THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING! COMING SOON!

[SecretAgentSuperDragon]

Anyone else notice that the FotR riff is $4 instead of $3? I'll totally pay the extra buck, though.

Ahhh, $4 instead of $3? Star Wars was only $3. Looks like I will have to go without heat this month.

[Sharktopus]

Anyone else notice that the FotR riff is $4 instead of $3? I'll totally pay the extra buck, though.

Ahhh, $4 instead of $3? Star Wars was only $3. Looks like I will have to go without heat this month.

Yeah, I really had my eye on that king size Snickers, but I can go hungry for RiffTrax.

[mrbasehart]

Maybe because the film's a little longer than usual...? Or are Mike and Kevin saving for Christmas...?

[Winterkid]

Who needs those pesky things like food and heat and clothing when you can have laughter and fun and good times?

[TomK.]

As for the pipeweed, that line of Saruman's--"the hobbit's pipeweed has dulled your senses," or something like that--infuriated me. Again, Tolkien wrote about what he knew, and he knew tobacco. He explicitly stated that pipeweed was tobacco. That Jackson suggests it might be something else was one of the most appalling little moments in a movie I, like Mike, generally like.

I don't see why it should be so appalling. 

Consider it like this:   Tolkien was the author of the novels and he wrote what he knew.  Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens were the authors of the films and they wrote what they knew.

As far as the nature of hobbit love or what would or wouldn't have occured to Tolkien or the question of whether or not our current culture is "gay-saturated," I'll make a few points:

--If an early twentieth century author depicts love between men that is perhaps stronger than platonic, it is possible that the idea of homosexuality may never have occured to that author.  That doesn't mean that readers can not read between the lines and assume that there more than a hint of homoeroticism or sexual longing there just so long as the reader doesn't mind the fact that he or she may be mistaken.

--I believe that our current culture may seem "gay-saturated" to some, because our cultural and social climate allows individuals of varying sexual preferences to be more open an expressive about who they really are.  It's not so much that our culture is more gay than it is more open about what was already there.  If there's a reason that homoeroticism didn't occur to some earlier writers, it isn't because there was less homosexuality back then  so much as it was a greater naivete about all manner of sexuality.

One wonders where J.R.R. Tolkien would've rated on the Kinsey scale.

--Finally, the flaw with jumping to conclusions on the presence or absence of homosexuality in hobbit love is the relative lack of sexuality in Tolkien's writing altogether.  There really is no sex of any kind in the novels or the films.  Even the triangle between Aragorn, Arwen and Eowyn is relatively chaste.

The affection expressed between the hobbits is shown to be entirely emotional.  The question of whether or not they desire one another sexually is moot seeing as their devotion to one another, even in the face of certain death, is repeatedly shown to be a purely and even boldly emotional one.

Heaven forbid a modern action fantasy shows a man follow his friend into the face of death not out of macho honor, but because he really loves him that much. 

[Natureboy]

As for the pipeweed, that line of Saruman's--"the hobbit's pipeweed has dulled your senses," or something like that--infuriated me. Again, Tolkien wrote about what he knew, and he knew tobacco. He explicitly stated that pipeweed was tobacco. That Jackson suggests it might be something else was one of the most appalling little moments in a movie I, like Mike, generally like.

I don't see why it should be so appalling. 

Consider it like this:   Tolkien was the author of the novels and he wrote what he knew.  Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens were the authors of the films and they wrote what they knew.

As far as the nature of hobbit love or what would or wouldn't have occured to Tolkien or the question of whether or not our current culture is "gay-saturated," I'll make a few points:

--If an early twentieth century author depicts love between men that is perhaps stronger than platonic, it is possible that the idea of homosexuality may never have occured to that author.  That doesn't mean that readers can not read between the lines and assume that there more than a hint of homoeroticism or sexual longing there just so long as the reader doesn't mind the fact that he or she may be mistaken.

--I believe that our current culture may seem "gay-saturated" to some, because our cultural and social climate allows individuals of varying sexual preferences to be more open an expressive about who they really are.  It's not so much that our culture is more gay than it is more open about what was already there.  If there's a reason that homoeroticism didn't occur to some earlier writers, it isn't because there was less homosexuality back then  so much as it was a greater naivete about all manner of sexuality.

One wonders where J.R.R. Tolkien would've rated on the Kinsey scale.

--Finally, the flaw with jumping to conclusions on the presence or absence of homosexuality in hobbit love is the relative lack of sexuality in Tolkien's writing altogether.  There really is no sex of any kind in the novels or the films.  Even the triangle between Aragorn, Arwen and Eowyn is relatively chaste.

The affection expressed between the hobbits is shown to be entirely emotional.  The question of whether or not they desire one another sexually is moot seeing as their devotion to one another, even in the face of certain death, is repeatedly shown to be a purely and even boldly emotional one.

Heaven forbid a modern action fantasy shows a man follow his friend into the face of death not out of macho honor, but because he really loves him that much. 

I don't understand why you have taken issue with MsSampo over a lot of the things in the movie(s) that a lot of people have seen.

The Frodo / Sam relationship looks like there is homosexual undertones.  It looks so obvious to most people they are gay, it is pretty much concrete.  It is subjective opinion, though.

The pipeweed could very well be a pot reference.  Most Head Shop's claim that they are selling tobacco related products, but who smokes their Captain Black in a 4 foot skull water bong?  Remember, this movie is based in middle earth......so the pot reference is not that much of a strech.  Who knows, Peter Jackson may be a pot smoker himself.

[TomK.]

I don't understand why you have taken issue with MsSampo over a lot of the things in the movie(s) that a lot of people have seen.

The Frodo / Sam relationship looks like there is homosexual undertones.  It looks so obvious to most people they are gay, it is pretty much concrete.  It is subjective opinion, though.

The pipeweed could very well be a pot reference.  Most Head Shop's claim that they are selling tobacco related products, but who smokes their Captain Black in a 4 foot skull water bong?  Remember, this movie is based in middle earth......so the pot reference is not that much of a strech.  Who knows, Peter Jackson may be a pot smoker himself.
[/quote]

Hm.  I think you may've misread what I was trying to say. 

If I was taking issue with anything, it was the assumption that homoerotic undertones couldn't exist in "Lord of the Rings," a thing never would've occured to Tolkien.  I was suggesting that the idea of it may in fact be in both, the novels and films whether Tolkien consciously intended it or not, BUT at the end of the day, the question of whether or not Sam and Frodo would've actually had sex was moot to the story seeing as it was their strong mutual affection, sexual or not, that kept them together.

That's the problem with trying to be too evenhanded in making a point.  One ends up with a response which is muddled or contradictory. b

It's worth mentioning that if you listen to the actors' commentary on FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, Ian McKellen tells how he suggested that Sam hold Frodo's hand in Rivendell.  He specifically says that he suggested this because the gesture held meaning for him as a homosexual man.  So, there you go.  Score one for Sir Ian!

What I think this underscores is the fact that, whether or not Peter or Fran or Philippa intended to bring homosexuality into the character relationships (or if it was there to begin with in Tolkien's original text), it's possible that what implied sexuality there is was supplied by the actors.  So, whether it was the intention of the writers or filmmakers or the actors (or a combination of the lot) then, yes, that homoerotic undercurrent IS there in the movies.

That's the beauty of film as a collaborative medium.

As far as the marijuana aspect goes:  I absolutely believe that Peter Jackson has smoked pot!!  Good grief, yes!  This was actually my point in the earlier post when I wrote that Peter, Fran and Philippa wrote what they knew.  I'll be a bit more explicit in the future.

The first scene of his first film, BAD TASTE, features a character smoking a rather large joint.  And in the documentary for that film, GOOD TASTE MADE BAD TASTE, Jackson's looks rather casually stoned in the interview footage of him chatting in a deck chair.

I suspect that down under, the occasional puff on some rather good Maori herb is nothing to be ashamed of and if indeed Peter Jackson and company has smoked their share (which, circumstantial evidence suggests they have), it certainly hasn't hindered their careers or ambition.

[Winterkid]

At least it's not brokeback mountain, that's all I have to say on that matter.  I don't mind gay people, they're usually rather nice, just DON'T wanna see anything blatent in that arena, thanks.

[Pak-Man]

Maybe it's just me, but I was able to enjoy the entire LOTR trilogy without even worrying about whether Sam and Frodo were gettin' it on or not. Doesn't seem to have been a critical element to the story. :^)

[Msampo]

As for the pipeweed, that line of Saruman's--"the hobbit's pipeweed has dulled your senses," or something like that--infuriated me. Again, Tolkien wrote about what he knew, and he knew tobacco. He explicitly stated that pipeweed was tobacco. That Jackson suggests it might be something else was one of the most appalling little moments in a movie I, like Mike, generally like.

I don't see why it should be so appalling. 

Consider it like this:   Tolkien was the author of the novels and he wrote what he knew.  Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens were the authors of the films and they wrote what they knew.

As far as the nature of hobbit love or what would or wouldn't have occured to Tolkien or the question of whether or not our current culture is "gay-saturated," I'll make a few points:

--If an early twentieth century author depicts love between men that is perhaps stronger than platonic, it is possible that the idea of homosexuality may never have occured to that author.  That doesn't mean that readers can not read between the lines and assume that there more than a hint of homoeroticism or sexual longing there just so long as the reader doesn't mind the fact that he or she may be mistaken.

--I believe that our current culture may seem "gay-saturated" to some, because our cultural and social climate allows individuals of varying sexual preferences to be more open an expressive about who they really are.  It's not so much that our culture is more gay than it is more open about what was already there.  If there's a reason that homoeroticism didn't occur to some earlier writers, it isn't because there was less homosexuality back then  so much as it was a greater naivete about all manner of sexuality.

One wonders where J.R.R. Tolkien would've rated on the Kinsey scale.

--Finally, the flaw with jumping to conclusions on the presence or absence of homosexuality in hobbit love is the relative lack of sexuality in Tolkien's writing altogether.  There really is no sex of any kind in the novels or the films.  Even the triangle between Aragorn, Arwen and Eowyn is relatively chaste.

The affection expressed between the hobbits is shown to be entirely emotional.  The question of whether or not they desire one another sexually is moot seeing as their devotion to one another, even in the face of certain death, is repeatedly shown to be a purely and even boldly emotional one.

Heaven forbid a modern action fantasy shows a man follow his friend into the face of death not out of macho honor, but because he really loves him that much. 

I generally agree with most of what you've said here. I guess my point is that people approaching the story from a modern perspective may be missing something. The halfling's leaf did not cloud Gandalf's judgment, nor would Saruman have suspected such a thing (since indeed he was importing it for himself!). To put those words in Saruman's mouth, in what I assume was an attempt at snickering humor, feels like an unnecessary sop to all those "Dude, Tolkien must have been so high!" people. Maybe "appalling" is too strong a word. But it feels like a wrong note.
Similarly, people who read in the novel that Sam took Frodo's hand when he awoke in Rivendell, or see the two embrace in the movie, and immediately think "GAY!" are missing a story about a deeper kind of love and affection, one that has nothing to do with physical attraction or lust. People who interpret those moments with modern eyes that don't take into account the era they were written, or the experience of the author,  are cheating themselves out of richer experience in my opinion.
And, rather than simply say, "people who do that are immature jerks," I would rather say that people who do that are probably influenced by the current culture--you say open and accepting of alternate lifestyles, I say "gay-saturated"; potayto, potahto. However you describe it, and leaving aside any sort of value judgement about it (I'm not gay bashing here, I'm as metrosexual as the next guy  ), I just think it may have robbed some people of the notion of genuine platonic affection between men, and that those involved in making the film may be among those people. Or not. I dunno. Just my perspective.

Sampo (oh, and all that isn't to say that Mike and Kevin shouldn't let the weed and gay jokes fly. That's different. Have at it, guys!  )

[SecretAgentSuperDragon]

Is it just me, or has this thread taken on a new meaning when it says "Fellowship of the Ring: COMING soon"  ?

[Canis Firebrand]

I watched the movie yesterday with the RiffTrax. I seriously had tears many times as I was laughing so hard. 

I loved the many Mr. Anderson lines in the movie. And it was good to hear Mike and Kevin together.

I certainly hope that the other 2 movies get the riffing they deserve. I can't stop recommending this to my friends.