When did JWFAN become the JRRTFan site?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

There are 12 threads, now 13 on the 1st page that deal with some form of Tolkien film, score, format, etc.

There needs to be a Potterdom like thread, the Middle Earth thread for all things LOTR/Hobit stuff.

This

thread

will

be

closed

in

3

2

1.

[crocodile 8,018]

I was thinking the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Howard Shore's music, but it seemed to have dominated the board to the extent that the other subjects are not allowed to.

Karol

[Jay 37,372]

I don't see a problem. Just don't read the Tolkien threads if you don't want to.

There's a thread for the old movies, the new movies, the new score, the books, and some polls. Seems fine to me!

[Brónach 1,302]

I'm fed up.

[Jay 37,372]

So don't read those threads?

[Brónach 1,302]

You don't have to tell me what I'm already doing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I don't see a problem. Just don't read the Tolkien threads if you don't want to.

This coming from the guy who made a separate forum because there were too many Tintin and War Horse threads, and the MB was being overrun with Williams threads.

I'm sorry mate, you do talk some rubbish sometimes.

[Jay 37,372]

I was asked by users to create a separate forum for Tintin and War Horse so that they they could avoid spoilers. Ricard did then same thing with Indy 4 in 2008 for the same reason. Had nothing to do with "being overrun with threads". Pay attention!

[Faleel 5,359]

I have no problem, this is a discussion forum after all.

[Quintus 5,399]

I agree with Joey. I'm a LotR fan, but even I've noticed how much there is a cluttered mess of Tolkien threads in GD.

Maybe a LotR sub-forum? I dunno.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't see a problem. Just don't read the Tolkien threads if you don't want to.

This coming from the guy who made a separate forum because there were too many Tintin and War Horse threads, and the MB was being overrun with Williams threads.

I'm sorry mate, you do talk some rubbish sometimes.

it's only because he's a major JRRT fan, otherwise it would be consolidated. sorry Jason, calling it like I see it. Hell even a Michael Giacchino thread is hard to find here in Middle Earth.

[Quintus 5,399]

I suspect you're probably right.

A quick count just now shows there's currently nine different LotR related threads on page 1 of GD. That's a heck of a lot.

It's quite surprising really that Ricard hasn't objected yet.

[films 0]

theres too many stupid threads on this site

[Quintus 5,399]

Thank you for your detailed feedback.

[Wojo 2,453]

theres too many stupid threads on this site

Your verb (there is) doesn't agree with the number of direct objects (threads > 1). "there are" is preferred, and that's before we even mention capitalization and punctuation.

Thank you for visiting.

[Jilal 569]

Maybe a LotR sub-forum? I dunno.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Jay 37,372]

I don't see a problem. Just don't read the Tolkien threads if you don't want to.

This coming from the guy who made a separate forum because there were too many Tintin and War Horse threads, and the MB was being overrun with Williams threads.

I'm sorry mate, you do talk some rubbish sometimes.

it's only because he's a major JRRT fan, otherwise it would be consolidated. sorry Jason, calling it like I see it. Hell even a Michael Giacchino thread is hard to find here in Middle Earth.

And I'm not a fan of Tintin and War Horse? OOoookkkk

[Faleel 5,359]

If people want to talk about something other than LOTR/TH, they will just do it, I just don't see the problem you all do.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Since when?

Since Tolkien associated movies became significantly more interesting than John Williams associated movies.

[Wojo 2,453]

There's no need for a JRRT/LotR sub-forum. We just had a new JRRT movie so it's kind of a hot discussion at the moment. The frequency of discussion should wane over the months to come, but pick back up as we near the final two installments.

After all, aside from Lincoln and Disney getting Star Wars, what has JW done recently that warrants as much discussion?

[Quintus 5,399]

Streamlined, intuitive browsing experiences are generally preferred over cluttered, untidy ones, Faleel. The theme of JWFan is John Williams and film scores. They should take center stage and be the content promoted most.

[Faleel 5,359]

I can see this:

Streamlined, intuitive browsing experiences are generally preferred over cluttered, untidy ones, Faleel.

However this:

The theme of JWFan is John Williams and film scores. They should take center stage and be the content promoted most.

Most of the newer threads are about the LOTR/TH scores, and the others are for the films...

[Quintus 5,399]

I know what you're saying, but I think it just becomes an issue for some people when the same movie or franchise begins to dominate - to the point that the identity of a forum like this can feel somewhat smothered, or lost.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

theres too many stupid threads on this site

Your verb (there is) doesn't agree with the number of direct objects (threads > 1). "there are" is preferred, and that's before we even mention capitalization and punctuation.

But surely, "theres" is the plural of "there"? Thus matching "threads". Although it doesn't make any sense.

[Uni 306]

It's funny. I've been here—on and off—for more than 10 years now. And it's extraordinary to watch the almost clockwork predictability of the cycles this community goes through. (Proving once and for all this forum is nothing if not a female.) It usually takes a year or two, but eventually nearly all the communal moods come back around for another spin. I can think of at least two times in the past when this subject has arisen . . . and, if I'm not mistaken, most of the people who've commented on this thread so far were here for at least one of them. I don't recall exactly what the specific distractors were those other times—hell, it might even have been "too much Tolkien" then, too—but the thrust was the same. This is a John Williams message board! Why is everyone talking about other stuff all the damn time?

So, since it's none the worse for wear and hasn't tarnished with the passage of time, I'll just toss out the same point I have in the past, because I believe it still applies (it's actually one of the things that drew me back here again recently). I'll try it from a slightly different angle this time.

Take a few seconds and consider how much time you spend on this forum, on average, each day. Most of you are here nearly every day, and it takes some time to read through all the new posts and then to type responses on a few of them. So what does that add up to, collectively? Half an hour? Maybe closer to an hour? I think it's safe to say that's an accurate range for most of us. (For some of you, it's even more time. You can be honest. If any of us had lives, we probably wouldn't be here at all. )

So let's just round it off—and down, for most of us—to half an hour. Half an hour a day. At least five days a week, usually more. Can we agree on that?

Now, to get some perspective here, let's change up the setting. Imagine you've joined a John Williams fan group that gets together for coffee every morning for half an hour before going to work. Sometimes new folks drop in, sometimes veterans disappear for a while, but the group hovers around 20 participants or so most of the time. For the first few months, it would be easy to fill that time with nothing but discussion matters related to JW. You'd go over his scores in sharp focus, play some tracks for context, trade CDs and schedule field trips to the local symphony on Movie Music night.

Inevitably, however, other elements would begin to creep into the conversation. No doubt other film music would enter into the picture. But you can't talk Williams for long without talking Spielberg and Lucas. And you can't talk S&L without talking about the actors associated with them. And you can't talk about those actors without discussing their other films, and other directors, and the books they've adapted, and now you're discussing literature, and wouldn't it be cool if they made a movie out of that?, and then when they do you get to yell out, "Called it!", and now you've got material to chew on for another two or three weeks of meetings, and so on and so forth and so it goes.

If you really tried, you moght be able to keep things pretty well on track for six months, maybe a year at the outside. But what about two years later? Five years down the road? Ten?

If that same group of people is grabbing coffee together more than three or four years on, they'll still be talking film scores (that is, after all, the purpose of the group). But would that be all they talked about? Of course not. By that time, they'd doubtless start off each meeting with tidbits about each other's lives—How's the family? New job going well?—and would long since have established an easy camaraderie that would allow for a much broader scope of topics.

Things would gradually change over time. What starts as a gathering of common interests will inevitably, intractably evolve into something else. A community. Not just people meeting for a single purpose, but friends getting together because after a while the company of their fellow man becomes as appealing as the subject matter.

So the question becomes: is that what JWFan is? I think so. The setup's a little different—we have separate tables designated for specific topics, and it doesn't smell as good as Starbucks—but the idea's the same. The notion that we should have narrow ourselves, walk the line, that we've gotta stick to the plan, people!, would remove one of this forum's central charms. For Pete's sake, folks, I don't come here to write strict, in-the-margin essays for a college class. I come to hang out and shoot the breeze with other JW fans . . . and some of them have indeed, over the years, become people I consider friends. When you get to a certain comfort level, you scribble outside the lines sometimes. That's how you know you're friends with someone.

From time to time we get newbies who get weirded out by our "tangents," and leave after a few posts. Let 'em go. They don't get it. They're looking for a think tank—and, this being the internet, they're sure to find one someplace else. I'm looking for a coffee house . . . and this just happens to be the best one I've found so far.

[i wouldn't worry too much about it, though. I think Wojo hit it square on the head: this is just about timing. We're riding the wave of a new Tolkien movie. It was bound to happen. It'll pass . . . after we find some other, non-JW subject to distract us.]

- Uni

[Wojo 2,453]

theres too many stupid threads on this site

Your verb (there is) doesn't agree with the number of direct objects (threads > 1). "there are" is preferred, and that's before we even mention capitalization and punctuation.

But surely, "theres" is the plural of "there"? Thus matching "threads". Although it doesn't make any sense.

No. "There" is used here as a pronoun to describe the location of the direct object (threads). When used as an adverb, adjective, noun, pronoun, or interjection, you can't just tack an "s" onto the end to create a plural. "There" doesn't get modified into a plural form, so you have to use other words in the sentence.

"Theres" is a contraction of either "there is" or "there has," but without the apostrophe. And if we get rid of the extraneous adjectives "too many stupid," we have "there is threads." You could say "there is a thread" or "there are threads," but you can't mix them.

Of course, Theres is a municipality in the district of Haßberge in Bavaria in Germany. But that's not what films meant.

I think Wojo hit it square on the head: this is just about timing. We're riding the wave of a new Tolkien movie. It was bound to happen. It'll pass . . . after we find some other, non-JW subject to distract us.]

- Uni

It happened with The Dark Knight and The Avengers, though not so much with the music. It'll happen with Superman. I hope it happens with Pacific Rim.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I agree, enough with these threads. Just have one. I don't like Lord of the Rings and it does kinda turn me off when I enter General Discussion and only see a couple threads that appeal to me, like "Hans Zimmer Sucks", "JWFan Generations AKA when did you lose your Williams virginity thread", "Last Score You Listened To" with occasional posts analyzing a score than just make me sit there, read and fucking love coming to this forum, etc. Then there's like more Lord of the Rings threads then there are seconds that make up those films' running time that mean nothing to me, threads about the fucking new Star Trek movies and one Star Wars thread.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

"Theres" is a contraction of either "there is" or "there has," but without the apostrophe.

But without the apostrophe, it's just the plural of the non existent noun "there".

Or in other words: I was joking. Anyway, it's a moo point now.

[Wojo 2,453]

Anyway, it's a moo point now.

Joey: All right, Rach. The big question is, "does he like you?" All right? Because if he doesn't like you, this is all a moo point.

Rachel: Huh. A moo point?

Joey: Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.

[crocodile 8,018]

"Theres" is a contraction of either "there is" or "there has," but without the apostrophe.

But without the apostrophe, it's just the plural of the non existent noun "there".

Or in other words: I was joking. Anyway, it's a moo point now.

I like the idea of multiple "theres". And a sense of romanticism and vastness to a rather mundane word. Makes it as big as the universe itself.

Karol

[Uni 306]

"Theres" is a contraction of either "there is" or "there has," but without the apostrophe.

But without the apostrophe, it's just the plural of the non existent noun "there".

Or in other words: I was joking. Anyway, it's a moo point now.

And now to further muddy the waters, you've invoked a semi-plural bovine adjective as an improper modifier to "point."

(I love—freaking adore, actually—that a thread complaining about threads derailing has become totally derailed. Cheers!)

- Uni

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's quite surprising really that Ricard hasn't objected yet.

Who?

[Quintus 5,399]

Ol' narky arse!

Hang on, that's me.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't see a problem. Just don't read the Tolkien threads if you don't want to.

This coming from the guy who made a separate forum because there were too many Tintin and War Horse threads, and the MB was being overrun with Williams threads.

I'm sorry mate, you do talk some rubbish sometimes.

it's only because he's a major JRRT fan, otherwise it would be consolidated. sorry Jason, calling it like I see it. Hell even a Michael Giacchino thread is hard to find here in Middle Earth.

And I'm not a fan of Tintin and War Horse? OOoookkkk

I've not mentioned TinTin or Warhorse, and I really don't know your exact feelings on those two films/filmscores(I love them both immensely) but as I said there were 12 different JRRT related threads on the page 1 when I began this thread. Back during the Great Indy release we had a dedicated area to go as to not clutter up the place. As you've said if I don't like a thread don't go there and I don't. But sometimes there are just so many damned Tolkien themed threads at the top as I pop in and out of the site I felt compelled to post this thread. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone and I guess afterall we won't have much to talk about now that John won't have another score until 2014 God Willing.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

That's a valid complaint, Joe, and to be honest, I wouldn't be against the idea of a sub-forum, suggested by some members, to keep it all tidy and clean. I understand it can be annoying for people not interested in these threads to go search for other threads in the middle of all this Tolkien extravaganza.

[Quintus 5,399]

That's a valid complaint, Joe, and to be honest, I wouldn't be against the idea of a sub-forum, suggested by some members, to keep it all tidy and clean.

Keep it secret, keep it safe.

[indy4 155]

Never understood the problem with having a lot of threads about the same subject, but I guess I'm in the minority.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You are not

[Jay 37,372]

Never understood the problem with having a lot of threads about the same subject, but I guess I'm in the minority.

If there were any threads about the exact same subject, I would combine them. But there's not!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

It's not about that. It's about the fact that having so many threads on LOTR/TH makes it harder for people not interested in these to find the threads they are interested in. That is all.

[Faleel 5,359]

I do think the AUJ and Trilogy threads should be merged, but thats pretty much it,

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

since it's clear that the power in charge doesn't think this is an issue I suggest my thread be closed, it has no value.

[Quintus 5,399]

Just make sure if you do ever want to talk about a Middle-Earth movie you create a new thread or use one of the many others - because talking about it in the actual Last Film I Watched thread is utterly forbidden.

Just create another thread instead, whack a poll on it and voila - more clutter for your viewing pleasure.

[indy4 155]

But really, it's not hard to find nonlotr threads. Just involves some scrolling.

[crocodile 8,018]

Scrolling gives me cramps!

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Scrolling? SCROLLING?!

[Uni 306]

since it's clear that the power in charge doesn't think this is an issue I suggest my thread be closed, it has no value.

Well, that was time well spent. . . .

- Uni

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

You could...you know...not read the damned threads.

Joey, once again, you prove that you'd be that annoying son of a gun who complains to the FCC or whatever every time he sees something on TV he doesn't like.

Because y'know...it's better the show be cancelled than you change your channel!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The outrage!