LOTR Movie=ignorant fans?

[Ace]

I've been mildy concerned about this for some tmie now. After the movies come out, there is obviously going to be an explosion of people who are into LOTR. What I'm saying is, before the movie, you could meet someone at a party and talk about LOTR and more or less be on the same page.
But after the movie, you could meet someone who says they love LOTR and has never even heard of Tom Bombadil? :eek:
I'm just saying I enjoy having deep and intelligent conversations about the LOTR. There's going to be alot of LOTR posers after the movie comes out.

"Well if the choice be mine, I say, we march!"

[Fat middle]

Welcome to the Entmoot, Ace! :) i hope yu'll find here what your looking for. we have discussed this topic a number of times; perhaps you'll like to read some of the threads in the LOTR Movies forum.

[Elrond]

I agree with you whole-heartedly, one of my favourite characters is Tom Bombadil. And you can not be a Lord of the Rings fan if you do not know who he is.

Another thing to worry you is when the games and figures are out some people will just pick who ever looks coolest as their favourite character. or whoever looks like the best fighter.(won't be a lot of Hobbit fans)


You must pass an aptitude test to see the movie.:mad:

[garrfin]

who isnt in the film?not that it really bothers me but who have they missed out?is Glorfindel in it?:p

[Bacchus]

Perhaps there will indeed be LOTR 'posers' as you say. But perhaps there will also be large numbers of new readers following the movies, and thus new people to discuss with at parties.

[Comic Book Guy]

Glorfindel is not in the Flight to the Ford, he isn't even in any of the movie.

[Darth Tater]

CBG, that's not true. According to TORN and the New Line casting info, his character is in there, probably at the Council of Elrond and I'd assume also in the prologue.

[Comic Book Guy]

Why would Glorfindel be in the Prologue, he came in the Third age. *Suddenly Reminded about Arwen* sigh, never mind.

[Elrond]

But he fought in the war of the elves and Sauron did he not?

[Wayfarer]

Hes he did... he 'fought' the witch king.

well... ok, he scared him off.

I'm really hoping that Arwen merely accompanies him to the ford. But hey, I'm a purist.

[Gwaihir]

No he is not going to be with her at the ford it says so at theonering.com also in the trailer she is the only one there

[Wayfarer]

[Edited: Please refrain from that kind of profanity. Young people post at these boards.]

[Edit: As you can tell... I'm not to happy about this development.]

[IronParrot]

Glorfindel will not be at the Fords of Bruinen.

Watch all the trailers again, look at all the promotional materials, and look at every little scrap of every little thing we've seen in the film so far. Maybe one of the early reviews will confirm it further if you're still not convinced - I haven't read them all yet, since I still want to be somewhat surprised by Jackson's interpretation of the novel, but you can see for yourself.

[fireworks19]

I might have mentioned this, but.

Recall. The Crow? How many huge fans of the movies know there were really depressing comics BEFORE? I expect history to repeat itself in the case of LOTR.

[sracer]

One thing that seems to happen when something is brought into the mainstream...whether it be the Internet, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Anime, or Lord of the Rings... those people who where were "into it" before it went mainstream look down upon those who "just came to the party".

It's just human nature.

Even for those newcomers who read the books after watching the film, they'll be looked upon as 2nd class fans. Old diehards will reminsce about "the good old days" of sitting in dimly lit coffee shops reading the trilogy during their college days...and complain how easy it is for these young upstarts now that LOTR have moved into the mainstream's consciousness.

With these films, LOTR may very well move into the mainstream consciousness, and become larger influence on pop culture. I'm glad that Tolkien's works will finally get the recognition they deserve...and shove Harry Potter and Star Wars back (if only temporarily) to a dusty corner.

On a side note, I've read the trilogy a few times, and taken a few college courses on it. I have yet to see where the character of Tom Bombadil has any great significance to the story, or Middle Earth. Certainly not enough to justify the furor there's been at his omission from the films.

[Wayfarer]

I, personally, am looking forward to seeing more people get into Tolkien. I know a few people that I never would have suspected even knew of hte books, acting almost like us hard core fanatics lately.

Just think of this as an opporotunity to indoctrinate tolkien newbies in the way of purism. ;)

[Bregalad, Ent of Fangorn]

Ha ha ha ha

I find the last 2 comment's to perfectly reflect what I would have said. Though I do think that personally I have more respect for people who read the book's, then ones who just saw the movie, because in a book you are capable of thinking of thing's your way, while in the movie you are given what's on the screen and that is it.

[Ñólendil]

CBG, Glorfindel actually came during the Second Age, in the Year of Dread.

[Agburanar]

GLORFINDEL IS NOT IN THE FILM. He is not a character available in the Lotr (fellowship of the ring) wargame for this reason. I am upset.

[Miríel]

I think the ones reading lotr after having seen the movie would always be 2. class fans.
I red lotr in may, but then i hadn't even heard of the movie!!
And why isn't Glorfindel with Arwen, why is Arwen there at all?:confused: ?
I think Arwen is getting too much attention!!

[Agburanar]

I think it's good that Arwen's getting more to do, she is a little, hmm, boring in the book. After all she is having to abandon her family, her chances of sailing west and her immortality to marry Aragorn.

Newsround (a British news program for children, for the purposes of those not of Anglican origin) has a competition to win film 'goodies' and the question is: Who wrote Lord of the Rings? GAH! I AM FRUSTRATED. THIS IS NOT STAR WARS IT WAS A BOOK FIRST, TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE FILM, NOT ENOUGH ON THE BOOK. Sorry, I get so emotional.:eek:

[Miríel]

Originally posted by Agburanar
THIS IS NOT STAR WARS IT WAS A BOOK FIRST, TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE FILM, NOT ENOUGH ON THE BOOK.


Totally agree!!

[Silva]

I really dont see what it matters if someone has read knows and loves the book or sees the film and then reads the books, hopefully, and comes to love the books. Isn't it rather a form of snobbery to judge people like that? Not trying to offend anyone but for me I'm far more concerned about what the film will be like than whether we get lots of people getting into Tolkien who weren't into him before. After all, if they get that interest then they will read the books and learn the differences between book and film, I'm sure we all have our own visions of Tolkiens world anyway, just hope the film wont ruin mine. And if we have people with different ideas and views about Tokien then that'll be fun to have civilised discussions with them won't it?:)

Personally I'm nost disappointed at the loss of Tom Bombadill, I've been reading articles in a magazine that came with the daily mail newpaper, and they all say how Peter Jackson is a huge LoTR fan. But how can he be if he leaves Tom Bombadill out? Tom Bombadill is one of the most interesting and mysterious characters in Tolkiens world, even Tolkien wasnt sure what or who exactly he was.
*sobs* I want Tom Bombadill in the film:(
After all how will the hobbits ever escape from the clutches of old man willow without him??? Maybe that scene wont be in the film? :(

From the little I've read Arwen isnt actually going with the fellowship is she? That at least is something, just hope we wont get too much mushy romantic stuff, if we wanted that we could watch Love Story, *feels sick at the thought of it*;)

[Darth Tater]

The removal of Bombadil is totally necessary to make LOTR work as a movie. He really isn't part of the plot of the story, and though we all love him, he would only intterupt the film. Old Man Willow is, of course, out of the film as well. Arwen's additions seem to be mostly from the appendices, and just put into a different timeline. I think this is a wise move, otherwise we'd all be complaining at the end of ROTK that Aragorn should've married Eowyn, because in the film we'd have known nothing about this elven princess.

[mirrille]

I don't mind if Arwen's story is expanded in the movie using material from the appendices, depending on how it's done. It's an interesting side story, probably more revealing about Aragorn than Arwen. But it sounds to me like that is not exactly what is going on. I just never really pictured Arwen as the kind to go gallivanting around the countryside waving a sword around. But in a few weeks we'll all see for sure what they did with her story.

[Darth Tater]

According to reviews she gets about 5 mins of screen time, nothing to get all jumpy about.

[Ace]

I agree with some of you and disagree with others on the Tom Bombadil. All of you who say Tom Bombadil is an important character and totally rules because of his immense power and fan appeal, I'm with you.

I will probably long for the good old days, but there's always the level of knowledge. Someone who just saw the movies will not be even close to being able to carry on a conversation with a hardcore fan. We'll make them read the trilogy!:p

Those who are dedicated enough, will one day be hardcore fans!

"If the choice be mine, I say, we march!"

[Agburanar]

Arwen doesn't give Frodo her horse, I suppose the pony outruns the black riders?

[Ñólendil]

Based on clips I've seen, it appears Frodo and Arwen ride on Asfaloth together.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

"I think it's good that Arwen's getting more to do, she is a little, hmm, boring in the book. After all she is having to abandon her family, her chances of sailing west and her immortality to marry Aragorn. "

I think it's important that it not be covered very much. Think about it: this is only the third elf/mortal marrage, EVER! Pretty big stuff, huh? But it hardly is even mentioned. I think that helps put into perspective how important the story about the war of the Rings is.

[Comic Book Guy]

I'm sure there was more than three Elf Mortal Marriages, minor ones I would guess. An example of one would be Prince Imrahil, Legolas noticed that he had Elven blood.

At length they came to the Prince Imrahil, and Legolas looked at him and bowed low; for he saw that here indeed was one who had elven-blood inhis veins. 'Hail, lord!' he said.

[Brokehorn4000]

I find it totally ignorant that people wouldn't take time to read the books. The books are really pieces of art. People shouldn't be afraid to read. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it got me to read the books first (I'm on RotK). Probably better too, or else I would have never started to read the trilogy and get all the facts straight.

I agree that there are many LotR fan wanna-be's.

[Halley_Brandybuck]

could you people be more snobbish?

Bombadil = not critical to the story, can be dropped

Arwen = rather important to the story, role expanded so as not to confuse the uninitiated

new fans = in today's society, some people don't have the time/patience/attention span to read it's a shame but it's the truth

I like ecplaining things to people I do it mostly for my brother who hasn't read it yet and my dad who hasn't read it since high school but he remembers most of it

there are people out there who have read it since seeing the movies and treating then as second-class fans is narrow minded and rude

[Rei]

Just because a person hasn't read the book or has no plans to doesn't mean that they are "ignorant of wanna'be's". Tolkien is not for everyone, even the most die-hard LotR fans can admit that. I've read the books and I LOVED the movie.

And ever since the movie came out people who have never even heard of Tolkien or middle-earth have picked up the books and learned what a great story this is. Too bad some of the rather 'ignorant' fans of the books can't see that the movie is doing more good than harm.

[Brokehorn4000]

Alright I'm sorry. But about Tom Bombadil, he still played somewhat of an important role in the FotR. Arwen is still important, I just thought she was fine where she was in the books.

Gee, I have to expand my view on things like this so I don't accidently insult someone again. Sorry again. :(

[Sween]

Since i watched the movie i was determined to read to book which is an achivement as i have never read a book in my 18 years of life well at least 1 that had long words and wasnt handed to me by school.

i read it in just under a week and there were parts which i just could not put down and some bits which were hard work.

in some ways i am ignorant and some ways i am not. in the book it seems to me they didnt half mess about. Gandalf knew the ring would effect frodo more as the years went by and they seemed to spend most of fellowship eating and drinking (at least the first book).

i though that PJ got the pacing much better they were in a hurry and needed haste. the only bit i didnt like was merry and pippin in the book are much better.

u can tell clearly from the book everything is from a hobbits point of view whilst in the film is mens. This is the biggest change which effects the way more of the events are percived.

[Khadrane]

Okay, this is my opinion. You can watch the movie and like it and not read the books. Just don't think that your a real die-hard Tolkien fan. A ton of my friends have seen the movie and not read the books. Also, if they're discussing LotR and use the movie as a guideline, that drives me insane. And I'm not prejudiced against people who see the movie and then read the books and love them. Oh yeah, Tom is important. If it weren't for him they wouldn't have gotten those cool swords from the barrow-wight place, and then the Witch-King wouldn't have been killed and Eowyn would be dead.

P.S. Don't tell me I'm snobbish. I already know I am. :)

[Lanelf]

Well, I'm one of the people who saw the movie, but I read the books straight after. As for the Arwen fiasco, I think she's made out to be something quite different to the books.
According to my sister, Glorfindel *was* in the movie! She says that there's an elf in the start - at the last alliance of Men and Elves - who we get a good shot of, and that's Glorfindel.

Look, I said I saw the movie before the books. But I did read them! well, apart from a few appendixes. I read most of Appendix E! I'm proud of that! I even have plans to read the Silmarillion(sp?).
I think people who have seen the movie but have not read the books can't really be die-hard fans, as Khadrane said, but they are fans of the movie. Like casual fans.
And if you don't think I'm a die-hard fan, ask the people I sit next to at school. It's amazing how quickly they get sick of my LotR talk.:eek: :D

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Sween
Since i watched the movie i was determined to read to book which is an achivement as i have never read a book in my 18 years of life . . .
i read it in just under a week

You can be proud of yourself, Sween. That's the whole point of the movie as far as I can see, getting people to read the books.
If you liked LotR there are bunches of other books you'll enjoy; a lifetime's protection against boredom.

I don't quite get what you meant by saying the book is from the hobbits' point of view while the movie is from Men's. There aren't even any men in it except Strider and Boromir, who don't show up in the beginning. Seems to me it's from Frodo's POV mostly.

[Brokehorn4000]

Concerning Tom Bombadil, Khadrane is right. Tom was just as important any other character in the book. The same with Arwen.

[samwiselvr2008]

i started reading this, and it made me really mad! i know that i did not read the books before the movie, but to tell you the truth, i did not know that the books even exsisted! i saw the movie, and i loved it, so i read the books! this is the third time the i am reading the books since january or febuary (i did not see the movie untill the middle of january), and if you do not think that i am a pure tolkien fan, then ask the people that were in my class who got sick of me talking about lotR really fast, the people that were on the bus with me, who were so tired of me talking about lord of the rings that they almost killed me, and you can allso ask my familly, and every one that gose to my church! i believe that this is my third time reading the books, i have read them more then some of you! and if the movie had not ben made, then i would have missed out on a great adventure!

pluss...

if you read the letters of jrr tolkien, he writes in one of the letters that if any one ever made the movie then they could leave tom bombadill out of it!

[cassiopeia]

I think what annoys people the most is when people who have watched the movie and havn't read the books suddenly think there are experts on all things Middle Earth. I for one am happy that because of the movie more people are experiencing Tolkiens magical works. Bring on the TT and ROTK!

[Brokehorn4000]

Exactly! See, samwiselvr2008, those of us who are die-hard Tolkien fans can get annoyed by certain people who saw the movie and then think they know everything about Middle-Earth without reading the books at all. I wouldn't hold anything against you since you've read the books and seen the movie, or anyone else for that matter. And whoever hasn't read the books yet, I encourage you to read them. They are truly wonderful works of artistic literature!:D

[samwiselvr2008]

i'm glad that you agree, i just don't wont anyone to say that i'm not a true pure tolkien lover just b/c i did not know that the book was out there untill i saw the movie!

[Brokehorn4000]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
... i just don't wont anyone to say that i'm not a true pure tolkien lover just b/c i did not know that the book was out there untill i saw the movie!

Well that's why I wouldn't blame you. I bet a lot of people didn't know about them ( 'them' being the trilogy) before the movie came out. It didn't get much advertisement before (except on summer reading lists maybe :p ). So we shouldn't hold people accountable for that. :)

[Erendis]

I read the books after the movie came out but not after I saw the movie. You see...I never really saw the movie.
My parents gave me the books for Christmas and I tried to read them but couldn't get past the "A Shrotcut Through Mushrooms." So I put it back down and read sme other stuff. Then, this past April, I picked them up again and I thought they were fantastic. I finished LotR and Silmarillion in two and a half weeks. Two weeks later I read Unfinished Tales.
It kinda gets to me when people think they're experts just because they saw the movie. And espeically when all they do is go on and on about how hot they think Legolas is.
In my opinion, Tom is not relevant to the story of the ring. They really don't need him for anything outside the Old Forest and the Barrowdowns. The Hobbits got nothing from the excursion into the forest except for new swords. They weren't magically swords either. Just swords.

[IronParrot]

I watched Gone With The Wind before ever reading the Margaret Mitchell novel. I have yet to read Mario Puzo's The Godfather. And from my experience, that's not really "ignorance", that's just an appreciation of a story in one medium exclusive to the other. Similarly, you can appreciate Picasso's Guernica even if you've never read up on the Spanish Civil War.

My brother, my ten-year-old brother, saw the film of The Fellowship of the Ring before he ever sat down to read LOTR, which he did. I think the film's visual ideas helped him get through the work as easily as he did.

Also, the very first time I read LOTR, I only really retained about as much material as was worked into the movie. It took me many readings to really, really absorb the entire novel at the most detailed level.

Now I must refute this:
"In my opinion, Tom is not relevant to the story of the ring. They really don't need him for anything outside the Old Forest and the Barrowdowns. The Hobbits got nothing from the excursion into the forest except for new swords. They weren't magically swords either. Just swords."
While story-wise, Tom Bombadil was a sidetrack, and was certainly dispensable in the film (better no Bombadil than a poor rendition of one, I think, and I can't think of how they could have possibly done justice to him), he wasn't irrelevant. He demonstrated that the Ring only affects those with a desire for power. Living in carefree isolationism, he is symbolic of the fact that only complete neutrality is immune to the effects of the Ring, as through power, even good is drawn to evil.

As for the swords, I quote from V.6 ("The Battle of the Pelennor Fields")
"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

[Erendis]

Living in carefree isolationism, he is symbolic of the fact that only complete neutrality is immune to the effects of the Ring, as through power, even good is drawn to evil.
I must admit, I never thought of that before however, I do agree with it.
Thank you for pointing that out to me IronParrot!

[GIR]

ok. i dont exactly say i love LOTR but i say i love the movie. would that make me ignorant??

[Rei]

No, your not ignrorant GIR, you just love a great movie!

[samwiselvr2008]

did you trie to read th book?

[StrawberryIcecream]

I dont like the hostility put towards people who only liked LOTR after the movie.

I read the hobbit years and years ago but every time i tried to read LOTR i just found it too hard to get into. However after seeing the movie i had an idea (even if not entirely accurate) of what was to come so i knew it was worth reading.

I dont claim to know everything about LOTR just because ive read the books and quite honestly i have no desire to. Im not rushing to read the Sil though, i mihgt if i have time one day but i enjoy just talking about what i do know.

I think its unfair to call those who have seen just the movie ignorant. if they pretend to know everything yes but they are allowwed to know everything about the film.

Some people may know every The Hulk cartood episode created, doesnt mean they need to watch the original films to have an understanding.

There is a reason why books are made into movies. Yes mainly money but also to make more people interested in that topic. So whybe hostile to those of us who were 'captured' into tolkien by the movie, just means we discovered it later not that we discovered it less.

[samwiselvr2008]

good! i like how you said that! i agree b/c i am one of those later ppl, even though i may not be as smart about it as the before ppl, i know that i have to be smarter then some of them are, just like everyone!

and i geuss that you are right that they can be experts on THE MOVIE even if they arn't on THE BOOK!

[Sylvee Estel]

Ok would ya'll hate me if I said I almost liked the movie better than the book? I read the first book before I saw the movie because one of my friends said I needed to to understand the movie. I thought the book was pretty good, but boring and confusing at some times, I guess cause I am not used to reading stuff written at a high reading level. I love reading but until I started getting in to fantasy which was after I read LOTR I couldn't find much at a high reading level. But anyway after the movie I read the other two books and now I have really gotten into fantasy which is a good thing. And I'm kinda bavvling a little bit but my point is, I think that if more people read the books because of the movie then thats a good thing, and if they like the movie better then thats cool too. Anything is better than nothing in my opinion. Ok sorry this doesn't make much sense, I'm not too good at putting my toughts into words. Anyways I hope this makes a little sense.

[samwiselvr2008]

its okay if you like the movie more! i liked the movie alot to, and probaly the onley reson why i think that the book is better is b/c

1. i love to read
2. it is written richly
and lastly
3. you can take a book more places then a movie theater, or a tv and vcr/ dvd player! plus, all of the books that i bought (well, the series anyways, and the hobbit) was less then the dvd was all together!

okay, so the last one was 2 resons in one, but, you get my point!

[Starr Polish]

Pulling a Gollum on us, are you, Samwiselvr2008?

[jerseydevil]

As I've said in many past threads on this topic - although I haven't been on this topic for months - I'll summarise.

I don't think Jackson did a great job making the books into a movie.
I would have dropped Tom Bombadil (but a better explanation for where the hobbits got their swords was needed, Aragorn just basically pulls them out of his back pocket in the movie).
The Flight to the Ford scene was ruined IMO.

I agree with Sween - I think the movie is more from the human point of view. Not completely - but more so than the books.

I don't look down on people that have only seen the movie - but you can't talk to them about LotR if that is the case. I tried to talk to a friend of mine about it who has never read the books. He kept insisting that Boromir SHOULD have been given the Ring because his plan might have worked (Jackson made Boromir too likable I think anyway). My friend also hated the hobbits and thought the movie should have been based around the men more.

I'll get the LotR DVD tomorrow or sometime this week - but it's still an action movie. The book was much more emotional. Jackson dumbed down the movie to make it appeal to a much wider audience.

I keep seeing the trailers for TT now and I start thinking I can't wait until the movie comes out - but then I have to remember how disappointed I was with the Fellowship of the Ring. I don't want to get my hopes up this time.

side note - I hate the fact that they show Gandalf in close up on the trailer. It ruins it for the people that haven't read LotR. Unless most people just think it's just an image or something.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Pulling a Gollum on us, are you, Samwiselvr2008?

well, i do quote him alot, but how was i doing it that last time? after all, it is myn, my own, it cam to me! my own, my love, my birthday present, my pressssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssiosssssssssssss ssssssssssssss! ;)

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

side note - I hate the fact that they show Gandalf in close up on the trailer. It ruins it for the people that haven't read LotR. Unless most people just think it's just an image or something.

well, most of the people who are intristed enof to see the movie trailer (unless they saw it in theaters, and had know chouse) are usainly gonna know about gandalf anyways, because someone, or something told them (something as in a newspaper, internet ect.) and so it will not come as a serprise anyways! and i thought that he would come back even before i read the book, and had only seen the movie, because it just did not seem like ganalf could stay deid, so it is okay that they showed him! and even after i had read the book twise and then saw the trailer, i was wondering if the wizard was gandalf or sauramon!

so just give pj a break, he did the best job that he could! and imagine how hard it was for him to make humans act like and look like dwarves, elves, hobbits ect.! i bet that YOU could not do any better then he could! and imagine having to pick a place, write the script, and everything else for a 1008 page book! i wouldn't be able to! and i never found a lord of the rings movie that YOU made in the theaters or in the stores!

LAY OFF OF PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008

so just give pj a break, he did the best job that he could! and imagine how hard it was for him to make humans act like and look like dwarves, elves, hobbits ect.! i bet that YOU could not do any better then he could! and imagine having to pick a place, write the script, and everything else for a 1008 page book! i wouldn't be able to! and i never found a lord of the rings movie that YOU made in the theaters or in the stores!

LAY OFF OF PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?? just because you liked the movie doesn't mean that I did. I thought it was an okay movie. I'm not going to praise jackson just because he turned LotR into a movie. I think it could have been a lot better. I've said a bunch of gthings that I didn't like about the movie when it first came out. The two main problems I had - I hated Arwen being at the Ford and I hated Pippin and Merry. Pippin and Merry were my favorite characters in the book and he turned them into walking comic relief. He also made Frodo have 3 ridiculous "death" scenes.

You don't have to accept my opinion of the movie- but you should at least respect my opinion.

And just because I haven't made a LotR movie or any movie - doesn't mean I have to like it. Your argument makes no sense on why I shouldn't state my opinions or feelings concerning the movie. Do you like every movie that has ever come out????

[BeardofPants]

side note - I hate the fact that they show Gandalf in close up on the trailer. It ruins it for the people that haven't read LotR. Unless most people just think it's just an image or something.

Yeah, that pisses me off as well. I mean, sure, most of the people who are going to see it already know about Gandalf, but it ruins it for those who haven't read the book. The scene where Gandalf comes back as Gandalf the White is, IMO, one of the most important scenes in the book! And I don't think I need to get into detail here about how much I disliked the movie!

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
He also made Frodo have 3 ridiculous "death" scenes.Frodo only had 2 'death' scenes. Maybe you're thinking of Sam's near drowning?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by olsonm
Frodo only had 2 'death' scenes. Maybe you're thinking of Sam's near drowning?

Well I was including Weathertop as being different from The Ford scene. I just think they were over the top. The stop and go action of the zoom ins and all that.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I mean, sure, most of the people who are going to see it already know about Gandalf, but it ruins it for those who haven't read the book. Most people needed to be convinced that Gandalf was really dead in the first place so they aren't having anything ruined. On the contrary, non-readers who find out that Gandalf returns don't seem spoiled but more eager to see the movie, as they already suspected that he was coming back. The only people that seem angry about it are people who spent time convincing non-readers that Gandalf was dead.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I was including Weathertop as being different from The Ford scene. That scene cannot be accurately described as a 'death' scene, because no one thought Frodo was dead.

As for the real 'death' scenes, I think the problem was PJ's mixing of slow and regular motion. I didn't mind it but for some it was just too much.

[samwiselvr2008]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


Why?? just because you liked the movie doesn't mean that I did. I thought it was an okay movie. I'm not going to praise jackson just because he turned LotR into a movie. I think it could have been a lot better. I've said a bunch of gthings that I didn't like about the movie when it first came out. The two main problems I had - I hated Arwen being at the Ford and I hated Pippin and Merry. Pippin and Merry were my favorite characters in the book and he turned them into walking comic relief. He also made Frodo have 3 ridiculous "death" scenes.

You don't have to accept my opinion of the movie- but you should at least respect my opinion.

And just because I haven't made a LotR movie or any movie - doesn't mean I have to like it. Your argument makes no sense on why I shouldn't state my opinions or feelings concerning the movie. Do you like every movie that has ever come out????

i am sorry gersydevil, it is just that people nead to prase him some, i understand your fillings that he did mess up, but everyone is complaning and everything, just because he tried his hardest, and did the best he did, and is not perfect. there are places that i would like to change allso, but then again, that is true with every movie AND book! like i would like to shange some things in lord of the rings, mostly just to a silly perpose, but i still would, even though it was written origanly, i would still like to change it! it gets me mad whene people just ceep on yelling at him! and as it has been said before, that the movie is pj's interpitation, and what he thought about it! so respect that to, because you wont people to respect your opinions, and the movie was based around pj's opinions, he THOUGHT that there should be more comody, he THOUGHT that there should be a love story in it, those were his opinions! i complane about the movie to, but i try to complament him as much as posable, even though it is true that i think that he messed up on sam ect. but he did do a good job with his costume ect.

6 hourse and 19 min.!

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by olsonm
The only people that seem angry about it are people who spent time convincing non-readers that Gandalf was dead.

Perhaps. However, when I read it, I was the ONLY one to read it within my circle of friends. I had no idea about Gandalf, and no one teasing me about him with hints about his "rebirth". Thus, when he came back into the story, I was genuinely surprised - I wasn't expecting it at all. And I can still remember that sense of nervousness in Fangorn, and thinking that it was Saruman out to trick Aragorn et al. And then when it turned out to be one of my favourite characters apparently back from the dead! :) And I can't help but feel that the "newbies" are going to lose out on the experience - which they probably would have anyway (if PJ hadn't put Gandalf the White in the trailer), since the movie phenomenon is so big anyway. *sigh*

[olsonm]

I knew that Gandalf was coming back when I read the book because he was on the cover of my ROTK. It doesn't effect the impact of his return.

[BeardofPants]

Says you. :p

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Says you. :p Knows me. :cool:

[BeardofPants]

I could insert a longwinded comment focussing upon my sense of surprise versus yours, and which one is better, but I think this will suffice:

":rolleyes:"

[olsonm]

Surprise is overrated.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by olsonm
I knew that Gandalf was coming back when I read the book because he was on the cover of my ROTK. It doesn't effect the impact of his return.

My copy didn't have Gandalf the White on the cover and when I read it - I didn't know anyone that had.

[olsonm]

The Ballantine paperback that came out a couple years ago. It has a picture of Gandalf and Pippin riding to Minas Tirith. I think it's a Ted Naismith painting but I don't know for sure. It says "An epic motion picture trilogy coming soon from new line cinema" across the top. That's how I first heard of the movie.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008

it gets me mad whene people just ceep on yelling at him! and as it has been said before, that the movie is pj's interpitation, and what he thought about it! so respect that to, because you wont people to respect your opinions, and the movie was based around pj's opinions, he THOUGHT that there should be more comody, he THOUGHT that there should be a love story in it, those were his opinions! i complane about the movie to, but i try to complament him as much as posable, even though it is true that i think that he messed up on sam ect. but he did do a good job with his costume ect.

6 hourse and 19 min.!

It got me upset when people (when the movie first came out) were just saying how the movie was so great and defending everything and screaming that Jackson was above criticism because he made LotR into a movie.

I respect his "opinion" on the movie. However - his interpretation of the book isn't an opinion though. He changed it to make it more palatible for non-LotR fans. I'll never accept the changes made to Flight to the Ford or to Pippin and Merry. I also had a problem with Gandalf -because he came off as a dunce too (trying to push the Gates of Moria inward - when he knew they pushed outward, bumbing his head repeatedly). I just don't think the movie lived up to LotR. The movie itself is good - but it's not great and if you compare it to LotR I think it's only fair. It has a lot of action. Action after action sequence. The Black Riders - instead of relying on their ability to use fear against people, they were turned into action charaters. What was the deal with the Black Rider chopping off the hobbit's head on the way to the Shire?

And I actually think he did Sam pretty well. I think that Sam should have come off more that he worked for Frodo though. As I said from December to March - the movie was a sell out to LotR fans. Except for the scenerary - the rest had a lot to be desired. The battle scenes were good - but hardly any of them happened. He had to increase the battle scenes a 100 fold, whereas the excitement and tension builds up over time in the books. The movie was one chase scene after another. One of my friends, who hadn't read the book, compared it to Fast and Furious.

[BeardofPants]

JD, you must have known that the movie would come up lacking. It's an adaption for eru's sake, NOT the real McCoy. If you're gonna hate it, hate it for more valid reasons. ;) Hate it, cos it's a terrible movie, NOT a terrible adaption - LOTR and all that hype aside. Still, it's not as terrible as Dungeons and Dragons... :D

Now, where's a place I can go, so I can practice what I preach? :eek: :p

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
JD, you must have known that the movie would come up lacking. It's an adaption for eru's sake, NOT the real McCoy. If you're gonna hate it, hate it for more valid reasons. ;) Hate it, cos it's a terrible movie, NOT a terrible adaption - LOTR and all that hype aside. Still, it's not as terrible as Dungeons and Dragons... :D

I refused to see D&D because it looked like a crappy movie.

I was expecting a little bit closer to the book considering how much Jackson went on and on about how it was going to stay faithful to the book. Of course I expected some changes. There are things that I would have left out too - such as Tom Bombadil. Also - having Arwen in Glorfindel's place at the Ford was fine - but she didn't have to diminish Aragorn and take ALL of Frodo's best lines. Not to mention that some of the best lines in the book were left out in that scene.

I don't think it's a terrible movie. I don't think it's a great movie - as LotR or standing alone. And I'm sorry - but watching Pippin and Merry is just painful. I really wish DVDs allowed me to cut out characters. :D

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think it's a terrible movie. I don't think it's a great movie - as LotR or standing alone.

You don't think it was terrible?! What kind of anti-fan do you call yourself? :eek: ;) I do. I must admit though, a lot of it is swayed by that blasted score. :D

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And I'm sorry - but watching Pippin and Merry is just painful. I really wish DVDs allowed me to cut out characters. :D

Not quite as bad as I would imagine a hernia to feel like, but almost. I kept thinking they were trying to be Laurel and Hardy or something!


Oh, and I was bloody dragged to the D & D feature. :mad: Argh! As if I'd waste my money on garbage like that! :eek:

[jerseydevil]

The thing is - I still plan on seeing Two Towers at 12:00am on December 18th (my sister's b-day). And I still plan on getting the DVD that comes out this week and the DVD Boxed Set that comes out in November.

I'm just going to try not expecting too much from The Two Towers. Maybe that'll help me have less of a negative reaction to it once it comes out. Trying to keep an open mind now that I've seen Fellowship - but it's hard.

BTW BoP - my favorite musical score in the movie - and one of the few I actually remember - is during the scene where they do the fly in over and under Isengard. That's still my favorite scene in terms of camera shot as well.

[cassiopeia]

I think that Gandalf in the trailer is wrong for people who havn't read the book, but for me, I loved seeing Gandalf the White. I admit, when reading the book for the first time that I skipped ahead to check if he lived!
I loved LOTR movie, but I'm not sure if it's the best movie I've seen, I'll have to wait till December 2003 to judge that. I do think there were some things done wrong in the movie, but they have already been mentioned. But I respect people's opinions who don't like the movie - if they have valid reason. We don't have to praise him with great praise just because he did this movie.

[samwiselvr2008]

we do not have to praise him, but i bet everyone here can find one good thing about his movie, other then the point that it was made after jrr tolkiens book

[jerseydevil]

Well I stayed away from this forum for months - because I had said everything I liked and didn't like about the movie before.

Really the only reason I checked this out was because the DVD is coming out tomorrow and I wanted to see what people were saying.

[BeardofPants]

But why should we? Debate is much more fun when people disagree anyway. :rolleyes:

[Gildor]

Well. I bought it months ago, but I'll finally own this movie. I'm 47 and this will be the first movie I ever bought for myself. I do enjoy it. I do think PJ did a good job on it...but I still have to hide my face when Arwen does her little "want him come and claim him" bit with a weak, corpse-like Frodo in her arms.

Oh where is the valiant little hobbit--resisting against overwhelming odds and in the face of the nine with
"You shall have neither the ring nor me!"

Sigh. Oh well. I will quietly go into the West.

Good job, PJ!

[Entlover]

Originally posted by Gildor
this will be the first movie I ever bought for myself. Good job, PJ!

Me too, first movie I ever bought. Though I've ordered the extended version in November and will just rent it this week.

It may not be the best movie I've ever seen because I may have bad taste, I hate modern literature . .. but it's my favorite.

[Minyacamiel]

guys, a fan is a fan.... lol

[katya]

i think it doesn't matter if you read the books before, after or, heck, during the movie. just don' t think you know everything because you saw the movie. this goes for me. i saw the movie first. i am not ashamed though. actually if wasn't as if i didn't know anything; i had sort of read the hobbit, and all of my dad's side is into tolkien. but still. anyway, i am 14 right now. i think when i was younger, even a few years ago, i wouldn't have enjoyed the books nearly as much as i do. hey, my dad read LotR when he was around 17. i think i eventually would've read it even if it weren't for the movie, especially after hearing my friend at camp talk so much about it. for me i think it was just an age thing. i don't feel inferior (except when i read threads like this or the decline of entmoot one) to pre-movie fans. i am not an expert, how could i possibly be? but i don't need to feel second rate.

[IronParrot]

Hmm... I think a bit of refutation is in order.

"I respect his "opinion" on the movie. However - his interpretation of the book isn't an opinion though. He changed it to make it more palatible for non-LotR fans."

That's a filmmaking necessity. The books should absolutely not be a prerequisite for enjoying the film. LOTR was no more simplified than Lawrence of Arabia for those who weren't familiar with the details of the Eastern Front, or Braveheart for those who didn't know about the Scottish Wars of Independence, or The Sound of Music for those who haven't studied the Anschluss, or Doctor Zhivago for those members of the audience who haven't read Pasternak, or The Godfather for those people who didn't know the whole history behind characters such as Johnny Fontane and Luca Brasi that were reduced to periphery, or Gone With The Wind for those who didn't know that the original novel involved the Ku Klux Klan.

All of which are masterpieces, all of which are comprehensible, all of which are "palatable for non-fans". You don't need to be a history major to thoroughly understand any of these. But if you have such a background, it helps, because then you catch a lot of details. But it's really no use to get anal about the things that were altered or not there.

Heck, The Wizard of Oz is probably the most unfaithful adaptation of a well-known work of fiction I've ever seen. It's still an emotionally resonant classic as well as a landmark technical achievement; the fade from sepia to lush Technicolor when Dorothy opens the door to Munchkinland is one of the most legendary shots in film history. And that's not even mentioning how the film's music, "Over the Rainbow" in particular, has penetrated the realm of popular culture in a way that is almost unparalleled. Was "Over the Rainbow" in the Baum novel? No.

The Fellowship of the Ring is, relatively speaking, an extremely faithful adaptation. I'm glad Peter Jackson took on the project, because he actually understands the dynamic of cinema as an inherently different medium from the written word. Exposition is not done by description or lengthy background histories, because one cannot afford the luxury of interrupting the flow. Film goes at a very rigid pace, and the story has to keep up; you don't get as much push-and-pull dynamism as you do with the novel. That's not a flaw, that's just the characteristic of the medium. And since description lies in the visuals, the pace is pushed by action and reaction, which is the whole principle behind the very concept of drama ever since the days of the Greeks. Minor characters must be trimmed, because names are inherently easier to remember and keep track of than faces; and while you can flip a few pages back to check a name, recognizing faces on film has no crutch except for, perhaps, an often poorly inserted flashback.

What baffles me is why people are picking on the film when I never saw them devoting their efforts towards trashing Alan Lee and John Howe for not visualizing "their" interpretation, or leaving out certain details despite all the other ones that are expounded upon. Maybe that's because the film had more to deal with, so people found so much to pick on that they could actually formulate some semblance of a case.

Personally, the impression I got out of the film was that it was made by someone who cares.

[Agburanar]

I disagree.

I will agree that many 'classic' films are simplified for non-knowledgeable audiences. But if you are a member of the knowledgeable audience then you begin to get frustrated with bits that are 'wrong', out of character, pointless and generally too simple.

This was a film I may have enjoyed with no previous knowledge of the book, but being an avid fan I was disappointed to see so much that had been ignored or altered for no apparent reason.

[olsonm]

Nice post IP. :cool:

[Black Breathalizer]

Agburanar said: "This was a film I may have enjoyed with no previous knowledge of the book, but being an avid fan I was disappointed to see so much that had been ignored or altered for no apparent reason."

No apparent reason?!?!?!? Get out of your Tolkien Ivory Tower and get real.

Jackson gave us a THREE HOUR theatrical release movie and will be adding another 30 MINUTES in the extended version DVD. Contractually, Jackson was obliged to give New Line a two hour movie. He was able to convince the NL brass to release a three hour movie only after they screened it.

I have no doubt that the Extended Version will be the definitive version for Tolkien fans. A lot of the little things we had hoped to see in the theatrical release will be in this one.

[markedel]

I personally disagree with how PJ interperts some of Tolkien. But it's his interpertation and he did it well. The fact that it isn't the book doesn't make it a bad movie, the opposite in fact.

[Nurvingiel]

PJ did a great job of the movie. This is because he made a movie eveyone could enjoy, while remaining as true as possible to the book.

The Lord of the Rings movie is for people who only read the Hobbit in elementary school and people who speak Elvish. No matter what your level of involment (or fan-ness) you can enjoy the movie. This is as it should be. I wouldn't want LOTR to be only for snobs. (I'm not saying that purists are snobs, only that non-purists should be able to watch it too.)

A book and a movie are incredibly different forms of media. There are things you can do in a book that are impossible in a movie and vice versa. I think this has been pointed out before, but it's only too true.

I would have been prepared to watch a six-hour long Fellowship of the Ring if it had meant the inclusion of the Old Forest part and other details. However, I'm a huge purist-fanatic and not everyone has this kind of stanima for Lord of the Rings. Most people in this forum are probably pretty hard-core too.

I missed Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, and Bilbo and Aragorn's friendship, but we can't have everything. In the big picture, these details aren't super important anyway. I'm happy because the movie rocked!

[BeardofPants]

I understand his reasoning for making things more clear to the less than well read fan, I really do. BUT. The expansion of the Arwen role so that SHE saved Frodo, and was wandering around a rather dangerous countryside.... well, it seems a bit stretching it. And if he's put in Lurtz, and isn't putting in some of the major ork characters and factions, well, it won't be pretty if I have to go down to Wellington..... ;)

[Agburanar]

By changes for no apparent reason I meant useless bits of rubbish like the collapsing stairs in Moria, what did that serve? It's also details like Pippin's accidentally knocking the skeleton into the well. In the book the fact that he INTENTIONALLY throws a stone in demonstrates an important quality in his character missing in the film.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Arwen is 5, 5 and 6 (I think) generations removed from Finwe, Olwe and Elwe respectively. She is a recent decendent of a Maia. I doubt there are many places in Middle-Earth, much less the outskirts of her homeland, where she would be in much danger. :)

I won't have minded one bit if she arrived and gave Frodo her horse, or even if she was with Frodo when he says his line ("by Elbereth and this chick's great-great-grandma....") her lame line makes me cringe though (along with Gimli's dwarf-tossing line).

[crickhollow]

If only you understood the reason for the snobbishness: it has to do with the sharing of "a deep and abiding knowledge of literary masterworks of extreme detail and delightful creativity", to quote bropous. Watching the movie for the first time was almost like putting up a drawing from art class that you were really proud of, and then coming by later to find that your annoying little brother has drawn mustaches and devil horns on all the people. I'm sorry, was that too harsh? I'm late for class, will edit later!

[later this afternoon...] but I shouldn't say that PJ has marred the work completely. Gandalf was the same Ganalf I met on my way to the Lonely Mountain when I was 13, and the same again when I crossed paths with the Fellowship for the first time five years ago. The scene at the Fords, and in Lorien are the only two that really jolt me.

Sween, I think, has proven that Tolkien can be for everyone. It's a shame that so many people shrug it off by saying that they're not the literary types.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Foul_Dwimmerlaik
She is a recent decendent of a Maia. I doubt there are many places in Middle-Earth, much less the outskirts of her homeland, where she would be in much danger. :)

So? The misty mountains were still swarming with orcs. Maia or not, she's still capable of being kidnapped. Besides, Elrond was relatively protective of her: regardless of any watered down maiar powers, I doubt he would have let her run around the countryside like that. Do you realise how far weathertop is from Rivendell? Hardly a bunny hop away.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Do you realise how far weathertop is from Rivendell? Hardly a bunny hop away. Arwen didn't meet them at Weathertop, she met them at the Troll Shaws near where Glorfindel met them in the book. In the book Elrond asked Arwen to stay at Imladris and she chose to obey her father's wishes. Knowing what had happened to her mother; she probably did this to put her father's mind at ease but there is no evidence that Arwen had to do what her father asked of her (see: her betrothal to Aragorn).

[BeardofPants]

Olsonm:
Arwen didn't meet them at Weathertop, she met them at the Troll Shaws near where Glorfindel met them in the book.

Yes, I know this.

In the movie it is not really made clear, but I stand corrected if wrong.

Regarding the Arwen wandering, well, whether Elrond put his foot down, or whether Arwen chose not to is immaterial, as either way lands with her NOT wandering around the countryside. The situation with Celebrian should have been enough of a deterrant....

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Regarding the Arwen wandering, well, whether Elrond put his foot down, or whether Arwen chose not to is immaterial, as either way lands with her NOT wandering around the countryside. The situation with Celebrian should have been enough of a deterrant.... My point was that Elrond wasn't preventing her from going out. It's obvious why they chose to introduce Arwen in the way they did: convenience. Putting Arwen out in the field isn't outside her character and is a very small change to what she did in the book given the benefit of introducing her in a 'memorable' scene adapted straight from the book. They simultaneously deleted an interesting but unnecessary character (Glorfindel) and showed [rather than told] the audience that Arwen was important; killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. It certainly wasn't the correct choice but it was a legitimate one.

[jerseydevil]

Jackson made an action movie - pure and simple. Gandalf is constantly acting the fool, he walks with Saruman with his tail between his legs, Elrond constantly berates him. Where is the wise wizard in Jackson's movie? Gandlaf pushes in on the doors of Moria when he knows they only open outward, he constantly pumps his head in Bilbo's house - even though he's been there thousands of times.
Pippin and Merry are just clowns. The Ringwraiths cut off a hobbit's head and are more action oriented than being fearful. The Moria scene - although one of my favorite - is a long draw out action scene. You even know as soon as they enter that the dwarves have all been killed. Aragorn's character in the movie is completely different. He's now running and hiding from his heritage, instead of biding his time. I don't even have to say how Jackson completely destroyed the Flight to the Ford scene and gave us that crap that I now cringe at everytime I watch it.

I've said a lot of this before and I'll continue to say them. For Jackson constantly saying he was staying faithful to the books - there is very little left other than the main plot (destruction of the Ring), character's names and the scenery.

The movie characters are all two dimensional - we'll have to see if Jackson redeems himself in the next two movies.

Too much of the book was changed that didn't need to be. And yes, I can accept changes to some books. But this was a movie that was constantly being advertised by a so called "true fan" that it was staying faithful to Tolkien. Based on seeing the movie - I think he did a great job making an action movie, overall the movie is only average and a poor job of bringing Tolkien's story to the screne.

[markedel]

I agree about aragorn and the action. The action may have been necessary for the film-it has to make $. Why ruin aragorn though is beyond me.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by markedel
Why ruin aragorn though is beyond me. Aragorn wasn't ruined: his history was change to make the story of the Ring simpler. The character was very similar, the only real difference being his perfectly understandable reaction to a very different past than the one he had in the book.

Again, this is not to say that PJ had to make this choice but it was a legitimate decision to limit and simplify the backstory.

[Black Breathalizer]

Some of the Tolkien "purist" film critics posting here are highly critical of Peter Jackson's interpretation. They have every right to voice their displeasure with the changes and omissions he made in order to translate Tolkien's work to film. And others have every right to disagree.

But when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.
For example?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

Really? Well I'm sure that it is entirely in Arwen's character to go running around waving swords about. Silly me, how could I have missed that? Excuse me while I'll return to my ivory tower and continue to be an intolerant purist. (note the sarcasm)

[markedel]

I just disagree with Aragorn being prsented as a character who is afraid of facing his destiny, afraid of the 'weakness of isildur,' afraid of kingship and all that entails, when he does none of those things in the books. The problem is that such a character is a hard sell to general audiences, someone so self-confident is much harder to attach to. That doesn't mean that Aragorn never doubts about anything, but he does not doubt about facing his destiny.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

First of all, Arwen doesn't fight anybody. She rides a horse, outsmarts her enemy, and uses magic (or telepathically calls for her father's help), certainly things within her character's strengths, considering that her relatives have done things like sing Morgoth to sleep, throw open Sauron's dungeons in Dol Guldor and sail to Valinor in a boat to pray the Valar for pity.

Second, is this really worth getting upset about? Just ignore the movie, or make your own movie, or recognize that a movie is different from a book and posting topics with terms like "ignorant fans" smacks of snobbish elitism. Fans of the movie are not ignorant, they are just fans of a different work of art.

My favorite book is "All The King's Men" by Robert Penn Warren. The movie is different from the book, in some very important ways, but it was still a good movie. It just lacked the depth of characterization that the book has, which isn't surprising because it's a movie and has time constraints. No big deal for that movie or virtually every other movie based on a book. You have to take shortcuts in movies...introducing Arwen at the expense of Glorfindel is an example.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Really? Well I'm sure that it is entirely in Arwen's character to go running around waving swords about. Silly me, how could I have missed that? Excuse me while I'll return to my ivory tower and continue to be an intolerant purist. (note the sarcasm)

Lol! :D


My main bone of contention regarding the expansion of Arwen's role is that it is simply doesn't make sense. I would have thought that on some level, that either Elrond, or Arwen herself, would be paranoid that the same thing would happen to her, that happened to her mother. Well, maybe not paranoia: but out of respect for her mothers memory, that she wouldn't go riding around the countryside.


BB: It's not such a good idea to go around flaming the forum members like that. Having said that, I'll just jump back into my ivory tower. :rolleyes:

[olsonm]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
My main bone of contention regarding the expansion of Arwen's role is that it is simply doesn't make sense. I would have thought that on some level, that either Elrond, or Arwen herself, would be paranoid that the same thing would happen to her, that happened to her mother. Well, maybe not paranoia: but out of respect for her mothers memory, that she wouldn't go riding around the countryside. Weren't no mother in the movie. 0;-)

[BeardofPants]

Well that just shot my argument out of the water. :rolleyes:

[olsonm]

Actually, Celebrian was seemingly created by Tolkien so he could explain away Arwen's small role in the story. If you remove Celebrian then Arwen's role in the movie was a very believable composite of her and Glorfi (dialouge notwithstanding :D).

[BeardofPants]

[dry voice]Well that's not surprising. Many characters get created in a fictional treatise.[/dry voice] :rolleyes: :p


Ook. One more post to 500. You can do it. Rah rah, and all that.

[markedel]

Back to the original topic of this forum:

What do you think about fans of lord of the rings who profess they're fans of lord of the rings and don't read the book. How about fans who like the movies, start reading the book and pull off "sacrilege" :p like skipping the scouring of the shire?

This being the topic and all

[Black Breathalizer]

There are two issues here: One is about the changes that a writer needs to make to make a great book into a great screenplay.

The other issue is characterization. I would argue that there is nothing about the movie characterizations that is out of line with the way Tolkien imagined them. If anything, Jackson has simply expanded on aspects of the characters that were mentioned in the books but never really directly addressed.

[BeardofPants]

Well, movie characterisations are always harder to pull off than those of the written word, IMO. The fact that PJ managed to pull off a more developed Boromir is a credit to him. However, I still feel that most of the characterisation is underdeveloped, due to the fact that the emphasis seems to be on action, with the story centering on the Ring (a necessity, I guess.)

Still, this could all change with the event of TT and ROTK.... I'm not holding my breath though.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Just leave those fans alone. No reason to get either uppity or upset about it...it begins to sound rather like the person who says "oh yeah, well I'VE been a fan of [insert popular band here] since before they hit it big." All it does is make people roll their eyes.

There is no problem with somebody being a fan of the movie and not the book. You may feel that they are not getting the full Tolkien experience, but that's their problem, not yours.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But when it comes to the characters and the way they are portrayed, it's becoming increasingly clear here that Jackson understands Tolkien FAR BETTER than this Boards so-called purists do.

Has Jackon read the Letters of JRR Tolkien, Unfinished tales, A Tolkien biography, The Silmarillion and all 12 History of Middle Earth books? Has he read the LOTR and the Hobbit many, many times? Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think from reading all them (and some people here have), you would have a good understanding of Tolkien.

[Agburanar]

Crickhollow, I think you summed that up perfectly (although 'snobbish' was a bit strong, I'd have preferred 'disappointed' or 'upset' but maybe you're right...)

For the other subject, Peter Jackson read LoTR once before he decided to make the film, and a long time ago. He then read it once more before writing the script. Hardly an expert I think...

[Black Breathalizer]

Agburanar, if you read about the making of the movies, you'll discover that the screenwriters read the books countless times before and during the production. Phillipa said in an interview that there wasn't a single day during a three year period that she wasn't reading the books. And Ian McKellan has mentioned numerous times that the book was used often to settle disputes about what the dialogue should be.

[Cirdan]

I don't care whether people read the book or not. If they just want to watch and pay the ticket so the final two installments are well funded, then great. If one comes to this forum to discuss only the movie and you run into people who prefer the book one shouldn't be suprised since the forum was created for the "book folks." I suspect that it isn't interesting to some whether or not Balrogs have wings or where Tom Bombadil comes from but I find it amusing myself.

[Black Breathalizer]

If a lover of the books comes to this forum to criticize the movie and you run into people who disagree, one shouldn't be surprised since this place is called "Lord of the Rings Movies."

[Cirdan]

How's surprised? We've been coming in droves since Dec 19, 2001.:D

[theworkhorse]

When I first read this thread, I was in total agreement with the original message. I did believe that one bad side effect of the film would be 'second rate Tolkien fans.' My brother is one such fan: his rediculous ideas, based on the movie and a quick reading of the books soon after, have annoyed me to no end. However, in a moment of self-analysis, I realized I myself am merely a second-rate Tolkien fan. I grew up watching the original cartoons by Rankin-Bass, and Bakshi, (spelling?). When I was eight, I saw an old copy of the Hobbit, and recognizing the title, began to read. Even though the book was immensely different, I had a rough idea of where the plot was going, and so I kept reading. I made my way through all of the books in the next year. I imagine the only reason I picked up that book was because I knew the title from the cartoon. So, I think I will be a little easier on these second-rate fans in the future. Even my idiot-boy brother.

theworkhorse

[Snowdog]

I've been mildy concerned about this for some tmie now. After the movies come out, there is obviously going to be an explosion of people who are into LOTR. What I'm saying is, before the movie, you could meet someone at a party and talk about LOTR and more or less be on the same page.
But after the movie, you could meet someone who says they love LOTR and has never even heard of Tom Bombadil?
I'm just saying I enjoy having deep and intelligent conversations about the LOTR. There's going to be alot of LOTR posers after the movie comes out.
Now that two of three movies are out and Lord of the Rings has become a part of pop culture, it is kind of fun to mention an obscure bit of Tolkien lore to other Lord of the Rings fans to see if they are bookwise. The whole concept of the two kingdoms is usually foriegn to movie fans.

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Snowdog
Now that two of three movies are out and Lord of the Rings has become a part of pop culture, it is kind of fun to mention an obscure bit of Tolkien lore to other Lord of the Rings fans to see if they are bookwise. The whole concept of the two kingdoms is usually foriegn to movie fans.

lol, i did that to my friend when he asked me what my favorite part of LotR was. I said the old forest because he did not say from the movies ad he got all confused. He was like, 'ummmm...., yah, that part was cool.' I had to tell him it is from the book.:)

[gollum9630]

also, another one of my friends said the movies sucked because the ring wasnt destroyed. He had no idea there were two more movies, and when i told him he said that Tolkein was stupid for making the story so long. I called him a f*****g moron for saying that, and that he should try reading fo once

[Brokehorn4000]

Thank goodness you set him straight! He probably only said that about Tolkien because he didn't want to look stupid for not knowing about the other two movies. Some people will say stuff just to avoid admitting they made a mistake. Either that or that dude is one lazy fool who doesn't know the first thing about excellent literature.
Sorry if I came off harshly, but I'm angry that anyone would say that Tolkien was stupid! I mean, would he say the same thing about Harry Potter? There are not 3, but 7 books in the series, and each one is turning out longer than the preceding one.
GRRR... It makes me mad...:mad:

[Snowdog]

It does warm my heart to see some who only just saw the Fellowship DVD and then saw Two Towers in a theatre want to read the books and learn the true world of Tolkien. Like the youngster Aragorn talks with at Helms Deep...

"They say there is no hope..."
'There is always hope!'

[Black Breathalizer]

Even if some people never read the books, at least Jackson has exposed Tolkien's story to a larger audience.

[durin's bane]

I agree. Jackson is inspiring people to read Tolkien, or for me, when FotR came out, inspired me to read the books faster. :p I was reading FotR when the movies came out, so I don't know whether I'm book-before-movies or movies-before-book.

I was talking to this one little kid who was 8, and he said he was the biggest LotR fan ever. I asked him if he had read the books and he said, "I've only seen the movies." I bet I cracked at least two ribs trying to contain my laughter. :p But really, it gets quite annoying when I want to have a long conversation on the books, but the person I'm talking to only knows what the movies are like and they act as if they're Lord of the Rings professionals!

Another thing that bothers me is that my cousin has only seen the movies (he's going to read his dad's copy of LotR though; about time, too) and he completely ignores how great a character Samwise is and just goes for the best fighter. So, natuarally, he's always running around the house with this blanket on saying, "I'm Aragorn!" or "I'm Gandalf!". It's really nothing, but it just annoys me.

[Brokehorn4000]

Yeah, I wish the really honest characters would get as much fame as the fighting characters. I mean, I can't speak for everyone of course, but Sam, Frodo, Merry and Pippin are as equally cool as the fighters. Well, I guess the people who have not read the books have to wait to see the hobbits at their best! The sneek peek of the Return of the King on the Two Towers DVD was sooooooooooo cool!!!!!!! I'm definitely excited for this one!

By the way, I like you avatar, durin's bane. :D

[Insidious Rex]

Im one of those people who had read the books. THEN saw the movies. THEN reread the books and more Tolkien books (Sil, etc.) BECAUSE i enjoyed the movies so. In many ways I feel sorry for people on either extreme. Either so clueless about Tolkien and unwilling to read anything longer then a comic strip that they continually make themselves look like fools by spouting on about "Tolkien lore" based only on the two movies they have seen OR so fundamentally close minded about "The Word of Tolkien" and so biased against the movies as a rule that they refuse to appreciate a genuinly different art form based on Tolkiens works and they give the movies no chance from the start. Im so glad i came to the movies exactly at the point where I was.

[Snowdog]

... OR so fundamentally close minded about "The Word of Tolkien" and so biased against the movies as a rule that they refuse to appreciate a genuinly different art form based on Tolkiens works ... Emphasis on based on Tolkiens works The movie is PJ's work based on Tolkien's works. It is not Tolkien's works. The books are Tolkien's works. I accept the movies for what they are, which are an adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings story as told by Peter Jackson. They are very good movies in my opinion, but they are not Tolkien's works, and never will be.

[Durin1]

I agree with the majority opinions on this discussion.

When I was watching the FoTR and TTT with people who had not even read the book, it was difficult to explain to them of things in the background and even things that had been omitted from the movies!

Examples:

1. Omissions of Gil-Galad, Tom Bombadil and Glorfindal (to name but a few)
2. The character of Arwen having more importance than was warranted.
3. The sense of time in the book compared with the movies
4. Elves coming to Helms Deep when they actually hadn't (in the book.

Etc, etc.

Even though I consider myself to be a die-hard ME fan, I can understand the cinematic concessions that would be needed to put a book on the scale of LoTR onto the big screen. However, that does not excuse some of the blatant disregard for important facts that Peter Jackson rearraged or left out. This may not bother virgin LoTR fans, but thought should have gone into not alienating the rest of us.

[scurtis]

One thing that the movies have done though is that because it has become part of popular culture is that it is viewed as just that. My sister wanted to write about LoTR for her free response for her AP history exam and her teacher told her not to because the AP reviewers don't like students writing about anything that has become popular.

[Black Breathalizer]

Durin1's comments in bold.

Omissions of Gil-Galad, Tom Bombadil and Glorfindal (to name but a few)

These people have little to do with the main plot of the story. It is very reasonable to expect that they would not be included.

The character of Arwen having more importance than was warranted.

More importance than was warrented? I think she has been given the importance she deserves. She is going to sacrifice her immortality to be with the man she loves and become Queen of Gondor. I think the movie audience has a right to know who this elf maiden is.

The sense of time in the book compared with the movies

Time passes more quickly in any movie, be it Gone with the Wind or Lord of the Rings.

Elves coming to Helms Deep when they actually hadn't (in the book.

I fail to see how this alteration changed the basic theme of Helm's Deep. It was a necessary cinematic concession that worked.

Even though I consider myself to be a die-hard ME fan, I can understand the cinematic concessions that would be needed to put a book on the scale of LoTR onto the big screen. However, that does not excuse some of the blatant disregard for important facts that Peter Jackson rearraged or left out.

Your comments make it quite clear you don't understand that cinematic concessions had to be made to bring LOTR to the big screen.

[Durin1]

In reply to Black Breathalizer...

You seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. I had said that the changes in the movies made it difficult to explain other people who may want to get into Tolkien about the bigger picture of LoTR. I still stand by that. As for your other comments...

1. I did not say that peripheral characters should be included in the movies. I was taking examples of the obvious omissions from the book. However, in terms of Gil-Galad I totally disagree. It would have been nice for a mention of the High King of the Elves at the beginning of the book - nothing more. For a Last Alliance it seems strange that Elrond seemingly leads the Elvish forces when he is not even a King.

2. Arwen. I too love the movies but that still would not make me try and justify the role of Arwen, especially at the Flight to the Ford. And I DO understand that it is important to expand her character in line with the love story between her and Aragorn. Peter Jackson's motive was also that there is a distinct lack of female characters in the books. He wanted his women to play a bigger part in the events.

3. Elves in Helms Deep. Necessary? Who says? The whole idea was ludicrous but still did not make me dislike the movie. But this "concession" has no real basis and could have been left out.

4. Sense of time. We are not talking about such a great and important aspect of the film, but it would have been nice to get a scale of the expanse of ME and that fact that it would have taken days to get anywhere (Gandalf's trip to Gondor at the beginning of FoTR being a prime example). The rule that timescale is quicker in any movie is not the point. You can never compare movies such as LoTR with other smaller scale works.

For YOUR information Black Breathalizer, it seems obvious to me that YOU don't understand that not every single "cinematic concession" has to be justified.

I am perfectly well aware that concessions would be made, my arguement is that not all those concessions had to be made.

[Black Breathalizer]

Durin1: You seem to have missed the whole point of what I was trying to get across. I had said that the changes in the movies made it difficult to explain other people who may want to get into Tolkien about the bigger picture of LoTR. I still stand by that.

BB: The movies were never designed to "tell the bigger picture" nor should they have been. The moment a screenwriter begins adding details (names, people, places, etc.) that have nothing to do with the central plot, all he does is confuse the audience unnecessarily.

There are many things "that would have been nice." Unfortunately, the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. You will get more of those pieces of cake in the Extended DVDs.

[Durin1]

In other words BB, you think that it is alright to "dumb" down the movies as much as they like?

3 hours is ample time to show 30 second scenes rather than wasting a whole hour on needless and pointless things (wargs, refugees etc).

So your "nice" sarcasm does not have to be confined to the EE DVDs.

[Black Breathalizer]

Dumb down = (verb) A term frequently used by naive Tolkien purists who have no clue whatsoever how screenplays are written or movies are made.

Durin1, you clearly disagree with Jackson's choices. But the success of the films would seem to indicate that PJ knew a tad bit more about how to bring LOTR to the big screen than you.

[Durin1]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Dumb down = (verb) A term frequently used by naive Tolkien purists who have no clue whatsoever how screenplays are written or movies are made.

Durin1, you clearly disagree with Jackson's choices. But the success of the films would seem to indicate that PJ knew a tad bit more about how to bring LOTR to the big screen than you.

Nobody's arguing about the success of the movies (it would have taken a really awful film for it not to have done well in the box office), and nobody is criticising PJ for bringing such a complicated piece of work onto the big screen.

Rather, it is your obvious disdain for us "purists". Aside from the banter, it seems that you cannot appreciate that people will have differing opinions about what would constitute a good screenplay and a decent movie. Instead of being patronising, wouldn't it be a better use of your energy if you devoted it to actually finding something positive to say? rather than being so dismissive when people actually find faults in PJ's adaptation.

[Melko Belcha]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
There are many things "that would have been nice." Unfortunately, the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. You will get more of those pieces of cake in the Extended DVDs.

Ok, so it was absolutely necessary to the movie plot that the Second Age ended in 3434 and not in 3441? It was absolutley necessary to the movie plot that Gandalf brought the Rohirrim to the Battle of the Hornburg down from the East? I guess the audience watching the movie would never believe that they came from the West. It was absolutley necessary to the movie plot that only Uruks fought at Helm's Deep instead of like in the book where it was Uruks, Orcs, Dunlendings, and Orc-men? And I guess that since it is a fantasy movie the audience would never had believed that Theoden is influenced by the words of a crooked counciler, but had to be possessed by Saruman and had to take an exorcism to free him. There are so many changes that had to be done because God knows nobody really appreciates the original.

[Black Breathalizer]

Melko Belcha: Ok, so it was absolutely necessary to the movie plot that the Second Age ended in 3434 and not in 3441?

BB: OMIGOD!!! How on Earth did I miss that!?!?!?! These films have suddenly lost all of their appeal to me now. I can't believe what dolts Jackson and his crew were for making such a horrendous oversight!!!

Melko Belcha: Was it absolutely necessary to the movie plot that Gandalf brought the Rohirrim to the Battle of the Hornburg down from the East? I guess the audience watching the movie would never believe that they came from the West.

BB: Movie Adaptation Rule Number One: Make an entertaining movie. I guess Peter Jackson thought the drama of having Gandalf and the Rohirrim charge down the mountain from the east as the sun appears over the horizon was worth a little literary license. To me this is a perfect example of the dangers of purist thinking. If Jackson had taken the Melko Belcha approach, we movie fans would have lost one of the most brilliant ten seconds of cinematography in the history of film.

Melko Belcha: Was it absolutely necessary to the movie plot that only Uruks fought at Helm's Deep instead of like in the book where it was Uruks, Orcs, Dunlendings, and Orc-men?

BB:The focus of the second film was that Saruman's army was bred with a single purpose, to destroy the world of men.

Melko Belcha: And I guess that since it is a fantasy movie the audience would never had believed that Theoden is influenced by the words of a crooked counciler, but had to be possessed by Saruman and had to take an exorcism to free him.

BB: OKay, do it the Melko Belcha way. How are you going to explain Theoden's change of heart to the audience in the same amount of time as Jackson was able to do? An exorcism was effective on both a visual and dramatic level AND it explained the dramatic change in Theoden for the audience without unnecessary exposition. Under your scenario, I might complain that the change in Theoden was hokey because Gandalf talks to the old coot for a bit and - bango - he's suddenly his old self again. I would argue this would have felt much less realistic to the audience than the exorcism you complain about did.

Melko Belcha: There are so many changes that had to be done because God knows nobody really appreciates the original.

BB: Actually, the changes were made so that the audience could better appreciate the original. I would suggest you train your high powered focus on the big picture instead of Middle Earth dates and directions. If you do, you might just find something very special in these films you hadn't noticed before.

[Wayfarer]

Black Breathalizer, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up, if you're going to refuse to be reasonable.

You have repeatedly made ridiculous claims, and then been insulting and derogatory to anyone who disagrees with you, and you divert the issue when problems with your arguments are pointed out.

This is not your high school debate class. You don't get points for trashing everybody else. So get over yourself.


Case in point: You say
...filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases.Melko asks
so it was absolutely necessary to the movie plot that the Second Age ended in 3434 and not in 3441? And you immediately respond with mockery, trying to avoid giving a straight answer.OMIGOD!!! How on Earth did I miss that!?!?!?! These films have suddenly lost all of their appeal to me now. I can't believe what dolts Jackson and his crew were for making such a horrendous oversight!!! It's a simple question! Was it nescessary to the film that this date be changed? If you can come up with any other answer than "No, it wasn't", then you're pretty obviously just being belligerent. Hardly anyone would have noticed this fact, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. It was an unnescessary change, and one that no excuse at all could possibly justify. You only do yourself a disservice by refusing to admit as obvious a fact as this.

For the record, you're right. That change doesn't ruin the movie. And even as a rabid, foaming at the mouth book purist I can't really bring myself to make a big deal of it. However...

The fact that Jackson and Co. would change this for no other reason that they can seems to me to be an indicator of exactly how little respect they hold for the original author. Who knows, it may have been a genuine mistake, but in that case it still shows how carelessly the story was handled.

Now, back to your earlier statement: the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. Let's look at the movies together and seriously consider this. With 'Only' three hours per film, there's not enough time to add 'nice' things, hmm? Okay, I'll buy that a movie should focus on what's nescessary to move the plot forwards. That's reasonable, after all.

Now, examine what made it into the movie. Well, to be honest, most of the bits that were cut are more or less understandable. They're mostly peripheral to the main plot, although there were a few that would have been great to have in.

However, the line of reasoning that 'they couldn't leave everything in' fairly falls apart in light of the great amount of footage that was added which had no basis in the text and did nothing to move the plot forwards.

Great examples of this would be the scene in moria where roughly a million goblins just stand there without attacking and then run away, or the ridiculous, interminable 'collapsing stairs' scene shortly after. The horrible, pointless 'Aragorn's death' sequence.

And (Be honest with me, please), the hour or so of exaggerated fight sequences? Even you, would be hard pressed to claim that's nescessary to move the plot forwards.

Jackson is a hack, who had never turned out a successful movie before he produced LOTR. To claim that anyone who dissagrees with his choices 'doesn't get filmmaking' is a child's tactic, and not worthy of you, BB. The fact that he can successfully follow the standard action-movie formula does nothing to show he's any good. "Titanic" grossed more than either of jackson's LOTR films so far, and almost as much as them both together. Yet it was an eminently forgettable film, and it's since faded from the public consciousness. Only time will tell, but I predict the same will happen to Peter Jackson's films.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Black Breathalizer, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up, if you're going to refuse to be reasonable.I am incredibly embarrassed that my behavior has sadly fallen short in your Elf eyes, Wayfarer. In the future, I will try harder to follow the incredibly high Statesmanlike standards of message board conduct that you always model here for the rest of us.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
The fact that Jackson and Co. would change this (a date) for no other reason that they can seems to me to be an indicator of exactly how little respect they hold for the original author. Who knows, it may have been a genuine mistake, but in that case it still shows how carelessly the story was handled.I'm bettin' a mistake is a pretty good guess. I'm having a hard time picturing this scene:
Fran Walsh: And the second age ends in 3441...
Phillipa Boyens: No no no, Fran...let's use 3434 instead...it works so much better!
Fran Walsh: You are SO right. That's brilliant! Why didn't I think of that!??!!?

I refuse to ignore the attention to detail shown by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Alan Lee, John Howe, Richard Taylor, the actors, Weta, and everyone else involved because of a mistake made by a junior copy editor.

Originally posted by Wayfarer
...the line of reasoning that 'they couldn't leave everything in' fairly falls apart in light of the great amount of footage that was added which had no basis in the text and did nothing to move the plot forwards. Great examples of this would be the scene in moria where roughly a million goblins just stand there without attacking and then run away.Having the Fellowship completely surrounded by goblins was a very dramatic and highly visual moment in the film. They didn't attack because they were frightened off by the sound of the approaching Balrog. That fact ADDED to the drama of the moment, in my humble opinion. The result is that the audience members unfamiliar with the story are sitting on the edge of their seats going, "omigod, what's so nasty that this legion of ugly-looking goblins are even scared off?!?!?!?"

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Jackson is a hack, who had never turned out a successful movie before he produced LOTR. To claim that anyone who dissagrees with his choices 'doesn't get filmmaking' is a child's tactic, and not worthy of you, BB. Once again, I am really, really sorry. But please understand that not everyone can post with the same level of thoughtfulness, class, and maturity that you always show. Unlike you, there are times when I can't resist resorting to cheap shots and name-calling. But I promise to try harder in the future. While we may not always agree, I really look up to you, Mister Wayfarer. You are my role-model!

Originally posted by Wayfarer
"Titanic" grossed more than either of jackson's LOTR films so far, and almost as much as them both together. Yet it was an eminently forgettable film, and it's since faded from the public consciousness. Only time will tell, but I predict the same will happen to Peter Jackson's films.Gulp, it's hard to argue with your ironclad logic on this one. I suppose you're right--these films probably won't have anywhere close to the shelf life the Star Wars films have had. You win. :)

[Wayfarer]

I am incredibly embarrassed that my behavior has sadly fallen short in your Elf eyes, Wayfarer. In the future, I will try harder to follow the incredibly high Statesmanlike standards of message board conduct that you always model here for the rest of us. Now that's more like it. Here, have an autographed Wayfarer Wizard Hat. :D

Having the Fellowship completely surrounded by goblins was a very dramatic and highly visual moment in the film. They didn't attack because they were frightened off by the sound of the approaching Balrog. That fact ADDED to the drama of the moment, in my humble opinion. The result is that the audience members unfamiliar with the story are sitting on the edge of their seats going, "omigod, what's so nasty that this legion of ugly-looking goblins are even scared off?!?!?!?"
I disagree, and I think you and I must have radically different viewpoints on what exactly drama is. I see that scene as corny and overdone. LoTR is not a comedy, and the drama in that scene should have been, and was supposed to be, serious, nevertheless, I found it comedic, almost farcical (You don't have massively overwhelming numbers and charge an enemy from all directions, only to stop five feet from them). Drama is supposed to invoke an emotional response, that scene was to over-the-top to be believable, and had me snorting 'yeah, right'.

I thought that particular scene, and a number of others, were cheesy action, not drama (That's right. It was corny and cheesy!). One of the most dramatic scenes in the film, for me, was the first shot of helm's deep. The visuals and soundtrack of that scene were thrilling, imho.

In regards to what people unfamiliar with the story thought, I'll have to ask a few everymen what went throught their heads.


Once again, I am really, really sorry. But please understand that not everyone can post with the same level of thoughtfulness, class, and maturity that you always show. Unlike you, there are times when I can't resist resorting to cheap shots and name-calling. But I promise to try harder in the future. While we may not always agree, I really look up to you, Mister Wayfarer. You are my role-model! Here. Have an autographed WayFarer Wizard Hat. :D *Pat Pat*

Gulp, it's hard to argue with your ironclad logic on this one. I suppose you're right--these films probably won't have anywhere close to the shelf life the Star Wars films have had. You win. Star Trek? No, that's a series, it doesn't count. :p

I well understand your point, and I hope you understand mine. I merely wanted to direct your attention to the fact that having a high gross in the box office doesn't nescessarily make a good movie.

[Melko Belcha]

BB: OMIGOD!!! How on Earth did I miss that!?!?!?! These films have suddenly lost all of their appeal to me now. I can't believe what dolts Jackson and his crew were for making such a horrendous oversight!!!

It is just another example of things that did not have to be changed but were for no other reason then to change it. The people who have never read the book it will not make any difference, so why change something for no reason when the book fans will notice it in a second? I was not crucial to the plot so why was it changed?

BB: Movie Adaptation Rule Number One: Make an entertaining movie. I guess Peter Jackson thought the drama of having Gandalf and the Rohirrim charge down the mountain from the east as the sun appears over the horizon was worth a little literary license. To me this is a perfect example of the dangers of purist thinking. If Jackson had taken the Melko Belcha approach, we movie fans would have lost one of the most brilliant ten seconds of cinematography in the history of film.

But it changes so much about the story. Gandalf is an ambassador of the West, there is some much of the story that deals with the good from the West and evil from the East. The scene from the book holds a much more powerful meaning then sun light in the eyes. And some of the best cinematography in the history of film? Are you series? The shot of Gandalf on top of the ridge and the horsemen riding up was so chessey I was laughing. It falls in with some of the most corny stuff I have even seen in a fantasy movie.

BB:The focus of the second film was that Saruman's army was bred with a single purpose, to destroy the world of men.

You mean the Orc-men bred by Saruman, or do you mean the stupid change of having the Uruk-hai be the Orc-men. Another change that I can't stand, but I guess that PJ never bothered to read the Appendix then he might have realized that the Uruks came from Mordor 300 years before Saruman even moved to Orthanc. I guess he never read the story close enuff to realixe that the Uruk-hai are the large soilder-orcs of the late Third Age and the Orc-men (Half-orcs) are the ruffians who took over The Shire. And yes I have quotes to prove it.

BB: OKay, do it the Melko Belcha way. How are you going to explain Theoden's change of heart to the audience in the same amount of time as Jackson was able to do? An exorcism was effective on both a visual and dramatic level AND it explained the dramatic change in Theoden for the audience without unnecessary exposition. Under your scenario, I might complain that the change in Theoden was hokey because Gandalf talks to the old coot for a bit and - bango - he's suddenly his old self again. I would argue this would have felt much less realistic to the audience than the exorcism you complain about did.

I found the whole exorcism as chessey and an embarassment to Tolkien's work. That was the one scene that I almost walked out of theater for. There are just to many corny and chessey moments in TTT that I can't even count, PJ has turned LotR into a high budget D&D movie.

BB: Actually, the changes were made so that the audience could better appreciate the original. I would suggest you train your high powered focus on the big picture instead of Middle Earth dates and directions. If you do, you might just find something very special in these films you hadn't noticed before.

The only thing I have noticed from the films is even though PJ might have respect for the story he has no respect to the hard work of the author. The script has been treated recklessy, and there are many things that not only change the story but change the physics of Middle-earth.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
(Jackson) has no respect to the hard work of the author. The script has been treated recklessly, and there are many things that not only change the story but change the physics of Middle-earth. This statement is absurd. Peter Jackson and most everyone who worked on these films are huge Tolkien fans. If you would bother to watch any of the backstory videos on the making of the film series you would realize these movies were crafted with the upmost love and respect for the author.

You can question the decisions of PJ and Company but no one who has any inside knowledge of how the films were made can question their devotion to Tolkien and love of the books.

[Wayfarer]

Breathalizer, with all due respect, what else would they say?

Do you honestly think that, whatever PJ's view might have been, the backstory videos would have been any different? Do you honestly think that Jackson would ever admit 'No, I think tolkien's writing sucked so I don't have any qualms about changing things.'

Of course not! You should recognize the background clips for what they are- propaganda. How the filmmakers truly felt is shown by their words, not their actions.

You know what, I do think that PJ and co liked the books. You could even say that they were fans. But 'Devoted to Tolkien'? Hardly. Jackson himself indicated something to the effect that he wanted to make these films, not because of any devotion to the author, but because he thought they could be profitable.

The filmmakers, judging from their art, are all the kinds of people who picked up the LOTR, read it, and said. "Gee, that was a good book." without more than a cursory attempt to understand the intricacies of the sub-created world. Because they only had a surface understanding, they only portrayed the surface in film. That's their real failing, and that's the reason that the Jackson films have indeed resulted in ignorant fans - they were made by ignorants, for ignorants.

[Black Breathalizer]

You can find some in every crowd:

The "Flat Earth" Society
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

The "Elvis is Alive" Society
http://elvis-lives.8m.com/iselvisalive.html

The "Bigfoot Exists" Society
http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/

and now, we have...

The "Jackson is a No-talent Hack who's so-called 'Respect for Tolkien' is Sheer Propaganda" Society
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com

[Wayfarer]

And you're a member!!! :D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
BB: The movies were never designed to "tell the bigger picture" nor should they have been. The moment a screenwriter begins adding details (names, people, places, etc.) that have nothing to do with the central plot, all he does is confuse the audience unnecessarily.

There are many things "that would have been nice." Unfortunately, the filmmakers had to focus on what is absolutely necessary to move this plot forward. With three hour running times, they didn't have the luxury of adding "nice" things to the theatrical releases. You will get more of those pieces of cake in the Extended DVDs.
Making Aragorn into a wimp afraid of his heritage had no cenematic value, taking Frodo's strongest and VERY important part at the Ford was the worst change Jackson made, Gandlaf wimpering to Saruman about the Ring (Gandalf would have been strong - not walking beside Saruman saying "There's still time right? I'm sorry."). The wizards duel - complete butchering and completely not necessary to the movie or the story. The exorcism scene - over the top and unnecessary. Making Galadriel into the ultimate Ice Queen - unnecessary (not to mention the ridiculout "evil" voice overs). Dragging Frodo to Osgiliath - again - unnecessary.

of course changes have to be made to the book. But Jackson cut out most of the keep points in charatcer development and replaced them with over the top action sequences. Farmer Maggot - turned into an action scene where he chases after the hobbits instead of inviting them in for dinner. The Ringwraith - cutting off the head of a hobbit (the ringwraiths were not physically violent, they were pyschologically frightening). The stupid extension of Moria, Half way through I just wish someone would just friggin die already. It's way too long and could have been cut in half and then they could have gotten the gift giving in there. The Council of Elrond - turned into a heated argument (again - adds nothing to the story - not to mention there were like 9 people only at the council). Aragorn falling off the edge of the cliff - completely unnecessary and ridiculous - again Jackson implies that Arwen has magic powers to bring people back to life. The constant dwarf tossing jokes.

Don't go on and on about the filmakers having to stick with what was absolutely necessary to keep the plot moving along. They added so much ridiculous fluff it contradicts your argument. Jackson did far more than just make the NECESSARY changes to bring the books to the screen. But he's an action director - his past films demonstrate that. What more can you expect from him but action, cheap overacted emotional scenes, and cheap jokes.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Dumb down = (verb) A term frequently used by naive Tolkien purists who have no clue whatsoever how screenplays are written or movies are made.

Durin1, you clearly disagree with Jackson's choices. But the success of the films would seem to indicate that PJ knew a tad bit more about how to bring LOTR to the big screen than you.
i want to finally know how many films you have made since you seem to think that only YOU or the people who like the movies know anything about what it takes to make a movie. I just want you to know - I had wanted to BE a film maker and had read many books on film making (not the same thing as personal experience - but you practically are declaing yourself an expert filmmaker).

Please - supply we with a movie you have directed so I can purchase it. It'll allow me to confirm that you actually know something about movie making - at least more than us "ignorant" book fans. :rolleyes:

If you can't - then shut up already about how we don't understand what it takes to make a movie - because then you don't know anymore than what we do.

By the way - I know people who write screen plays.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
OKay, do it the Melko Belcha way. How are you going to explain Theoden's change of heart to the audience in the same amount of time as Jackson was able to do? An exorcism was effective on both a visual and dramatic level AND it explained the dramatic change in Theoden for the audience without unnecessary exposition. Under your scenario, I might complain that the change in Theoden was hokey because Gandalf talks to the old coot for a bit and - bango - he's suddenly his old self again. I would argue this would have felt much less realistic to the audience than the exorcism you complain about did.
......
Actually, the changes were made so that the audience could better appreciate the original. I would suggest you train your high powered focus on the big picture instead of Middle Earth dates and directions. If you do, you might just find something very special in these films you hadn't noticed before.
Say YOU. Now please supply me with your list of movies you have directed so we can determine if you have an epertise in film making. You seem to rant on and on about how to make movies.

All the situations you seem to mention in your posts that are impossible to bring to the screen have been brought successfully to the screen by countless other directors. You argue on and on how the ringwraiths had to be made the way they were in the movies because you can't bring the psychological terror to the screen. It's amazing all the pychological horror movies out there where not a single drop of blood is spilled. I have a supicion that your guide to movie making is George Lucas and not much beyond that.

By the way - I don't care that Glorfindel or Tom Bombadil were cut out. Neither one were necessary to the overall story. I don't care about the dates, or the location of troops - those are unnecessary to the overall story. I would have also have replaced Glorfindel with another character - but there is no excuse for taking Frodo's strength and removing the key scene of him standing up and rejecting the Nazgul and giving it to Arwen. There are many things Jackson did that were completely UNNECESSARY and turned the movie too far away from the book.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Black Breathalizer, do yourself and everyone else a favor and shut up, if you're going to refuse to be reasonable.

You have repeatedly made ridiculous claims, and then been insulting and derogatory to anyone who disagrees with you, and you divert the issue when problems with your arguments are pointed out.

This is not your high school debate class. You don't get points for trashing everybody else. So get over yourself.


Case in point: You say
Melko asks
And you immediately respond with mockery, trying to avoid giving a straight answer.It's a simple question! Was it nescessary to the film that this date be changed? If you can come up with any other answer than "No, it wasn't", then you're pretty obviously just being belligerent. Hardly anyone would have noticed this fact, it doesn't make a difference one way or the other. It was an unnescessary change, and one that no excuse at all could possibly justify. You only do yourself a disservice by refusing to admit as obvious a fact as this.

For the record, you're right. That change doesn't ruin the movie. And even as a rabid, foaming at the mouth book purist I can't really bring myself to make a big deal of it. However...

The fact that Jackson and Co. would change this for no other reason that they can seems to me to be an indicator of exactly how little respect they hold for the original author. Who knows, it may have been a genuine mistake, but in that case it still shows how carelessly the story was handled.

Now, back to your earlier statement:Let's look at the movies together and seriously consider this. With 'Only' three hours per film, there's not enough time to add 'nice' things, hmm? Okay, I'll buy that a movie should focus on what's nescessary to move the plot forwards. That's reasonable, after all.

Now, examine what made it into the movie. Well, to be honest, most of the bits that were cut are more or less understandable. They're mostly peripheral to the main plot, although there were a few that would have been great to have in.

However, the line of reasoning that 'they couldn't leave everything in' fairly falls apart in light of the great amount of footage that was added which had no basis in the text and did nothing to move the plot forwards.

Great examples of this would be the scene in moria where roughly a million goblins just stand there without attacking and then run away, or the ridiculous, interminable 'collapsing stairs' scene shortly after. The horrible, pointless 'Aragorn's death' sequence.

And (Be honest with me, please), the hour or so of exaggerated fight sequences? Even you, would be hard pressed to claim that's nescessary to move the plot forwards.

Jackson is a hack, who had never turned out a successful movie before he produced LOTR. To claim that anyone who dissagrees with his choices 'doesn't get filmmaking' is a child's tactic, and not worthy of you, BB. The fact that he can successfully follow the standard action-movie formula does nothing to show he's any good. "Titanic" grossed more than either of jackson's LOTR films so far, and almost as much as them both together. Yet it was an eminently forgettable film, and it's since faded from the public consciousness. Only time will tell, but I predict the same will happen to Peter Jackson's films.

All I can say is perfectly said and I second that!!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This statement is absurd. Peter Jackson and most everyone who worked on these films are huge Tolkien fans. If you would bother to watch any of the backstory videos on the making of the film series you would realize these movies were crafted with the upmost love and respect for the author.

Oh - you mean your one of the stupid people who actually bought Jackson's propaganda? In the full length commentary - Jackson declares that he just felt like making a fantasy movie. He gave it some thought and decided to make Lord of the Rings becuase if had a BUILT-IN following and would have ready-made fans. In past interviews Jackson stated that ALL the actors had to read the books - Elijah Wood has repeatedly said that he still hasn't read the books but would still like to.

My sister worked in Hollywood PR - it's amazing that you bought his load of lies. However, going by your ridiculous and constant defense of the films no matter what - I shouldn't be suprised you bought them hook, line and sinker. :rolleyes: As I have said and Wayfarer has said - Jackson is a hack.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Breathalizer, with all due respect, what else would they say?

Do you honestly think that, whatever PJ's view might have been, the backstory videos would have been any different? Do you honestly think that Jackson would ever admit 'No, I think tolkien's writing sucked so I don't have any qualms about changing things.'

Of course not! You should recognize the background clips for what they are- propaganda. How the filmmakers truly felt is shown by their words, not their actions.

You know what, I do think that PJ and co liked the books. You could even say that they were fans. But 'Devoted to Tolkien'? Hardly. Jackson himself indicated something to the effect that he wanted to make these films, not because of any devotion to the author, but because he thought they could be profitable.

The filmmakers, judging from their art, are all the kinds of people who picked up the LOTR, read it, and said. "Gee, that was a good book." without more than a cursory attempt to understand the intricacies of the sub-created world. Because they only had a surface understanding, they only portrayed the surface in film. That's their real failing, and that's the reason that the Jackson films have indeed resulted in ignorant fans - they were made by ignorants, for ignorants.

I guess I should read the full thread befoere posting all my replies - it would have saved a lot of typng if I just quote Wayfarer and said - "As I have said REPEATEDLY" :D

Actually BB - Jackson IS a no talent hack. That is why all his films have sucked. The Lord of the Rings in my opinion is only a C average movie. Exaclibur is a far better movie than Jackson - it has more emotion and feeling. It doesn't resort to lame jokes (although one part annoys me when Merlin hits his head), or cheesy slow motion in almost every scene. There is only one part in excalibur where they use slow motion I can remember - that is when they are galloping through the Cherry Blossoms and works very well.

The LotR movies will fall off the face of the movie radar screen within a few years of release of RotK - just like Wayfarer pointed out Titanic did. As for Star Wars - the only real classic in the Star Wars series was part IV (Star Wars). I can add possibly Empire Strikes Back - but after that they all quickly go down hill. Also - Star Wars was a classic becuase so much of the movie was new in techonological achievements in special effects and NOT in the story telling part. You can't honestly think that Phantom Menace (which I actually had to look on my DVD case for the name because I forgot) and Attack of the Clones were good films. :rolleyes:

By the way Wayfarer - I think you meant to say...

"How the filmmakers truly felt is shown not by their words, but their actions."

instead of ."How the filmmakers truly felt is shown by their words, not their actions."

[Black Breathalizer]

Jerseydevil & Wayfarer:

You may want to get started crafting your "Jackson is STILL a no talent hack, a Best Director Academy Award doesn't meant squat," comments to post here on March 1 of next year. It's always important to never let facts get in the way of a good Purist rant.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Jerseydevil & Wayfarer:

You may want to get started crafting your "Jackson is STILL a no talent hack, a Best Director Academy Award doesn't meant squat," comments to post here on March 1 of next year. It's always important to never let facts get in the way of a good Purist rant.
You obviously don't know anything about hollywood and how political the academy awards are. If you think that Jackson's movie getting nominated for best picture means anything in the long run (other than for advertising) you have a lot to learn. How many of the movies that have been named Best Picture - end up going into the classic category.

Maybe you should just remove your lips from Jackson's a$$.

By the way - you might want to check out the Academy Awards thread that was started for FotR - you will see how I didn't think it should win or that it should even have been nominated back then for best picture.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You obviously don't know anything about hollywood and how political the academy awards are.You are right, jerseydevil. I don't know hollywood. Thank you for opening my Elf eyes and setting me straight.

I must sheepishly admit I didn't realize the best director Oscar nominations were only about politics. But I guess that certainly would explain why politically connected - but no-talent - hacks like Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Weir, Oliver Stone, Robert Altman, Ridley Scott, and Peter Jackson get all the glory instead of more deserving filmmakers like Roger Christian, who directed Battlefield Earth a couple of years ago.

I can't begin to tell you all how much I'm learning from this board.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You are right, jerseydevil. I don't know hollywood. Thank you for opening my Elf eyes and setting me straight.

I must sheepishly admit I didn't realize the best director Oscar nominations were only about politics. But I guess that certainly would explain why politically connected - but no-talent - hacks like Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Weir, Oliver Stone, Robert Altman, Ridley Scott, and Peter Jackson get all the glory instead of more deserving filmmakers like Roger Christian, who directed Battlefield Earth a couple of years ago.

I can't begin to tell you all how much I'm learning from this board.

That's good. Personally I can't believe you put Jackson in the same league as Oliever Stone, Ridly Scott, Francis Ford Coppola or Steve Spielberg. If you think that Jackson is in the same league - then no waonder you actually think that Lord of the Rings is a good movie. And I seriously hope that you don't think Battlefield Earth was a good movie. :rolleyes:

[Anadriewen]

Too much?!?!? I'm glad she at least was included! After all the people that Jackson took out, i'm surpirsed that he actually included her!

[Nurvingiel]

I went out for sushi the other day with a few friends, and we started talking about the movies. Two of my friends were really excited about RotK, and big fans of the movies. Neither had read the books, though one had already read The Hobbit.

I don't really mind if there's LotR fans out there who haven't read the books, as long as they don't pretend to know anything about them.

My two friends both plan to read Lord of the Rings after they've seen the movies. This is exciting, I'm always happy when new people read great classic books.

If the movies get more people reading the books, that makes it worth dealing with a few people who 'think Leggsie is the hottest'.

[Churl]

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-12-12-lotr-main_x.htm):

Sales of Ballantine’s mass-market paperbacks of the Rings series (Houghton Mifflin publishes the hardcover and trade paperback editions) are suddenly “staggering,” says Colleen B. Lindsay, who is in charge of promotions for the series.

“Ballantine has sold more than 68 million copies of The Lord of the Rings (books) and The Hobbit,” she says. […] “The effect the film has had on the sales has been tremendous.”

Consider: Ballantine sold 32 million copies of the Rings books from 1965 to 2001. But since the release of the first film two years ago, Ballantine has sold an additional 14 million — almost half as much as the entire preceding 36 years.

Think about it: if even a tenth of those recent book purchases are read in full, it would mean that nearly a million and a half more people will have read The Lord of the Rings — many for the first time. Note also that these numbers don’t reflect the millions more who will borrow the book from friends or libraries.

Regardless of one’s opinion on the films’ merits or crimes, their positive impact on Rings readership is undeniable.

EDIT: I realize that those sales figures encompass all three [physical] books that make up the book, but I stand by my point: even if you factor out the inevitable reader attrition, it’s obvious that the films have led millions to experience Tolkien’s writing for the first time.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by sracer
On a side note, I've read the trilogy a few times, and taken a few college courses on it. I have yet to see where the character of Tom Bombadil has any great significance to the story, or Middle Earth. Certainly not enough to justify the furor there's been at his omission from the films.
He saves the lives of the Hobbits twice, that's important. For me, it's not the omission of the character, but taking out that plot line that I disagree with. The plot did not knit together smoothly, and left me feeling that they escaped the Shire much too easily.

[Aden]

Originally posted by Anadriewen
Too much?!?!? I'm glad she at least was included! After all the people that Jackson took out, i'm surpirsed that he actually included her!

You can't be talking about Arwen!:eek: Are you. And yes I would be happy if she was just included but she's the protagonist.

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Churl Regardless of one’s opinion on the films’ merits or crimes, their positive impact on Rings readership is undeniable.

I remember that I had read the books through in the fourth grade. But Tolkien, being Tolkien, was a little too complex for me to understand at that point in my literary education. So I saw the Fellowship of the Ring, and then, figuring that two years later my comprehension capabilites had grown dramatically, got them out again.
So I owe Peter Jackson. I would have re-read them eventually, but his movie jump-started that for me. For a little while, my fandom was pretty much movieverse. :o It's shameful to me, really.
Now, two years later, I speak some Quenya and quote the Silmarillion at people who say that Gandalf is wimpy, and I'm working on the History of Middle-Earth. Yes, we've gotten some fangirls. And some more fangirls. And people who only watch the movies because "So-and-so-is-hot-and-now-I-think-know-everything-about-the-Lord-of-the-Rings," but hey, on the other hand, you get people like me who convert and wind up fairly book-puristic.
Will the people who read the books and understood their greatness be eternally greater than myself? If they want to be, fine. I tried four and a half years ago, and I liked what I understood of them, answered, "Yes, I loved those," if anyone asked, but most of it truly went over my head. EVen in the sixth grade I was a useless fool for a few months. I cannot help but owe Jackson a piece of my allegiance for leading me back to Tolkien. Who is, after all, the Master. :D
However, I do feel perfectly justified, if he butchers a good line *coughEowyncough*, in ranting a little.


As for the debate about his filmmaking skill - I'm no movie critic. I'll leave it at that, and leave that to the more informed.

[Churl]

Thank you for lending credence to my point, Laurelyn.

Personally, I’m about to swear off the movie discussion boards due to all the rampant negativity.  Measured criticism I respect — hell, I’ve done enough of it myself — but it’s the abundance of frothing “Jackson is a hack” nonsense that I can’t stand.

We might disagree with isolated decisions that the filmmakers made, but the fact remains that the films surpassed all but the most unrealistic expectations.

EDIT: I’m mainly referring to negativity on other, non-Entmoot message boards … with only a few exceptions, here the discussion has stayed remarkably civil.  I’m merely referring to message boards such as IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/board/threads/) and Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/forumdisplay.php?f=101127213).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
Personally, I’m about to swear off the movie discussion boards due to all the rampant negativity.  Measured criticism I respect — hell, I’ve done enough of it myself — but it’s the abundance of frothing “Jackson is a hack” nonsense that I can’t stand.

I have repeatedly given my reasons for why I think jackson is a hack. If you wish to just claim that I don't give measured criticism that is your problem. I have gone over and over my complaints with the movies. I think jackson used every hollywood film cliche imaginable in the movies and spoon fed the audience. In one thread it was mentioned - why did he reveal Eowyn going off to Gondor - because he spoon feeds the audience.

Since I am the one who mostly calls Jackson a hack - I must assume you are referring to me. You should go through my 2 years and 5,000 posts and see what I think of Jackson and the movies. In there you WILL get all my detailed reasons. You will also see why I think that the movies could have been far far better.

We might disagree with isolated decisions that the filmmakers made, but the fact remains that the films surpassed all but the most unrealistic expectations.
In my opinion they weren't anything but action movies. So no - what I was expecting wasn't unrealistic. maybe you are satisfied - I'm not. I was expecting more of the feeling of the books - particularly in FotR. I do NOT think this is unrealistic.

I don't like beiung spoonfed and I don't like the fact that he turned the movies into simple dumbed down hollywood action flicks that rode on the shoulders of great special effects and scenary.

[Churl]

JD:

First off, I admire your geniune devotion to upholding the purity of Tolkien’s work.  It shines through in evey post you make.  (And I’m not being sarcastic — although I do now regret ceding first-post honors to you last year following The Two Towers. :))

And while I respect your right to dislike the movies, I myself can’t ignore the good to focus on the bad.  Do I think they’re perfect?  Of course not.  Would I change things given the magic (and continuity-preserving) wand to do so?  Sure.

Exceptions aside (e.g., rogue Faramir and extraneous Arwen inclusions), I still attest that the plot, tone, and feel of the books fared better under Jackson than we all had any reason to expect.

Feel free to disagree; in the end, I respect all who respect Tolkien’s writing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Churl
JD:

First off, I admire your geniune devotion to upholding purity Tolkien’s work.  It shines through in evey post you make.  (And I’m not being sarcastic — although I do now regret ceding first-post honors to you last year following The Two Towers. :))

And while I respect your right to dislike the movies, I myself can’t ignore the good to focus on the bad.  Do I think they’re perfect?  Of course not.  Would I change things given the magic (and continuity-preserving) wand to do so?  Sure.

Exceptions aside (e.g., rogue Faramir and extraneous Arwen inclusions), I still attest that the plot, tone, and feel of the books fared better under Jackson than we all had any reason to expect.

Feel free to disagree; in the end, I respect all who respect Tolkien’s writing.
I do disagree. I feel I could reasonably expect the movies to have been better. Were they better than a lot of previous attemps? - in many ways. Were they worse in others? - yes they were. Could they have been better? - yes they could have. The things that were better with Jackson's were the technology used and the scenary. The dialog much of the time was cheesy, the plot was disjointed and choppy, and it had lame jokes not to mention that there was the typical bathroom humor such as Pippin or Merry farting/burping. He also turned pipeweed into pot - which Tolkien clearly states is tobacco and has all about it in the prologue.

FotR is my most hated out of the movies. RotK is probably the one I like the most because many of the characters went back to being closer to the book - but still in the end - it's just an action movie. Taking all three together it falls far short of the mark of Lord of the Rings.

I also have a feeling that Jackson did hear the complaints in the previous movies and knew he had to make changes in TT and RotK - such as not having Arwen at Helms Deep. So - if it wasn't for people complaining - I think the final films would have been disasters. Don't forget - right up to the end he was having the actors come back to redu things.

[Churl]

Originally posted by jerseydevil:
I also have a feeling that Jackson did hear the complaints in the previous movies and knew he had to make changes in TT and RotK - such as not having Arwen at Helms Deep. So - if it wasn't for people complaining - I think the final films would have been disasters. Don't forget - right up to the end he was having the actors come back to redu things. [/B]Agreed — and if this was indeed the case, I’m glad that some of the fan outrage filtered through to him in time.  (I just wish that he’d gotten the pro-Saruman message before Return).

Although not a perfect translation (what could be?), I still prefer to look fondly on the movies while retaining my minor complaints.

We can agree to disagree, but if so, let’s make it a cordial disagreement.  As I said, I respect your purist convictions a lot.  (And admins: I use the term “purist” only in the most complimentary sense. :))

[jerseydevil]

You added this afterward in your post above that I initially responded to after I had posted.

EDIT: I’m mainly referring to negativity on other, non-Entmoot message boards … with only a few exceptions, here the discussion has stayed remarkably civil. I’m merely referring to message boards such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.


Originally posted by Churl
We can agree to disagree, but if so, let’s make it a cordial disagreement.  As I said, I respect your purist convictions a lot.  (And admins: I use the term “purist” only in the most complimentary sense. :))
I'll agree to cordially disagree. It just seemed you were trying to marginalize the opinions of those who don't particularly like the movies and feel they could have been much better.

[Churl]

Fair enough … and I only appended that to avoid making another too-short post.  If that’s what it sounded like I was saying (and rereading my own words, I guess that it does), then I apologize.

My attitude was, as the Stones sang, “Hey! You! Get off of my cloud!”  (I.e., I was thrilled by the film and began to get frustrated by the negativity I was reading — mostly elsewhere.)

Now that I’m thinking more rationally, I welcome any discussions that remain intelligent and civil.  (…And I’m certain that they will here; otherwise we’ll “learn the praise of a fair debate under the loving strokes of an admin’s axe,” to paraphrase Gimli. :))