Messages

Well each to their own, but I did struggle with the early part of Fellowship when I first read it, I don't think I got through 10 chapters before giving up. It may have been that I was too young, but I think there's a certain amount of effort you have to give in getting into this book.

Eventually I did get further into the story and it became a breeze shortly after that. Some people will never like this kind of stuff, or the way its written, but for me there was one special point in the story where the I realised it had taken hold of me, and I cared about the characters and what was going to happen to them all.

I would say that it isn't really until almost a third of the way through that the story really tightens up and takes you by surprise, and from then on it just gets more and more interesting I think. At that point it becomes as easy as an airport thriller to read IMO.

IMO, there are certain films which are generally seen as 'classics' on some level, after a time. I think the time really varies, there's no set criteria like '50 years', but I think there's a stage at which any amount of naysayers can't take away the reputation of a film as 'classic'.

'Apocalypse Now', to be fair, probably has reached that stage. It hasn't been forgotten amongst other movies of the time. I don't really love to watch 'Ben Hur', but I think it's a classic film. It has a certain status by now.

I really think, my personal judgement this is, that the LOTR films are classics-to-be though. I've been interested in cinema and cinema history long enough to see that they are something special, and personally, I would guess that in 20 years time people will be looking back very fondly on them.

All of this depends on your definition of 'classic' as something individual to each person's judgement, or as a level of a film's reverence and popularity within culture. I see it as the latter really.

At the moment, yes, it is silly to use the word 'classic' for certain though, as it does imply that a film has lasted and stood the test of time. At the moment, we can only look at LOTR as a stunning achievement in filmmaking and acting. Also its been an awesome yearly cinematic event, and I've been very excited to go along and see these 3 films when they've come out.

I think Ebert's ideas are a bit flawed there. If Middle Earth wasn't more interesting for so many people than the contemporary real world, there'd be little point Tolkien writing about it or Jackson filming it. Ultimately this is popular escapist fiction and people have always loved that. Sure, Copolla released 'Apocalypse Now' in 1979, but two years before that there was 'Star Wars', so it doesn't seem like a transition - people haven't suddenly started liking this kind of film instead of films about real life. There's always going to be this big appeal of fantasy worlds, although I'm not sure any films of this nature will be as popular as the LOTR for a very long time. This is probably the answer you wanted to avoid, but: there's room for both.

There's probably something to be said for the universal values of the LOTR story though, it isn't totally separated from our world, because there's the lessons about friendship and strength of character, which are realised very well in the film. So it does touch on things relevant to people's lives today.

Some people stress that there's an allegory in the story that links it to contemporary issues. Though Tolkien apparently hated his books to be seen as allegory, I think some of those ideas are reasonable. I'm not sure about the idea of it as mirroring World War II, but the explorer who championed it on the BBC's 'Big Read' had a lot to say about its lessons of preserving nature in the modern world. That seems to come through strongly in the book to me, but possibly not in the films.

I think if it "falls short of greatness", it shouldn't be for the reason that it's 'silly'. It's as noble an attempt at film-making as the fantastic 'Apocalypse Now', however fraught with problems we know the latter was. I find it hard to see that it's 'too silly to carry the emotional weight', for me the ROTK film was bursting with emotion, as was this section of the book when I read it. I find the journey you're taken on with the characters very powerful...

I like RPGs and love Star Wars, so its a game I was really excited about (the MMORPG 'Galaxies' game didn't interest much though). But my computer is only 450 MHz, so I don't have a chance of running it. My graphics card probably isn't even good enough, it'll have to wait til I've upgraded...could be a long time

Jackson doesn't much care for the Scouring apparently, and didn't even consider filming it from what I can gather. Personally, whilst some may think he's arrogant to alter Tolkien's story to that extent, I think that it works better for film this way.

Already I've read reviews saying that Jackson seems to not know where to end the film, with 20 minutes of 'could-be' endings, and whilst I don't agree with that at all, I think it could have really damaged the dramatic impact if there'd been the extra action of the Scouring tagged on. As a Tolkien fan I'd love to see it filmed, but in the interests of a tighter cinema script, the omission was probably a wise choice.

I think a lot of the adaptation of the book to script, which is obviously a pretty hard thing to do, has been extremely well-done. New scenes have been added throughout the trilogy, and have often served to very effectively condense several ideas from the books at once. Sometimes characters say lines that others originally said in the story, there's actually been a lot of fiddling around like that - but the general spirit of the books has been left intact, and that's what's important to fans.

As for King Kong, I think people will be intelligent enough not to compare LOTR and that too much. I don't think Jackson's yet said that he wants to 'out-do' LOTR with King Kong, and he'd be silly to say that. It's very different, I think his motivation for this film is that it's what made him want to make films. Also maybe there's an element of going for something less taxing. Whilst it's still sure to be a massive blockbuster, it's not the enormous undertaking that LOTR was, with it's *eight-year* total commitment for Jackson, very long shooting and reshoots, worries about adaptation of a massive text, etc. And Kong is due for a remake I think, it should be an exciting film.

Las: Yeah - I've read that he actually considered 'The Silmarillion' was going to be his greatest single achievement, and anyone who's read that will know that it is more difficult, concentrates less on character, and has an even more epic sweep of events.

It's the collection of a bunch of invented mythology that must make it more special to Tolkien - Silmarillion is richer in the sheer amount of events it takes in. But LOTR has such a more personal touch with its cast of well-made characters (and they ARE good characters, don't listen to anyone saying they're 'cardboard cut-outs' etc.), that probably most of us see that as the greatest work.

So logically I'd see things like The Silmarillion as a companion piece or 'backstory', but of course it is something in its own right, it's just that LOTR has become the popular work, for obvious reasons.

I've read the first two Wheel Of Time books, they were entertaining stories but I don't remember them being overly original or rich, though it's been a while. There were some good characters but I didn't think the world was as interesting as Tolkien's, which is so steeped in myths and history that it immerses me totally. Also Jordan seemed to borrow some story elements, and wasn't Lan a bit like Aragorn, and the boys quite hobbit-like in that they were simple boys then their lives were turned round by a quest?

Terry Pratchett is very entertaining but Discworld seems more a vehicle for his satire and other comedy, which is very well done. I don't imagine he's thought of his world's history in such detail as Tolkien has, so his 'realm' isn't as strong, but that's hardly the point, right?

Tolkien seems to have 'researched' partly by inventing this massive amount of what would seem to be superfluous backstory, to most authors, but actually helped make Lord Of The Rings so compelling and immersing. When I first read the Appendices and got stuck into The Silmarillion, I couldn't believe how much he'd thought up about the races, and events preceding of The Hobbit. For me, that makes him the master.

I really haven't come across a more gripping story, and I read a fair bit. As it's fantasy, some people seem to snobbishly think that it's silly and can't reach a certain standard, but it's fantastic populist fiction. You can take away all sorts of lessons from it, but most importantly it's a bloody great yarn, with characters you grow to care about. Even a term of an English Lit degree hasn't jaded me into not seeing those as the unmistakable qualities of a great book. It's certainly my favourite novel, I can re-read it with enormous pleasure. Christopher Lee who plays Saruman re-reads it every year, and I can see myself getting into that habit.

As movie trilogies go, I've always loved the trinity of trilogies - Star Wars, Indy, and Back To The Future - but LOTR is now right up there with those. The extended cuts of the films are the icing on the cake, they're awesome, they feel far more complete - but watching the 3 in a row will take some serious stamina (it will take up approx. 11 hours of your day!). I'm sure plenty will go through with that though.

Dire Straits were an excellent 80s band, a bunch of good songs and Knopfler knew his way around a guitar.

The Clash had released their best albums by the 80s - Give Em Enough Rope, and then London Calling just at the end of 1979 - but they still managed to turn out some excellent stuff in the 80s. The Magnificent Seven, Charlie Don't Surf, Bank Robber, This Is Radio Clash, Rock The Casbah, etc. So they still count as a good 80s band I'd say.

But I'm definitely far more into the 60s and 70s music. Spiritually I think I'm a child of the 60s. Music was way better back then. Even bad 70s music I can enjoy ironically, unlike today's bad music, which either gives me a headache or makes me want to go and cry in a corner.

[Spoiler - do not read if you haven't seen]

Saw it yesterday, thought it was wonderful. Once the extended DVD comes out, I will most likely rate it as highly as Fellowship. And if this one doesn't get properly recognised at the Oscars, that will be the final nail in the coffin of that award's credibility, to be frank. Perhaps they were holding out to recognise the entire trilogy with this film - I hope so.

Spoiler - do not read if you haven't seen


Having read the book, I was worried about rumoured changes to the ending (and parts of the film in general), but the only major omission was The Scouring Of The Shire (understandably), in which the hobbits come back find Saruman's taken over and ruined the Shire and wage their own little hobbit-war to reclaim the place.

It was a big relief that Frodo still went to Valinor, Merry still stabbed the Witch King, Shelob didn't talk, and the last line from the books was left intact. An excellent ending, I'm glad PJ was this faithful to the books after some alarming liberties were taken with characters and events in TTT.

Standout scenes: Obviously the scene in which Ewoyn and Merry take on the Witch King was incredible. The satisfaction of them both rising to such heroic status was awesome, and then it suddenly lurched into one of the most emotional scenes of the film, between Theoden and Ewoyn. Amazing.

Probably my favourite section of the whole story is Shelob's Lair/The Choices Of Master Samwise, and it was dealt with wonderfully. Whilst we didn't get the full emotional impact of the scene when Sam talks to his (believed to be) dead friend and decides to take the ring himself, it was sad enough, and Shelob was better and scarier than I'd ever imagined. The separation of Sam and Frodo here worked well, the audience was noticeably roused when Sam appeared holding the light saying "Get away from him you filth" and proceeded to spike her after a wonderfully desperate fight sequence. Excellent stuff.

In terms of acting, Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were superb throughout, Mount Doom in particular showcasing some great stuff from them.

Saruman and Wormtongue not being in it at all was a shame, whilst they'll surely turn up in the extended DVD, they deserve some part in the theatrical cut. Brad Dourif was great as Wormtongue in TTT, and Saruman should have been properly dealt with. For one thing, we didn't get told why the Palantir (crystal ball thing) wasn't in Orthanc tower anymore.

Hmm, I would say Futurama was going very strong when it was cut off prematurely, I think it had at least a few more series in it.

The Internet fanbase seems to dislike episodes like 'That's Lobstertainment!' from the third series but I think that's a great one, there's very few episodes I don't find very funny, and even then they're better than recent Simpsons episodes. Seems clear to me which series would ideally have been axed.

The legacy of The Simpsons is only going to be tainted if they keep doing patchy series relying on all these guest stars. A few years ago, everyone I talked to loved The Simpsons, but now a lot of people, even casual fans, say that it's lost it and they probably wouldn't be sad to see it go.

I've done a lot of soul-searching and decided that yes, The Simpsons is going through a slow painful death. Some of the recent episodes from the U.S. (Series 15) have just been horrible. The Evita spoof was one of the worst episodes ever (at the risk of sounding like Comic Book Guy), it wasn't even a decent idea to build from. The visit to London episode was also quite poor too, suffering from the usual over-indulgence in guest stars.

That's become a real problem for The Simpsons, and it's not like it'd be hard for the writers to get around it. There was an episode about tennis which had FOUR international tennis players in a scene that didn't get a laugh out of me once. Some of the guest appearance feel so pointless and unamusing that they seem to just be slotted in as convenient too.

There are some great shows like the latest Treehouse Of Horror, but then that's the writers being allowed to think outside the usual confines of the show far more. They can go overboard with craziness and supernatural elements and it makes it fresher. There's a recent one where Homer befriends a bear that was a return to form after the Evita episode, but whilst really good, it still doesn't compare with any episode from a mid-period series. Those were consistently very, very good.

I think it's a real shame when Futurama gets cancelled after four awesome series, and The Simpsons continues without being particularly great anymore.

NEW games which use the OLD interfaces:
It just drives me up the wall! Yes, I know that we all used to use them to when there wasn't anything better, but DEAR GOD peoples, its 2003! New games who use the standard 9-button Give, Pick up, Use, Open, Look at, Push, Close, Talk to, Pull  GUI's should be thrown into the infernal blazes of the Underworld until they are nothing more than squishy blobs of melted pixels!

Monkey Island 2 / Indy FoA / DoTT SCUMM style is my favourite interface. I like that people still use it for their AGS games, I think it's brilliant. 3 of the best adventure games ever used it, to me that says there's nothing wrong with it.

Also I'm not that keen on Broken Sword-style interface of an intelligent click. It doesn't ruin a game for me but it removes a bunch of options and makes the thinking element of adventure gaming less of a challenge I think.

As AdventureSoft pointed out, giving someone a chainsaw and using a chainsaw on someone are two very different things. Long live multi-verb interfaces.

The thing that annoys me is games that don't reward you, or move the story on, enough. If you solve 3 puzzles in a row and there isn't some interesting animation, cutscene, new area or something, then I can get fed up very quickly.

So there's going to be a 'smart cursor' for the click that isn't for 'look at' - Broken Sword style? Cool interface.

My preference would be for right-click = look, left-click = interactions.

Well I'd definitely like to think that someone can do a really great adventure game in 3D. So far they've been mostly quite flawed I must say. I don't know if Sam And Max 2 will be true 3D but the look of the trailer is spot-on, it suits the style down to the ground - so if the game's going to look like that, it has a lot going for it.

Ultimately though, everything so far has led me to think 2D (point 'n' click) is the ideal format for the adventure. I like 3D in action-adventures, RPGs etc, but adventures seem to grate with it a little.

You're right about true 3D not being Grim-style, but with movable camera etc. - but AGS accomodating that is even more hard to imagine, as even less adventure games have done that. GK3 is the only one that immediately springs to mind.

James Kay touched on it earlier, AGS takes us back to the golden age of adventure gaming - when it was most popular, when the current technology suited it best, and simply, when the best games were made.

Whilst the '3D era' has seen a few decent adventures (I'd argue that out of the 3D adventure games, only Grim Fandango is a truly great game), we're never going to look back on the past 5 years and say it was a great time for adventure games. Not like we look back on the early 90s and try to recreate the feel and quality of those games, in 2D, the best format for adventure games.

AGS started as a nostalgia trip for me, but I think the era we look back on fondly to isn't go to change as time goes on. The heydey was then and probably will always be.

Then there's the simple fact that not as many people played adventure games (of which there were far less anyway) in recent times, so there's less people who are going to be looking back and saying 'those were great games, I want to make one like that', than there are people looking back on the 'golden age' I'm talking about.

Some people want to make 3D games yes, but AGS looks unlikely to be the engine that will suit them by any stretch of the imagination, IMO.

At first I did a little, but it's the way they operate best, being anonymous and distant.

They don't spend that much time in the community but that's probably why they can reach such high standards. If they spent a lot of time discussing games and helping people make them, they'd take longer to do their own games and not perhaps do them as well. The amount of their spare time they must have invested in producing a game the quality of KQ2+VGA I just find staggering, and it's all been worthwhile when the end result is that good.

It's a bit like Yahtzee, we don't hear from him but since he left we've had Odysseus Kent and 5 Days A Stranger - both stunning releases I think. Maybe the shunning of kudos and community makes for better games, I don't know, but it works for these guys.

There's surely a legal element to them choosing anonymity too, to protect them if Sierra suddenly decides they don't like what's happening (however unlikely that is).

Wow! I never had that Mario game (we had a NES so it was the original) but that looks like it took a lot of hard work to perfect. I'd like to see a similarly bonkers run-through of Sonic 2 - I got to know a few of those levels inside-out, but with dedication I bet someone could really make it their bitch like that.

The bit at 7:00, and the last minute, wow. It's like he's become some robot programmed to do Mario as efficiently and quickly as possible. It's cool, but in a way frightening that he has that sort of devotion to cracking it.

Anyone up for a time trial on Monkey Island 2? I think I can get it cracked in 1 hour, using the text skip button! Go!

It's a cool sprite, in my humble opinion it could be improved a little though.

He seems to fit into the background quite well, but I wouldn't necessarily assume he was evil if I didn't know he was supposed to be. The dark clothing is a start, but I think maybe his face needs to have more shades of detail, or maybe just generally darker skin tone. A beard might be an improvement but it'd be hard to do clearly at the resolution really.

Finally, I think the fact his clothes are so black might make animation hard or unclear to the player, I think there need to be more colours to him, but still the darker hues, nothing too colourful.

Also - his right leg looks a bit odd at the moment, if he's standing still. They're also a bit thin.

Sorry that sounds so critical, just some thoughts - good work so far though!

Well with a 'most downloaded' page or box on the front page, the problem would be that people would click on that, it being the first game they're presented with, or an easy choice when they're not sure.

So that perpetuates that game being the 'most downloaded', and we might get stuck in a situation of one game dominating it for a long time, at least until a big AGS release comes along.

To clarify, I'd be more in favour of it measured over a specified time period. Like 'Most downloaded in the past week', or 2 weeks, or month - rather than a most ever. Whilst that's still liable to get dominated by a game, it is more open to the new releases and avoids the problem of old but still popular games racking up hits into the dizzy hundreds and holding onto the top spot.

You could even expand it to a weekly top 10 chart, to make it a bit more interesting, it'd be like the singles chart, but not lame.

Obviously I have no idea how to code any of this, but I'm just throwing some ideas out.