Peter Jackson Will Not Be Making The Hobbit 467
An anonymous reader writes "Due to legal wranglings with New Line Cinema over accounting issues for Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will not be involved in the making of either The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel." I suppose there is still a chance that Jackson & Co. could end up involved, but at this point that looks unlikely.
prequel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:prequel? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently they are [moviehole.net].
Peter Jackson says:
Re:prequel? (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome George Lucas and our new taller, more prominently be-eared, rastafarian Gollum.
Meesa servsa the precious.
Re:prequel? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:prequel? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:prequel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are Goblins in the Mines of Moria as well, which is a LoTR event. I'm not sure they are actually the same creature, as the Wiki suggests.
Re: (Score:2)
I just hope LotR doesn't become a cash cow where new line takes any material they can get their hands on and makes it into a movie.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of the other books besides Hobbit are remotely filmable. They're mostly short stories or summaries of longer stories for which you'd have to write a lot of your own material to make a film.
If you had a talented writer, Tolkien left many, many fascinating stories about the Elves and early Men which could make good movies. I'm afraid I don't really consider Walsh/Boyens/Jackson in that category. As much as I enjoyed their movies, they got weaker whenev
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A Prequel??? (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry?? The Hobbit *IS* the prequel to LOTR. Please tell they're not going
to get some Hollywood paint-by-numbers screenwriters commitee to butcher Tolkeins
ideas and come up with some Phantom Menace debarcle? Will they have Gollum with
dreadlocks and speaking in some fau-jamaican patois and Gandalf as some all-american
apple pie and freckles kid who Has Yet To Discover His Powers blah blah etc etc.
Gah!
Re:A Prequel??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Prequel??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
First reaction... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a movie out of the Silmarillion would be like making a cartoon adaptation of a Fiscal Accounting handbook.
Re:First reaction... (Score:5, Interesting)
Attempting to read the work as a modern novel will not serve the reader well. If people go into it expecting a genre fantasy novel, they are bound to be disappointed. But it is a tremendous and unique accomplishment in fantasy. Read it with an eye to its place in the fantastic tradition, and with an understanding that you are not reading a novel, but a chronological and cosmological saga (in the old, strict literary sense, not the back-of-the-paperback-blurb sense), and its power and creativity are breathtaking.
MGM be warned : (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MGM be warned : (Score:5, Funny)
Studio management == morons (Score:4, Funny)
The guy made them a bleepin' 10^9 bucks with the trilogy, and they assume they can slot in any schmoe that can aim a camera? And I suppose they're too damn cheap to go back to WETA Digital for the FX too, they'll get some folks from over at Sci-Fi Channel and it'll be just fine.
At this point we can only hope the project collapses from being nickle-and-dimed to extinction.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Studio management == morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they do and yes they can.
There are 60,000 wannabe directors out there and with the DP and production staff from the original filming it would not be too hard. Hollywierd is known for butchering and making a mess of things.
Hollywood is known for borderline illegal accounting practices, NO move has ever made a profit, so if you get net points on a film you are royally "fubared" you want gross points as those are the real pay dollars..... dont believe me? ask Stan Lee about the profits he recieved from his Net points on the Spiderman movies and the lawsuits he has going against the studio about it...
There is a long tradition of making up expenses to suck up all profits a film m akes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While it may well have been the case in this particular occurence, and while I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My prediction (Score:3, Interesting)
LOTR will remain popular as a rental with future generations, will remain at the head of Peter Jackson's CV, and will be the movie that inspires many big-screen TV purchses for years to come.
The Hobbit and The Sillymarilly--Silamarilia--The Three Rocks will go straight to DVD, will not make a name for the director, possibly the same one responsible for such cinematic triumphs as "Rob Schneider Doo-pa Doo-pa Doo", and will be responsible for many Blockbuster membership cancellations because "they just don'
Blame Jackson? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the plus side, maybe some of us will appreciate Jackson more when we see how Hollywood botches these films. That or I'll eat my words.
No PJ, I'm not interested (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? My impression from most Tolkien fans is that they felt that PJ did an OK job given the limitations of what he had to work with (screen time mostly) but I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision. I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with
Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Tolkien fan. I was even a card-carrying member of the Tolkien Club of Finland back in the day. I have read LOTR maybe 15 times (lost count to be honest), Hobbit maybe 6-7 times, Silmarillion 3-4 times and miscellaneous other book few times. And I think that PJ did very good job capturing the overall feel of the book, especially when we take in to account the differences in the medium.
And I'm GLAD that he dropped Bombadil from the movie. While it works in the book, it would SUCK in the movie. Half the audience would walk out thinking "whats with the hopping and dancing dude?". Back when I first heard of the upcoming movie, my first thought was "whoa, this is great!". My second though was "um, how are they going to handle Bombadil?".
"I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)"
maybe they should do their own movie then. They could waste all their time on pointless things, and the end-result would absolutely suck. PJ set out to create a good MOVIE. What many of those hardcore Tolkien fans (hell, I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, yet I can acknowledge the challenges PJ faced when making the movie) want is something that might be more faithful to the book, but would suck as a movie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a LONGTIME Tolkein fan - to the point where I ordered the First Edition out of England when I read WH Auden's original review in the NY Times some 50+ years ago. And later the 2nd edition of the Hobbit. These copies are still in my personal library.
I don't have any problem with the material that was left out. The pieces that were omitted were not central to the books. And I feel that the app
George Lucas is going to do it (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you have a George Lucas movie that doesn't heavily feature a clan of excitable little people? Maybe American Graffiti, but I think that was just due to a misunderstanding about how long it had been since that Opie Taylor kid had actually appeared on film.
The Silmarillion? (Score:3, Interesting)
History Channel? No: Animal Planet! (Score:2)
Now we can get the RIGHT version made !!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, we're talking Hollywood. You'll not only have Frodo and Sam, you'll also have appearances by Smith of Wooten Major, Morgoth, Rand al'Thor and Optimus Prime.
Re: (Score:2)
Meesa precious (Score:3, Funny)
How about no? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ha ha, dream on. You're going to get Hobbit Returns, The Hobbit's Revenge, and Hobbit Resurrection.
Sam is also going to get his own spinoff movie, Samwise (the Legend of Sam Gamgee). They'll also make Gandalf in Love.
And then, and then, just to piss everyone off and make some more money, they're going to hire a bunch of unemployed crap writers to produce a novelization of each of these movies, regardless of whether each film is already based on a Tolkien work or not. J
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Brokeback Helm's Deep?
Movie studio screwing someone over money? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you. I mean who ever heard of a movie studio cheating someone out of their money? Really, it goes to show you, it doesn't matter who you are, the movie studio will try anything to keep their money.
Like the RIAA's accounting, movie studio accounting is even more devious. Whenever someone tries to get paid a "part of the profits" for which they deserve, the studios always pull the "but according to our estimates, we didn't make money on that film." That's why there will never be a Forrest Gump sequel. The author, Winston Groom, was supposed to get a part of the profits. But according to Paramount, Forrest Gump didn't make any profits despite its $600+ million in sales. So he refuses to let the sequel become a movie.
Another example is the dispute between Art Buchwald and Paramount. [wikipedia.org] Buchwald pitched a script to Paramount about a movie in which Eddie Murphy playing an African king comes to America to look for a bride. After some development with director John Landis, it was abandoned. Paramount later produced a movie called Coming to America about an African prince played by Eddie Murphy that comes to America to find a bride. John Landis directed the movie. But according to Paramount, they were different movies completely. When Buchwald won his lawsuit, Paramount then argued the movie that though it had $350 million in sales, it made no profit according to their accounting. The court found their accounting "unconscionable". Rather than have the court delve into their accounting practices in detail, Paramount settled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess that's how it goes in Hollywood.
Oh well (Score:2)
King Kong was rubbish - could Jackson do it well? (Score:5, Insightful)
And King Kong was unwatchably, laughably bad.
Is a Director judged on their latter movies? Because if they are, I wouldn't want Jackson to do The Hobbit.Smaug (Score:2)
What? I like dragons
In all honesty, though, I'd rather the movie not be made at all then to see it made poorly. But, sadly, the quality of the storytelling doesn't enter into it when the
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It does explain Merry and Pippin's height gain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It does explain Merry and Pippin's height gain (Score:5, Informative)
I was most disappointed that the scouring wasn't even in the extended edition because it has been hinted at in the Two Towers. Instead we were left with a derivative Hollywood ending with 1/2 hour of hugging.
The whole point of the scouring is that Frodo isn't regarded as a hero in the Shire even though he saved Middle Earth. The hobbits had their own problems and weren't interested in hearing about difficult to understand adventures on the other side of the world. Merry and Pippin fought in a war though and when they came back they saved the Shire.
It's removing the ending which was the point to the story in the first place. It's what completes the explanation of hobbits as characters.
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I don't mean to be a spelling nazi, but I just can't get over the mental image of Peter Jackson emitting large chunks of books. My day is ruined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:5, Insightful)
I, too have loved the LOTR books since I was a kid, and I too would have loved to have seen Bombadil in the movies, etc., but, let's be honest: Jackson & Co. made an absolutely amazing film trilogy, by ANY standard you care to measure, so can we fucking end shit like "hideous mess" already? It's not true, you know it's not true, so please just fucking leave it, alright? It makes you sound like you live in your mom's basement, and just annoys the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
-Jar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of us are of the opinion that the first movie was actually great and Tom Bombadil did need to be cut out. Some of us enjoyed parts of the movies, but overall were upset by the changes we thought were unneccessary.
But in any case, it's our opinion, you have yours, and there's no need to use uncivilized language.
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, my friend. But you are 100% wrong here.
The story is the story. And that's that. JRR wrote it in a particular way to tell a particular story. If you make changes, you change the story. It is no longer JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It becomes Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - a different story.
Omissions, like Bombadil, I can excuse. It's not a change per se, it's an omission. In your mind's eye you can still imagine that they met Tom, they just didn't have enough time to show you the meeting. But the changes. Inexcusable.
If you'd like an example of why people get so torqued over this, consider Frodo. His relationship with Sam and with Gollum as they traveled. In the books it was Frodo, his trusted servant Sam, and Gollum whom he never really trusted. "His promise will hold him for a bit, Sam". That kind of a thing.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
Short answer is - it does not. It is a change that Peter Jackson thought would be better than the original story, or make for more exciting film, or whatever. And no offense PJ if you're reading this - but I seriously doubt you're a better story teller than the Old Professor.
Omit things due to time, fine. Add a few cute scenes that don't change the story (like the wagon ride with Frodo and Gandalf at the beginning of Fellowship) - fine.
Make a change because you think you're a better storyteller than JRR - no way. If you think you're a better storyteller then write your own damn stories and make movies of those.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that the issue here is with the portrayal of how the ring is eating away at Frodo's mind. In a book you can simply state it, and present internal dialogue - on film it needs to be visually portrayed in a way that makes it adequately clear to the audience exactly how deep an effect it is having. Whether having Frodo become so jealously protective of the ring that he'll betray Sam was necessary to do that, it certainly did help achieve the desired effect. Whether it was the right thing to do I can't say (film is subjective - it seemed okay to me, clearly not so to you) but certainly I can say that it was done with reason.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone needs an editor. And anyone who writes more Liv Tyler With Elf Ears scenes onto the screen can't be all that bad.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, simply because you've read and reread the stories written by Tolkien until you've memorized every line doesn't mean 90% of the audience has.
Trying to convey a story of such magnitude in such a fast medium as film is challenging and as another poster pointed out, in a book you get insight into the character's thoughts, but on film it's all visual.
I suppose we could just go back and remake the films but instead of changing anything at all we'll just add some voice-over dialogue so we can hear the characters thoughts as outlined in the books. Maybe we can get Harrison Ford to do it...
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Tolkien stated that LoTR "uniquely leant itself to not being dramatized." Or something to that effect. Exactly, the movies are not LoTR. They are another man's interpretation of the original story. Being that as they may, it is still well done. I was extremely nervous -- as a huge fan -- that Jackson would blow it, but I think he did not. Liv Tyler as Arwen freaked me out, but I think she did a superb job.
I also noted in all of Jackson's interviews he rarely mentions Tolkien. This troubled me as I feel he is a fan, and maybe it is nothing, but still. I think he has a tad bit of the, "this is my work. I'm the director," thing going on.
The movies are what they are, and 50 years from now they may do another whole adaptation. Jackson, btw, took many concepts of depiction from the animated movie -- I actually picked it up in a checkout line for a buck and watched it recently. I think Jackson even states he took the scene of the rider along the road -- indeed, the animation has the same angle and shot. Jackson did a far better job with the treason of Isengard (Gandalf & Saruman). What a great line, "Tell me, friend, when did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?!" That's not in the book. Also, he really pumped up The Bridge of Khazad Dum (sic?). Gandalf's fall into the shadows. Ebert points out that the book's piece on that is only a few hundred words.
Finally, the discovery of the party of Dwarrowdelf (sic?) the dwarvish city in Moria, is incredibly done by Jackson. I got goose bumps as the scene revealed itself, Sam looks up and says, "now there's a sight you don't see every day." The background music, the look on their faces, Sam's words -- it really made the great city become what I think Tolkien would want it to. In the book, you just don't get that sense.
Finally, finally, Boromir's death was incredible. The book did nothing for me, but Jackson really built that up. I was right there in that scene as each arrow sunk into him, as he looked back to the hobbits, then fought, then shot, then back again. Each arrow weakening him, yet he finds it within himself to go on. Aragorn saving him, yet he died but not without a final bonding moment where reconciliation occurs as he blesses both the quest and the king. Jackson deservs mighty praise for that scene (which, btw, he did not edit).
I am very proud of the movies. I do think before Jackson dies he needs to film a Bombadil piece for an extra, extra, lucasian DVD release (digital enhancements and remastering and all that).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You clearly know nothing about storytelling, writing or film.
Rather a sweeping statement. Have we met?
They are different mediums and require changes in order to work effectively as stories.
Sure they do. Just like how the Mona Lisa needs a few extra brushstrokes so it looks good in a magazine. Or Notre Dame cathedral needs to have a few digital gargoyles added if you're going to film it.
You really need to take a few film classes
No, I don't. Films are made to be watched. Mostly by people
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That incident was, I suspect, added to provide something for Eowyn to react to - the point being to give clear indication of Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn. She can't say anything to him because anything that explicit just isn't going to work, and there's only so many longing looks you can include to make your point without something to h
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree, however:
I am, however, horrified at the thought of a "prequel" to LOTR, no matter who ends up directing/producing it.
If they mean to give the Silmarillion to someone with a talent for something other than eating, then I'd be interested.
TWW
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
I hear it's Uwe Boll doing The Hobbit, so it definitely won't be butchered in the same way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news:
The tides turn due to ... the tidal effect [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
Given English as we know it didn't exist in 1066 (ever tried reading Anglo Saxon?) I think he may have been wrong on that account
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was going to add a flame against JRRT's position on precisely that basis, but I didn't because I wasn't confident enough of the quote. He might have said ``In England'', for example. I think his belief was that the last great stories were the Norse and Icelandic sagas (Egil's Saga, etc). The move towards literary styles of writing, as opposed to the simple recording of
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Above, someone else stated the movies were deplorable. Tolkien fandom has widely embraced the movies (notice the official fan club in the credits, many of whom being authors themselves). This was a tough sell seeing how JRRT stated his works uniquely leant themselves to not being dramatized. Being a huge fan myself, I felt Jackson & co. were fans making a fan movie. They did a splendid job. Not to mention the two pr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news, the Silmarillion is great literature, and Barbara Taylor Bradford should get a nobel prize for literature.
Seriously, all his works are delightful? Well, that's beyond fandom and into religion. And arguing that popularity is a sure sign of quality is preposterous.
ian
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly: and doesn't it wear those expositions heavily? Tolkein was quite right to berate CS Lewis for the incoherence of his backstory, but Tolkein's books are all background and no foreground. There may be great sweeps of invention of languages and a complex history, and as body of work it's impressive. Pointless, but impressive. However, the actual LotR itself has i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The key three texts are Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan, and especially The Farthest Shore. The last is in turn head and shoulder above the other two, but I don't know how readable it is in isolation: I have returned to i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a huge disappointment to me. The Shire is Tolkien's greatest creation, and the Scouring of The Shire is essential to the story he was trying to tell.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, he certainly did. Here's what the original version was supposed to look like:
Interesting indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also an interesting commentary on our society today. At the time, nobody saw this as homo-eroticism, guys were allowed to be friends and be close without being considered gay.
Interesting indeed.
In the "bad" old days, the taboo against male-male sexual relations made a safe space for male-male close friendship.
It was precisely because it was unthinkable that there be a sexual dimension to it that it was OK to show affection to a male friend.
So it's actually the newfangled "enlightened" attitudes that have led to "homophobia", by introducing so much ambiguity.
article text within (Score:5, Informative)
WOW. Let me say, respect to Peter Jackson for telling it as he sees it.
I am a filmmaker myself, and have to deal with a variety of industry business annoyances on a daily basis, and I can sympathize with his frustration. This is an industry predicated upon many absurd practices. My assumption is that Peter Jackson must be pretty ticked off to be willing to vent in public like this.
Unfortunately for him, last we heard, he's hit a snag with HALO [imdb.com] as well. Although general slashdot community concensus seemed to be "oh gawd, not another video game movie," so perhaps that snag is a bit less depressing than The Hobbit troubles.
11-19-06 Latest News
Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh Talk THE HOBBIT
Xoanon @ 10:32 pm EST
Moments ago we received this email from Peter Jackson and his crew down in New Zealand, take a look...
Dear One Ringers,
As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.
You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.
However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.
We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.
A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to se
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:article text within (Score:4, Interesting)
I've said this several times on Digg, but always get the thumbs down from the largely adolescent juvenile crowd. The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, has a much more rhythmic momentum, and each chapter in and of itself, has an up and down cycle to it (it is a children's book after all). Am I the only one who thinks that the Hobbit would be much better served as a 21 episode mini-series? Think Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc. Each chapter becomes an episode. Much of the storyline would therefore remain intact (a lot more happens in 302 pages of the Hobbit than the 900-or so pages of LOTR), and the original flow would be better observed.
When its all done, release a $119 nine disc DVD set. Sell 1 DVD set for every 12 people who would have gone to the movie, and you're already making serious money. Throw in advertising for the 21 episodes, and you've got a goldmine. Seriously, why isn't anyone pitching this? Haven't LOST, The West Wing, and these other dramas shown that the mini-series format is what people are now looking for in movies (big sweeping story arcs with smaller plots along the way)? Am I crazy? Please, somebody give me some honest feedback on this. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But just like PJ and The Hobbit, keep the hope alive buddy, keep the hope alive.
Actually, it is sort of a prequel (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone needed to take a red pen to that bloated manuscript. Jackson at least did a good job of it. He may have irritated obsessive purists, but he took what was a decent story mired in excessive ink struggling along at a wretched pace, and turned it into a well-paced story accessible even to those who don't have the patience to read page after page of nothing.
Re:Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, for important characters, scenes and actions, the more details in books the better. But isn't the basic idea of a book to let the READER'S imagination decide what the character looks like? Or how a sword fight unfolds, or what a valley looks like? In those situations, I'd much rather have a general description from the author and let my mind fill in the gaps.
Unless it is intricate to the story, don't waste 10 pages on some
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, what the hell was that about, what did it have to do with the ring, and who's ass was it pulled from?