Hurin

Very nice. Though it's tough to drool over such small pictures!

We need bigger pictures!

Good theory, but I actually got my email for the Limited Edition. So, it's just luck of the draw (or first come first serve?).

Just off the top of my head, the GD library, which is an extension of PHP, would have to be "told" that it can/should handle BMP files. The GD library is what handles all the image manipulation/modification that takes place upon attaching/uploading. It's not set up to handle BMP files by default. Actually, I'm not sure that it can.

Having said that, I never actually answered your initial question: I'm not aware of any changes made recently. But that's not to say that Shawn hasn't been doing anything.

Actually, the more that I think about it. . . were I not an Admin, the original thread might have been locked by now and each of us given a warning to stop derailing things with an increasingly off-topic argument.

But I did promise to move the posts out of the thread so that it wouldn't be locked or further derailed. Yet why should we get our own thread to just continue an argument when the average member can't ask for or be granted such a thing?

So, to me the only fair thing is to move the posts, and lock this new thread. Normally, I'd be wary of locking a thread after getting the last word. But since my esteemed partner in derailment here has repeatedly called for this discussion to be moved to PM, this should give him ample motivation to actually do so.

Apologies to all for the "Hobbit Thread" derailment.

I just got my CDJapan ship notification. And then it was followed up by a 500y coupon.

Hurin, if it still hurts you so much that someone said that he doesn't care if Cristopher isn't getting paid for the work other people are doing with the rights they bought from his father, then PM him and save us more rants.

The irony is that I don't really care all that much myself. And, in fact, despite your simplification, I have no problem with people disagreeing or having "no problem" with the Tolkien estate's situation. Indeed, those that have said (essentially): "Meh, he has enough money" or "There are bigger things in my life to worry about". . . I've let be. . . because I largely agree.

What caught my eye about Jenius's post was not only that he took the time to post that he had "no sympathy". . . but then also went on to state a reason. Now, first, people are seldom motivated to post about something that they really don't care about. And the reason he gave for his "lack of sympathy" seemed indicative to me of his real impetus for posting. So I pointed out what I considered to be a flaw in his reasoning. Now, if his only point was that he just didn't really care either way, or that Christopher Tolkien already has enough money, or that there's more important things in the world to worry about, you'd think he'd just say: "Ah, good point I guess. . . but I still really don't care." But instead, he continued to put forward his feelings about inherited wealth. Only to then begin obfuscating and somehow accusing me of a "neat trick" when I attributed his opinion about the Tolkien situation to his underpinning (and increasingly obvious) views about inherited wealth. Saying that this is a "neat trick" seems pretty odd considering he originally stated those views himself in order to support his opinion on the Tolkien situation. Yet I'm not supposed to link them?

But really, this all stemmed from the fact that I was intrigued because I've rarely before seen anyone "not care" so strenuously or repeatedly.

Anyways. . . to spare you and others from further thread derailment, I'll be moving these posts with apologies to those who would like their Hobbit thread "inheritance argument-free."

But, on to Jenius. . .

I said two things, 1) If the man himself were affected my heart would bleed for him but I think we can both agree that's completely irrelevant when discussing how little I care about the state of Chris Tolkien's wealth. 2) I said we're all responsible for our own bad business decisions.

Again, as I said before you even got involved: "The law is the law." Of course everyone is responsible for their bad business decisions. But that doesn't mean that you can't feel pity or take regretful note of the circumstances under which a "bad business decision" was made or even forced upon someone (by circumstances). Nor does this really address why you feel nothing for Christopher Tolkien. Surely if you feel bad for Tolkien himself, and Tolkien felt bad that his children would not see the benefit of his works in other media, then you'd think some of that "heart bleeding" sympathy would filter down to his progeny. Yet, in your case it doesn't. Your sympathy just stops there. And you've made it pretty apparent why: Your views on inheritance essentially put a "brake" on your sympathy at that point. But more on this later. . .

My point was that Chris Tolkien did nothing to earn any money, it was his father who did it. Furthermore, you knew I felt this way from my saying my heart would go out to the actual writer but that's pretty much it.

Note here that you still fail to address my point while merely repeating your own (that C. Tolkien didn't earn anything himself). My point was that we're not talking about earnings, or wages, or "benefit" from what your father did. We're talking about ownership of something (in Tolkien's case, an intellectual property) and whether said ownership can/should be passed down to family members (inheritance). Indeed, this isn't just about Tolkien. . . I didn't earn my father's car. . . but do I get it when he passes? How about his house? This is the real point, which you conveniently continue to avoid. "Bad business decisions" and the Tolkien situation aside, you still fail to make a distinction between the recipient failing to "earn" anything and/or be "deserving" and the right of someone to pass their property on to whomever they choose. So your point that Christopher Tolkien didn't "earn" what his father would have bequeathed to him is, again, not very relevant unless you actually want to finally argue that people shouldn't be allowed to inherit property.

I was simply pointing out that there are kids all over the world not getting rich off their parents work, even kids you would swear ought to, so why be upset about Chris Tolkien? There is no grave injustice here, a bad business decision was made. No one stole anything. Perhaps this wasn't the best argument to bring up though. Obviously you full-heartedly disagree. That's cool. I am okay with you not liking the analogy and disagreeing with it. I'll accept it's imperfect.

Well, again, nobody is saying anything was stolen. And nobody is taking issue with the fact that a bad business decision was made. Those are straw men you keep repeatedly setting up. But I do take note that you seem to bop back and forth a little too freely between "he (CT) didn't earn anything" and "it was a bad business decision." The first seems to indicate that you have a problem with inherited wealth. The latter seems to indicate that you accept that wealth can/should be inherited, but that "the law is the law." But these two views aren't easily reconciled. So which one is it? If you want to argue the latter, that's fine. As I've said, I agree that CT isn't legally entitled to anything. But it's the former view (that CT didn't earn it) that both seems hostile to the idea of inherited wealth and seems to make you immune to any sense of sympathy for CT's situation. So, in some sense, you are satisfied that Tolkien managed to inadvertently screw his family out of immeasurable wealth, because it seems to jive with your views on inheritance and how those who receive inherited wealth are not "deserving." Yet, oddly, when I try to point this out, I'm engaging in some "neat trick."

This was addressed by my cursory "he doesn't care, he's dead." Besides that, he made the deal didn't he? I also said he'd be thrilled to see how wide an audience his works have reached so who knows how much he'd be kicking himself over what went to his child. There's no way he imagined all this wealth being generated by his story when he died.

Saying: "He doesn't care, he's dead" in no way addresses (with any substance) the point that the will and rights of the property holder (again, I'm talking in general here and not about Tolkien in particular) should also come into play. Indeed, if I may engage in some light hyperbole: It's a bit disconcerting to me that you consider the death of an affronted party to somehow mitigate all ethical concerns. Indeed, by that logic, we can give a deceased person's wealth to whomever we want. After all, the owner is now dead and their progeny are totally undeserving, right? Actually, now that i think about it, that does seem to accurately represent your point, though you've been loathe to just come right out and say it: Progeny have no rights to the wealth of their fore-bearer.

But obviously, we can't go much further there without also exploring your views on property rights (etc.). Obviously, someone who takes issue with the concept of private property will have no problem with there being no means of someone passing their wealth on to the person of their choosing. But, seeing how difficult it has been up to this point to just get you to own up to your own views on inheritance and how they inform your so emphatically and repeatedly stated "lack of sympathy" for someone like CT, I'd be entirely loathe to strike up yet another "debate" with you as I don't think you communicate your views in good faith or with adequate intellectual honesty.

I'm not trying to egg you on in anyway

No, you're not now. But you definitely did your share of taunting and flame-baiting initially. So this "I'm a good guy who just wants to take this to PM. Why are so mean!?!" act is a bit hard to swallow. And oddly, my PM inbox remains empty. I find it intriguing that you keep replying here publicly and then asking me to respond privately. As always, my PM inbox is open to all. I find it interesting that you still have made no use of it despite your repeated assertions that you'd like to take this to PM.

Are you absolutely certain that IPB has handled BMP files properly in the past (thumbnailing, etc.). BMP is not a "web image" format like JPG, GIF, or PNG. So, really, I'm not surprised that it's not doing all the "whiz bang" stuff with them.

I'm neither "exquisitely sensitive" (very odd adjective choice)

What's so odd? I quite like the construction. I'm surprised you haven't heard it used before.

You're using the fact I said I'm jealous of lottery winners and people who make a ton of money from inheritance as some HUGE issue.

You're setting up a straw man here and hoping nobody notices. Note that you say this in response to an argument of mine that makes absolutely no mention of your admission of jealousy. Very odd.

Rather, I pointed out that you were mischaracterizing your initial post (a charge which, as usual, you entirely ignored). I pointed out that you were trying to say that (a) you only said that you didn't care and therefore (b) I had no basis to assume any other positions on your part. And further, by extension ©, because you merely stated your opinion that you don't care, anyone who has taken issue with you in this thread is behaving poorly. But, of course, you were grossly mischaracterizing what you said, as I demonstrated in my post above (and you, again, ignored).

Again, you keep claiming that you just popped in to say that you aren't all that concerned about Christopher Tolkien. That would be a fine --if somewhat vapid-- opinion to state with nothing else to support it. And were it your only motivation to merely say "I don't care". . . you could have just left it at that and not felt compelled to post again. But that isn't at all that you said. You made an argument. You stated that you didn't care about Christopher Tolkien because you never got paid for the work your father did. In later posts, you went on to say that those who inherit wealth did nothing to earn or deserve it. And you expressed sentiments of jealousy towards those recipients. You also provided Bill Gates as a laudable example of someone not turning over his wealth (in its entirety) over to his kids. And so on. . .

Clearly, even from your first post, you're making the argument that Tolkien's family shouldn't feel entitled to benefit from the lucrative creation of their fore-bearer. How else is one to interpret your given reasons for why you have no sympathy for Christopher Tolkien?

I'm not even sure I follow that all. I'm not really sure you've even pegged me wrong. I disagree with you. Sure, we can talk for days about why we disagree but why would we? Honestly though, I am completely lost on the meaning of those sentences so if it seems that this response is intellectually dishonest (?) then um, I'm sorry?

You accused me of a "neat trick" where I dismissed your argument (I did no such thing) and merely attributed your views as being a "symptom" of your feelings regarding inherited wealth. Yet, as demonstrated above, you brought your views on inherited wealth into the discussion as justification for your lack of sympathy. If you feel that I have attributed those views to you unfairly, then say so and clarify what those view actually are. Otherwise, well. . . pipe down already.

But the fact of the matter is that you brought your views on inherited wealth into this discussion as justification/support for your position. So it's rather lame to now try to (a) say that addressing such reasoning is somehow a "neat trick" and (b) simultaneously (and dishonestly) assert that you just came in and merely said "I don't care." You said far more. And I addressed the parts of it that seemed flawed to me. Which brings us to. . .

Point after point? This discussion has been tiny, how many friggin' points have I dodged? For a man who is so in the right all the time thou doth protest entirely too much. If you honestly think you have some sort of valid argument that is going completely unaddressed and I am just totally skirting you and giving crazy answers. . .

I do. And you are.

Indeed, I provided a neat little summary up there in my last post. It follows a pretty clear-cut pattern: I make a point. You ignore it and move on to something else. I address what you said. You ignore it and move on to something else. . . But just for brevity's sake. . . here's an abbreviated list:

1. Tolkien himself was affected (you said this would "make your heart bleed." Yet when it was pointed out, you ignored it).
2. Your point about not benefiting from your father's work isn't really relevant because we're talking about tangible inventions, intellectual properties, etc. Not an hourly wage at the local Jiffy Lube.
3. Your reference to Bill Gates isn't relevant because he's voluntarily not giving all his wealth to his progeny. Whereas we're talking about a far different situation here.
4. You only address the recipients and to what they should be entitled. At no point do you mention the rights and wishes of the person who generated the wealth.
5. Wealth is rarely a zero-sum game. Especially in the case of Christopher Tolkien (were he to have inherited the rights normally). The wealth generated by Tolkien did not come at the expense of anyone else. . . so why be jealous?

Each and every one of those points was utterly ignored. Well, you did manage to muster a meek "it is too relevant" regarding Gates but failed to address my point otherwise (substantively). Heck even since I compiled that summary in my last post, there are already a whole bunch of new inconvenient things that you conveniently fail to acknowledge. Such as where you taunted me and accused me of saying: "Oooh nah-uh, you did it first!" But, as I pointed out in my last post, I never even came close to any such childishness but was rather pointing out that I never engaged in the behavior you attributed to me. Which is far different than saying "well, I did it! But you did it first!". . . but that didn't stop you from saying in your haughty way: "Really, did you bring it to that level. Sigh, I thought you'd do better." So not only do you engage in childish taunting, but you do so while addressing something I never said.

Honestly, it comes down to this. You made it clear that you have no sympathy for Christopher Tolkien. And (despite your current bizarre contentions) you gave reasons why you felt that way. As these reasons fell under increasing scrutiny and did not fare well, you decided to focus on word choice, taunting me, and eventually just began to dishonestly mischaracterize what you've been saying up to this point. . . probably in the hopes that I will notice. But since I'm still here, typing away and pointing it out, you're now saying: Hey! I'm a good guy! Let's take it to PM.

Well, it's funny. . . nothing has been stopping you from PMing me this whole time. Indeed, you could have sent that last post to me via PM. Why didn't you do so? You're certainly welcome to send any follow-up to this post to me via PM!

Jesus Hurin, you are just unabashedly contrarian aren't you? Can't let someone simply disagree with you without dragging it out for a few pages huh? Well sure, I'll play along. By the way, if you read our discussion thusfar aloud with a mock speech impediment (the kind the stereotypical Internet troll has) it is f'ing hilarious and I highly recommend you try it... might lighten your mood a bit.

I wasn't aware that trolls had speech impediments. I've never actually heard one speak. I'm surprised that you have.

Care to elaborate? Saying someone is "hell bent" after non-chantly disagreeing with you, and responding to your retorts, that smacks of over-blown rhetoric to me. If it seems like simply rational and realistic word-choice to you then I suggest perhaps opening a window and getting some sunlight.

My goodness! I didn't realize we were in the House of Lords. Such demands for decorum! Anyways, my point is that you are exquisitely sensitive and apparently very fragile. Either that or you'd rather talk about someone's word choice rather than actually address what they've said. Actually, it's pretty clear that the latter is the case.

Oooh nah-uh, you did it first! Really, did you bring it to that level. Sigh, I thought you'd do better.

Wow. Just wow. How intellectually dishonest --and sloppy-- of you. You accused me of dismissing your opinion while what you were engaging in was an obvious attempt to do just that. . . and then you actually have the temerity to write the above. Yet, in fact, I'm not saying "you did it first". . . I'm saying that I didn't do it at all. . . and that there is irony in that you are falsey accusing someone of what you're actually attempting to perpetrate at that very moment yourself.

What's that? You haven't been dismissive? You haven't ignored inconvenient points or arguments?

Well. . . let's summarize, shall we?

Hurin: It's a shame.

Jenius: No it's not! I don't get paid for my dad's work! I have no sympathy for him. Though I'd feel differently if it were the author himself.

Hurin: Actually (1) Tolkien himself did suffer under the arrangment. And (2) We're not talking about someone who was a grocery bagger. . . we're actually talking about something tangible. . . like an intellectual property, an invention, or a patent.

Jenius: (Ignoring both points and just moving on) I still have no sympathy. Hey! Let's talk about Bill Gates even though what he's doing with his money is entirely voluntary!

Hurin: Well, since you've ignored my prior points and just started talking about Bill Gates, I guess I should point out that he's not really relevant. But even if he were, he's still giving a sizable portion to his kids.

Jenius: Inheritance is like winning the lottery. I'm jealous of them. Now I'll merely assert that Bill Gates is relevant even though I totally fail to acknowledge your point that what he's doing with his money is entirely up to him, the person who earned it. And now I will demand that you justify your use of the word "hell-bent!"

Hurin: Inheritance isn't like winning the lottery. At no point do you make any mention of where the person who earned the money's will comes into play. Rather you focus only on the recipient and how deserving they are. Here, I'll go to great pains to explain why the will and rights of the original generator of the wealth is an important part of the consideration. Also, you might want to reconsider being jealous of someone like Christopher Tolkien since the wealth his father generated and that would have been given to him and his family didn't cost anyone else their wealth.

Jenius: I will now ignore those points as well and instead disingenuously accuse you of putting words in my mouth. Despite giving many indications that I have an issue with people inheriting wealth (indeed, outright admitting jealousy and never once saying a charitable thing about the recipients and in fact doing the opposite over several posts), I'll now play coy and accuse you of a cheap "trick" where you are merely dismissing my opinions when in fact, you have clearly addressed every point I've made while I've never actually addressed even one of yours. How's that for irony?

So. . . are you getting the point? Not once did you address any point I've made. Unless you count saying "it is so relevant" regarding Bill gates. Yet you somehow manage to accuse me of merely dismissing your arguments?

Now, here's my paraphrase of that "You're just disagreeing with me because really something other than my opinion is what's bothering you." Thus sparking my retort: It's nice... that you can dismiss opinions contrary to yours as being symptomatic of an argument that can't possibly be about the topic at hand... it's a neat trick." Hopefully when it's laid out in that context you can get a better vibe for where I was heading. I say "This whole thing with Tolkien's family doesn't matter." You say, "Yes it does, you just hate inheritance laws and that's the only reason you're disagreeing." I say, "Nah, I just don't think it matters."

Here's the problem with all of that: You're grossly mischaracterizing what you said. You claim that you just non-chalantly dropped in to say only "it doesn't matter" and that I had no basis to think that you might have a problem with inheritance. Yet. . . that's not nearly all you said. . . even initially. Your very first comment was: "I don't get paid for my dad's work, I have no sympathy for Chris Tolkien. If you were to tell me the original writer were being screwed my heart would bleed but otherwise who cares?"

Now, if you want to (disingenuously) claim that this does not betray some feelings about inheritance. . . or that this merely constitutes you saying "who cares?". . . then you're either being willfully obtuse or intellectually dishonest. That statement contains both what you think and gives a reason why you think it. It's not merely a statement of opinion. . . it's an argument. So, pardon me, but your entire paragraph above and this lame attempt you've been making in your last few posts at trying to paint me as putting words in your mouth is plainly horsesh*t.

And, as already pointed out, your apparent feelings on inheritance were only made more clear from that point onward. And, by the way, don't think others haven't noticed that you're intellectually dishonest enough to accuse me of putting words in your mouth while not actually disavowing the views that I've attributed to you based upon your own words. If you want to say that I've pegged you wrong, go ahead. . . but given what you've written already, that would be pretty difficult for you to do. . . which of course, is why you haven't done so. Again, that's intellectually dishonest.

But, again, I've made point after point in response to you. Not once have you actually substantively addressed even one of them. But instead, you just skip to some new, barely coherent, and sometimes totally irrelevant attempt at a valid point. . . which I then address. . . and then we rinse and repeat.

And now, quite honestly, you're just engaging in childish taunting. Because you've got nowhere else to go.

I'm not sure why you insist on using over-blown rhetoric like "hell bent" and "butt-hurt" but hey, to each their own.

Your definition of "over-blown rhetoric" is a bit peculiar.

It's nice though that you can dismiss opinions contrary to yours as being symptomatic of an argument that can't possibly be about the topic at hand... it's a neat trick.

Actually, what you are doing is "dismissing an opinion contrary to yours." I wrote several paragraphs directly engaging and analyzing your opinions and giving some of my own. That's the opposite of "dismissing." On the other hand, your response is indeed dismissive as you do not address a single one of my points but instead try to pretend that I'm somehow engaging in "over-blown rhetoric" and disingenuously claim that I'm somehow "dismissing" your opinion. Though, I'm at a loss to understand what you're talking about when you say that I'm somehow "dismissing" your opinion as being "symptomatic" of an argument that "can't possibly be about the topic at hand?" Uh. . . we swerved into inherited wealth. You brought us there. . . and then you said. . .

but I do care to defend my reasons as for why and I am interested in both Tolkien's works (to a much lesser degree than yourself) and the topic of inherited wealth.

So, you brought up inherited wealth. . . expressed your views on it and how that relates back to your feelings (or lack thereof) regarding Christopher Tolkien. . . then even expressed interest in further discussing it. . . but when I directly addressed all of these points for several paragraphs and pointed out where you weren't taking certain things into account, your only response is to (somewhat lamely) assert that I'm pulling some "trick?" Yet, I haven't "dismissed" anything as being symptomatic of anything. I've addressed (in detail) what you've said. You don't seem to be comfortable with that.

Man, if you don't want to discuss it anymore, just say so.

I'll go see it as long as Peter Jackson doesn't delete canonical stuff in favor of stupid crap he came up with himself.

. . . Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with him doing such things if it was necessary in order to better adapt the books to film. But, it seemed to me that on a couple of (egregious) occasions, he made changes for no apparent reason and/or actually ended up hurting the adaptation.

I'm not sure why the phrase "hell-bent" has gotten you so butt-hurt to the point that you feel the need to demand "explanations" as to why I would use such a phrase. Though I do thank you for giving me "credibility" that I was so obviously lacking. Mighty generous of you.

I said that you're "hell-bent" on making sure that we all know that you don't care or are unsympathetic. It's always sorta odd to me that folks take time to post about how little they care about something. . . repeatedly. Most of the time, it's later revealed that they actually have some axe to grind or the topic actually does push one of their buttons (often in an unanticipated way). I'd say, based on your latest post, that this is the case here.

Now, I could just leave it at your stating that you do feel "jealous" of people who inherited their wealth. As I think that explains a lot right there. And, for the record, I've inherited no wealth personally (unless you count a currently still-kicking father and mother that were able to put a roof over my head and assist with college).

The problem with your repeated use of the lottery analogy is that lottery winnings are indeed random. They happen to someone out of the blue. . . not to someone whose fore-bearers earned the lottery winnings. Indeed, while speaking so much about who "DESERVES" what and how nobody should feel "entitled" to winning the "lottery," you don't ever even brush up against the concept that the folks who earned the money in the first place should have some say over what happens to it. There doesn't seem any room in your analysis for the hard work, ingenuity, or daring demonstrated on the part of the person who created all that wealth in the first place and what right he has to determine what should be done with it.

Your feelings on the matter seem to be all about the recipients and whether they are "deserving" or might be "spoiled". . . but to me that's largely irrelevant. It's much more about the wishes of the person who originally earned the wealth.

Or, to put it another way: Christopher Tolkien isn't entitled to winning the lottery. But his father (under normal circumstances) is entitled to see that the wealth he generated be passed on to those he loves.

Now, in this particular circumstance, Tolkien sold away something that eventually turned out to be worth billions. So Tolkien's family did not benefit from something that he created (ex nihilo) that was truly wonderful and valuable. Again, I consider that a shame. But, then again, I don't look at wealth as a zero-sum game where whatever wealth Tolkien generated must have necessarily come at the expense of someone else. So, had Tolkien not sold away the rights and the Tolkien Estate been able to live like kings off the proceeds of the movies, there would be no need for me to feel envy towards them.

But I think I now have a more full understanding of why you feel compelled to pop in just to say that you have no sympathy for someone like Christopher Tolkien. Though, to be honest, I guessed pretty accurately from the beginning.

Can we move on now?

Yeah, I still just don't have any sympathy here. If I make a crappy business move, my bad. Bill Gates told his kids they're going to be comfortable but they're going to have to earn their own. Do you feel terrible for them? No, you say good for them, I hope they aren't spoiled poops and will be driven to be as successful as their father was.

Well, good for you.

If someone is in trouble and has to sell something worth billions for a relative pittance. . . I tend to think that's a shame. You obviously don't. I get that. Not sure why you're so hell-bent on demonstrating that you don't care. Though, just taking a wild guess, you seem to have an axe to grind against the concept of inherited wealth.

P.S. Bill Gates is a bad example. "Comfortable" means that they're going to be just fine. He's just not giving it *all* to them. But I'm not sure why what Bill Gates decides to do privately with his own money is at all relevant.

I don't get paid for my dad's work, I have no sympathy for Chris Tolkien. If you were to tell me the original writer were being screwed my heart would bleed but otherwise who cares?

I think you're failing to make a distinction between being paid for your father's work and being paid for something that your father created, owned, and copyrighted.

If your father was a grocery store clerk, of course you wouldn't expect to benefit from what he did. But if he was an inventor that created a new patent. . . that's a different story.

But yes, Tolkien did suffer under the deal while he was still alive prior to his death in 1974. . . and I would think he would be very upset today knowing that people have made billions off of his intellectual property that he foolishly licensed away (though under duress). . . and his progeny hasn't seen one dime.

Had Tolkien invented a new widget, should his family not benefit from the patent? Or does the patent die with him? Ah, heck, why not outlaw inheritance altogether!

Christopher Tolkien has found otheways to cash in on his Father's work though...

And I thought that one of the two game licenses did go back to the Tolkien estate, cause there was the movie licnese and the book licenese... and I thought they got money for the Book licenese and book based video games that wern't connected to the movie... no?

The rights holder (Tolkien Enterprises/Saul Zaentz) owns all mass media rights other than the books themselves. They licensed out the movies to New Line Cinema, who then licensed out the rights to make games based on those movies to EA. Meanwhile, Turbine went straight to Zaentz and licensed the rights to do their online game (LotRO) based only on the books (bypassing New Line and the movies. . . which is a good choice, IMHO). But regardless, the Tolkien estate doesn't see a dime.

I know it's only referenced but he does tell Bilbo about going into the Necromancer's Dungeon (mind you it's been years since I read the book)

I'm just saying they could develop that into something, I mean the adventures of Gandalf would be awesome.

Indeed, but he's speaking about years before. It's during the period of the book that he goes to the White Council and they actually assault Dol Guldur (once Saruman can no longer dissuade them). Gandalf's infiltration isn't contemporaneous to The Hobbit. . . it takes place prior.

So are they gonna split The Hobbit into 2 2-hour movies or something? Or is he gonna pull from The Silmarillion to kill a lot of time?

The Silmarillion would be longer than LotR. Though, Jackson can't pull from The Silmarillion. The Tolkien estate still holds the rights to The Silmarillion. Only the rights to The Hobbit and LotR were signed away long ago when Tolkien needed some cash for taxes.

Want to hear something disgusting? Tolkien's family hasn't seen a dime from any of the LotR movies, games, or merchandise.

The law is the law. . . but that just troubles me.

Well Gandolf gets captured by the Necromancer (Sauron in disguise) during the Hobbit... but I think the sequel is supposed to focus more on the LOTR characters.

Misspell Gandalf again and there will be a banning!

Having said that, Gandalf made more than one foray into Dol Guldur. But the one to which you refer (where he met Thrain in the dungeon -- though Gandalf was probably not imprisoned himself) takes place prior to The Hobbit. During The Hobbit, Saruman finally gives in and allows the White Council to assault Dol Guldur and drive Sauron out. Though, this is only referred to and does not actually happen in the book.

/Tolkien Nerd

I sure hope Peter Jackson finds a way to have the Army of the Dead show up at the Battle of Five Armies. It'd be waaaaay better that way. It'll be the Battle of Six Armies with One That is Dead and Invincible.

It would appear that Wikipedia has boned me again.

Edit: On second thought that explains quite a lot. Willard Huyck directed Howard the Duck and Jeffrey Boam wrote The Phantom and two of the Lethal Weapon movies. Now it all makes sense... Hurin has his root of evil.

Clearly, the "root of evil" is George Lucas's adopted child. He became a father of an adopted girl after Empire and Raiders but before ToD and Return of the Jedi. It could be coincidence, but I really think that changed the dude. That and the ugly divorce he went through at the same time. Which also begs the question: Who adopts a child while going through a divorce?

Young directors/producers like Lucas and Spielberg grow older and not only start making cheezier movies for the "kids". . . but also go back and alter their earlier stuff to remove things their older, more delicate political sensibilities now perceive to be offensive. Hence the guns being replaced with walkie-talkies in E.T. and all of Lucas's dumb ass decisions in the new and (retroactively) old Star Wars films.

George Lucas has an uncanny ability to take his own cool ideas (from an earlier era) and somehow completely mangle them and make them utterly lame. I know it's cliche to say someone has lost their touch. . . but he epitomizes that phrase.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go wallow in my thoroughly mediocre life where I won't ever achieve even 1% of George Lucas's success or wealth.

The internet sucks.

I agree with you both that Crusade and Temple drastically upped the goofy-crap-o-meter with the series, I was only taking issue with Hurin's blanket statement that Raiders was somehow "goofy free". Raiders is filled to the rim with tons of physical comedy and goofy stuff. One needs look no further than "uh oh sieg heil monkey". That monkey was the Short Round of Raiders... but thankfully they had the good sense to kill him off. I'd pay good money to see the mangled, poisoned corpse of Short Round in an artsy "through the ceiling fan" shot.

Well, obviously, we largely agree. It's matter of degree, not total absence in Raiders. But as much as I overstated that there was "no trace" of hokeyness in Raider, I think you're also engaging in a bit of hyperbole when you say that Raiders is "filled to the rim" with "tons of of physical comedy and goofy stuff." And I'm not sure that I'd consider that list entirely fair as it really does pale in comparison to Crusade's list of corniness. . . in both quantity and "quality."

So, I'll modify my original statement and say instead that there is no trace of that degree of corniness in Raiders (relative to Crusade).

I mean, say what you want about the monkey. . . but at least it was an attempt at commentary while injecting a little humor. I'll take that over the 30-60 seconds where we see Indy getting confused because he thinks his father is concerned for him instead of the vase he just broke. . . all while they should have been escaping. In fact, just to play devil's (monkey's?) advocate, Monkeys do mimic people. . . and the point to the "joke" was that Nazis might be so used to "heiling" everyone that it might be an unconscious response. No, I'm not saying it's not hokey. . . but it's nowhere near as hokey as the stuff wedged into just about every scene of Last Crusade. From the Librarian with the stamp. . . to the Nazi pilot who inexplicably flies his plane into a tunnel (there's a mountain around those, ya know). . . and then stoically looks down at the "Jones boys" as his plane skids beside them all while he heads to his fiery death. . . to the "no ticket" scene in the blimp. . . to everything Marcus Brody does or says. . . the list goes on and on. . . I just don't see a guy in the sound room adding the sound of a yelping dog to be on the same level as the dollops of ass-hatery that take place in nearly every scene of Crusade.

I mean, half that list, I'm thinking. . . what's the problem? A perfect example is the "love you" on the eyelids. Compare that subtle moment in Raiders to how, in Last Crusade, they have his all-female class swooning at him (some looking almost like zombies) both in class and in his office shortly thereafter. So, once again, it's a question of degree. Though you can sit down and watch Raiders with an eye for the hokey, for every moment in Raiders there are several moments in Crusade that are much more egregiously "over the top" in ways that Raiders (to my mind) never even approaches.

A great example of the difference in tone and the emphasis put on "humor" between the three movies are the love scenes. The scene in Raiders takes place on the ship and simultaneously makes Indy look bad-ass and vulnerable, it's realistic (showing what we then think to be the aftermath of the adventure. . . all his wounds, aches, and pains), and becomes quite touching. It begins with some humor, and ends with some humor. But the humor isn't the point of the scene. Compare that to the love scenes in the other two movies which are pure slapstick. They're both paced like action sequences and accompanied by the "goofy" music to let us know that it's all supposed to be fun (and funny!) while the particpants make attempts at "Moonlighting" banter.

-Sullah was (and still is in Crusade) a big goofy lummox who walks around singing songs from HMS Pinafore, gets scared by the statue in the Well of the Souls and mugs, steps and fetches for the SS and Waffen troops when they goose him.

-pretty much everyone but Indy is an idiot (his south American "comrade" falls into the light trap, he plugs the Cairo swordsman, the army intel guys are played off as "bureaucratic fools" (Indy's own words), Belloch is only "one step ahead" of Indy out of chance and dumb luck, as are the Nazis)

In both movies, Indy is the "best" (though more bad-ass in the first). But I really don't see where everyone but him are "idiots" in Raiders. Most folks are just. . . average. . . and not doing anything terribly idiotic. Indy is just the hero among "the norms." Sallah, far from being an idiot, takes moments out to be genuinely creepy (his somber warning about the Ark). . . or warm. . . Brody also gives a somber warning to Indy and comes off as educated, intelligent, and a good friend. In the end, he's outraged and stern. I can't recall Marion engaging in any slapstick either or betraying herself to be a moron. In Crusade. . . they're not even characters. They're just there to fall down or make puns. Indy is still the hero. . . but hell, among those idiots, I could be the hero!

Indeed, even the two guys with Indy at the beginning of Raiders aren't idiots. They're selfish schemers, but even they don't engage in slapstick or behave like idiots. I'd put Sapido (the guy who won't throw Indy the whip) from Raiders up against Marcus Brody from Crusade any day of the week and twice on Sunday! I think that says something.

Belloq seems to me to be a pretty bright guy who never acts the buffoon. He's obviously educated in archeology and does a darn good job at it. He's just not as good as Indy. So he's always stealing Indy's glory and hard work ("Once again Dr. Jones we see that there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away.") The bar scene where he (rather hamfistedly) points out that there is not much difference between him and Indy shows a depth of character totally lacking in any of Indy's adversaries in the Last Crusade. Indeed, in Raiders, we had several minor adversaries. . . and occasions where we'd think "this guy might be a match for Indy". . . Toht, the swordsman, and the airplane mechanic. Who do we have in Crusade? Faceless Nazis falling down and lining up to be punched/shot comically.

Mr. March said that the latter two films are more mystical. I'd actually diagree with this as well (surprised?). Raiders was more mystical than Crusade. It just handled it in a much more subtle way. I love all the subtle cues we get that the Ark really is going to be more than a golden crate. . . so that by the end, we're not surprised when it melts eveyone's face. From the music when we first see it pictured in a book, to Brody's warning to Indy. . . and Sallah's warning ("If the Ark is there at Tanis. . . then it is something that man is not meant to disturb. . . death has always surrounded it. . . it is not of this earth."). . . the way the wind kicks up and the wind chimes start as the old man reads the other half of the headpiece for the first time in millenia. . . the storm as they dig. . . and finally. . . in case you weren't getting it. . . the burned Nazi symbol on the crate. It all leads up to you thinking. . . "I'm ready for some sh*t to go down" when they finally open it at the end. So it doesn't seem all that supernatural or crazy when it does happen.

Now, just because it's fun (and I'm dead inside). . .Compare that to Crusade. . . a bunch of pratfalls and buffoonery until we walk into a room and find a thousand-year-old knight standing there. . . Sure! Why not!?! Not exactly subtle, is it? I remember, even as a fourteen year-old kid thinking, "that's pretty lame."

Last Crusade is by no means a perfect movie, but it does have some strong points in its favor. The Ford/Connery chemistry is only denied by those viewers who are truly dead inside. But deeper than the banter between them is the father son dynamic and the maturation of that relationship, something I've appreciated more and more in my adult years. It's easy to dismiss the young Indy prologue (alas, poor River Phoenix...) but taken as a whole it's an essential part of the film, illustrating Henry Jr's eventual patterning of himself after the man he wishes his father was. Then you get the payoff when Indy slowly reconcinles with his estranged father. Is that not thematically pleasing? In addition to that, there's some great, snappy delivery by Ford, harkening back to the Han & Leia byplay.

"Are you crazy? Don't go between them!"

"Go between them? Are you crazy?"

There's a goodly amount of action, but for me the tank chase is the standout. Nevermind the fact they manufactured a full scale Mk 8 tank replica for the movie, but the whole scene comes close to rivaling the truck chase in Raiders in terms of staging. You also get a decently involving treasure hunt, a hot femme fatal (head and shoulders above Kate Capshaw) and plenty of Nazi face-punching. The worst crime that Last Crusade commits (along with Temple) is that it's not as good as Raiders. And let's face it, this isn't even a fair comparison because Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the best action movies ever filmed. Next to it, nearly everything pales. Sure there's more humor than the previous films (probably a deliberate choice after the darkness of Temple) but is that really such a bad thing? These films were never intended to be as serious as some fans would believe them to be. To me, the humor allows Crusade to be it's own animal, distinct from Raiders. If a seqeul doesn't bring anything new to the table, then what's the point?

It's not the best film, for all parties involved, but I'll gladly take another Last Crusade over 100 Van Helsings or Mummy Returns.

I wasn't aware that in order to bring something "new to the table" that the "something new" had to be corniness, morons as side-kicks, and humor aimed at eight-year-olds.

Taking a look at the (bsu-acclaimed!) tank scene that "rivals the truck chase in Raiders". . . the part that ruins it for me (because I'm dead inside) is the multiple times in this scene alone that we take a break in the action to repeatedly demonstrate that everyone in the movie but Indy is a total f'ing idiot. Just about everything Sallah, Marcus Brodey, or Jones Sr. do in that scene reveals them to be complete morons. From the secret society (or college club) greeting in the tank, to Sallah with the camels, to the "pen is mightier than the sword" lameness. . . not to mention Indy knocking multiple people out with one punch. . . and shooting a pistol through 4-6 nazis at once (and then mugging for the camera). And, this is merely one scene. The rest of the movie is replete with this ass-hattery as well.

That type of idiocy is totally lacking in Raiders. And, contrary to assertions that such idiocy was necessary to distinguish a sequel from its predecessors, I don't think you need to introduce idiot characters (or make pre-existing characters retroactively idiotic) in order to make an interesting sequel.

Honestly, I blame Beverly Hills Cop. Yes. Yes I do. After that movie, Hollywood seemed to have decided that just about every film must have dollops of "humor" thrown in. But, as we've seen with just about every Lucas (and to a lesser extent Spielberg) vehicle since Raiders/Empire, when asked for "humor". . . they just introduce some characters who acts like idiots for "comic relief" or have people fall down a lot. . . and then the kiddies (young and old) squeel with glee. But since Bev Hills Cop predates RotJ, I suppose I have to also mention that this turn for Lucas began a bit early. . . apparently when he became a father and started making movies ("for the kids!"). . . leading to Marcus Brodey having a lobotomy, ewoks, Howard the Duck. . . and finally to Jar-Jar himself.

No, the Indiana Jones films are not supposed to be "serious". . . Raiders is an adventure/action movie. But Raiders has no trace of corniness to it. There are no "Jar Jar" (or even "Short-Round") moments anywhere to be found in it (closest comes from a momentary glimpse of someone's face through the windshield during the truck chase). And I don't think it's accurate or even makes a lot of sense to say that the latter films needed to be more cheezy or hoaky to distinguish themselves. But, they sure were.

As for the "chemistry" between Ford and Connery. . . I'd be more impressed with had I any real urge to see the dark anti-hero from Raiders and the Lost Ark spend two hours trying to impress his father and be repeatedly referred to as a "boy scout" (not to mention that for the opening sequence he is literally a boy scout). Silly me, I just wanted him to kill nazis and act like a bad-ass without a bunch of buffoons bopping around beside him. Ya know, like the first movie, but with some new twists rather than an entirely different sensibility and target audience.

Having said all that, I used to think Temple of Doom was the worst of the three, until --on the advice of bsu (if memory serves)-- I re-watched it and changed my tune.

I hope this will be good ... I'd hate to see another cool franchise end on a really lame a$$ note like Matrix and X-Men ....

Sorry, but that's already happened to this franchise. Have you watched Last Crusade as an adult?

Most people I know who say that Last Crusade was their favorite (or even good) haven't seen it since they were fourteen. And upon watching it, they're amazed at how downright cheezy, hokey, and outright bad it is.

Yet, the majesty that is Raiders will never fade.

Well. Shawn's aware of the problem. He's made reference elsewhere to some type of dynamic firewall running on the server (at a level which I have no control) which may be contributing to or causing the problem. So, it's all in his hands.

That's all I have.

BTW. Are you guys sure I won't need a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Player for this?

It's not an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray DVD, so it's pretty certain.

It's a standard DVD (though Region 2). . . the only reason "HD" is being mention at all is because it was mastered from "HD source."

Best,

H