Message Board | Rules

Thread: What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Lord of the Rings > What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?   << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>
I suspect that the creators of Bored of the Rings would have been disappointed if they didn't offend anyone. :P
Bored of the Rings was crude and rude and very much naughty teenager humor. Naive, no, (deliberately) childish, yes. Not for everyone - that goes without saying. And then again, not everyone likes parodies anyway.

[quote="Odo Banks":1wgeyosv]Bored of the Rings was crude and rude and very much naughty teenager humor. Naive, no, (deliberately) childish, yes. Not for everyone - that goes without saying. And then again, not everyone likes parodies anyway.


i was a naughty teenager when i first read it. forced a freind to read it a few years back, and he thought it was great. then he sent it to his father, who is about 60... a very old school Tolkien fan. older than me. the old man loved it. maybe some people don't grow out of being naughty teenagers.

though, this is probably the wrong thread to be discussing parodies. "parodies" would probably be more appropriate. my bad.

btw, have you read the sotweed factor by john barth?
Hi one and all, I'm new to the forum but thought I would chip in. I re-edited the films to suit my personal tastes as a Tolkien traditionalist and found when doing so that some changes were minimal-such as removing the line by Gandalf to Frodo following Bilbo's departure that he had "gone to stay with the elves" or removing the shot of Boromir walking passed outside Moria when Gandalf warns Frodo not all the Company can be trusted- to completely removing the scenes where Farmair takes Frodo to Osgiliath. The other changes- and there were very many- was to cut down almost all of the battle scenes, in particular the troll in moria and the ludicrous one man assualt by Legolas on an oliphaunt in Return. I also found it was possible- with the Osgiliath scenes removed to bring Two Towers to an end at same point as the book ie when Pippin leaves for Minas Tirith with Gandalf and with Frodo captured and all in at 3hrs 7mins- excluding credits. This makes Two Towers a much more satifying film and significiantly cuts the running time of Return which seems to solve the sense of multiple endings so many disliked. I also removed the warg scene where Aragorn falls from the cliff as it is merely a set up to reintroduce Arwen and I moved all her relevant scenes from Two Towers back into Fellowship, so that as in the books Aragorn pines for but does not "see" Arwen again until the end. There are so many changes I could make this a very long, technical, and most likely overly dull post so I will stop here.
Did you also remove the scenes where Arwen comes to fetch Frodo instead of Glorfindel? How about any scenes showing Arwen and Aragorn's relationship, seeing as how it was largely relegated to the appendices? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

Out of curiosity, when do we learn Elrond has foresight? or in better words, where?
And I've been reading unfinished tales, and there's some parts of the story of the ring that they used in the movie, such as mentioning the Nazgul were afraid of water. They pulled material from alot of different books and put them into the trilogoy, which i think is kind of clever :roll: :mrgreen:
But I feel there was too much Aragorn and Arwen DRAMA. I don't mind the story itself, i only mind that they overexaggerated it at some parts.
AND why was Arwen's fate tied to the rings????????
Well I'm pretty certain Odo and Eldorion will agree with most of your points. And I take your point on many of those changes myself, even though i think most of those changes were well suited to the film medium.

On Faramir (film version), I think it's worth pointing out that he didn't really want the Ring. He wanted to please Daddy. You will note he never actually tried to take the Ring from Frodo himself.

I thought Denethor was a jerk in the books, so his film portrayal largely matched my view of him :roll: .

[quote="IheartImrahil":2vn2mesp]maybe some people don't grow out of being naughty teenagers.[/quote:2vn2mesp]

Going back to a way previous post :oops: , but I think Odo has a point about parodies like Bored of the Rings and I empathize and agree that Crude isn't really my cup of tea either. I'm not really a fan of crude and rudimentary, suggestive humour :roll: and that parodies can sometimes be fun, but I’m one of those people, that Odo pointed out, who hates it when they begin to spoil or make mockery of the things I love, and I don’t think that I’ll be swayed towards reading Bored of the Rings again, for that reason. I think some people never view the LotR as 'Naughty Teenagers', regardless of age, whether we read or watch things young or old, we all see things differently (children don't always see things in a 'childish', dismissive way).

N.B. I don’t doubt that the people who’ve read BotR are big fans of Tolkien btw, IheartImrahil <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ! I’m just saying that BotR isn’t everybody’s cup of tea and that nobody should have it forced upon them (everyone should view the LotR in the way they want to).

Btw pettytyrant, did you edit the bit in the TT when Treebeard is at first reluctant to go to Isengard, when Merry tries to persuade him to help and Treebeard decides to take him and pip back home? Thats another annoying :x example of a character that's been goofy-ified in Jackson's movie (of which I love btw :lol: and Peter Jackson, it's just he made fools of so many good characters, like Gimli and Tree Beard :roll: ).

[b:2vn2mesp]Joseph Dwarf[/b:2vn2mesp]
Thanks for the welcome GB. I reedited films not as it might seem because I hated the films but because they were so near and so well done in so many areas that I was infuriated they could lose the place so badly in some places-I'm thinking in particular here of turning Merry (more so than Pippin) into an idiot/child, Faramir partially wanting the ring then changing his mind, almost anything to do with Legolas in a fight(he's an elf not superman), turning Gimli into a comedy character, the poor portrayal of Denethor (finding a way to hint that he was using a palantir in my edits was tricky!) and most especially the nonsense with Frodo sending Sam away before Shelob. It is an adaption and changes have and must be made for film- its a different medium, but I think they got a bit snowed under- never a good sign when actors stop reading the rewrites slipped under their door of an evening because they are certain there will only be another one to learn in morning! I think the fact the script wasn't nailed before they began shooting added greatly to the script problems- Tolkien knew his stuff they should have trusted in him more. For me Fellowship is the film that most captures the book its based on and I don't think it's a coincidence that it's also the film closest to Tolkiens own work, the further they digressed in Towers and Return the poorer the result- for all their undoubted talents they can't write Lord of the Rings better than Tolkien did (although having said that I think what they did with Aragorns character was an improvement on the book where one critic described him as having "all the qualities of a noble horse and as much personality." - so credit where its due.)
Sadly GB I wasnt given oversight of the script- which in a properly run world I should have been so couldn't pointout where their script was complete a**e, which is often but had to make do with what the special eds offered- I did cut out the scene where she surprises Aragorn whilst hes gathering Athelas though- and a quick point on Arwen replacing Glorfindel- theres not a hope in hell Elrond would have sent his only daughter out against the Nazgul alone- she'd have been slaughtered. And I doubt Aragorn would have been too happy either- I can see why they did it but it only follows film logic not narrative.
Like Odo says Petty, I'm probably a Heathen :lol: , but it made perfect narrative sense to me (at least as much sense as sending out Glorfindel or any Lone Elf to rescue Frodo <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ).

The films are the films, and the books are the books. As long as the key elements of the books make it into the films, I am perfectly happy for the films to stand on their own.

I have to say though, I admire your tenacity to re-edit the films to your own satisfaction. That's a remarkable achievement. And by the way, welcome to the forum :mrgreen: . I expect we'll have many more jolly conversations :geek: .

Hi Joseph Dwarf, yeah I edited it- in my edit I spliced the entmoot scenes into one and then the next time you see the ents they are marching on Isengard with the simple implication that was the result of their meeting. The idea the original edit implies is that Treebeard is unaware of Sauruman destruction of the forest around Isengard until Pippin tricks him into going and seeing it. which I thought ludicrous and it reduces the character of Treebeard to being not very bright as well as slow and out of touch with his own forest. It also does not follow earlier impressions given about Treebeard (although the book may be colouring my view here) earlier in the film and makes me think it was yet again a late addition to the script that lacked the time to be better thought out. And on a personal note I'm sad they deviated from the original if only because I really wanted to hear the great "Hroooomph!" of Ents bellowing out in unison when they finally arrive at the decision of war!
"We go, we go, we go to war!"
Quick word on the bored of the rings thread going on- I read it as a teenager and found it juvenile but fun- particulary remember finding the whole Hickey tree and Tim Benzidene bit really funny and where everyone tries to think up an excuse at the council as to why they cant be the one to take the ring. Its a harmless spoof, read it on a train or a plane or on the beach and chuck it away (or better still give it to a second hand bookshop). I reckon Tolkien might criticise both the standard and the content but I don't think he'd have cared and I reckon deep down he'd be pleased his "english myth" was taking root in the culture to the point where it could be parodied.
Hi there Pettytyrant, I'm not really a great fan of spoofs and parodies and I think that sometimes they can skew and disfigure the beautiful images your mind creates (and the feelings you receive in response) when you really get into something, but maybe you're right, at the end of the day it's motive was to make people laugh and so I suppose its pretty harmless. Come to think of it, the author is likely to be a fan, so it’s not going to be snide, mean humour anyway, so maybe you're right in a sense Pettytyrant. I agree Tolkien might feel the quality of humour was a bit poor and that it lacked much of etiquette of which was very firm in his books but I also agree with you that he would have been pleased that his middle earth book series became recognised enough to be parodied (BotR is a bit tacky in some respects though).

Btw I still like the March of the Ents in the film, it's very dramatic, but the changes you say you've made, do make the footage a good deal more accurate to Tolkien's original storyline and this is good.

[b:3fcoxu6i]Joseph Dwarf[/b:3fcoxu6i]
I'm fine with parodies of books and movies, even of ones that I love. Actually, if it's a book/movie that I love, I'm more likely to get all the jokes. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
I thought best way to answer this thread would be to say what I did change about the films- to save this being both a huge post and very boring I will cover just until end of Book 1. If there's any interest or people want to do something similar I will go on to explain what I did to the rest! If you are going to edit and dont want it to end up rough as a badgers ar*e use a decent set of software- I used Adobe premier pro for editing and after effects for alterations.

Prologue- no changes.
Bilbo's prologue- cut shot of Sam gardening.
Bilbos party- reordered scenes and removed all traces of Merry and Pippin. Cut the Dragon firework scene down so its not a fake drama moment, just a spectacular firework.
Following Bilbos departure cut reference by Gandalf to Frodo of where Bilbo has gone. Used a slide-cut (like GL favours in Star wars films) to cut from end of scene to Gandalf at Minas Tirith to research ring and captioned with "17 years later."
During journey of Hobbits to Rivendell I cut all the Gandlaf/Saruman scenes out. I took the "humour" out of the scene where hobbits meet Merry and Pippin (now their first proper introduction) and fall down hill nearly into horse manure and I cut the insects from the first encounter with Black Rider and shortened scenes before Brandybuck ferry so hobbits don't spend so much time running between horses legs.
At Bree I rejigged some shot orders and removed the ring flying up into air to land on Frodos finger.
At Weathertop I cut Aragorn setting fire to nazgul and reworked the scenes so they are chased away.
I removed scene where Arwen surprises Aragorn as he collects athelas and I shortened slightly the chase scene at the ford and removed Arwen's incantation to make river rise- its Elronds river!!!!
And that's book one- well without going into scene by scene detail which would be very dull, technical and really long!
I don't got as much to change as all of you. The only thing I'd really change is when the elves reinforce helms deep cause, in my opinion lotr was more about the heroism of men not the last battle of the elves to regain their past glory. That was the one thing that really irritated me, other than that it was a excellent movie.
Since nobody answered Tinuviel about Arwen's fate being tied to the rings: It's because her father and grandmother have 2 of the elven rings, without which they may have given up and left middle earth long ago (as in fact they did once the one ring was destroyed and their rings lost their power). If they leave, Arwen is abandoned because as a mortal she cannot join them. Nonetheless, once she became mortal she had to hope for the defeat of Sauron via the ring, for she could no longer escape into the west.

Most of what I said about changing the movies I put in the wrong thread about what Tolkien might have changed in response to the movies. I shan't repeat it in detail. Suffice it to say, I didn't like Denethor being portrayed as a complete loser all the way through the movie (even in the DVD flashback to when Boromir was still alive!). He's a magnificently complex character that deserves better.
Hi, on the point about Arwens fate I think the film made to big a direct contention between Arwen and the one ring- which is what has led to the confusion. If for example Isildur had actually destroyed the ring after the Last Alliance what then for Arwen? The elven rings would have failed and the elves would no doubt have turned their minds to the Blessed Realm (presumably except Galadriel and others banned)- if so Arwen would have gone with Elrond, and besides he would never allowed Aragorn to keep her (he only gets that privilege if he is KIng of Gondor and Arnor)- so her fate is connected to the ring but indirectly- her fate is really connected to her father. When he goes she goes, unless Aragorn becomes King which means the destruction of the ring first- so the answer to is she connected to the ring is no not directly but indirectly (as is everyone's fate) yes.
sorry- should have put this in above post- I don't think Arwen became mortal during the course of the books events- she plights her troth to a young Aragorn and makes her deal but I don't think it was cashed in so to speak until the final ship left the havens- the point in book where she plights her troth and her first appearence at Rivendell are seperated by a significant amount of years but the description of her at Rivendell is clearly as one of the immortals. This I think indicates that her becoming mortal has more to do with when her kin depart than when the ring is destroyed.
Arwen [i:1np0ryyg]'plights her troth'.[/i:1np0ryyg]...

Is that a Scottish phrase? And is it a euphemism for a certain action taking place between two consenting adults?

If so, shouldn't you have said (I use the Queen's English here, and not the Scottish): [i:1np0ryyg]"Aragorn plowed Arwen's trough"? [/i:1np0ryyg]

Or did Arwen have attributes most of us are unaware of? As that might explain how she plowed Aragorn's trough.

I must say, I often find this forum marvelously educational.

Actually it's Shakespearean English for pledging her betrothal. But you already knew that didn't you <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> :lol: .

Well put GB, typical uneducated Ozzy spending all their time on beaches wearing thongs (I'm sure that's right- or might just be in my head!), although in fairness Odo a lot of the seemingly innocent phrases from Shakespeare day tend to have quite explicit meanings hidden away- "country matters" being the prime example (from Hamlet in case you were wondering) and if you don't know its meaning emphasis strongly the sounds up to the letter "t" in country to find its offensive modern equivalent! Sly dog that Shakespeare.
You might be right about Ozzies (actually 'Aussies' you silly old Scot you!) sitting on beaches. We do have lots of them. And weather to go with them. But what kind of thongs do you mean? We have [i:1460137c]thongs[/i:1460137c] for out feet (yes, we ALL do) and [i:1460137c]thongs[/i:1460137c] for our bottoms - with a string up the crack. You might call them, bathers - or [i:1460137c]bathing trunks[/i:1460137c]? - but they're hardly that - they're hardly anything at all. Not all Aussies wear the latter kind of thongs. They don't suit large bottoms, you see. I myself, while not necessarily having a fat bum, do own a well rounded middle-age-enlarged bum - and wearing a thong in these circumstances would do no one no good, I assure you. We're rough and ready down here, but not actually cruel...

And hey! I find it quite offensive you making snide remarks about we Aussies! Talk about an unprovoked attack!

If you were ever to come down here, I'd call you a 'stirrer' to your face - and a [i:1460137c]kilt-totin'-stirrer[/i:1460137c] at that! Btw a 'stirrer' is someone who stirs the pot. You know, 'teases' people by making provocative comments to or about them. It's a national pastime and actually, I believe, one of many synonyms for "Aussie", though I've never looked it up. In a PC world it might even be seen as 'bullying' by some. Especially by the humorless.

Politically Correct? Humorless? Sorry - I verge on the tautological!

Thongs for you feet?- you "Aussies" have both too much time on your hands and a lack of shame! As to things that go up the crack of your bum- as a Scot I'm not allowed to wear that sort of thong under International Law because the sun striking the whiteness of my arse cheeks is a hazard to shipping and aviation.
As to the scurrilous accusation I am "stirring"- what moi? (See French, we kept the culture here after we shipped all the criminals out)- well I suppose there's some clue to that in my user name! If I see a pot and it needs a stir- well how's one to resist- especially if one has the good fortune to find someone such as yourself who still has a grasp of good natured banter and isn't some awful PC idiot taking offence in every word and never smiling.
Besides as a comedian, whose name I don't recall, once said somewhere, where I don't recall, "Aussies- lazy bastards. They've had Australia for nearly 200 years and they've still only done up round the edges!"
Actually all that convict stuff is a myth. What really happened was that all the most innnovative, interesing, sport competent, go getters from the British Islands cracked it with all their stuffy compatriots and sailed to a dry desolate place - because anything was better than staying British (Scots were particularly dull is my understanding, so not that many were invited). The Brittish Authorities covered up the real reason so many Brits came here, concocting some fanciful tale about people stealing bread rolls and getting transported to the Southern Antipodes for seven years. Hey! You Brits might be stupid (generally speaking) but surely not even you could be that callous (could you?) Anyhow, after the better Brits came over (and after we committed a few tiny indescetions against the Native Inhabitants, who admittedly deserved much much better and still do) a lot of other people from all over the world came to the Wonderful Land of Oz, but only the best kind of people, and that is why Australia is such a dynamic go ahead country (and not stuffy at all). (NB The second best kind of people went to America, I believe - GB would know [i:3gungbzi]their [/i:3gungbzi]story better than me, of course!)

Sorry about the History lesson, but you do seem quite ignorant (though I guess this is not surprising, you being Scottish and all).

Lol, thanks for OZ-centric history lesson! Although I would never claim to write the truth about anything -especially history-what with truth being such a bugger to define! As to ignorance- nothing wrong with ignorance- just means theres something new to learn- we're all ignorant bout something, well most things if you think about it.
Yes 'truth' is not easily defined or agreed about.

I might suggest, though, that you sample the 'Odo' thread, for if there is indeed any 'truth' to be found in wisdom, you'll find it there. (Also, you'll find out that Tinuviel has a very fine nose).

Well that's simply too intriguing not to follow up, I shall indeed have a nosey (ahem). -incidentally isnt this thread about what changes you would make or something?!
Are you thinking about making some changes...? Oh I see what you mean... Yes, I agree, they should make some changes!Can you think of any - I can't seem to remember any changes anyone mentioned... because now I'm thinking about the (privately personal?) changes you're planning... Or aren't you...? (I'm confused now).


... Oh! I now remember thinking they should change everything they changed from the book and replacing it with what was in the book.... that's something I think I remember thinking....
Its worse Odo than you thinking you remember thinking it, you remember having to watch it. And because you love LoTR you've watched it lots no doubt, because hateful as a lot of it is, its still the closest thing to your beloved LoTR on film that there is. And there's the pain! I wish Born of Hope had been made first so PJ could have seen how to adapt Tolkien and make changes that don't conflict with the themes or motivations of the tale. And even might have made him less afraid to make more use of Tolkiens actual style of dialogue.
What you say is not only sad but also soooo true!
At least you dont suffer alone Odo it is a pain shared across all the miles between myself and your upside down existence! We can but hope to live long enough to see LoTR finally done justice.
Yes, my pain is all the greater I feel, having to hang on to tree tops and house eaves all the time while I'm experiencing it.... (If you ever visit, I advise you to wear your trousers! This is definitely not the place for Quaint Scottish Ceremonies).
Quaint Scottish ceremonies- sorry but I've been so busy of late, its haggis season here and I've been up the hills hunting the sneaky little swine. You have to lure them out their dens with the sound of the chanter and when they start dancing whack em over the head/body (one and same on a haggis) and get it back and in the pot quick- its hard work!
But to bring this back a little to the thread topic I think the main thing I would change would be the script- all of it. PJ can direct but he and his coven of women that produced the script should not be praised by Tolkien fans but condemned for squandering the best chance yet to have a faithful version of LoTR on film.
I agree. The script was hopeless ! Somewhere i'm sure, there will be a better one
and I only hope its filmed again
in my lifetime.

Hail !! Manwe.
I'm certainly having an emotional time of it. Just when my hopes dwindle in the face of Mr Tyrant weakening to GB's wily charms, Hail Manwe pops up as a new defender of the Faith, much to my joy! Oh goodness, this forum has become a roller-coaster!

(As to your haggis hunting, Mr Tyrant - isn't it time those poor wee animals are placed under protection! Aren't they rare enough already? You know, I've never seen one gamboling in its natural environment!)
Bah, Humbug :P ! I must be the only member left who thinks a little artistic license is a good thing.


PS: A little late I know Petty, but I hope you caught your Haggis in time for Burn's Night :mrgreen: .

And Odo, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Haggis are related to the elusive Snipe. And much like Hobbits these critters are good at staying hidden when they don't wish to be found.
You're right about haggis GB, elusive little devils. Nocturnal, can change colour and the legs one side of their round little bodies are longer than the on the other side (so they can run round hillsides really quickly) haggis hunting should not be undertaken lightly!
I am now more than keen to see a haggis (while doing an off-centre dance, if possible!) Perhaps one could be shot - but only with a camera, please!
I've seen rather charming illustrations of the little blighters in ancient editions of Beano (do they carry this comic in OZ Odo?). And never fear for the extinction of the species Odo (I didn't know you were a vegetarian <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ). Haggis may be elusive, but they are extremely prolific and breed like rabbits.

I didn't think vegetarians were (quite rightly) tolerated in OZ. Have the standards of manliness slipped Down Under?
Quite right, Mr Tyrant, GB now has let slip and shows a hint (or hue) of his true colors!

How dare you insult the Australian Race so, [i:2nq1zzaq]Mr Beard[/i:2nq1zzaq]! I will refer to you henceforth formally and with diplomatic coolness, unless an apology is received.

Mr Tyrant, if the haggis is not so rare, well, by all means hunt them to your heart's content. (I have two wishes now. (1) A photo of it's lopsided dance, and (2) a haggis for the barbecue).


NB We do have some vegetable eaters in Australia - we call them [i:2nq1zzaq]cows[/i:2nq1zzaq].
Erm...that gentle ribbing of Ozzies was Tyrant's comment, not mine <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . I can only apologize for misunderstanding your own words Odo :P .



PS: If you have a British specialty market nearby you may be able to buy a Haggis, tinned or frozen. If not, there are any number of online purveyors of food products from our fair isles that could ship some to you.
You did [i:2sbjcdfc]hint[/i:2sbjcdfc] I might be a vegetarian. I read between the lines (as did Mr Tyrant presumably). I also don't believe you should hunt any beast, including the haggis, into extinction. If we hunted everything into extinction, oh how sad it would be, we'd have nothing worthwhile to eat! (I think your [i:2sbjcdfc]hint[/i:2sbjcdfc] put My Tyrant on the back foot - quite rightly he had always thought of Australians as meat eaters - and manly, thereby).
I just don't see why vegetarians should get away with such inhumane treatment of vegetables. Big cute eyes and floppy ears is not a definition of life!
One can only imagine the Horror Stories Carrot parents tell their children at bedtime <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

Yes, you have a point. Damn hypocrites those vegetarians! I shall eat cows in future with an even purer conscience!

(This conversation takes me back to a Talk Show on a Goodies Episode where a cabbage or lettuce, if my memory serves me, stands up for Vegetable Rights. Sadly, Bill Oddie, who ostensibly supported their cause - though, I dare say, with some cynicism in his heart - could not resist his natural urges and took a bite out of the poor cabbage (or lettuce). It is a cautionary tale indeed.

Wisdom like that shown in The Goodies, is rare nowadays!
Hail !! wise Odo. Most welcome encouragement ! Thankyou.
As A new member I must say i'm enjoying very much the to's and fro's between yourself,
Gandalfs Beard & Pettytyrant. You are all loremasters and I must confess I feel a little
like Sam at the window, eavesdropping on some important plot hatching which I so
wish to be part of !

As a Scot I especially enjoyed the Haggis Digressions also, wonderful !

GB I sympathise with your plight. Its going to be hard to convince some of us that anyone
could interpret such an immense story through another medium properly. For your comfort I'd say
from what I gather, you'd have a pretty good crack at it yourself !
The positive thing about PJ's attempt is that there are many more people interested in
Tolkiens work now than there were, and so we can hope and expect that there will be many
more (better) efforts.
the script, being my main problem, will no doubt by handled by more imaginative men ! I say men
chiefly because I think this is where they went wrong. jacksons 'wives' were allowed far to much
influence resulting in a very weak and simple view of Tolkiens world ! I have more radical views
regarding this issue which I will no doubt share in future ! Not that I am sexist. Apologies if thats how
it reads. Suffice to say that I would find better script writers next time.

Keep the faith all.

Hail !!
As an australian myself it shames me that more animals become extinct here per year
then any other country. why i havnt seen a haggis for donkeys years. And what you brits
call flip flops we call thongs.
ps. i still have my yorkSHIRE accent by the way.
  << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>