nothing rhymes with orange

[oiran]

So, I finished painting Kicky's living room. After my firm rejection of her traffic-cone orange supershiny paint, I had "our" (i.e., my) original choice mixed in a softer finish. Unfortunately, this color also sucked. The color chip was the color of pumpkin pie. On the wall, however, it was a yellow-orange reminiscent of Kraft Dinner, Velveeta, Cheetos or Tang. I put a coat of it on the walls anyway, then yesterday I went and made the paint chicks at Home Depot add raw umber to it until it turned the color of a nice curry. Which was what I wanted in the first place. Er, I mean, it's what she wanted. Mr. Glove went from saying mean stuff about XTREME!!!!! nacho flavor to liking the color, so I guess I did good after all. Kicky and her family return home this afternoon, and I'll have the final verdict then.

That most trusted non-friends thing? I did it, but everyone on the list was someone I actually had on MY list at one point. They either ignored me for so long that I lost interest, or were out-and-out hostile (i.e., making posts announcing things like, "All of you who recently friended me should know that I only friend back people who make interesting meta posts and jump through my arbitrary and fickle flaming hoops of pretend friendship.").

I've had arguments about whether or not I "should" view/understand the purpose of the FL the way I do, but it's my list, yes? I don't think the people on the list are my actual "friends," but I do think a mutual friending is a sign that we share an interest and have no overt animosity. Personally, I don't read any journals I don't have friended, and I tend to operate as though everyone else does the same. Which, of course, is not true, and gets me into trouble.

Betas still owed: 1
Websites unfinished: 3
Press kit unfinished: 1
E-mails unsent: oodles.
Comments unanswered: oodles more.
Days of FL unread: 5 or 6

I accidentally watched some Oscars. I'm pleased for all the LotR fans. I knew Lost in Translation wouldn't win best picture, so I was really happy when Sofia Coppola got the Oscar for screenplay. I was disappointed that Bill Murray didn't win best actor, but I was even more disappointed that Billy Crystal tried to make a stupid joke out of it. I've never much enjoyed Mr. Crystal's humor, but am I mistaken in thinking that he was especially lame this go-round?

Of the dresses I saw, I initially disliked Jennifer Garner's if only due to the ruffle on the end of her train (I thought it would have been better plain). However, after seeing most of the rest of the dresses, I did like hers after all--wonderful color, and it was just one ruffle, after all. Other good dresses: Sofia Coppola, Annie Lennox, Scarlett Johansson, Liv Tyler. What was up with all the trains this year, though? I am imagining much tipsy dress-stepping and staggering at the post-award parties. Worst dresses: Uma Thurman (used Kleenex and old lace curtains) and Sandra Bullock (cross between Barbie dress and toilet paper roll cover).

And because of the LotR sweep, I've got a question: I have seen the first 1-1/2 of the 3 films. They are truly lovely and beautifully done. The acting is, so far as I can tell, without noticeable flaw. However, I didn't care. I got bored. Halfway through the second film, I wandered out of the room with the TV (we rented it--didn't see it in the theater) and did something else.

I read The Hobbit when I was about eight. I liked it, though I thought it was a little bit scary. I was discouraged by my father from reading the trilogy, but I think that was because he was reading the books at the same time. The hobbit I was familiar with (if you'd call vague, ~30-year-old memories "familiar") was Bilbo. Frodo was a complete unknown when I saw the first LotR movie, and I didn't get any good sense of him before he was off on his quest and in some degree of thrall to the ring.

The entire premise seemed vague to me, and then a bunch of characters were introduced, and then everyone was galloping off to engage in battle or hide or…well, I wasn't ever really sure why characters were doing what they were doing. It's a huge story, and while there isn't a cast of thousands, it seems pretty close. I kept wondering why we had to have yet another new character thrown into the mix and then would remember that, obviously, this character existed in the text so we couldn't just have one of the people we'd already met carry out a task…

Clearly, based on the way fans have responded to the films, the decision to keep as many of the characters from the books in the films as possible was the right one for Peter Jackson to make. Considering that the theater cut makes an 8-9 hour movie, it's pretty clear that a version that would introduce each character and develop him or her would be something like a week-long event. However, for me, it was just way too many characters who meant far too little emotionally and/or in terms of function.

I've read comments from others saying that they loved the films and hadn't read the books. I'm just wondering if anyone else, like me, was pretty much completely unmoved despite wanting to enjoy the spectacle.

Comments

[jfc013.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on the total lack of Ring-love. I remember badgering my mom for the box set of paperbacks when I was in junior high, zipping through The Hobbit, and after reading Book 1 at a good clip, getting entirely bogged down in Book 2, not picking it up again for a couple of years. Eventually, I just read the rest to say I'd done it, though by then I just plain didn't care, and to this day I retain virtually nothing of any of the books.

I fell asleep half an hour into the first DVD, and really have no interest in seeing the movies--heck, I don't even find any of the guys that hot! It must be nice to be all excited for it this week!

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

I thought about reading the books to see if I'd enjoy the movies more, but it seemed like a lot of effort to put forth. Besides, if I'm not interested in the films, then I don't have to budget to buy the big, fancy DVD sets.

I don't find the actors physically appealing, either. I do like Viggo Mortenson, but that's mostly because he used to be married to and has a child with Exene Cervenka, who is one of my heroes. He is handsome, and he is a good actor, but I'm really most excited about his ex-wife ;) So far as I can tell, all Elijah Wood had done prior to LotR were a few roles as weird, suburban kids--and he did an excellent job in those roles. That's how I think of him--i.e., as the son in The Ice Storm--and it's near-impossible to see him as a sex object of any kind.

[julie.livejournal.com]

I'm just wondering if anyone else, like me, was pretty much completely unmoved despite wanting to enjoy the spectacle.

I'm usually a lurker, but I just had to pipe up here :) YES! I am completely unmoved. The books and films do absoultely nothing for me. I don't even get the squeeing over the actors (Dom? Billy? Elijah? Eh?). I mean, it's totally great what Jackson accomplished, I just don't really care.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

My favorite characters out of the first film were Merry and Pippin, though I can't remember why they were even along for the journey, but I certainly don't find the actors physically appealing.

Based on how pleased fans of the books seem to be with the movies, I am perfectly willing to accept that they are a great achievement, and I did think that what I saw was absolutely gorgeous in terms of setting and costume...I guess I'm just wishing I could connect with the material onscreen without feeling like I have to read the entire trilogy first. Normally, if a movie can't stand on its own, I tend to think that it was poorly done, but the sheer scope of this project gives it a bit of leeway, perhaps.

[logovo.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those who didn't read the books (actually I don't like Tolkien's style-Couldn't get through The Fellowship of the Ring) and enjoyed the movie. However I do get what you're saying about way too many characters and getting very little background on most of them. I think what helped me was having enthusiastic real life friends who loved the books and filled me in on what I didn't know, before and after and watching the movies with them.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

That might have helped a bit. Mr. Glove did read the books, but years and years ago, so it was more like he was being reminded as he watched, rather than him knowing what would happen next and why.

Making a movie that would be understood by me would have made zillions of devoted fans of the trilogy bitterly unhappy, so obviously Peter Jackson made the right decisions...I guess I just wondered if there was something really stubbornly wrong with me for not enjoying the films as they are ;)

[echoskeleton.livejournal.com]

I'm just wondering if anyone else, like me, was pretty much completely unmoved despite wanting to enjoy the spectacle.

Heh, the only LotR movie I was able to watch in its entirety was the third one, and that was only because I was in the theatre. When I tried to watch the first two at home, I found myself fast-forwarding through the interminably long scenery scenes (yes, New Zealand is indeed very pretty. No, I do not care enough to watch a three minute landscape shot), and the repetitive battle scenes, where I couldn't keep track of who was who, and who was fighting who. Plus, even though I knew the reasons, I couldn't quite figure out who the characters were, and what they were doing there.

I am glad that they won an Oscar, only because the director looked disheveled. It makes me proud to see people wearing ugly clothes at the Oscars, but that might just be because I couldn't care less about fashion.

As for the flist thing... I've seen people with 300+ people who list them as friends, and I can understand why they don't automatically friend back. Even though it still kinda hurts my feelings when they don't.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

I am glad that they won an Oscar, only because the director looked disheveled. It makes me proud to see people wearing ugly clothes at the Oscars, but that might just be because I couldn't care less about fashion.

Hee! Peter Jackson looks seriously unkempt. I forgot to check to see if he was wearing a regular shirt with his tux, as he did at the Golden Globes. I do care about fashion, though more in terms of its function as a social signifier than as a way to fret about my own closet.

I certainly don't think my lack of engagement with the films is through lack of talent or effort on the part of the cast and crew. I have loved other films of Mr. Jackson's very much: Heavenly Creatures, and the absolutely sick Meet the Feebles. I was delighted that he mentioned MtF in his acceptance speech.

I also like that woman (whose name escapes me) who always goes up on stage with him who has the wild sort of punk-nymph hairdos full of twigs and flowers. I know she is part of the team, but all I care about is that she has fun, cool hair piled up in a big mess.

re: FL size. Well, I have just about 300 people listing me as a friend and I've got a handful more (individuals and communities) that I list, and I automatically friend basically everyone, especially if they list SV or slash as an interest. Sometimes I think the lack of reciprocal friending is "political" and other times it's a total mystery to me. Frankly, it vexes me greatly that I cannot dictate how people use the FL concept.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

Usually, I read the book before I see the movie--provided, of course, that a book exists ;) I didn't want to read the LotR trilogy, though, and so I didn't...and I think I would have liked it better if I had. In fact, I probably would have watched a trilogy instead of a movie and a half.

In what I saw, it was hard to get excited about any of the good guys. The wizards were interesting because they were pretty clear-cut (and I got a bit of Gandalf squee just because I had to ask Sir Ian to get out of my way at a book signing before I realized it was him), but the rest of the characters seemed like they could have been consolidated a bit. Except they couldn't, because the fans of the book would have been incensed.

[thistle90.livejournal.com]

Regarding LOTR:

The DVD versions of the (first two) movies are more satisfying because they fill in some of the gaps that are troubling you. That's no excuse for the movies as shown in the theater being confusing to those who haven't read the books of course.

I read and enjoyed Tolkien when I was a young teenager before I got into the more modern fantasies. I've since tried to reread, most recently when Fellowship came out, but his style is just too meandering, dry and academic to hold my attention. Modern fantasies are a lot more lively of course, but Tolkien's work has to be appreciated in the context of the time it was written and for the incredible amount of historical, cultural, geographical and linguistic back story the Professor created.

I found the second and third movies boring for long stretches because they had far less character interaction than the first. The epic battles and stunning settings, mind-blowingly detailed costumes and weaponry, were masterful of course. The like of which we will probably never see in film again. But I read and watch stories for the characters, not for the battles and buildings, etc. Again the DVDs help because they point out the true level of obsessive detail that was put into these things, and you can't completely appreciate from just watching the movies.

The wonderful thing in all of this is that even though I was often bored, Jackson poured his heart and soul into precisely the same things that Tolkien did: the scenery, the details, the battles, the big picture. It's not what floats my boat, but I think it is what Tolkien would have wanted, so it is a proper tribute.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

I actually am interested in the DVD sets because I am always interested in "making of" featurettes, even for movies I didn't particularly enjoy. The process of filmmaking is very entertaining to me, and I understand that at the DVD sets have lots of those sorts of extras as well as additional scenes.

I do think you're correct, and that the movies were made for the same audience that loves the books and the focus of the books. I can easily see myself being a fan of the extras for a series of films like this. I'd much rather know about how a battle sequence was created than watch it as part of a story.

This seems to be much more literally a filmed book than a stand-alone series of movies, so it interests me from that perspective--again, a reason that I might enjoy the DVDs more than the movies themselves.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Even though I still haven't finished reading the books (got stuck in The Two Towers and never got unstuck), I did know the story fairly well (I've seen both of the animated films - one of which sucked and the other of which is a musical, also, neither of them where what you might call complete), so I'm not a terribly good example. Also, I wanted to love the films. I wanted to love Tolkien. I was disappointed that I didn't like the books, so I'd hope that the films would change things.

The first time that I watched Fellowship, though, I was confused a bit. There are a lot of characters and it was hard to keep track. So I kinda understand.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

Animated films? Singing hobbits? Oh, my. Though I suppose if you don't want to spend six years working on the project, that's the way to go...

I wanted to love the films, and I was kind of embarrassed that I didn't love the first one, though I did sit through the entire thing. I watched everyone on my FL go into raptures over it and wished I could join in the fun.

Most of the time, I dislike the kind of "epic" movies that take the moviegoing public by storm, but I really thought this one would be different for me. I do think it would have been more enjoyable if I'd read at least the first book and had a little more background on the whos and whys of the story. I like characters and character-driven stories, so there's really no way this would be a favorite of mine, I suppose.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Animated films? Singing hobbits?

Until Peter Jackson's version, all films of Tolkien's work were animated - The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings (Hah! They only went to the end of the second book and didn't tell anyone that -people found out in the theater that it wasn't the complete story and then Bashki ran out of funds to do the rest), and the Return of the King (the one with the songs - some are quite catchy, actually. Where There's a Whip, There's a Way still gets stuck in my head sometimes).

The Hobbit was okay - it's a simpler story, easier to cover in a film in any case. Return of the King didn't suck, though it was... overly. In pretty much every way.

The Bashki LotR, though was... it's pure evil. Sam looks like a potato. Saruman sounds, as one reviewer put it, like a gecko with a sore throat (and he's supposed to have this amazingly powerful voice). Boromir has no pants. The elves are... there aren't words. There really aren't.

But yeah, I love the films, but mostly for the characters and the relationships. I mean, Evil Ring - whatever. Big Glowy Eye - sure, why not? Black riders of doom who can't tell people from pillows - well, they've been dead for a while. Maybe they've forgotten that people breathe and move, even in their sleep. I'm pretty much in it for the hobbits.

[nerodi.livejournal.com]

what is the non-friend meme thing?

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

This: http://cuddlepuddle.org/~adam/trustmetric

It's basically like the thing that LJ offers that shows you who your friends have friended but you do not have on your own list. And I'm only now realizing I probably dug myself a hole by saying anything about my results. Because I'm stupid like that. Just ask Dana.

[nerodi.livejournal.com]

what? you love trouble. *g*

I just clicked on the link but it said too busy with too many users, so i might try again later, but I pretty much just friend people who friend me first. I think I've only friended someone first like maybe five times. those people should feel very special!!

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

Very true. I had you friended for months before you deigned to friend me back.

And, NO, I don't love trouble. In fact, I'm usually the last one to realize the import of what I've done. Instead of being a calculated rabble-rouser, I'm just an idiot who doesn't know well enough to keep her mouth shut.

[nerodi.livejournal.com]

I had you friended for months before you deigned to friend me back.

Snerk!! Jacyn probably forced me to friend you back!! (and aren't I glad she did!!!!)

And, NO, I don't love trouble.

Well, it's fun to watch from the outside. *g* Anyway, I think you've got lots of good things to say!! ANd I think it's cool that you say them!!

[goth-clark.livejournal.com]

I think that friends trusted thing gave me the same results.

As for the LOTR. I work in a bookstore and can tell you how many copies we sell or have sold of the series, but I have never read nor do I want to read them. The good thing about that is the look of horror a customer gets when I tell them I've never read them. It's very amusing.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

Heh. That's something like the reaction I've always gotten when I admit I've never seen Casablanca.

Having read The Hobbit, albeit a very long time ago, and remembering Gollum and Gandalf and Bilbo and the dragon (...Smaug?), I thought I actually knew something about the trilogy's setting, but I was wrong. The geopolitics of a fantasy world require a little more basis than a mere related story, I think ;)

[metron-ariston.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I think the lack of reciprocal friending is "political" and other times it's a total mystery to me. Frankly, it vexes me greatly that I cannot dictate how people use the FL concept.

I think LJ is going to be tweaking the whole "friends list" thing to more accurately describe the people therein. Something like close friends, journals you read, and those random frienders politeness compels you to friend back. I have a feeling this will create much drama. But I totally don't get the politics of friending so who knows?

The process of filmmaking is very entertaining to me, and I understand that at the DVD sets have lots of those sorts of extras as well as additional scenes.

You might like the Extended Editions as they have hours and hours of making-of footage and commentary. The commentary tracks you can listen to over the film are fascinating (and Dom Monaghan and Billy Boyd are hilarious, especially in the second film).

Though it's entirely possible I only found them fascinating because of my emotional attachment to the films. *g* Maybe you should just try renting or borrowing them.

I added you to my flist a day or so ago because I'm a newbie to Smallville and have been randomly friending authors I like and interesting posters (you are both). I will probably just read and lurk. Eventually you will get a long-winded e-mail from me full of fangirling and squeeing about your (most excellent) fanfiction.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

re: FL. Oh god. If they do that, I'll just have to pretend everyone is my best friend. It's junior-high enough without adding a hierarchy of friend-ness...

I really love commentary tracks for the most part. I do think that I'd enjoy the movies much more with the commentary and endless extra footage and such. Usually when I can't engage with a film, I can find something obvious that it lacks that keeps me from caring...but with this one I think it really was more the scope of the project and my lack of familiarity with the source material that kept me from enjoying it.

Thank you for the compliments re: the stories. I always enjoy long-winded e-mail ;)

[tokyo-pt.livejournal.com]

I also hadn't read the books or knew anything about Lotr when I went to see it, almost two months after the 1st movie opened, because my sister wanted to see it and was afraid it would leave the cinemas.

However, I was absolutely awed and floored by the beauty of the story and the characters. I had walked into the theater in the middle of the afternoon and left at night, and still felt like only half an hour had passed. It immediately moved me to read the books, which I did, with much less entusiasm, I might add.

I've observed the same reaction in some people as well as a total lack of enjoyment in the film, by people I consider very good friends. And so far, I can give two reasons for that: people who never read fantasy or don't like it, will not like the movies (they don't miraculously change anybody's taste); and some people are already somewhat inclined not to like the movies, because of something they've heard or read.

Examples? A friend liked the 1st film but couldn't understand why hobbits were small or who the ringwraiths were. She couldn't follow the story, because she wasn't used to fantasy and the different types of characters confused her. Some people are expecting so much, they feel let down. They've heard the movie was so good and the actors so cute, and then they don't see it.

And that's my pet peeve: people saying they didn't like the movie AND that the actors are not even good-looking, like they went to see the movie just cause the actors were gorgeous! I didn't know ONE single actor on Lotr and now I love them all to bits, because of their achievement and their absolute devotion to this project. And with that everybody won. The actors won, because they have more work now, and the public won because they get to see these amazing actors work in other movies, bring other characters to life.

So, acknowledging every defect and every quality, I have to defend the movies. And if you didn't like them, that's okay too, because we're all different and have our own views of things. But we all should recognize the huge work that went into making 3 films at the same time, and still come up with such an amazing result. And that was what the Oscars were all about.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

I go through phases of reading tons of sci-fi/fantasy. I tend more toward the sci-fi, but I like a well-crafted fantasy story, as well. I think perhaps my confusion was partially because I expected that I would get what was going on, as I remembered a fair number of characters and situations from The Hobbit. However, the enormity of scope and the sort of fantastical geopolitics of the trilogy are so far beyond what is covered in The Hobbit that I felt well and truly lost.

I guess I didn't so much dislike the movie-and-a-half that I watched, but that I wasn't engaging as much as I wanted to. I've heard from people that the second movie (which is the one I only got halfway through) is the "least" of the three, which makes sense since it is sort of the transitional film.

I've liked several of the actors from LotR in other things, and I think they're all very talented. Personally, I felt like the cast was so large and the action so epic that the actors I was familiar with had been given the opportunities to show greater range in other films--which doesn't mean they didn't do a good job here, but that there is, in some ways, less for them to do in LotR than in smaller, more character-driven films.

I do indeed get the impression that Peter Jackson has done the best that anyone could have hoped for with these films, and that he was as clever with and respectful of his source material as he could be. I do just wish that I had connected with the results. I don't want to say that character development was "sacrificed," in favor of action because I don't necessarily believe that, but I needed to know more about the characters before I could begin to care about their journey. But, like I said in response to someone above, in order to develop all those characters, you'd need a week's worth of time, not the 8-9 hour film cycle that was shown in the theaters.

And, like I said, I am happy for the LotR fans because I had no illusions that my favorite would win (Lost in Translation). In fact, I would have been rather disappointed had LotR not won because it is a huge accomplishment, and that PJ managed to make so many people happy with the results is rather remarkable.

[isagel.livejournal.com]

As a long-term fan of the books, I adored the first LotR movie, because it stayed so true to Tolkien's work, and because all the characters (except Arwen - gah!) were very close to how I imagined them. Considering how much fans have bitched about Jackson's decision to remove such a minor character as Glorfindel and have his actions be carried out by Arwen, it was probably very smart not to remove more characters than absolutely necessary. (And there are several people who play relatively large roles in the books who *have* been removed.) I was then deeply confused and disappointed by some of the choices made in the second movie, only to fall into complete raptures over the third.

For me, the key to LotR will always be the Frodo/Sam relationship, and I've been continuously delighted to see that Jackson has chosen not to compromise with it, that he didn't hesitate to show the full intensity of their unconditional love even though it must have been obvious to him that it would come off as homoerotic. I'm completely satisfied with Wood's and Astin's interpretations of the characters, and coming from me, that is high praise indeed. (It may of course have been easier for me to see Elijah Wood as Frodo because I can't remember ever seeing him in anything else before LotR.) The end of RotK, which is very Frodo/Sam centric, is one of the few moments in literature that never fails to make me cry, no matter how many times I read it. I was *certain* the end of the third movie wouldn't have that effect on me, but by the time the credits started to roll, I was sobbing my eyes out. I'm more than willing to forget all the flaws in Jackson's work for that achievement alone.

Um... What I really wanted to say, before I started to ramble, is that my mother never made it through the first few chapters of the book, no matter how much I insisted she had to read it, but she enjoyed the movies. (In the long, more explanatory DVD version, not the shorter theatre one. I do think the long version is better if you haven't read the books.) I think that for her, the movies managed to bring out the meaning of the story that she couldn't see in the written text because it was too obscured by strange fairy-tale creatures and made-up places. When I saw the first movie in the cinema, I was certain it couldn't make sense to people who hadn't read the books, and I was surprised to hear that for my friends, that wasn't the case. I think I would have been as confused as you.

[velvetglove.livejournal.com]

I've heard that Arwen is "wrong," but since I haven't got a clue what Arwen should have been, I just thought: ooh! Liv pretty! and was fine with it ;) I really don't have a problem with Elijah as Frodo...I guess I just have a problem with Elijah as a sex symbol ;) I thought everyone was good in their roles.

And while I didn't "get" it, I do think Peter Jackson has done an amazing thing, making so many people happy while respecting his source material. I think I expected that I would really like it based on the fact that I still remembered so much about The Hobbit, but that book is, after all, not even part of the trilogy, and even the carry-over characters are in such a radically expanded setting that they became unfamiliar to me.

A hypothesis: the popularity of LoTRiPS vs. just LotR stories has always surprised me (and I may be wrong about this, but it's certainly what I see sailing past on my FL) and I wonder if it's because of the relative lack of character development onscreen while, as one can easily learn, this group of obviously talented, pleasant, clever people developed a real-life "fellowship" that would necessarily have emotional subtleties that were not evident (appropriately) in a sweeping action epic.

*sigh* I feel like I have no geek cred.

[isagel.livejournal.com]

The trouble with Arwen is that Tolkien gives close to zero hints that Aragorn and she are in love until they suddenly get married at the end of the third book. Between the moment when the fellowship sets out and the reunion, she doesn't appear at all. To me, the extra Arwen scenes added by Jackson come across as unnecessary romantic drivel that add nothing to the actual story. They just slow down the tempo and confuse things. Liv Tyler is great, it's just that she's used wrong.

Regarding LotRiPs, you may well be right. I've never had a hankering for LotR slash, and several of the pairings that popped up after the movie have a definite feel of "oooooooh, let's slash the pretty" about them. Aragorn/Legolas, for instance, makes very little sense, character wise, and for most fans of the books, I think it's obvious that if Legolas should be slashed with anyone, it's Gimli. (The Legolas/Gimli relationship is severely weakened in the movies, because of a couple of key scenes that were left out.) So for people like myself, who are very happy with the movie just the way it is, without adding sexual and romantic entanglements, I guess the RPS came in handy. I haven't read much of it - because these actors, much as I love them, aren't really sex objects for me, either - but I can see the appeal.