The World Has Changed...

[Harad]

Was this an invention of PJ (and team)?

If it was, did you like it? I thought it was great intro to the story, and showed how "new" was not necessarily "bad."

[Gary Gamgee]

No i don't think it was a complete invention it wasn't all by Galadriel in the book, Gandalf says some and others i think. And yes I loved it.

GGG

[PRH]

Treebeard (ROTK, Many Partings)(to Celeborn and Galadriel):
"For the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air"


Not an invention.

[Harad]

Good find PRH.

Certainly a major repackaging. Taking it from Treebeard and giving it to Galadriel. Taking it from ROTK and making it the intro to LOTR.

[bunnywhippit]

I thought it was fantastic. And mixing it with the Elvish as well was a stroke of genius. Both voices (is it Cate repeating it in Elvish as well?) are so rich that it sends shivers down my spine and has entered my list of best film starts of all time. It sets the scene so well, imho, and brings you right into the very core of what the film is about. Even just thinking of it now makes me want to go back and see the film, it has had that much of a powerful effect on me.

[PRH]

I agree it was very very good. Excellent in fact. However, it seems that it would've been more appropriate to start the film with the "one ring to rule them all" poem somehow.

I'm guessing it was tried and rejected...it seems so obvious.

[Harad]

I might have started with the One Ring poem too. Thats why I am posting here instead of making the big bucks like PJ.

The One Ring poem is very apt...too apt. It is an internal connection to the story, great for Tolkien afficianados. For everybody coming new to the story, "The world has changed..." draws you into the new world, and you dont have to know anything about it.

Bunsie,
I agree with you. I wanna go right now.

[PRH]

Just some thoughts on the poem...

The short version of the poem (as incribed on the Ring) just sounds so cool. It's so intriguing. It's basically the first thing I ever knew about Lord of the Rings - that short version of the poem. It made me hunger to know the whole story.

The long version really gives a big picture, but it doesn't sound quite as cool (especially since "in the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie" is repeated). The long version makes the short version make sense, as it speaks of the other rings, but PJ seems to have downplayed the other rings. They were mentioned at the very beginning, and then later Strider explained that the Nazgul were once men and were given rings of power. Other than that, only the One Ring is mentioned. The loss of the 3 rings subplot is really too bad, but some (PJ/FW/PB) probably think it's too complicated for a film (technically, Galadriel does say "your coming here is as the footsteps of doom" but that really doesn't do it). Therefore, the long version of the poem is not really germain to the filmed story.

So the short version is the one to use and speaking technically again, I suppose it did make it into the prologue as we see the firey letters upon the first closeup of the Ring.

[Gary Gamgee]

Get this my friend thought when she saw the film and heard the short version of the poem, that there was three rings...'right so there's one ring to rule them then there's another to find them and then another bring them into darkness... so Frodo's got the ring that brings them to darkness? right?.'

Hahaha

bless

GGG

[PRH]

It brings them into darkness and binds them of course!

[Gary Gamgee]

yes of course i was just quoting my friend, who is interested but a compltete virgin to it all.

[PRH]

I was just quoting myself.

[bunnywhippit]

Harad, i agree with you up there regarding the One Ring poem.

Rereading the poem, it just does not have the same oomph and ability to draw you in as "the world has changed" does. Simply taking this as a new person coming to see the story; if you start talking about rings and Elves and all such things so immediately, you're already starting to confused your audience somewhat. There is quite a lot of information in that poem, and to take it all in straight away would be difficult - it's better to play it on a gentler note, to draw your audience in. You don't want to alienate them.

PRH, i totally agree with your sentiments on the poem! The short version is really snappy and really grasps your attention. I suppose that works better when Gandalf comes and tells Frodo what the ring is, in the film. You wouldn't want to have that as a repetion from earlier, it's seen as new information and since you've already given your audience some background to then come out and grab them, and bring them deeper into the story with those excellent few lines fits in very well, imo. Those lines are so powerful that they had to come in at the right moment so their effect wouldn't be lost, or dampened, but augmented.

Hmm, i'm not sure if the subplot of all the other rings is really shown that badly though. Of course, you don't hear so much about them and their power, but you do get a glimpse of who all the rings are given to near the start and then of course Strider mentions them later on and that seems enough to know that they are there.. but hmm.. yeah, sorry, the 3 rings don't get much of a say. That is a shame. Maybe they will turn up with more force later on? I suppose it's quite difficult to fit them in and have it make sense.

Oh dear, it's 1am and really too late for me to be thinking rationally about such things. ;)

EDIT: That was a really long post for me! *pats herself on the back*

[Harad]

This must be "agreement" week as many threads show everybody being agreeable. I agree.

The Ring poem is used to good effect in the Bag End scene. While in a book, repetition of that sort is no big deal, its a little harder to get away with in the film.

The 3 Rings theme takes some doing to include more fully (except for the GGG version). Bakshi added a wee bit more by having Galadriel show off hers, something not in the PJ theatrical release, I thinks. Was there any hint of Gandalf's in Moria or Elrond's in Rivendell? Again I dont think so.

[lilhobo]

galadriel does indeed show off her ring, but only frodo saw it. sam thought he saw a star on her finger

thats how pj decides to have galadriel go "xray"

[PRH]

Rereading the poem, it just does not have the same oomph and ability to draw you in as "the world has changed" does.

"The world has changed..." draws you into the new world, and you dont have to know anything about it.

True. It was a good opening.

Did anyone else think the font that "Lord of the Rings" was written in right at the beginning kinda bit?

[Harad]

No problem with the LOTR font...

But did you see the trailer for "Signs" which plays when I see LOTR?

This had a great font for all the "g"s including the title (SiGns), the star (Mel Gibson), the direcor (M NiGht...)

The "g" is a large circle above a small circle with a sweeping hour hand moving in the large circle and reaching 6 oclock in the small circle.

That's a font!

[bunnywhippit]

Oh, now we're talking! The font - i didn't have a problem with it, but i thought it was a bit strange to have all the advertising and such in one font but then to open the film and have it look entirely different. I suppose the different font just adds a little more character to it. *shrug*

Ooh, i haven't seen anything about SiGns, Harad, but i'll have to look out for that. I like fonts, i do. :D

lilhobo, so Sam sees a star on her finger in the film? I vaguely recollect it, oh well, guess i'll just have to go again and sort that unknown out. ;) I don't remember seeing anything that would lead us to believe Gandalf & Elrond had their rings, i wonder if there is something small put in there to hint at that. I certainly haven't noticed anything of the kind yet.

[aragil]

I think that if we were given a hint that Elrond and Gandalf had rings, then this would be a departure from the book. Not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly not without precedent, but it would surprise me if PJ deviated on that point. In the beginning of the film Gil-galad and Cirdan have the respective rings of Elrond and Gandalf- so we don't get any clue there. In the books we don't learn who has the other two rings until the return journey from Gondor to the Shire.

[aragil]

In PJ's movie Galadriel waves from the bank, and I think that you can see her ring gleaming then. Not sure if that was what lilhobo was talking about with the star.
Also, there's a picture in the Gallery section at www.lordoftherings.net which seems to show Galadriel with a large ring on her right middle finger. Here's the thumbnail, I can't seem to get the photo, though.

[bunnywhippit]

aragil, we do indeed find out who has the rings earlier on in the book. In The Mirror Of Galadriel it's mentioned.

Its rays glanced upon a ring about her finger; it glittered like polished gold overlaid with silver light, and a white stone in it twinkled as if the Even-star had come down to rest upon her hand. Frodo gazed at the ring with awe; for suddenly it seemed to him that he understood.

'Yes,' she said, diving his thought, 'it is not permitted to speak of it, and Elrond could not do so. But it cannot be hidden from the Ring-bearer, and one who has seen the Eye. Verily it is in the land of Lórien upon the finger of Galadriel that one of the Three remains. This is Nenya, the Ring of Adamant, and i am its keeper.'

[Harad]

Youre both right. We find out who has Nenya, but not the other two. When she say's "Elrond could not do so," it implies (to me) "Elrond could not speak about Galadriel's Ring."

Although her statement "But it cannot be hidden from the Ring-bearer, and one who has seen the Eye," is odd since there is no indication that Frodo knew about the other 2 rings, even tho he was familiar with their owners/wearers(?).

[PRH]

Bunnywhippit:
we do indeed find out who has the rings earlier on in the book

Aragil:
In the books we don't learn who has the other two rings until the return journey from Gondor to the Shire.

He was talking about the other 2 rings, and is correct.

It would have been cooler to reveal that Elrond had a ring earlier on in the book I think. Then you really would've been wondering all along where that 3rd ring was. The way it was written, it seemed like you might not actually find out where the other 2 were so you weren't really expecting to find out. I just think it was a little lame to reveal Galadriel's so early on then you have to wait until "The Grey Havens" to find out about the other two. Only Gandalf's should've been news then.


As for that font, it just didn't do it for me. It looked good but it just wasn't exciting.

[PRH]

Harad:
Although her statement "But it cannot be hidden from the Ring-bearer, and one who has seen the Eye," is odd since there is no indication that Frodo knew about the other 2 rings, even tho he was familiar with their owners/wearers(?).

Yes, very odd. Especially when you consider that at the time of this converstaion with Galadriel, Frodo had not worn the Ring since Amon Sul. Yet he had spent plenty of time with Elrond and escpecially Gandalf in the interim.

[PRH]

Why don't I just make 3 posts in a row...

Here's a negative about the "world has changed" speech at the beginning. It's at the beginning! Treebeard originally made this speech to Galadriel and Celeborn in 'Many Partings' - after the world had changed because of the destruction of the Ring. At the beginning of the movie, the world hadn't changed yet (unless you imagine that the speech has been made at the end of the story and then Galadriel jumps to the beginning of story after the speech).

I'm just nit-picking around as we're running out of things to discuss here...

[aragil]

PRH- It sounds to me by the tone of Galadriel that she is speaking after the fact. The whole trilogy takes place in a flashback, as it were. I'd have to see the movie again to be sure (darn), but I've always been under the impression that she was narrating after the events occured.

[bunnywhippit]

Oops. My apologies regarding the whole rings thing. That'll teach me to post in a rush. :rolleyes:

Hmm, i suppose that depends how you look at it (the world being changed). It's plausible enough to say that it has at that point early on because the story comes to you as ME is on the brink of this war. So there and then the world has already changed into a world waiting on the wings of another great clash. There may be an electricity and tense mood gathering, something which has not been experience by many before.

A lot seems to depend on the word 'changed'. Had it been 'changing', it may have suited the begining better. 'Changed' manages to be quite potent when Treebeard says it, because the world really has changed enormously by then, but at the begining the world is really only transforming.

The next statements about feeling it in the water, earth and air seem to come across as if they are predictions, that something is to come. I suppose those few lines just being switched around from end to begining can subtly change their meaning or at least, how they are percieved. Those lines show how truly ME has changed as Treebeard speaks them, he who has been around for so long notices the change and this lets us know how profound the change has been.

Now i really look at it, although it's a great opener for the film, technically it loses something of its importance it has when used later on. But i suppose, as we've covered before, incorporating that into a film becomes so difficult.

[Harad]

Treebeard never did anything haaaaaaaaaaaaaasty.

Therefore if he says "The World Has Changed" you know darn well it didnt start changing earlier that morning.

[bunnywhippit]

Took me so long to post someone else managed to pip me to the post!

You know, i never really even considered Galadriel to be narrating after the events occurred. I always saw it as a little opener, some background information and then onto Events As They Unfolded. To be looking back, well, that makes perfect sense.

EDIT:

Treebeard never did anything haaaaaaaaaaaaaasty.

Therefore if he says "The World Has Changed" you know darn well it didnt start changing a earlier that morning.

Hahahaha! Too true!

[Harad]

Either way or both:

She is looking back to the Second Age and Bilbo. She could still be looking forward to LOTR. The world has changed with the finding of the OneRing, or is just about to. The Shadow has risen in the East. I can smell it in the air.

[PRH]

The Shadow has risen in the East. I can smell it in the air.

Actually that was the south. Excuse me.




Treebeard never did anything haaaaaaaaaaaaaasty.

Therefore if he says "The World Has Changed" you know darn well it didnt start changing earlier that morning.


Well, it had been several months.



It sounds to me by the tone of Galadriel that she is speaking after the fact.

I can accept that, especially since I suggested it.

[aragil]

Originally posted by PRH
I can accept that, especially since I suggested it.

And I can accept that, especially since I was agreeing with you.

[PRH]

So it was all a flashback. Where were the wavy lines?

[Wood Elf]

I really like Galadriel's prologue, it sends shivers down the spine! She did so good with that...

I amar prestan aen...
The world is changed.
han mathon ne nen...
I feel it in the water.
han mathon ne chae...
I feel it in the Earth.
a han noston ned gwilith...
I smell it in the air.
Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.

Ooo! I loved hearing that in the movies.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Wood Elf
For none now live who remember it.

Ahh! Proof that it was flashback. Thank you!

I really like that poem in the movie except for one thing: I don't like Galadriel saying "I smell it." It just seems less poetic with that word 'smell.' What do you think of this?:

I feel it in the water
I feel it in the earth
I breathe it in the air

Or is second guessing Tolkien's choice of words just blasphemy?

[aragil]

D'oh! Trying to remember the connotation of those lines was going to be my next reason for seeing the show again. Curses.

[Harad]

No can do. She was flashing back to the Second Age and Bilbo, not the LOTR.

[Wood Elf]

Oh Aragil, go ahead! You can check to see if the script is right or not! :)

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Wood Elf
The world is changed.
I feel it in the water.
I feel it in the Earth.
I smell it in the air.
Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.

It began with the forging of the great rings.
3 rings to the elves, immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings.

Ah, my little horse brain is lost now. Everybody here seems to understand this, so I'm sure someone can explain it.
What does Galadriel mean by "none now live who remember it"
If it's a flash back originating from somewhere around the actual time of LOTR, then e.g. Cirdan has been around since the beginning, so he's alive and should remember? If it's a 'flashback' from much later (say 20th century) then the part "I feel it" etc. doesn't make sense.

:confused: a confused little horse

[Harad]

Its a mistake. I knew it when I heard it.

You have to twist...and crawl to make it right. Even Galadriel was alive when the story started. Thats even if you "start" the story with the making of the Rings.

OK...here's a twist. She is referring to mortals all being dead, since they are the ones who are ascendant when the "World changes."

[bunnywhippit]

originally posted by PRH
I really like that poem in the movie except for one thing: I don't like Galadriel saying "I smell it." It just seems less poetic with that word 'smell.' What do you think of this?:

I feel it in the water
I feel it in the earth
I breathe it in the air

I'm not too keen on smell either. That's a word i've never really liked that much. 'Breathe' wouldn't be that bad, even 'feel' being used again i could go along with. Ah well.

It's amazing how only a few words can create so much confusion. I think i might just take a back seat and watch everyone fight it out. ;)

[Greenwood]

Sometimes I wonder if all of you saw the same movie? I also wonder if this was the first movie you ever saw?

The whole movie is not a flashback. It is a history.

The opening is a prologue to set the stage for those viewers who do not know the whole history of Middle-Earth. The opening lines are to draw you, the 21st Century viewer, back in time to an ancient past that none now living remember. Once the opening starts talking of the forging of the rings it is recounting history.

As for "smell", the following is from my Random House Webster's online dictionary: " 1. to perceive the odor or scent of through
the nose by means of the olfactory
nerves; inhale the odor of.
2. to test by the sense of smell: He smelled
the meat to see if it was fresh.
3. to perceive, detect, or discover by
shrewdness or sagacity: The detective
smelled foul play."

The English language is quite complex and many words have multiple meanings and sometimes they can be used in a way that combines meanings. "Smell" in the opening lines is being used in the sense of both the first and third meanings above. My dictionary also says that the word is of obscure origin, but is from early Middle English and dates from the 12th Century. An excellent choice for the movie.

[Wood Elf]

Hey Greenwood,
I too took her saying, "None now live who remember it" to mean she was adresseing the 21st century audience, that none here today remember it, but she does. She treats it like it is a history of our world, as if the LotR is our past, though in reality it is made up. It's a way to draw the audience in.

[Harad]

Sometimes I wonder if all of you saw the same movie? I also wonder if this was the first movie you ever saw?

wtf?

The movie is narrated by someone who is not now living, talking about themselves?

Before a blanket insult to everybody posting, how about getting your own facts straight?

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by Greenwood
Sometimes I wonder if all of you saw the same movie? I also wonder if this was the first movie you ever saw?


Thanks for the insult, Greenwood. Maybe my English skills are not as good as yours, since English not my first language (I'll sign up for Mike's English 101 shortly). I also took the last two lines (much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it) to address a 21st century audience. The problem then arises from the first four lines. For why would the narrator tell the audience that the world has changed, and back that up with 'I can feel it in the water' etc. I interpret that as: it's not immediately obvious. Looking out your window you can't immediately see the world is changed. You have to look closer at the water etc. to see it. My interpretation of that is exactly as Treebeard puts it: after the destruction of the ring, the world is starting to change, and the beginning of those changes can be perceived in the water, the air etc.
So, what confuses this little horse is that I interpret the two parts of the opening lines on different planes. I would appreciate it, if you could make them fit together. (apart from the obvious problem that the narrator somehow doesn't count herself among the living, even though she can feel in the water?)
Thanks.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Greenwood
"Smell" in the opening lines is being used in the sense of both the first and third meanings above. An excellent choice for the movie.

Who said anything about the definitions? I just think it's not the most poetic sounding word.

[Harad]

Could Galadriel have said:

"None on (Middle) Earth now remember it"

or if not said it, perhaps meant it?

[Greenwood]

The point is the opening narration is just that, an opening to draw the audience into the story. I feel sure that 95%, or more, of the audience when they saw the film did not say as the narration started: "Oh, Galadriel is telling us this". It is just an opening. It could have been spoken by anyone. Blanchett gives it a great reading. The whole think is a variant on "long ago, in a place far away" but using some of Tolkien's words.

My apologies if I insulted anyone.

[Harad]

Directors have many choices in casting their movies. I am sure there many voice actresses who would have been thrilled to read the intro. To have the character that plays Galadriel read the introduction, and for it NOT to be Galadriel, is a puzzlement.

Whether people coming into the movie for the first time knew it was Galadriel or not, hardly matters. I did not know it was Galadriel for sure, the first time I saw it.

[Gary Gamgee]

Originally posted by Wood Elf
I really like Galadriel's prologue, it sends shivers down the spine! She did so good with that...

I amar prestan aen...
The world is changed.
han mathon ne nen...
I feel it in the water.
han mathon ne chae...
I feel it in the Earth.
a han noston ned gwilith...
I smell it in the air.
Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.

Ooo! I loved hearing that in the movies.

Oh my god that was beautiful i could hear it as i read it, so good.

And yes that line for none now live who remember it, has to be a mistake.
And yes Harad i didnt know it was Galadriel the first time either and subsequeintly it all made sense. I mean how perfect for Galadriel to do this, one of the better ideas in the film i think. Inspired.

[Wood Elf]

Originally posted by Wood Elf
I really like Galadriel's prologue, it sends shivers down the spine! She did so good with that...

I amar prestan aen...
The world is changed.
han mathon ne nen...
I feel it in the water.
han mathon ne chae...
I feel it in the Earth.
a han noston ned gwilith...
I smell it in the air.
Much that once was is lost. For none now live who remember it.

Ooo! I loved hearing that in the movies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take it to mean Galadriel is looking back in time, recalling the tale. When she says she 'the world is changed' I think she is saying that here, after the tale of the ring, the world presently has changed since that event (she's looking back in time on the event from now). Then she says 'much that once was is now lost' I take this to mean the things of the world of M.E. back then are gone today.
Then she says 'For none now live who remember it' meaning since the happening of the ring, no one here remembers it, because it happened so long ago, and only she now does. This also draws in the audience too, so I don't think its a mistake unless I'm really not getting something here.

[Wood Elf]

What does it say on the bottom of the screen when Frodo is first seen reading the book under the tree? That would tell if Galadriel's lines are messed up or not, because if in the Frodo/book scene the bottom of the screen says 'present day', then yeah, its messed up. But doesn't it say something like, 60 years later? Then its not messed up because the whole movie is still a flashback in time.

[PRH]

It says 60 years later.

[Harad]

For none now live who remember it.

If this is the correct line, and Cate Blanchett says it, and if she says it as Galadriel, then when she uses the word "now" she includes herself.

No matter whether its a flashback or a time forward or a parallel universe, it doesnt make sense.

[Atticus]

About the opening.......yes it really drew me in (heck, the entire opening was awesome-I actually had a dream about the way the showed the title-"Lord of the Rings"- 3 years ago and it looked just like that).....but it also had sorta a corny feel to it.......almost chick-flickish.

[baraka]

Personally, to me the opening was fantastic. Great job PJ.:) But what have you done with Goldberry?:(

[Harad]

Do the 2 sides of your personality know each other?

[baraka]

Do the 2 sides of your personality know each other?
Harad, i don´t know if this remark was meant for me, and i apologize if it wasn´t.

As I have said before, I didn´t like certain changes (butchering) of the book towards the making of the movie. I believe that a person (purist) can enjoy the movie (maybe the 2 or 3 time).
I tend to see it both in diferent perspectives.
The books are a great work.
The movie is an adaptation of the book, not the book in itself.

Would I have liked to see: Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, Gildor, Lindir, etc. Yes, but i can live with that. I´m sorry that we didn´t get to see the house of Tom, i was looking foward to that! :eek:

Just because i constantly "bash" PJ, is because i´m passionate about LOTR and i think the movie would have been better. But that is just my personal opinion.
So you see, there is no 2 sides of my personality.:)

Ho Tom Bombadil, Ho Tom Bombadillo!

[Harad]

Originally posted by baraka
[B]Although I don´t agree with certain things PJ writters did, I still think that it was a great movie, that gaves us the chance to really see the places in ME. The description of the places was AWESOME!:)

You are allowed to be inconsistent. Who isnt? But given the quote above, I find it remarkable that the vast majority of your posts on the movie or PJ are NEGATIVE. If you think the movie was "great" who do you think was mainly responsible?

Just one example of another post of yours:

CT would not have butchered the movie as much as PJ. Just my humble opinion.

[baraka]

Originally posted by baraka
[B]Although I don´t agree with certain things PJ writters did, I still think that it was a great movie, that gaves us the chance to really see the places in ME. The description of the places was AWESOME!

The fact that i didn´t agree with certain changes PJ did, does not mean that i didn´t like the movie. Having stated that:
I tend to see it both in diferent perspectives.
The books are a great work.
The movie is an adaptation of the book, not the book in itself.

You are allowed to be inconsistent. Who isnt? But given the quote above, I find it remarkable that the vast majority of your posts on the movie or PJ are NEGATIVE. If you think the movie was "great" who do you think was mainly responsible?
I have seen the movie 3 times, if i didn´t think that it was great i wouldn´t have done that.
Yes, the vast majority of my post toward PJ or the movie are negatives becuause of the "liberties" the writters took. Because i see the movie as an "adaptation" of the books and not the story itself.

To make it clear::)
I was not thrilled with the storyline of the movie or with "other" characters changes, but the way PJ describes ME is astonishing. Although for me, Lothorien looked very weird! :confused:

Why can´t i criticize a movie even if i liked it. It can always be better!:eek:

[Harad]

Do whatever you want.

Call the movie "great" and then say that the director "butchered the movie." Does anyone besides me find those two concepts a bit strange???????????????????????

[baraka]

Call the movie "great" and then say that the director "butchered the movie."
I think i said that he "butchered the book" in the making of his movie.
Remember that each new time i saw the movie, my prejudices were lessened. :eek:

[Harad]

Those are "QUOTES" = your exact words. Maybe you meant "butchered the book" although that barely makes more sense.

I am glad you liked the movie. Here's a suggestion. Put at the end of your negative posts the tagline "But I thought the movie was great." Then everybody will understand eggzactly where youre coming from.

[baraka]

Those are "QUOTES" = your exact words. Maybe you meant "butchered the book" although that barely makes more sense.
I meant that he "butchered the book" in the making of the movie. To me, it makes sense because he didn´t follow the books as I think he should have. (Personal opinion):)

Put at the end of your negative posts the tagline "But I thought the movie was great."
Having negative posts, increases the debate that the movie created. I do not make them up. I have said that at certain parts that i "puked", obviously not literalilly, but at that time I was astonished to see the "liberties" that the "writters" took.

Just because i liked the movie, doesn´t mean i don´t have complains. I don´t think it was perfect. Do you? I don´t think that a "great movie" is above all criticism.:)

What do you mean when i say?
Then everybody will understand eggzactly where youre coming from.

[Harad]

You can post 2+2=5 if you want...Doesnt mean it makes sense.

I dont think the movie was perfect. I have criticized it on ocassion. But I know from simple reaoning ability that:

1. "The movie was great."
and
2. The director "butchered the movie."

are like 2+2=5

So, to simplify, you can make your tagline "2+2=5" and people will know not to look for logic in what you say.

[baraka]

I dont think the movie was perfect. I have criticized it on ocassion
I agree with that.:)

But I know from simple reaoning ability that:

I´m not making myself clear: I mispoke when I said:
The director "butchered the movie." What i meant was the book. Let´s see:

tr.v. butch·ered, butch·er·ing, butch·ers
To kill brutally or indiscriminately.
used of animals, but also used for people to indicate brutality.
To botch; bungle: butcher a project; butchered the language.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

After viewing the definition of the word, i admit that i used an incorrect word.

What I meant in "butchering" is that he "cut" or left out certain parts of the books that i would have dearly loved to see. To me, the greatness of the movie lies in the description and visualization of the places and not in the storyline.

I agree that it´s confusing, but if i hadn´t logic, i wouldn´t be an engineer.

[Harad]

I agree that it´s confusing, but if i hadn´t logic, i wouldn´t be an engineer

Please let me know which bridges you are involved with.

[PRH]

civil I'll bet.

[PRH]

too slow on the trigger for me!

[baraka]

Electrical eng. Civil is too boring.

[PRH]

so to translate 2+2=5 you might say 1 XOR 1 = 1

[baraka]

Originally posted by PRH
so to translate 2+2=5 you might say 1 XOR 1 = 1
No, i would say 1 XOR 1 = 0.

[baraka]

to simplify, you can make your tagline "2+2=5" and people will know not to look for logic in what you say.

You see Harad, in your sum you forgot to say in which base are the numbers. I assume that you used the decimal (10) as base, but what if you not!:eek:

If you use base 3 then
2 + 2 = 11, but with Harad logic then it´s the decimal number five that is transformed to 12

Base 4
2 + 2 = 10, but with Harad logic then it´s the decimal number five that is transformed to 11

Base 5
2 + 2 = 4, but with Harad logic then it´s the decimal number five that is transformed to 10.

Here's a suggestion. Put at the end of your negative posts the tagline "But I thought the movie was great." Then everybody will understand eggzactly where youre coming from.

I think i will do that, but Harad, at the end of your "math post" please specify the base of the numbers that you are using. Wether you are using binary, decimal, hexadecimal, etc. :p

so to translate 2+2=5 you might say 1 XOR 1 = 1
PHR, you are going to do a lot better than that!
:)

[PRH]

Originally posted by baraka
PHR, you are going to do a lot better than that!
First off, it's PRH. To call me PHR completely undermines the point of my name.

Secondly, what do you know of the future? Perhaps a little proofreading?

Thirdly, who on earth uses base 3, 4, or 5? My only point in using boolean was not to attempt to confuse but speak in a potentially more native language. You still managed to miss the point.

Finally, I think it's safe to say that unless otherwise specified, numbers on this board are base 10.

[Eonwe]

OPTION BASE 10

[baraka]

First off, it's PRH. To call me PHR completely undermines the point of my name.
Sorry!:(

Secondly, what do you know of the future? Perhaps a little proofreading?
What?:confused:

My only point in using boolean was not to attempt to confuse but speak in a potentially more native language. You still managed to miss the point.
Why would boolen be more native to me. In my calculations i mostly use decimal numbers.

Wasn´t the "so to translate 2+2=5 you might say 1 XOR 1 = 1"
A mockery! eek:

I do not like to be called a non-logic person.:

[PRH]

Originally posted by baraka
Secondly, what do you know of the future? Perhaps a little proofreading?

What?

The logical thing to do would be to go back and read your previous post to see if you can decipher what I mean. Since you didn't, I'll explain. You said: "PHR, you are going to do a lot better than that!" Which sounds like you are predicting the future. I think you really meant to say "PHR, you are going to have to do a lot better than that!" Hence the proofreading suggestion.

My only point in using boolean was not to attempt to confuse but speak in a potentially more native language. You still managed to miss the point.

Why would boolen be more native to me. In my calculations i mostly use decimal numbers.

You made a point of stating your background so I thought it mildly funny to make a 2+2=5 equivalent statement in slightly EE terms. I guess the joke was totally lost.

Wasn´t the "so to translate 2+2=5 you might say 1 XOR 1 = 1"
A mockery! eek:

I do not like to be called a non-logic person.

Yes! It was a slight mockery!(intended in good nature) I think you may have proved that you are indeed at least a logical person. Now it's the abstract thinking I'm really wondering about.

[baraka]

I think you really meant to say "PHR, you are going to have to do a lot better than that!" Hence the proofreading suggestion.
Ok, i admit my mistake.

Now it's the abstract thinking I'm really wondering about.
Let´s just leave it a that, ok.;)

I think you may have proved that you are indeed at least a logical person.
That was the point i was trying to make.

[PRH]

fair enough.

[baraka]

Ok, now that we have cleared the air, let´s get to the issue of the thread!:)

[PRH]

I think we've cleared that up too.