"Worst Movies" threads are always retard magnets. There's no real benchmark for the quality of a film. Old movies can't compete with new ones, and small-budget films can't compete with large studio projects. I can tell you which movies I hate, but to actually call them "WORST EVAR" is pretentious as fuck.
It takes talent to write clean comedy, so I give props to the screen writers for Meet the Fockers, and Dawn of the Dead was hilarious. Maybe I am partial to it because I went to the premier.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Meet the Fockers was hardly a clean comedy, and it was about a half-dozen jokes repeated over and over and over and over and over and over again when they weren't all that funny the first time. Every movie on that list I saw the night before they came out and I still thought they sucked. Different tastes tho. You're welcome to your opinion.
Hahaha yah you are too, but ahh jeeze it was pretty clean compared to Super Troopers or Southpark.
I didn't even bother to see Hellboy, I slept through Van Helsing, and I forced myself through Kill Bill 2. I thought the Village had beautiful cinematography, but lacked in the story. I mean I guessed the ending before the movie started, mostly because I had the same idea for a film.
I mean don't get me wrong I don't have horrible taste in movies, but sometimes fluff is good. And the chick that had the zombie baby was hot (before she turned green)
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
RADIX: I'm not saying they are the worst films ever, I am saying they are the worst I have ever seen Name some of the worse films you have ever seen </unquote>
I though Series of Unfortunate events was quite well done, compared to the harry potter films. Hellboy was poorly marketed, and I viewed it as a parody and it was great.
As for clean comedy, I agree with JP, although Fockers is crap. A good example of nice family comedy is 'Cheaper by the Dozen'.
Adding to my list:
King Arthur
Murder by Numbers
Blurred
Garage Days
torque - style above substance, and it didnt even have much style. the bike chase at the end was pathetic
shaghi noon - what a boring predictable pile of poop
I tend to like mst films I see. Though I carnt stand anything with hughe grant in it.
The very worst film I've seen is The Blair Witch Project.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
5th January, 2005 at 12:58:40 -
if i think a film is really shit, i just give up watching it. the last film i saw at the cinema which sucked was The Borne Supremacy, which i had to sit through to stop myself feeling raped.
I had to endure the first half an hour of "They" around my mate's house, the girls were shitting themselves for... some reason. While I just sat there covering my ears at the awful acting the main character portrayed at the start of the film. It sucked!
I'd say "you got served", but I haven't actually seen it... thank fook
"Say you're hanging from a huge cliff at the top of mt. everest and a guy comes along and says he'll save you, and proceeds to throw religious pamphlets at you while simultaniously giving a sermon." - Dustin G
Some people's films are hardly the worst. Nearly all of em have something going for them, even if they're not very good. Most of you haven't even seen a really bad film.
Someone lent my uncle a film called The Coroner, and it was the first film I refused to finish watching. We got about 15 minutes through, and couldn't bare it anymore.
I'm gonna analyse the one's I've seen that other people have mentioned:
Plan 9 from outer space - Okay, that was a bad film.
Van Helsing - It was no-brain entertainment.
Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions - Better than most people give credit for, but nowhere near as good as the first.
Dawn of the Dead - Wasn't anywhere near bad, it was bloody good in fact.
Kill Bill vol. 2 - Was a great film, I prefered Vol 1, but Vol 2 was great also.
Life of Brian - Was a great film and everyone knows that. Not as good as Holy Grail, but still great.
Shanghai Noon - Yeah, that was pretty crap, but it had a couple of funny bits. Only a couple though.
They - It was shit, yeah, but it had some gore that entertained me.
Teapot: You're asking people for the worst films they've seen recently. "Worst" is an absolute term, not a subjective measure. Thankfully nobody's gone off on a "(title) IS TEH WORSTE FILEM EVAR" spree.
I really really hated The Day After Tomorrow. I just hate movies that don't make any logical sense. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but TDAT requires you to leave your brain at the door. For example, the chronology is out of order. You see a massive hailstorm in Japan near the beginning, but supposedly the climate crisis starts in the atlantic ocean. Japan is equatorial and on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PLANET, so it should be affected last of all. Then there's that ice you see condensing all over the sides of buildings as the large low pressure systems hit. Where's the ice coming from? According to the movie the temperature's so low already that there shouldn't logically be any water vapour in the air by that point. It could be CO2 but the concentration in the atmosphere is too low for a layer of ice so thick you can see it in those wide shots and in any case I'm pretty sure I calculated the conditions you'd need on earth for that kind of thing and the movie's events didn't match it.
Having said that, the one film I mentioned earlier as my worst was Blair Witch Project, and I can honestly say I derived no pleasure from it, I watched it the whole way through and didn't come out of the movie feeling any part of it entertained me. Plus I spent £5 and a Halloween night I could've spent getting pissed at the cinema watching a film that would later plummet to the bottom of my list of movies.
RE: The Day After Tomorrow, I never saw that, but it looked bad to me so I didn't bother. The majority of movies these days cater for the short attention-spanned teenagers, so the producers don't feel logic is an issue, which is a shame. At least when a decent film does come along it usually stands out amongst the crap.
It's really sad how they messed up the movie so much, as the comic books are great. I just hope they don't continue messing up Alan Moore's work in the upcoming 'Watchmen' film.
Thunderbirds: Aah, that was horribly silly. worth watching for the title sequence only.
Studios make crap movies... no, illogical and/or plot-absent movies because most of the audience will watch that stuff over better things. There's nothing wrong with a few mindless action films, but they have to be the right kind of mindless action, you know? Some kind of rational driving force, not just for the sake of it.
I lie, of course, since there's never more than 15,000 votes for anything, but that's because everyone else who visits the site wants to give a rating of 0 (which isn't possible), refuses to glorify the film with a vote, or wouldn't sign up just to show how sucky some of these movies are.
Yeah, these threads are always retarded. People tend to hate the things that other people love, simply coz those other people love them. Personally, I really enjoyed Hellboy. Great movie. Dungeons and Dragons was nice too. Only reason so many people hated it was because other people said it was horrible. Entertaining nonetheless.
What I dislike are those movies that are just attempting to be too melodramatic and stuff too much into too little time, like LOTR Part 2, Spiderman 2, Troy, etc. Damn capitalists...
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Never read the books. Thought the art direction looked impressive so I went to the sneak. Sort of ties into the ever present gameplay > graphics argument in a way...
I must jump to the defense of Plan 9 from Outer Space. No movie that entertaining should ever be labeled as bad. My friends and I had more fun watching Plan 9 than any three other movies combined! We laughed all the way through Van Helsing too, so I won't call that "bad" either.
Movies that are actually bad - as in, so bad you can't even laugh at them.
Daredevil - Ben Affleck... AND Jennifer Garner... AND Collin Farrel... What could be worse than that? Oh yeah... the fact that they're making a SEQUEL!
Planet of the Apes (Remake) - Whose idea was this? This movie could never have surpassed the original since it lacks Charleton Heston running around swearing and punching monkeys in the face.
Inspector Gadget - This movie raped my childhood. The show will never be the same.
Ewoks: The Battle for Endor - This one WOULD have been entertainingly bad if it weren't for the fact that it's Star Wars. Having seen this, I wasn't surprised at all how crappy the Star Wars prequels turned out. George got lucky with the first three. And after seeing this movie, I have come to loath Ewoks like I loath the bubonic plague.
The Fast and the Furious - Good lord, how can ANYONE like this movie? It was so bad I wanted to mash it up, use it for toilet paper, then sell it on Ebay. "The cars were cool" - So play Need for Speed and spare yourself the mental anguish of being subjected to this cinematic disaster.
Red Planet - I loved this movie. Then I found out it WASN'T based on true events, and Val Kilmer still resides on planet Earth. CRAP!
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence - This could have been the title for a biography about Stanley Kubrick. He was the worst director ever to taint celluloid. Yes, worse than Ed Wood, because Ed Wood's movies were flops. Anyway this "tribute" to him is as every bit as unflattering as it should be. Spielberg should be ashamed.
Windtalkers - Yes that's right, kids, we won WWII by sending in Nicholas Cage who single handedly killed twenty platoons of Japenese WHILE carrying an injured comrade. I like John Woo but he betrayed me with this one.
Okay... I just realized I have a very long list, so I'll stop there instead of assuming everyone cares. :^)
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
Oh, it's not a flame. It's what your white light'll look like behind the screen glare.
A) Even if 2001 were his worse film, and it were made today, there are hundreds of worse contemporary directors out there.
B) There's nothing wrong with the direction in 2001. Act II is quite well done. Acts I and III are just boring and downright wierd. How you're supposed to direct a bunch of chimps I don't know, you just point the camera at them and use the best footage you can get. By today's standards it's a crap movie, but back then it was extremely influential. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before.
C) Full Metal Jacket stands alone as one of the best war movies ever made.
Actually, I gotta hand it to you, plan 9 was bloody entertaining.
@Santa Christ: The books aren't supposed to be deep, the writing style is where it's at. I have read all the books so far, they get a lot less formulaic further on.
Kubrick got too weird later on, but he is still a great director, up there with Gilliam and Ridley Scott.
@Muz: I thought Spiderman 2 was a huge improvement over the first. It took a little too much to make it character driven, it could have been done more subtelty.
I agree, Hellboy was excellent... but D&D? Man that was so terrible (I dont know anyone else who'd seen it, I formed that opinion myself).
@ JP: Unfortunately, your mispelling of 'audience' makes stop assuming that their audiance is stupid look a tad hypocritical. Although having Tom Baker in a film is always a plus.
Adding to the list:
Mission Impossible 2
Josie and the Pussycats
Head over Heels
D4
Goldmember
Cradle 2 the Grave
Adding to the list:
*Dracula 2000 & Dracula 3000
*House of the flying daggers (did you guys notice when that guy shot arrows against the 4 soldiers all the arrows arrived at the same time O_o , and what's up with making the daggers curve 90 degrees?)
*Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind (I fell asleep sometime after 30 minutes into the film)
*Dungeons and Dragons (even though mentioned here before I have to mention it again)
I would say King Arthur aswell but Stellan Skarsgård made that film worth watching anyway!
King Arthur was pretty sad. Even Keira Knightly couldn't ease my pain. For one thing, if you take the legend out of King Arthur it does not make a good popcorn flick. That's what legends were. These guys should've made a documentary... hosted by Keira Knightly! Yeah, there we go!
Plus they didn't even succeed at being "historically accurate". Since when to girls run around wearing nothing but belts in freezing cold temparatures in the middle of a battle? And Arthur's character was very annoyingly postmodern, as were the movie's opinions on Christianity.
EVEN if the movie had anything going for it besides Keira, it still would've sucked.
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
I quite liked King Arthur. The 'ordinary' version is just too silly. and cliched, but I really liked this interpretation. I just wish it had been called Arthur or something rather than King Arthur, because he isn't really a king and a lot og people would have gone in there expecting the old sort of camelot stories, especially since the advertising campaign made it look like there was a lot of magic and crap going on.
Kirby- Yeah, the artwork did look impressive, but I would have waited for it to come out of DVD so I could rent it. We have a 'Regal Cinima' around here, and they charge about 10$ per person.
Fine Garbage since 2003.
CURRENT PROJECT:
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
$10 per ticket? That's rediculous. The place I work just recently upped our prices to $7.50, and we're probably the best theatre in 100 miles. To quote a customer I once had, "For that kind of money somebody had better better give me a hand job while I watch the movie." (He was talking about our concessions tho)
I'll tell you a bad movie..Zombie 90: Extreme pestillence!, the blood looks like ketchup, the 'guts' are hosepipe painted pinl and the dubbing and soundtrack is hilarious (the two main characters are a pair of white german scientists, one sounds like a 70's pimp and the other sounds like Cartman on helium), also the dubbing people seemed to be making it up as they where going along, and didnt know what to say in certian sections, so hummed and harred to see what would happen next.
Violent Shit 3 was made a little later by the same director, and it was pretty cool though, the gore looked sick and realistic, the killings where imaginitive, not "oh look another person got a cardboard sword stuck in them", though the dubbing was also bad, it was all done by one person!, at least he took it seriously, and read the script!
Yeah, I've seen those two lumps of cinematic ejaculations, another one of that dude's is a remake of an old video nasty called Anthropophagous, and it is fucking terrible, the effects were truly crap looking like cheap plastic and it looks like it was filmed on VHS or something.
Have you seen the Bloodletting collection? (assuming you are in britian), he has a movie in that too called "Demonium", which is actually not bad..the gore looks decent (one womans spine is exposed after she is chewed by rats), the story is a little contrived though, he tries to jump around in time like Tarantino, and fails.
funny your all talking about crap films you've seen and critising the hell out of them, but why on earth would you watch a film called Violent Shit 3 and such? ah well
In terms of directing, experience and stuff, Spider-Man 2 was definitely better. However, I think the problem's in the script this time. Too much storyline stuffed into 2 hours. Either way, they cramped it all in too little time, so I got confused and then bored. Can't even SMS some chick in the middle of the movie without missing a vital piece of storyline.
Though, IMHO, I still think D&D's the most overhated movie of all time. It seems like people, ESPECIALLY those D&D (the game) nerds out there hate it just because the 'cool guys' hate it. I've got nothing about people who form their own opinion on it, but there's just too many people who say it's "the worst movie ever" and all I have to do is ask them "have you even seen the movie?" and they go all "ololol i don't have to see the movie, the trailer sucks ass and everyone says it sucks".
Point is, I enjoyed the movie. Not exactly fun, but more interesting than say... LOTR II anyway. Main reason people loved that movie was because they loved the prequel and the books, which were superb.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I was actually impressed by Dungeons and Dragons because it was basically a student film. The guy had never directed anything before and he had a shoestring budget. If you do a little research on the movie you find out it was basically just a lifelong dream of two friends. "Someday we're gonna make a movie about Dungeons and Dragons! You can direct it!" "Yeah, and you can star in it!" It's kind of inspiring actually, even if it didn't turn out too good.
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
I'm still annoyed that Tom Baker turned down the part of gandalf . Ian McKellan was good, but Tom would have been soo much better. Instead he was in a crappy D&D film. Woe is me.
One movie I liked and everyone else hated was Independence day... that was a good bloody film! I'm sick of people bad mouthing it based on the opinions of others.
God, how can you believe Kubrick´s the worst director ever? What about Dr. Strangelove ? Full Metal Jacket? (Which ISN´T the best nam movie, that seat is reserved for Apocalypse Now!) You suck!
IMHO that worst movie ever?
---DAREDEVIL! I´ve never seen such utter crap in my poor excuse for a life.... Never. Not once. At all. Even you losers beat this piece of crap film... Yup!
I saw a seriously awesome movie last night. It was called Guitar Wolf: Wild Zero. Basically the world is taken over by zombie-making UFOs and they can only be defeated with the power of rock and roll. It's also a love story. The girl turns out to be a transvestite, but they stay together anyway.
I generally only go to see films that have a good chance of liking. I loved all three Lotr films and the matrix series.
i remember seeing a film 'waking the dead' i think its called. I did not like it, boring crap about an ambulance driver that can't sleep (so he is tired the whole film) and sees ghosts sometimes. It had Nicholas Cage as the ambulance driver. I didnt really get it.
Here, I'll be fair; Kubrick isn't the worst director ever. I just dislike directors who think so highly of their work that they expect audiences to spend hours afterward trying to figure out what the heck they mean. Wachowski Bros., anyone? Self-indulgent filmmaking gets on my nerves.
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
But you just can´t see the point of it all! If you watch a movie where you get everything served on a platter, what´s the fun? The best part is after the movie, where you start wondering.."was it her?" "Was it an act of god?" "Is frank the bunny a messenger from god to help donny stop his own creation know as the tangent universe?" If you , after watching a movie, immediatly KNOW what the entire point was...What´s the fun?
Worst movie ever? Redneck Zombies .... But in a good way! Troma makes the BEST cult movies ever..And this one is...SO FUCKED UP! But still, it´s one of the most hilarious movies ever..
Well yes and no. I do like movies that make you think, but I don't like movies that you're expected to watch fifty times before they make any sense at all.
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
So The My Little Ponies Movie must have been a real brain tease for ya, huh?
Red Jihad!
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
14th January, 2005 at 19:03:51 -
if a movie doesn't make you think, it hasn't done its job as art. if you don't want to have your own sense of judgement envoked, and form your own opinions on the themes of the film, you are just a whore to the moneygrabbing hollywood executives. movies like Bourne Supremacy, for example, are fine for shallow entertainment, but you don't walk away with anything. donnie darko, a clockwork orange, american beauty (3 examples i watched this week) make you THINK. they address issues that are worthy of your thought. you don't have to watch them a million times to "get" them. there's no message at the end saying "this film is trying to say X Y and Z", based on the assumption that you're not a baby and don't need it spoon fed to you.
Oh, but we need to be spoonfed. If I didn't know exactly what the moral of the film was, I might decide to become violent or racist because it looked cool, instead of avoiding it because it makes people sad and/or poor. After all, I am a member of the general public.
No, there really was a My Little Ponies Movie, but once they found out that everybody subdued to it became insane homocidal maniacs , everybody who ever had seen it got executed.
I vaguely remember that movie. Something about a crystal in a volcano and one of the ponies not being able to fly through the turbulance ove the caldera. I guess that must've been the flying one. Whatsisname. Phil.
Another really bad movie is "Daredevil". OMG! I have NEVER seen such crap in my LIFE!
God, the My Little Pony Movie was like a stroll through the park, execution and all included.
"Manos: The Hands of Fate"
Hahahaha!
I actually thought that Daredevil was okay. I mean, I was slightly entertained by it.
I haven't watched a lot of bad movies (mainly because I avoid them), but Disney's Hercules pissed me off so much. Mission Impossible 2 also sucked.
I agree that there are plenty of bad films today. Too many of the Hollywood films are brain dead comedys and action movies. While both comedy and action is ok in reasonable amounts, the amount of ridiculous entertainment is amazing.
Lucky for us, there are still decent and great movies from time to time. Could we please go back to some of the good stuff that was created in the late 70's and the 80's. Could we go back to the point where a good story started it all. And where the film even had something to say about the time, the society and culture it was created in. Or how about something as crazy as actually having an oppinion about something like politics, the meaning of life or similar topics.
Elektra is just an insult to filmmaking... what's even worse is that it was directed by the guy who made Reign of Fire - which was a good movie with a unique premise that was more interested in being original than making money... whereas Elektra is just the opposite. Oh how the mighty have fallen...
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
I'll conceed that it was the most original unoriginal work of fiction ever. But it was just too odd.
Sean Connery did his best to save it from being a total flop, and he did succeed. I wouldn't mind seeing it again. But that's mainly because the vampire girl is cute.
A fit vampire girl is always guaranteed to add replay value to even the most rubbish movies.
The League sucked because it was a movie based on THE best comic book ever, written by Allen Moore. The comic book was original, scary, steam-punkish, violent, gritty, and had referance to almost every great work of pre-modern fiction. And the movie was...WHAT?
Reign of Fire was awesome! The guy must have seen a peep-show seating of The My Little Ponys Movie or something to get so fucked up.
Jonnathan Smebby the Movvie wazza verrry baaaaaaaaad movvie.
IIII alzzo saw a hentai fillm once, ittt scared the shit outt ov meeeee.
sorry II have a baaad kEyboard!
And how can we rightly answer that question?
Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State --let them be our guardians.
Very good.
Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes?
There can be no question of that.
And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of them --are not such persons, I ask, simply blind?
LotR - never actually saw it, but read the books, they sucked, and I've NEVER seen a movie be better than a book
Harry Potter - need I elaborate?
Villiage - moved too slow compared to his other films
Matrix trilogy - 5 minutes of it made me never want to see it again
Master and Commander - eh, it was ok, just very slow
Minority Report - No one would allow the law to be controlled by a bunch of precogniscent people, well, maybe in the U.S. but it seemed kind of pointless
Cat in the Hat - could've been because I was watching it in Spanish class (from what I heard, it still sucked)
Grinch - ditto that
gotta love $1 dvds now to get DVD X Copy >_>
As a boy, I wanted to be a train. I didn’t realize this was unusual—that other kids played with trains, not as them.
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
Registered 04/09/2004
Points 7998
25th January, 2005 at 03:00:27 -
WHAT? LOTR?! The movie's way better than that pile of books, believe me!
I'd have to agree. The movies totally get rid of that gimp Tom Bombadil and the big battles, which are boring as hell in the books, are actually really neat to the extent of awesome.
The books were ridiculously wordy and left nothing to imagination. In short, boring...not that anyone was going to argue with a professor of Anglo-Saxon about that at the time.
Saying a movie is better than a book or vice versa is just silliness. Movies are a hot medium, whereas books are cold. (Or maybe it's the other way around... been a while since Com 101) In other words a movie you can sit passively and have it fed to you, whereas a book you have to actively focus your attention on it.
The LOTR movies were good movies but they can't compare to the experience of reading the books. I'm not saying they were better or worse, I'm saying they can't compare. I loved the movies, I loved the books. 'Nuff said.
I'll add some more to my list of cinema-hates while I"m posting...
-Any Adam Sandler movie (one trick pony)
-Any "funny" Jim Carrey movie (he's a good actor, but again a one-trick pony when it comes to comedy: "LOOK AT MEEEEE! YELLING OPERA STYLE AT THE CAMERAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!")
-Anything touched by the magic wand of Ben Affleck - except Armageddon which in which the coolness of Bruce Willis and the prettiness of Liv Tyler cancelled him out.
And of course...
-*Anything* ever made for the Disney Channel; I think we can all agree on that one.
Last time I had lobster, it reminded me of biology class. Except in biology class the professor didn't make you eat the frog when you were finished.
Umm....LotR is overrated, but it still is one of the top 100 movies ever. Still, their nothing in compare to the books. Listen, you bunch of illiterate dumbasses! ( Not meant as an insult. )
Books are so different from movies, that they are millions of lightyears from each other in matters of comparison.
Books you read. You have to ACTIVELY take part in the understanding of a story, when movies deliver it on a platter.
So...The books are way better
Another bad flick : Batman & Robin and Batman Forever.... OOOOOOOoooo the horror! It´s like the first two movies we´re super cool ( which the were ), and they HAD to change director and make really bad sequels. DIE! DIE EVIL SPAWN OF SUCK!
It should be noted that I like the books, I'm just saying Amnesia should check out the movie even if he didn't like them. It's not everyone's cup of tea.
Phizzy: Tom Bombadil is a hippie douche who runs through the woods singing and being generally irritating. When the hobbits leave the Shire they don't just turn up on a hill and get given swords, what happens is they wander though an enchanted wood, fall asleep and get eaten by a tree. Then Bombadil saves them. Then they stay at his place for a while. Then they toddle off and get captured by a barrow wight (which I really wish had been in the movie, since it would've been a cool sequence), and then Bombadil saves them again. They get thier swords (apart from Sting) from the wight's tomb.
Bombadil is one of the acient Maiar or however it's spelled; a kind of messenger nymph that helped create the world then took up residence. Same as Gandalf, Sauron and the Baelrogs, although most of them live on the Grey Isles now.
But he's an irritating fag and I'm glad he wasn't in the movie.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
:
Joshtek
GO! 
but it seemed kind of pointless
