TheOtherTed

Not a fan of any of these tech-driven pyramid scheme "pocket economies" (i.e., digital transactions that have virtually no bearing outside their digital bubbles). Granted, I'm old and cranky, but these sorts of things break all my investment rules (mostly variations of "you can't cheat an honest man" and "if you can't explain how it makes money, don't buy into it"). Also agree with @Frostbiter - the first time I heard about NFTs, I immediately thought, "virtual Beanie Babies?" On a tangential note, I recently re-read Charles Stross' book Accelerando. Last time I read it was before the whole crypto currency thing, and now it seems like a whole new book... Edit: Just wanted to add that I'm amazed and sickened that this sort of nonsense is associated with Star Trek in any way.

Looks like you found the original home office:

It isn't already? I mean, it isn't already.

Today I learned that there is just no good way to arrange the words "splashy," "poopy," and "clown."

Not sure if this counts, but I found this old meme while cleaning out my bookmarks last night:

The name really sells it, though.

Realistically, based on my income and rapidly rising property values, King's Row. Fortunately, there's plenty of biotech industry in the city, so I'd probably be set for a job. The commute would be a nightmare, though. Ideally, if I could ever get a work-from-home gig that reliably pays the bills, Croatoa. I freaking hate cities. I'd sooner deal with an eternal war between pumpkin-heads and moose-heads than the noise and bustle and crime and poverty and stupidly high prices for everything that come with city living.

No. I refuse. I will not watch this alone.

@Jimmy come back! Any kind of fool - could - see There was something, in everything about you. @Jimmy come back! You can put the blame - on - me. I was wrong, and I just can't live without you.* * Disclaimer: I may have not known there was a dev named Jimmy until today.

@Jimmy, Jimmy don't you lose my number, 'Cause you're not anywhere, that I can find you...

Everybody's asking WHERE is Jimmy, but nobody asks WHAT is Jimmy.

I might see it. Eventually. I managed to skip the whole Affleck run by accident, so I'm overdue. Probably won't see it unless it comes out on one of the two streaming services I have. I dig the "Nighthawks" shout-out with the diner scene, though. Maybe so, but for my money, it's the only Bat-flick in which Gotham itself felt like a character itself. Every big-screen version of Gotham since then has felt sort of dead and sterile, you know, just another NY or Dallas clone, move along, nothing to see here. Plus Elfman's music was phenomenal. My brain still keeps it on tap for when I need a burst of inspiration. Conversely, I had to look up the soundtracks for the Nolan films. Much as I liked them, the music didn't impact me at all.

No one has mentioned "Mom and Dad Save the World." This hurts me. Truly it does. It's a deliberately stupid movie that looks like it was a ton of fun to film, and riffs on pretty much every outer-space classic from "Buck Rogers" to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. Lots of one-liners; huge untapped meme potential. Check it out. I'll also throw in Woody Allen's "Sleeper." You can't question its cultural impact if an elevator in your college's life sciences building was called "The Orgasmatron."

Wow. STOKED. The only 3-hour-plus podcast I watched regularly (or at all, for that matter). Is Jeremy still a dev on STO?

You're grasping at straws, and it's gone beyond tiresome. For the casual readers out there, the Avari were called "dark elves" (or, more specifically, Moriquendi) by the Noldor, because they had never seen the light of the blessed realms. The term "Avari" itself means "refusers," and refers to their initial unwillingess to take the journey west with the other Elves. So "dark," in this instance, has jack-all to do with the color of their skin, or their morality. In fact, we know next to nothing about them. I would really, really like to see some of these critiques. I've seen criticisms of The Silmarillion, but by and large, they were aimed at the dryness and disconnected nature of the work (more on this in a bit) rather than the "sketchiness" of the editiors who put it together. Again, for the folks who'd like to know, Christopher Tolkien (one of the editors) had helped his father collate, organize, and critique his work while he was alive. When his father died, he decided to publish posthumously the work that his father had wanted to publish as far back as the 1950s (maybe earlier). He asked Guy Gavriel Kay to help him with the undertaking. I haven't heard that Kay (or Chris, for that matter) did any significant embellishment of the Professor's stories, but I would be interested in hearing about it. As for the critics who panned The Silmarillion based on its weightiness, I suspect they did not realize that Tolkien (senior) wrote it to help himself flesh out the world he was creating for "The Lord of the Rings." From what I've read, it seems he also came to see it as an essential companion guide for LotR. Thus, IMO, it was more of a background and history for LotR and the characters in it than a story on its own, and any critic who treats it as the latter is missing the point. Chris has gone on to publish a lot more of his father's work in a much more direct way (in as much as a bunch of false starts, half-finished tales, and diversions can be directly published). As I mentioned before, he treats his publications more as scholarly works than anything else, and I have a hard time believing that the passages he quotes are embellished much at all. Anyway, with that, I think I've said anything that might be worth saying (and many things that aren't - which may be all the things I said). It's high time I bowed out of this thread. Before I do, though, I'd like to leave you all with the following clip:

Let's throw in "She's the Man," "The Lion King," and "West Side Story" while we're on the topic of Shakespearean remakes - and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Some have clear political or social statements to make, others less so, but they all share a couple of important qualities. First, few (if any) of them uses Shakespeare's original title or, for that matter, his name. Second, they have their own settings, their own characters, and ways of telling the stories. Amazon, on the other hand, is releasing... something... specifically under the title of "Lord of the Rings." and showing at least a couple of established characters from the books and movies. It is possible to re-tell LotR through a truly modern lens*, but Amazon isn't even claiming to do that. They're waving the LotR flag and a splashing a couple of LotR characters, presumably in an attempt to lure in LotR fans specifically. The attempt to "modernize" the film is based either on a mis-read of the fans of the franchise, or it's a form of guerilla marketing to generate negative buzz between potential viewers. Either way, it's a cynical attempt to draw people in. *Imagine the Aragorn character, a two-bit ambulance-chasing lawyer whose parents are from India, teaming up with the Frodo character, an accident victim from Haarlem who holds information that could bring down New York City's most powerful mob boss...

Because the change was a relatively small one. Arwen defeated the Nazgul in the movie the same way Elrond defeated them in the book - by causing the Bruinen to flood at just the right time. It didn't really matter who made it happen, so long as it happened. Plus, she is Elrond's daughter after all (not to mention Galadriel's granddaughter (and Melian's great-great-great granddaughter)). Speaking of whom, I left the Galadriel scene out for reasons I stated before concerning the Hobbit movies. In short, it should never have been filmed. At the very least, it was just insulting to make a crappy, cheesy "super saiyan" moment out of it. As for the Gore interview, he didn't have to read a specific book to analyze those two quotes (which is all he did). For evidence, I'll point out that the Hobbit films took in a little less money than the LotR films did nearly 10 years prior, and the Hobbit budget was about 2.5 times higher. In addition, the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores for the LotR films were much, much higher than those of the Hobbit movies. What's the difference? As someone who has both read the books and seen the movies, Jackson's LotR stayed reasonably true to the source, while Jackson's Hobbit deviated wildly and made stuff up whole-cloth. Thus, in my opinion, Gore's point has already been validated, and from what we've seen of RoP so far, it looks like Amazon is, well, deviating wildly and making stuff up whole-cloth.

Ignoring for the moment what an abomination the Hobbit movies were in general, and taking this scene at face value, I'd point out that Galadriel of TA 2941 had some significant advantages in that fight that "Galadriel, Warrior Princess" did not: Assuming the image of Galadriel decked out in foam rubber plate takes place in the First Age (my guess is the Kinslaying of Alqualonde), Third Age Galadriel had about 6300 years to hone her magical skills, possibly including, but not limited to, the direct tutelage of Melian. Third Age Galadriel had Nenya, the Ring of Water. That's gotta count for something. Possibly the most significant "advantage" - Sauron threw the fight. According to the appendices in The Return of the King, he had already planned to abandon Dol Guldur. The fight was a sham - and I can't help but think Sauron would have found it amusing to retreat before Galadriel in such a fittingly dramatic way. battlewraith does have a point, though, as far as the books and the LotR trilogy are concerned. What Elven magic we see there seems to consist mainly of a wide variety of magic items, some "place magic" (Elrond's river flood, Mirkwood's enchanted river, Melian's Girdle), and various ways of seeing and knowing that surpass human abilities. Not much battlefield magic - but a lot of magic swords.

True enough. Not necessarily true. The following is a quote from a letter Tolkien sent to Milton Waldman in 1951. The context is that he was trying to get a version of The Silmarillion published alongside The Lord of the Rings, but the people who published The Hobbit wouldn't do it. The quote is part of his pitch. "I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing in English, save the impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing" So it's clear that Tolkien had England, specifically, in mind when writing both the Sil and LotR. The letter can be found in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien). Worth reading, and compared to the stuff Chris has churned out, easily digestible.

The published Silmarillion is not Tolkien's own words. It's Christopher's compilation and summary. And while money was certainly a big factor, Chris had plenty of unpublished stuff to work with. As for the relevance of circumstance, I can't help but notice that you chose another fight that was a major game changer - not just for Gandalf, but for the Fellowship, for Frodo's later decisions, and possibly even for all Dwarves.

Not necessarily. Eowyn's battle, and the events leading up to it, were unique. She was explicitly forbidden from going to war, but went anyway. She faced off against a Nazgul, not a common soldier. And she defeated him, something that, by prophecy, no man supposedly was able to do. It was a significant battle, in terms of her story arc, in terms of bravery in the face of overwhelming fear, in terms of the general plot, and in terms of the importance of old wise words that are handed down from a distant past. In short, it was precisely the sort of exception that proved the rule. Tolkien had to, and undoubtedly wanted to, write it down in detail. Galadriel fought fiercely, but from the context she was likely one of many fighters who fought many other fighters. Whomever she specifically fought wasn't significant enough to be worth mentioning (other than that they were in Feanor's retinue). There was no reason to give a detailed description - for Tolkien's purposes, it's enough to say that she fought to protect her kin. (On a side note, I said nothing about her "slaying legions of bad guys." Just that she was willing and able to fight. Don't put words in my mouth, please.) Now, spellcaster or not, do you think she would have entered battle without armor and without a weapon? If your assumption is that Galadriel didn't need to because she was a spellcaster, is it not likely that there were plenty of Noldorin lords who could also cast some mean spells? Would they also have entered battle with nothing but robes and a few tricks up their sleeves? To me it seems unlikely - if you anticipate a a fight, you're going to gear up for it. I will grant, though, that plate armor and a lack of a shield do stand out. The plate armor, because Tolkien talks a lot more about chain and scale armor; and the shield because the published Silmarillion specifically says that the Noldor set out with sword, shield, and helm. I'm also annoyed at the fact that she carries a longsword in the image - but that's more of a Tolkien thing, so I can't blame the producers for that. Not really, no. Christopher published book after book after book for a reason - his father had written a lot of material that just couldn't captured in the published Silmarillion. Now, much of Tolkien's own writings are out there, published with as much "authority" as the Silmarillion, and add layers, twists, and other insights into Tolkien's vision that the Sil just doesn't touch. Unfortunately, Chris also piled them high with dry scholarly stuff and heaps of speculation, so it's not exactly easy (or even pleasant) reading.

Not quite the same, but when I first started playing That Other Game, I created a male orc shaman named "Zaius" because the orc starting region reminded me of the old "Planet of the Apes" movie. A couple of days later, I created a troll hunter (name forgotten), and the first characters I saw were two orcs named "Cornelius" and "Zira." One of my favorite things-that-make-you-go-hmmm moments.

So I dug around a bit, and found some things that may be relevant to the whole "Galadriel: Warrior Princess" thing. These are from the "Shibboleth of Feanor," chapter 11 of The Peoples of Middle-Earth, volume 12: "Her mother-name was Nerwen 'man-maiden', and she grew to be tall beyond the measure even of the women of the Noldor; she was strong of body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth." "She was proud, strong, and self-willed, as were all the descendants of Finwe save Finarfin; and like her brother Finrod, of all her kin nearest to her heart, she had dreams of far lands and dominions that might be her own to order as she would without tutelage." "...once she had set foot on that road of exile, she would not relent, but rejected the last message of the Valar, and came under the Doom of Mandos. Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the r--- of their ships, though she fought fiercely against Feanor in defence of her mother's kin, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon; but now she burned with desire to follow Feanor with her anger to whatever lands he might come, and to thwart him in all ways that she could." As I said before - headstrong, wilful, ready to fight, and determined to rule. Plus she had a vengeance thing going on - so much so as to defy the very Powers of the World in order to give Feanor his due. Too bad he died before she had a chance to. While I can't find a passage that specifically says she hit anyone with her sword, there are few passages that say that about anyone, especially in the Silmarillion. Tolkien wasn't exactly an action writer; he seemed largely content to say that people fought, slew, and were victorious, defeated, wounded, or slain. Yes, there were occasional blow-by-blow descriptions, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule. Even the body-count game that Gimli and Legolas had going on in The Two Towers (the book, not the movie) was lacking in detail.