Lord of the Rings - Page 2

I think that if you read the books first you will understand more, but enjoy less. Kinda a trade off.

this movie is the second book in a trilogy, but the first book is entirely self-contained. it probives some background for the second and third books, but that is easily covered.
Ummm.... no... its the first book in the trilogy, the book before it is a prequel (the Hobbit).
The Hobbit (prequel)
The Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King

Of course when thats often split into 6 books (or is it 9? cant remember).

Also, Gandalf touches it, but just breifly (seeing the big eye then pulling back). I dont remember Isildur (sp?) touching it, but...
Also Boromir touches the chain, but not the ring its self.

What I want to know is what the fcuk happened to the "I am Sauromon of many colors!" speech? That was KEY to the book, but cut out of the movie.

Some background on the books.

LOTR is six books published in three volumes to make one big book. The three volumes are Fellowship...Two Towers and Return of the Kings.


You could almost cut them anywhere so it doesn't bother me at all that the movie cuts into Two Towers or anything like that.

My understanding from the time when the original trailers were released, was that there would be three movies...each following a year after the other basically. I seem to remember the announcer saying "Christmas 2001, Fellowship of the Ring, Christmas 2002....etc"

Is this correct? That would make sense given the fact there are three volumes, one presumably covered by each movie.

On a side-note, can someone clear something up for me...

The 9 Wraiths (sp?) who rode the black horses in the movie...those were originally the 9 men who, like the elves and the wizards, had been given their own rings during the time that preceeded the ring of power...and when they turned sides and vowed to find the ring of power, that is when they became the beings we saw on the horses...right?

My recollection is that all 9 of them were involved in that "white water" scene, but I can't remember for sure. Trying not to spoil any part of the movie for those who haven't seen it...can anyone tell me if I am understanding the background correctly?

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>this movie is the second book in a trilogy, but the first book is entirely self-contained. it probives some background for the second and third books, but that is easily covered.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's based on the first volume of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, not the second volume. We'll get to see The Two Towers in December 2002.

You're probably thinking of The Hobbit ("There and Back Again"), which is something of an introduction to Middle Earth. It chronicles Bilbo Baggins' adventures some 50 years before the events in the Lord of the Rings books, and how he came to possess the One Ring. It's good background material, but the movie fills in everything someone who hasn't read it needs to know.

[Whoops, missed the posts that already cleared this up.]

[ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Daver ]</p>

I just got back from watching FotR and I could not be more pleased with the film. I read the books back in Middle School so I don't remember a whole lot, and I think that's a good thing since I didn't walk into it with many expectations.

He made a movie out of the book, and this is a feat. Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone was basically a walkthrough of the book on film and that is its largest downfall as a film. Peter Jackson had some balls, ostensibly, and made a movie out of the book instead of a live-action reading.

You DO NOT need to (or even want to) read the books before you watch the movie. It is a wonderful 3 hours, worth every penny it costs to get in.

*WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD*

*NO, SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS, DON'T LOOK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THINGS*

----------------------------------

Boromir doesn't touch the ring, only the chain.

The Balrog was uber-cool.

My favorite character, Gollum, will have a bigger role later on, but I think he was done marvellously in the film. I absolutely cannot wait for his bigger role in future.

--------------------------------

*END SPOILERS*

Liv Tyler was actually good, an absolute shock. Cate Blanchett was great. Hell, Elijah Wood was pretty good and Rudy rocked!

All 3 films are done, so it doesn't matter if FotR only makes $50 million, they're all coming out. w00t!

Titanic is the highest grossing film of all time, I'm not sweating it's non-record breaking status.

There are some cool desktops, e-cards and screensavers at this page:

<a href="http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/downloads/downloads.html" target="_blank">http://www.lordoftherings.net/legend/downloads/downloads.html</a>

p.s. I liked the film quite a bit. It's been years since I read the books too. That "worked" for me. I wasn't constantly comparing the movie to the book. I am going to reread The Hobbit and FotR before the next part comes out. You think the hype is huge now? It will be over two years before this dies down.

Okay I saw the movie. It does end at the end of Fellowship. It only goes into the others enough to know where everyone is headed.

I read the books and liked the movie. I got rather wrapped up in it. My wife had not read them and didn't understand a lot of what was going on. I think you don't get an idea of how long the journey was. They were four days underground and in the elven woods all winter. Also Sam looked into the water too. I could go on....

They rewrote some parts of it. Made other things a little too obvious. It may be too much story to get into even three hours.

At the end of the movie some guy in the back of the theatre yelled out, "RUDY,GO RUDY!"
It was funny as hell.

*lol* That is funny.

So, no one knows what I'm talking about regarding the nine who rode horses in the movie? As far as how they got to be how they are I mean?

I recall there was a brief description in the movie, but I was not absorbing everything that was said, as it was said, because I was trying to piece everything together while not missing any of the effects, etc. I'm a lousy multitasker, I guess!

Moogs, to answer your question about the "Ringwraiths",
This is Gandalf explaining things to Frodo: [quote]
"'The Enemy still lacks on thing to give him strength and knowledge to beat down all resistance, break the last defences and cover all the lands in a second darkness. He lacks the One Ring.'
'The Three, fairest of all, the Elf-lords hid from him, and his hand never touched them or sullied them. Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed. Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants. Long ago. It is many a year since the Nine walked abroad. Yet who knows? As the Shadow grows once more, they too may walk again. But come! We will not speak of such things even in the morning of the Shire.'" <hr></blockquote>

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: kaboom ]</p>

The fascinating thing about LOTR and the 'mythology' from which it grew in the transition from Celtic/ Norse legend to a more Bible-compatible story. Tolkien spent several decades originating and defining his stories and the work from which LOTR came (published as The Silmatillion plus other volumes) changes over the years.

The hierarchy of good and evil runs thus:

Overall there is God (Eru) who creates the angelic orders. Those involved in The Silmarillion and LOTR being the Valar (most powerful) and the Maiar (helpers of the Valar). One vala rebelled and became Morgoth. Sauron - his principal servant - was a very powerful Maia, as were the balrogs, (although from different sub-groups). The wizards were also Maiar, but incarnated as men to suit the purposes of the war against Sauron.

The Valar are the Classic Greek/ Roman/ Norse Gods, more or less, explained as angelic powers with distinct roles to play in the governance of Earth.

These angelic orders are quite distinct from the races created to inhabit the Earth; namely Elves and Men. Other races such as Dwarves, Ents and possibly Hobbits are additions to the primary two races. Orcs were almost certainly bred from elves.

By the time of LOTR Sauron is the principal force of evil in the world and has rebuilt his kingdom and ambitions along Morgoth's lines. He has created the One Ring to subdue and control the others and thus those who wear them (3 for the Elves, 7 for Dwarves and 9 for Men): Hence the 9 Ring - Wraiths. Incidentally it might seem (taken from other sources including Tolkien's replies to letters) that Sauron sees hinmself as Morgoth by this time and that the 9 ringwraiths are his equivalent to Morgoth's 7 balrogs. The power in the ring is a large part of Sauron's native power and by regaining it he would not only be able to subdue Middle Earth completely, but also (again derived from Tolkien's letters I believe) attack the Valar too, in a suicidal bid to hasten Morgoth's return.

Hey...what kind of sorry excuses for geeks are you?! not a single mention of LotR since December 24!...pathetic

Anyway...I saw the movie for the second time yesterday, and I must say it is a great movie. Sure, it's not perfect, but what is?

It's still rated #1 movie at <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120737" target="_blank">http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120737</a>
How do you feel about that?

Personally, when compared to the up-runners (eg. Star Wars), I think it is ok!
However, you can't really compare movies of different genres. In my opinion, it is the best "fantasy" movie ever, absolutely.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>

Ok.

I saw it again, yesterday, myself.

Unfortunately, it was an extremely frustrating experience because the sound system in the theater sucked big time. The surround sound wasn't working at all and it sound like only the right front speaker was working most of the time. Two complaints to the management didn't help at all even though one of the guys said, "yeah, it does sound a little off".

It was horrible. When rocks were crashing there wasn't even so much as a thud. The horse's screeches weren't loud. None of the sound effects came through at all.

You know that part in the trailer where, in the Mines of Moria, Pippin knocks the skeleton into the well and the drums go dum, Dum, DUM DUM DUM DM DUM. That part didn't come through at all.

I was more pissed because I wanted the people around me to enjoy it and I just didn't think they could without the sound.

I'm never going back to that theater again. I think I'll go to the Ziegfield in Manhattan and watch it - one more time.

Haven't seen it yet (maybe next week), but it won a bunch of AFI awards last night.

<a href="http://www.afi.com/tv/afi2001.asp" target="_blank">http://www.afi.com/tv/afi2001.asp</A>

seb:
Refund?
After working in customer service positions I have no problems at all with getting funds back.

On Topic:

I'm re-reading the trilogy now (I first read them in middle school) and the movie has omitted some things (Tom Bombadil, anyone? ), fudged parts to make for a better movie (Frodo figuring out the "password" instead of Gandalf, being surrounded by Orcs when the Balrog coms instead of separated from them by fire, etc...).

I'm glad Peter Jackson did take a bit of artistic latitude because the movie is fantastic, and with the condensed account reaching 3 hours I think a true interpretation of the first book would easily take 7-8 hours.

I think in the books that it is Gandalf that guesses the password based on a suggestion given by one of the hobbits&lt; I think other than Frodo.

SUPER BIG SPOILER COMING UP++

Also, in the books, Sam takes possession of the ring at the end of the twoo towers... so, obviously, he seems to touch it

END SPOILER


Someone mentioned Gandalf seeing the eye, that is when he grazes the Palantir (crystal ball) of Saruman, not when he touches the ring.

GOOD POINTS:
good movie, didn't wollow in fantasy smuckiness and was tough and dark so that it seemed serious

It really gave a sense of need for speed which sometimes was lost in the books and all its wandering and stopping

Maintained the most important part of the books and that was an epic feel: the feeling of a world at stake.

BAD POINTS:
action was way too fast, there was very little breathing space, and in the books their travelling was done over a long grueling time.
He could have stressed the wear and tear of travell and slowed the film down abit and made an intermission (I had to pee from minute one and waited for all three hours---I couldn't stand straight at the end of the movie)

ALSO, (SPOILER FOLLOWING) and very importantly, in the books the wraiths are not beaten off by Aragorn. I think that this significantly reduces their sense of intimidation and fear. How will they carry the FEAR that they need to induce in the rest of the epic if they can, all of them, be beaten off by one man a sword and some torches????!!!!

ALSO: The Orcs are not wearing the hand of Saruman, which means that the distinction between the Mordor Orcs and the Isengard orcs will not play a role in the movies, though I think that it is minor, it is the kind of enhancement that makes the epic that much deeper and should be kept.


It is very good as a film though, and I was heard to utter, on the way out "AWESOME"

I hope that the ents are done well, because they sure could look damn foolish (if they look too much like trees).... if he keeps them at all in the movie.


Aah ... but mainly it made me reread the books again (must easily be the third time) and I do love them.... even if lembas gets alittle old.
About to start the Return of the King tonight.

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>ALSO: The Orcs are not wearing the hand of Saruman, which means that the distinction between the Mordor Orcs and the Isengard orcs will not play a role in the movies, though I think that it is minor, it is the kind of enhancement that makes the epic that much deeper and should be kept.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They do wear the White Hand, or at least the Uruk-Hai do ... they wear it in face-paint on their foreheads, rather than on their shields as in the book. Also, remember that when Saruman asks Lurtz "to whom do you owe your allegiance" Lurtz says "Saruman."

So the Isengard/Mordor rivalry may play a part yet ... we'll have to see when the Two Towers comes out.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>

Excellent movie. Did not notice the time passing.

I re-read book one before I saw the movie, so it was fairly fresh in my mind.

The following are not really spoilers, but I do mention a couple of scenes from the movie. So reader beware ...

A lot was left out - had to, if we didn't want a 10 hour movie. There are a few things included that were not in the book. The party scene could have been better. I kept thinking "Irish Hobbits?" The continuity problem with the "horse chase scene" was annoying, but I got over it.

---

All the acting was excellent. Couldn't really fault the characterisations, given the limitations of a 3 hour movie.

I think one problem is that those who have not read the books may be confused about what the hell it all means. After all, book one pretty much sets things up. The action is in books two and three.

In Australia this movie is rated M. Yet there were young children in the audience, who not only would not understand the story, but probably got nightmares from some of the images.

Will see it again in a few weeks, and will buy the dvd when it comes out - rumour has it that around 30 minutes will be added to the dvd version.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: xenu ]</p>

[quote]Will see it again in a few weeks, and will buy the dvd when it comes out - rumour has it that around 30 minutes will be added to the dvd version <hr></blockquote>

That's good to hear.

I cant wait for the DVD!!

I can just see it..
"The 4 1/2 Hr movie you never saw!"

I also want to see all 3 back-to-back on the big screen after they are all out!

[quote]Originally posted by xenu:
<strong>I think one problem is that those who have not read the books may be confused about what the hell it all means. After all, book one pretty much sets things up. The action is in books two and three.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I took my girlfriend to see it; she has not read the books. She liked it a lot, and wasn't confused by it at all. I only had to "help her out" once during the movie. When the Fellowship was approaching the Falls of Rauros she gripped my forearm in fear; I had to tell her "don't worry; they know the waterfall is there."

Also, after the movie she said she was confused about Merry and Pippin's names. She didn't get that "Pippin" was a nickname for "Peregrin," etc.

Yeah, groverat, I thought about asking for a refund. However, it was 11:30, and the managers were all out of sight. I just didn't feel like going through the aggravation for a measly $9. I saw it matinee the first time for $4, so I didn't come out too bad. I went by myself (because I could!). If I'd been with some friend I definitely would've.

I was near the theater this evening and thought about stopping in with my stub and having a talk with the manager. More than anything just so they'll fix the freaking sound - for the enjoyment of others.

Just wasn't worth my time though. Sad and weak as that may sound.

Mr Tea, GREAT info, thats really cool to know.

as for Gandalf seeing the eye, in the book this doesnt happen, but in the movie he gets tempted by it, but pulls back after he gets too close and sees the eye.

As for the desktops, WHY THE HELL DONT THEY HAVE THE STRIDER BAR SCENE! That was the coolest part of the movie, that one shot with Strider in the corner, it would make an ideal desktop. Guess Ill just have to try to cap the DVD.

I havent read the books and am not 'in the know' but the movie was awesome and went to see it again.

BUT... there is a part I really dont understand. When the party gets to the other elves, where the head Elf chick (kate blanchette) is asked by Frodo if she wants the ring... and she becomes blue n evil for a few seconds...

When that ordeal is over, she becomes normal again and says something to the effect of "I have passed the test, I shall now exile myself with the other elves and go West" (or something like that).

WTF does that mean? She passes the test and she exiles herself? That makes no sense!

PS I'm super glad I havent read any of the books. All movies I have seen to which I read the books of beforehand have always severely limited my enjoying the movie. Like Sphere, Jurassic Park, Tailor of Panama, etc etc. This was really well done and didnt want to have to worry about 'is it as good as the book' and have to compare MY scenes that I had made in my mind with those made in a movie.

PPS Just as Gandalf got saved by a giant Eagle... couldnt have someone done the SAME THING to drop the damn ring into the volcano???? Just FLY there and drop. DUUUUH. (yes, I do entirely realize that there would be NO STORY if it were that easy... but still it pisses me off)

PPPS For being a Wizard, Gandalf doesn't really seem to do much heavy duty magical stuff. Guess years of D and D really alter your ideas of powerful wizards (fireballs, etc)

[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>BUT... there is a part I really dont understand. When the party gets to the other elves, where the head Elf chick (kate blanchette) is asked by Frodo if she wants the ring... and she becomes blue n evil for a few seconds...

When that ordeal is over, she becomes normal again and says something to the effect of "I have passed the test, I shall now exile myself with the other elves and go West" (or something like that).

WTF does that mean? She passes the test and she exiles herself? That makes no sense!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually she says: "I pass the test. I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel."

The "test" is the temptation that Frodo's offer of the Ring represents for her. She could take it and become a powerful queen -- and eventually, of course, turn to evil because of the Ring.

By "going into the West" she's not exiling herself. It's more like going home. All the Elves are leaving Middle-earth -- few already remain, and eventually all will go to the Grey Havens and sail away west to a land where Men cannot go.

So her choice is to take the Ring and become a queen in Middle-earth, or to leave Middle-earth with the rest of the Elves and sail into the West.

What the movie does not make clear is that Galadriel possesses one of the three Elven-rings, and with it she maintains her enchanted realm of Lorien. When the One is destroyed, the Three will lose much of their power as well, because they are bound with the One. That's what she means by "I will diminish."

I found her speech to be nearly unintelligible because of PJ's special effects. Here is how it appears in the book:

[quote]"And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!"

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 all measurement, and beautiful beyond all 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.

"I pass the test," she said. "I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel." <hr></blockquote>

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>

The elves' return to the West (to live with the Valar) in part of a wider theme in which the world becomes dominated by man as the ages pass at the expense of "supernatural" creatures like elves, dwarves, angels and demons. The LOTR contains many oblique references to a much richer past, which even in the time of the war of the ring have become almost mythological. The film(s) have of necessity simplified things even further by omitting much material, so the context of Galadriel's statements and much else about her existence is not going to be understood without going to the books.

Some interesting facts relating to Galadriel, the elves and the cosmology for those who might not know.

Galadriel is in exile in Middle Earth because she was one of a vast host of elves who disobeyed the valar and came under their judgement by the events accompanying their return to Middle Earth at the dawn of the first age to fight Morgoth.

Her country of Lothlorien is modelled on the gardens of Lorien in Valinor. (Valinor aka 'the West' and 'the land of the valar'.)

Her 4 brothers were killed in the First Age, one personally by Sauron. Her father chose to stay in Valinor and never came back to Middle Earth.

She has golden hair because she is part Vanya, the highest of the 3 tribes of the elves. Elves in middle earth genrally have dark hair. She is also elven royalty by birth.

Valinor ("the West") can only be reached on specially built boats as the circles of the Earth have been 'bent' since the second age, so that mortals cannot reach it. A reference to what might now be called extra-dimensional travel.

Gandalf (and the other 4 wizards) also desire deperately to return to the West, but despite being angelic spirits who came our from Valinor to oppose Sauron, their incarnation as "men" has left them with only dim and distant memories of their past.

Sauron was supposed to have returned to Valinor at the end of the first age to be judged by the valar, but after initially repenting he hid and remained in Middle Earth.

*** POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THE STORY ***

When Sauron and to a lesser extent Saruman are destroyed at the end of the war their incorporeal forms are dissolved by a wind from out of the West. Saruman's spirit 'looks to the west', possibly in repentance and hope of re-acceptance, but is rejected instead.

CaseCom and Mr Tea,

Thanks for the clarification, being someone whos only knowledge comes from the movie, I had absolutely no clue as to the references to the "West". I also didnt know that Gandalf was immortal... or is he?

Hmm, I will read the trilogy once all the movies have been released and be able to get the real inside view... sounds better and better.

BTW, besides a few tricks and such, it would seem that wizards are more like wise men rather than the D&D type wizards we have come to expect. Or was the kind of magic in LOTR just a taste of what is to come?

[quote] I've been reading FotR to my family aloud, part of our effort to reduce TV time. <hr></blockquote>
That's awesome, ShadyG!

BTW, alcimedes, i thought it was the first book in the trilogy, followed by the Two Towers, and The Return of the King?

Also, pscates, it's a visual feast, if nothing else. I came out a little underwhelmed, but enjoyed it none-the-less. And I'm no LotR trekkie.

Side note: Agent Smith was AWESOME in the matrix. His character had, by far, the most depth and dimension, and was excellent acting. It is a little distracting to see an elven agent smith, but it's a testament to the guy's acting in the matrix.

[quote]Originally posted by stimuli:
<strong>Side note: Agent Smith was AWESOME in the matrix. His character had, by far, the most depth and dimension, and was excellent acting. It is a little distracting to see an elven agent smith, but it's a testament to the guy's acting in the matrix.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The last time I saw a performance like Agent Smith was in Silence of the Limbs with Hannibal Lecter. Elronds lines weren't delivered with the craftiness that Agent Smiths lines where but Hugo Weaving is Hugo Weaving. Not bad for a Nigerian LOL

Response to ZOs point-

The explanation for the lack of wizard firepower is that they were forbidden to match Sauron's power with power. This stems from previous experience before the first age when the valar battled Morgoth, shattering continents and generally wrecking the primeval perfection of the world. At the end of the first age when Morgoth was defeated the entire region where the battle was fought ended up sumerged in the ocean by the upheavals. Additionally there are hints of the theme that the coming age is to be the age of men and that the time for overtly supernatural intervention is drawing to an end.

The angelic poweres incarnated as the wizards are therefore subject to many of the limitations of natural beings:- hunger, fatigue, temptation, death and the need to start from scratch in much of their learning and skills. Their wizard-form is in itself mortal, but as long as they remain true to their cause (the war against Sauron) they will return to the West and presumably shed their wizardly form with all its trappings of mortality.

Only Gandalf remained loyal. Saruman fell into Sauron's trap. Radaghast seems to have gone native and lost the plot and the two blue wizards disappear into the far south of the world never to be heard of again (although Tolkien says that they may have become involved in the occult and been founders of obscure religions).

***POSSIBLE SPOILER FOLLOWS. BE WARNED***

Gandalf is indeed killed in the battle with the balrog after a long fight, so although he is spiritually immortal (every sentient being in LOTR is although this is never explicity stated in the case of orcs) he is not invulnerable. But instead of 'staying dead' he is sent back to continue the war against Sauron with increased power. The books don't make it entirely clear who sent him back but one of Tolkien's letters states that it must have been God himself, not the valar whose authority didn't extend to matters outwith the world. The spirit incarnated as Gandalf was previously known as Olorin by the elves in the First Age and was picked by the valar to fight against Sauron because of his wisdom and compassion.

Sauron himself provides another example of vulnerable immortality. All the maiar are capable of self incarnation and Sauron had many forms at different times to suit his purpose, some horrific, some beautiful (dark sorcerer, werewolf, serpent, giant batlike entity, angel of light, etc). To enslave the elves he assumed a beautiful form as Lord of Gifts when teaching them how to make rings of power. When he corrupted the king of Numenor he also assumed a beautiful incarnation. He lost this ability after the destruction of his body in the ruin of Numenor and became a fiery, burning figure of terror thereafter. His body was destroyed twice, but his spirit was able to reincarnate until his final defeat in the war of the ring when he suffered Morgoth's fate of being shut out of the universe in the void. Morgoth however is to return for the last battle at the end of the world. Sauron is never mentioned as coming back.

On the subject of immortality only men's spirits go beyond the world after death, all others go to 'the halls of Mandos' in the West. Mandos is the vala with responsibilty for judgement and doom and all elves (and supposedly dwarves) go there. Elves are eventually reborn.

[quote]Elronds lines weren't delivered with the craftiness that Agent Smiths lines where but Hugo Weaving is Hugo Weaving. Not bad for a Nigerian LOL<hr></blockquote>Hugo Weaving is a Nigerian? what? what's the Nigerian thing? I'm confused, because Nigeria is in Africa, and he is about as non-African as they come....

Sweet Fancy Moses, MrTea, you know a lot about this stuff!

[quote]Originally posted by Solishu:
<strong>Hugo Weaving is a Nigerian? what? what's the Nigerian thing? I'm confused, because Nigeria is in Africa, and he is about as non-African as they come....</strong><hr></blockquote>

He was born in Nigeria; his dad worked for a multinational oil company. He moved around a lot as a kid, following his dad I guess, until he settled in Australia at age 16.

Heh. Well that sure is interesting.... Imagine that.

Just finished reading The Silmarillion again and my son and I just read The Hobbit. Moving on to FoTR. Mr Tea, that was a very excellent wrapup on what is what in TolkeinLand. Even after just reading The Silmarillian I have a hard time keeping it all straight. Tolkein and his son did an amazing job with that book. BTW, loved the movie and I WILL own it on DVD.

[quote]Originally posted by Solishu:
<strong>Heh. Well that sure is interesting.... Imagine that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Solishu,
That is one of the reasons why I don't believe it's good to use terms like African-American ...Africans and Nigerians come in multiple ethnicities

Sounds like Hugo had a good time growing up.

Hugo Weavings deliver his lines like the chinese place down the street, late, cold, and unhappilly

Difference is that he gets a bigger tip.

Having been born and grown up in Nigeria myself I've always kinda snickered at the term "African-American."

Wouldn't you simply have been a European-African? Unless you are black that is. . . .uh... I guess now your an European-African American.

I don't see what there is to snicker at, it's merely a discriptive term that doesn't relie primarily on skin color. I can fully understand the preference for the usage of that term . . .it's just not that big of a deal really.

Any relation to Doris Lessing?

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>