )

.... eh... this is the old guy King Theoden, right?

(Before any of you post a response: I know who King Theoden is!)

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Sorry about the outburst.

In fact, my complaint wasn't directed at you Ruinel. I'm used to your 'expressiveness' and I think it is part of your personal charm (this is not irony, if you should think so )

Yes, Theoden was a nice and noble person, both in the movie and in the book.

[Black Breathalizer]

LOTR CrossFire with GW & BB:

Frodo

BB: I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

Gwaimir Windgem: But you see, Tolkien's Frodo was able to overcome his fear, and go on to confront the forces of Darkness.

BB's reply: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Aragorn

BB: Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Gwaimir Windgem: Not nearly as badly as PJ's Aragorn. He didn't hide from his heritage, like a coward afraid what he was.

BB's reply: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Galadriel

BB: Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

Gwaimir Windgem: Now, that is just false. I posted before, but BB seems to have ignored it, as he does with an awful lot of our posts. Must be those he has no rebuttal for. Maybe he pulled one together, and thus brought it up again?

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad."

To me, this is very, very little like the movie version. It seems to me that this is another example of PJ's habit of "monsterizing" anything possible.

BB's reply: To each his own then. I read the same quote and I can see exactly where PJ's inspiration for that scene came from. You personally didn't like it, okay. But you cannot read that quote and say PJ wasn't true to Tolkien. It simply means he wasn't true to YOUR vision for that scene.

Gwaimir Windgem: Why do you feel it so damnably necessary that no-one else is allowed to have an opinion different from your own? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that everyone is a little copy of yourself?

BB's reply: This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. I have no problem with people trashing (also known as Wayfarerizing) the films. But if some of you are going to say things like "the film sucked, PJ trashed Tolkien, blah, blah, blah" I think I have every right to request that you defend those statements. I also have every right to point out that PJ created some inspired moments in the films thus far that improved our appreciation of the story. Yes, I said improved. The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes.

The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics. All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. I'm sorry about that. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong for celebrating these films simply because you don't get it--or refuse to get it.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Artanis
In fact, my complaint wasn't directed at you Ruinel. I'm used to your 'expressiveness' and I think it is part of your personal charm (this is not irony, if you should think so )

Phew! A relief. I looked back on my response, eh, it was, eh, a bit 'extreme' even for me. I got a little, errrr... out of control, when I read what he had written.
And 'expressiveness'... yes, good word for it.

Yes, Theoden was a nice and noble person, both in the movie and in the book.

And old, since he had a grown son. But yes... noble.

[Elf Girl]

Frodo

BB: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Elf Girl: I think GW was referring to the Ford scene, where Frodo gave in to the terror of the Nazgul and the Ring and passed out so he had to be carried across the ford.

Aragorn

BB: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Elf Girl: First off, it's very unkind of you to claim GW misunderstood a scene. Maybe *gasp* you misunderstood it. Aragorn's 'temptation' for the Ring is shown not to be there in his last meeting with Frodo. ('Can you protect me from yourself' etc.) Perhaps if there had been buildup, showing Aragorn struggling against the Ring, it would have worked.

Galadriel

BB's reply: To each his own then. I read the same quote and I can see exactly where PJ's inspiration for that scene came from. You personally didn't like it, okay. But you cannot read that quote and say PJ wasn't true to Tolkien. It simply means he wasn't true to YOUR vision for that scene.

Elf Girl: A dark green Galadriel in a glittery bathing suit and a high wind is Tolkien's vision for that scene? But if that's your vision, fine. I have no problem with you enjoying that or any scene.

BB: This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. I have no problem with people trashing (also known as Wayfarerizing) the films. But if some of you are going to say things like "the film sucked, PJ trashed Tolkien, blah, blah, blah" I think I have every right to request that you defend those statements. I also have every right to point out that PJ created some inspired moments in the films thus far that improved our appreciation of the story. Yes, I said improved. The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes.

Elf Girl: 'Our' appreciation? 'Our' including me? I don't think so.

And you are telling us to back up our statements? What is the world coming to...


BB: The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics. All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. I'm sorry about that. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong for celebrating these films simply because you don't get it--or refuse to get it.

Elf Girl: Again, please do not create a 'reality' without backing it up. You could at least admit it's only your opinion.

Just out of curiosity, was there any tiny miniscule detail of the films you thought could have been done a tiny bit better?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
*BB in the sights of Ruinel's crossbow!*
BB's reply: This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. {bla, bla, bla...nonsensical dribble}. Yes, I said improved. The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes. {more nonsensical dribble here}

All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. {BB gets nonsequitur here}

Are you even reading the posts? I didn't say that the movies sucked! I enjoyed them, but separate from the story that was told by JRRT. I said that they have to be viewed and considered separately from the books. The books are the pure form. The movie is some adaptation of some of the story, and can not be compared to the real thing. If you compare the movie to the real story it is a huge disappointment!! HUGE!

It is not a personal version of Tolkien's story! These are changes to the very core of the story which makes the screenplay completely different from the movie.

And I didn't say the movies sucked I said you sucked, because you said that PJ improved... (oh, dammit... I can't even say it... this is too much)... @#$%@#$%!$%!$%@%^%$^!!!
ok, so I'm still angry.... I'll come back another day.

[Black Breathalizer]

Frodo

BB: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Elf Girl: I think GW was referring to the Ford scene, where Frodo gave in to the terror of the Nazgul and the Ring and passed out so he had to be carried across the ford.

BB's reply: EXACTLY, and THAT is the problem. GW picked out a revised scene he hated from the first third of the first film and proceeded to damn PJ's entire portrayal of the character based on it rather than SEEING HOW JACKSON DEVELOPS THE CHARACTER during the course of the film!!! This is a FILM. Film's have character arcs!!! By the end of the film, Jackson's Frodo IS the book's Frodo, he simply took a professional screenwriter's approach versus a novelist's approach to getting there.

Aragorn

BB: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Elf Girl: First off, it's very unkind of you to claim GW misunderstood a scene. Maybe *gasp* you misunderstood it. Aragorn's 'temptation' for the Ring is shown not to be there in his last meeting with Frodo. ('Can you protect me from yourself' etc.) Perhaps if there had been buildup, showing Aragorn struggling against the Ring, it would have worked.

BB's reply: Huh?!??! What do you mean it wasn't there?!?!?! The "can you protect me from yourself?" IS the temptation of Aragorn. We watch Aragorn stare at the ring...we hear the ring calling out to him...we see him reach out for the ring...and close Frodo's fingers around it. What do you call that?

BB: The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics.

Elf Girl: Again, please do not create a 'reality' without backing it up. You could at least admit it's only your opinion.

BB: Exhibit A: boxofficemojo.com: check out the boxoffice receipts for Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit B: check out rottentomatos.com and check out the reviews of Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit C: Check out how many movie-related items are being sold on the internet. (Maybe this is a red herring though -- all these items could be going unsold, right?) Exhibit D: check out the number of hits the first movie trailer for ROTK gets when it is released on the internet in June or July. Now let's see YOUR reality, Elf Girl.

Elf Girl: Just out of curiosity, was there any tiny miniscule detail of the films you thought could have been done a tiny bit better?

BB: Yep.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Frodo

BB's reply: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Followup: The Frodo in Jackson's movie seemed to me at least to be considerably weaker than the Frido in Tolkien's books. The Ford scene is an excellent example of this.

[b]Aragorn

BB's reply: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Followup: No, I am not telling you that. He hid his heritage, because it made him a prime target for Sauron. That is vastly different from hiding from his heritage. And the biggest problem I had was in the extended edition, at Lorien.

[b]Galadriel

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad."

To me, this is very, very little like the movie version. It seems to me that this is another example of PJ's habit of "monsterizing" anything possible.

BB's reply: To each his own then. I read the same quote and I can see exactly where PJ's inspiration for that scene came from. You personally didn't like it, okay. But you cannot read that quote and say PJ wasn't true to Tolkien. It simply means he wasn't true to YOUR vision for that scene.

Followup: I didn't see any laughter in that scene. I didn't see anything of the kind. The laughter makes a huge difference in the atmosphere and mood, providing Galadriel a great power in the very face of temptation, whereas in the movie, she was breathing heavily in her tremendous effort to overcome the temptation. The fact that she laughed in the face of temptation gives her a power and authority.

Gwaimir Windgem: Why do you feel it so damnably necessary that no-one else is allowed to have an opinion different from your own? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that everyone is a little copy of yourself?

BB's reply: 1) This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. 2) If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. 3) I have no problem with people trashing (also known as Wayfarerizing) the films. 4) But if some of you are going to say things like "the film sucked, PJ trashed Tolkien, blah, blah, blah" I think I have every right to request that you defend those statements. 5) I also have every right to point out that PJ created some inspired moments in the films thus far that improved our appreciation of the story. Yes, I said improved. 6) The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

7) The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics. 8) All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. 9) I'm sorry about that. 10) But that doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong for celebrating these films simply because you don't get it--or refuse to get it.

1) Actually, you are not. You saying point blank "This is the truth, this is flat out reality. If you don't agree with me, then you don't know Tolkien, etc. etc. etc.".
2) Actually, you know what? The vast, VAST majority of posts which claim that the movies were poor adaptations are generated by your ridiculous proclamations that "Jackson knows Tolkien better than Tolkien knew himself" and so on.
3) All evidence points to the contrary.
4) Firstly, we have not said that "the film sucked" (at least not most of us). The general consensus is that they are enjoyable as films, though not all agree. But some of us feel that as adaptations (two very different roles) they were poor and that it was not well done in that regards. Those of us who feel that way (at least most of us) consider that with a work such a Tolkien's (which I at least hold to be pretty damn close to literary perfection, which naturally generates difference, as you seem to be on the opposite of the spectrum ).
5) I agree that he did create some inspired moments, but nothing he has done has improved my appreciation of the story, except when comparing the two. I wonder why you use the word "our" all of a sudden. Have you been promoted to royal rank, and are now speaking to lowly peasants?
6) If the "statement" you refer to is that you said that he improved Tolkien, then I have no issues with it. If it is that he did improve Tolkien, then I strongly disagree, as I feel that he did not. That is an extremely controversial statement, and to complain about not agreeing with such a statement and licking your boots for discovering it is ridiculous.
7) That is not reality; that is opinion. I do not think they are an impressive adaptation. Does this mean that, simply because I do not believe so, that it is undeniably and irrevocably true? NO!!! It means that this is my OPINION. What divine being do you hold yourself to be, that your opinion is the definition of reality?
8) On the same coin, all your obsequity towards PJ only reinforces the notion that you DID get YOUR PERSONAL version on the screen.
9) Please. Spare me your falsehood.
10) Of course not. For the umptillionth time, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE LOVING THE MOVIES. Did you get that? Let's try again.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE LOVING THE MOVIES.
What I have a problem with is when people come in acting like Jackson is the Christ and they are the new Baptist, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Jackson is near! If a man sees beauty in the work of Jackson, nod your head off in agreement, idiot! Jackson is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto Perfection, but by Him." What I have a problem with is when you proclaim the supremity of Jackson, say that Tolkien was too stupid to say what he meant to say after [b]eleven years[/i], and say that those who do not agree with you know nothing about Tolkien.

As a side-note, you completely evaded my question, yet again.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Exhibit A: boxofficemojo.com: check out the boxoffice receipts for Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit B: check out rottentomatos.com and check out the reviews of Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit C: Check out how many movie-related items are being sold on the internet. (Maybe this is a red herring though -- all these items could be going unsold, right?) Exhibit D: check out the number of hits the first movie trailer for ROTK gets when it is released on the internet in June or July.

That proves ONLY that the films sold, and that they were popular, which I think NO-ONE argued.

Please everyone, don't start another flame war Isn't this supposed to be a discussion? I don't see why BB should not try to argue his POV.

I have absolutely no problem with him arguing his point of view. But when he proclaims his point of view to be Absolute Truth, and states that those who disagree <insert various comment about intelligence or ability to understand anything at all about Tolkien>, that is what I have a problem with.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
[B]What I have a problem with is when people come in acting like Jackson is the Christ and they are the new Baptist, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Jackson is near! If a man sees beauty in the work of Jackson, nod your head off in agreement, idiot! Jackson is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto Perfection, but by Him." What I have a problem with is when you proclaim the supremity of Jackson, say that Tolkien was too stupid to say what he meant to say after eleven years[/i], and say that those who do not agree with you know nothing about Tolkien.

Go, Gwai!!!!

http://www.spacespider.net/emo/spank.gif