Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation [Archive] - Page 2

Gwaimir Windgem

04-25-2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The only difference is that Jackson gave the audience a scene between Frodo and Aragorn as a way to bring closure to their partnership. But to use Mrs. Maggot's terminology, Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" too. You can sit and argue all day about the how Boromir's death, the orc attack, and Merry & Pippin's capture changed everything. The reality is that the quest was always THE number one concern of all. So if Book Aragorn "gave his blessing" to Frodo by choosing to follow Merry & Pippin, what's the REAL difference between the two versions?

You can give me excuses like "oh, it was Aragorn's chivalry," "But Merry & Pippin would have spilled the beans," "The danger to Merry & Pippin was more immediate," and on and on, but if all agree that everything pales in comparison to the quest of the Ringbearer, then there is NO difference.

Is it just me, or does this sound an awful lot like "What? You actually have answers? Well, I won't listen to them!"

BeardofPants

04-25-2003, 12:28 AM

Can I insert a gratuitous farty noise right about here?

Lizra

04-25-2003, 07:42 AM

Ok, but no smell! :eek:

Mrs. Maggott

04-25-2003, 07:58 AM

It is getting rather tiresome, but for the sake of clarity or understanding or whatever, I will reiterate that I found Tolkien's "reason" for Aragorn's desertion of Frodo not terribly excuseable either. Indeed, the first time I read the book, I was actually astonished at his decision. I later understood that Tolkien had to have Aragorn make that choice in order to develop the story in the way it was in fact developed. However, I recently was involved in a debate in which I was on the side that said Aragorn was in fact wrong to permit Frodo to go to Mordor without him. We won!

Of course, it was the "correct" decision in the end. Had Aragorn accompanied Frodo it would probably have been disastrous at least for Rohan and Minas Tirith. And then, too, we have the man's obvious prescience as already illustrated in his warning to Gandalf before the Company entered Moria. This may go some way to explain why he could make such a fatalistic statement as "the fate of the Bearer is no longer in my hands". Nevertheless, however questionable the book Aragorn's decision was under the circumstances in which it was made, the film's Aragorn's was worse under less excusable circumstances and for definitely less acceptable reasons.

And for those reasons alone the two "decisions" are decidedly different although they produce the same result: Frodo and Sam going forward alone on the quest.

Black Breathalizer

04-25-2003, 08:39 AM

I do think that our "Aragorn's Parth Galen decision" discussion minimizes Frodo's role in this whole affair.

Frodo was chosen by the Council of Elrond as the Ringbearer, not Aragorn. Gandalf's and Aragorn's roles were to guide the Ringbearer, not lead him and tell him what he had to do. It was Frodo who made the decision (in both the book and the film) to go alone. Was it Aragorn's responsibility to stop him? Would Gandalf, Elrond, or Galadriel have counciled a different course? As Gandalf and Galadriel said, even the wisest cannot see all ends.

It seems to me that one of the themes of Tolkien's book was that even the smallest person can make a difference. I can still recall the strong feelings I had when I first read the end of FOTR at age 14. I remember thinking, "how can Frodo DO that?!?!? How in the world can he THINK he can go to Mordor WITHOUT Aragorn and company to PROTECT him?!?!?!?" That is exactly what Tolkien wanted me to think. It was a very important aspect of the story to him. Jackson understood this and created the same emotions for his FOTR audience. I heard many people who had never read the books wonder how Frodo was going to be able to make it to Mount Doom considering how much he depended on the rest of the Fellowship throughout the first film.

Chalk this one up as yet another example of Peter Jackson getting it right. :)

Mrs. Maggott

04-25-2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I do think that our "Aragorn's Parth Galen decision" discussion minimizes Frodo's role in this whole affair.

Frodo was chosen by the Council of Elrond as the Ringbearer, not Aragorn. Gandalf's and Aragorn's roles were to guide the Ringbearer, not lead him and tell him what he had to do. It was Frodo who made the decision (in both the book and the film) to go alone. Was it Aragorn's responsibility to stop him? Would Gandalf, Elrond, or Galadriel have counciled a different course? As Gandalf and Galadriel said, even the wisest cannot see all ends.

It seems to me that one of the themes of Tolkien's book was that even the smallest person can make a difference. I can still recall the strong feelings I had when I first read the end of FOTR at age 14. I remember thinking, "how can Frodo DO that?!?!? How in the world can he THINK he can go to Mordor WITHOUT Aragorn and company to PROTECT him?!?!?!?" That is exactly what Tolkien wanted me to think. It was a very important aspect of the story to him. Jackson understood this and created the same emotions for his FOTR audience. I heard many people who had never read the books wonder how Frodo was going to be able to make it to Mount Doom considering how much he depended on the rest of the Fellowship throughout the first film.

Chalk this one up as yet another example of Peter Jackson getting it right. :)
Jackson couldn't have gotten it any "wronger". He has Aragorn knowingly and willingly permitting Frodo to go off alone - and I mean alone since at this point, it is obvious Frodo does not even intend to take Sam. Tolkien made Aragorn's decision take place after Frodo has already gone off - and with Sam.

Jackson's Aragorn is obviously concerned that he will be unable to resist the lure of the Ring at least at some point, if he continues to be involved with it. True, he "escapes" that temptation at Parth Galen, but at what cost? The cost of allowing Frodo to go off unguided, unaided and unprotected. Tolkien's Aragorn never has the problem and so the Ring plays no part in his eventual decision not to follow Frodo and Sam. Rather that decision is motivated by a belief that "fate" has decided that he is no longer responsible for Frodo and the Ring coupled with his very real obligation (as leader of the Company) to Merry and Pippin.

In the end, Jackson brings about the same situation, but in a way that underscores either his lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the story or his boast that he could "tell it better" than Tolkien. Either way, the story loses.

Elfhelm

04-25-2003, 09:49 AM

Return of the King, Appendix A:
"It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf-women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."

However, in Dungeon Magazine in the early 80's on the AD&D race of dwarves it was similarly declared that dwarven women were not inclined to go on adventures, and it was specifically stated that they had beards.

Now that the AD&D thing has been added to the Tolkien thing by the screenwriters, I suppose it's not going to be questioned.

druss

04-25-2003, 06:23 PM

surfer legolas????? the only theme that represented was to appease the "Xtream" kiddies. It really ruined what is one of the best cinemagraphic scenes I have ever seen...shame.

Black Breathalizer

04-25-2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson couldn't have gotten it any "wronger". He has Aragorn knowingly and willingly permitting Frodo to go off alone.I would have never guessed it, Mrs. Maggot, but it has become clear that you have a deep-seated PREJUDICE against halflings!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I'm teasing but think about it. If you take your previous post and replace Frodo with Aragorn and Aragorn with...let's say Gandalf, do you feel the same way? If Aragorn was the Ringbearer and men were able to resist the ring's evil easier than hobbits, dwarves, and elves, would you have expressed the same level of protest if Gandalf gave Aragorn "his blessing" to go on alone?

I can hear some of you say, "yes, but Aragorn is a warrior...he knows the landscape...he's better able to protect himself" and on and on and on. Well, it was made clear in the Council of Elrond that the ring wouldn't be destroyed by force but by stealth. Hobbits are smaller and, as Tolkien described, are able to hide from the big people when they don't want to be seen.

In my humble opinion, Tolkien played upon our natural reaction to the small and the meek when he had the breaking of the fellowship play out the way it did. So did Jackson. :)

Elfhelm

04-25-2003, 07:12 PM

I can see it...

Aragorn: Gandalf, I know you are my mentor and friend and you can light wargs on fire, but I am going to do this without you.

Gandalf: (sniffling) I would have followed you to the very fires of Mt. Doom!

Aragorn: (getting uppity) It's MY quest, not yours. You're always trying to steal my thunder. When do I get to do something, eh? You never listen to me, you're always looking off in the distance... Are you paying attention now even?

Gandalf: (looking surprised) eh? I was seeing the future. You were supposed to take the paths... oh never mind! Begone. You don't need me anymore. (Storms off in a huff!)

Wayfarer

04-25-2003, 10:30 PM

Indeed.

It's a fair bet to say that Gandalf helped Aragorn /at least/ as much as Aragorn helped Frodo- I would speculate that he did much more than Aragorn ever did.

Elf Girl

04-26-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you take your previous post and replace Frodo with Aragorn and Aragorn with...let's say Gandalf, do you feel the same way? If Aragorn was the Ringbearer and men were able to resist the ring's evil easier than hobbits, dwarves, and elves, would you have expressed the same level of protest if Gandalf gave Aragorn "his blessing" to go on alone?
Yes. Why should I not?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Well, it was made clear in the Council of Elrond that the ring wouldn't be destroyed by force but by stealth. Hobbits are smaller and, as Tolkien described, are able to hide from the big people when they don't want to be seen.
So you're saying that Aragorn said to himself: "Hmm... I think I want to go after Merry and Pippin. Well, you know, Frodo's a hobbit, so even though he has barely basic training with weapons, he can hide himself, even from Sauron and the Nine, which can't see, so will rely on other things, such as the pull of the Ring. So I won't worry- he can handle it!"

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In my humble opinion, Tolkien played upon our natural reaction to the small and the meek when he had the breaking of the fellowship play out the way it did. So did Jackson. :)
It certainly is your humble opinion. I had no such reaction when I read LotR for the first time. I understood Aragorn's and Frodo's decisions completely.

Black Breathalizer

04-26-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
It certainly is your humble opinion. I had no such reaction when I read LotR for the first time. I understood Aragorn's and Frodo's decisions completely.I'm glad you understood the decisions of the book. My point is that you book purists can't can't turn around and say the movie's decisions make no sense when they are based on the same basic circumstances and motivations. You can't have it both ways.

Elf Girl

04-26-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm glad you understood the decisions of the book. My point is that you book purists can't can't turn around and say the movie's decisions make no sense when they are based on the same basic circumstances and motivations. You can't have it both ways.
We are saying that the movie's decisions were not based on the same circumstances. In the book, Aragorn cannot tell whether Frodo was one of the hobbits captured by the Uruk-hai. In a dilemma, he chooses to go after the Uruk-hai. In the movie, he knows that Frodo is going off the home of the Dark Lord alone, (he doesn't know about Sam) and yet he still chooses to go after the Uruk-hai. He obviously doesn't think the Ringbearers quest is central, as you seem to think everyone does, based on your posts.

WhackoJacko

04-26-2003, 08:36 PM

you are getting beaten into submission by the whole forum, why do u bother ??:)

lets face it, TTT was total crap, bad editing , bad logic, bad scripting, bad lighting.....everything was just bad

what the purists are saying is that Jackson made bad logical decisions and the movie is made incoherent in the process

Elf Girl

04-26-2003, 08:39 PM

Come now, as a movie it wasn't that bad. Difficult because of so many characters to focus on, but fair.

And I think BB is showing heroic resolve, debating all of us at once. ;) Even if he does ignore two-thirds of what we say.

WhackoJacko

04-26-2003, 08:44 PM

what what what??

in the Book Aragorn was aware that Frodo left Boromir and whent off alone

Wayfarer

04-26-2003, 08:47 PM

There is no heroism in blindly persisting in your errors. This is the path that Morgoth, Sauron, and Saruman trod, and it led to their downfall.

Elf Girl

04-26-2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by WhackoJacko
what what what??

in the Book Aragorn was aware that Frodo left Boromir and whent off alone
That's not true.

'Which way did they go? Was Frodo there?' said Aragorn.
But Boromir did not speak again.
. . . 'Where are the Ring and the Bearer? How shall I find them and save the Quest from disaster?'

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Come now, as a movie it wasn't that bad. Difficult because of so many characters to focus on, but fair.

And I think BB is showing heroic resolve, debating all of us at once. ;) Even if he does ignore half of what we say.

Is it only half? :eek: Seriously, I do agree. I didn't think they were such bad movies (specially FOTR), and I certainly agree about his resolve and determination. Although it can get a bit annoying...;)

Elf Girl

04-27-2003, 07:40 AM

Yes. If everyone would just agree with us, then everything would be fine. ;)

BB, I would very much like to see you answer the rest of my post, and not just the part about reactions to descisions.

You're right GW- it's more like two-thirds. Will edit. ;)

Mrs. Maggott

04-27-2003, 08:04 AM

As far as films go, TTT was in fact, not good. It was very choppy, very badly edited and even without considering it with respect to the story, at times quite senseless (most of the battle of Helm's Deep and especially the end of it). FOTR, on the other hand, as film was fairly good. At least it made sense which TTT frequently did not.

However, considering the entirety of Jackson's endeavors - yes, even including ROTK which no one has seen so far - he begins in error, and therefore the simple fact is that he must continue in error and eventually end in error. His change of the focus of the story from hobbits to men, coupled with his "reinvention" of Tolkien's characters and plot along the way must seriously affect the outcome of his efforts.

There is no need to go into all the changes here, but suffice it to say that his "creation" of an Aragorn who shuns his birthright, fears his heritage and requires a "warrior elfmaiden" backbone must have a huge impact upon the meaning of the story even if the character participates in the plot pretty much as he did in the book. And, of course, a sterling example of my point is the difference between Aragorn's interaction with Frodo at Parth Galen vis a vie film and book. Yes, they appear on the surface to be similar and certainly the end result is the same (Frodo going off alone while Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli pursue Merry and Pippin) but the entire meaning of these actions and those who perform them have been changed - and not for the better.

Whatever one thinks about these films, the simple fact is that the teller of this tale is Peter Jackson, not Professor Tolkien - and as Shakespear would say, "aye, there's the rub!"

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Yes. If everyone would just agree with us, then everything would be fine. ;)

That's even necessary. From what I've seen, a number of 'Mooters feel that it was a fine if not perfect adaptation (Lizra, Dunedain, etc.), but I don't have any problem whatsoever with that. What gets annoying is the way BB acts. :p

Black Breathalizer

04-27-2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
And I think BB is showing heroic resolve, debating all of us at once. ;) Even if he does ignore two-thirds of what we say.Sometimes I do think to myself, "BB, you can't do this. They're all wrong. By rights you shouldnâ€™t even be here."

But I am.

Itâ€™s like in the great LOTR movie board debates, Elf Girl. The ones that really mattered. Full of Purist complaints and narrow-minded thinking they were. And sometimes the enlightened few didnâ€™t want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world end up loving both Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies when there is so many downright stupid things being said about the films?

But in the end, itâ€™s only a passing thing, this Purist shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come in December with The Return of the King. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.

Those are the debates that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too young to understand why. But I think, Elf Girl, I do understand. I know now. The enlightened few in those debates had lots of chances of going away in frustration only they didnâ€™t. Because they were holding on to something.

What were they holding on to, you may ask?

That this is a very special film trilogy-- and its worth fighting for.

PS: I'm not ignoring anything - but there's only one of me and so many Purist minds here that need straightening out. :)

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 10:05 AM

Thank you for a perfect example of what I was talking about, BB. :) "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong." THAT is exactly is what is so goldurned annoying.

They're all wrong. By rights you shouldnâ€™t even be here."

Why, because you don't want to breathe the same air as us idiots who don't worship Jackson? :rolleyes:

But in the end, itâ€™s only a passing thing, this Purist shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come in December with The Return of the King. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.

Ah, so now we're demonic. :) Lucky us.

Full of Purist complaints and narrow-minded thinking they were

Um...how is "Everyone else is wrong, because I couldn't possibly be" not narrow-minded?:confused:

Lizra

04-27-2003, 10:34 AM

I was thinking about what a narrow minded, selfish, hedonist I am. :D All I really care about is "my LoTR vision" (personal experience, interpretation). :) Of course I am DEEPLY indebted to the awesome brilliance of Professor Tolkien, for creating this work, but it's my opinion and experience that I care about and respond to, when I read the books and see the movies.

I am very happy with FoTR movie, despite the various "changes" from the book. No problem, it still worked very well, (for me) LOVE IT! :D TTT I'm not as thrilled about, (I don't think so yet at least :confused: ) but it wasn't my favorite "read" either. I need to own the extended edition TTT DVD before I really can decide. I will say the Faramir thing doesn't bother me too much, I never "cottoned" up to him the way most people seem to. (I wonder why! :confused: ) I love the "change" in movie Boromir! Sean Bean gave me a "newish" character to love, whether it was written that way or not (I think it's "or not" :confused: ;) ) I am grooving! Too bad movie Faramir wasn't as satisfying. I hope TTT extended DVD shows more acting depth on actor Faramir's part. Sean Bean is delicious! Ahhh!

Black Breathalizer

04-27-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
There is no need to go into all the changes here, but suffice it to say that (Jackson's) "creation" of an Aragorn who shuns his birthright, fears his heritage and requires a "warrior elfmaiden" backbone must have a huge impact upon the meaning of the story even if the character participates in the plot pretty much as he did in the book. Whatever one thinks about these films, the simple fact is that the teller of this tale is Peter Jackson, not Professor Tolkien - and as Shakespear would say, "aye, there's the rub!"Of course it's Peter Jackson telling the tale. And he's not rewriting the novels, he's making three films based on Tolkien's story. Believe it or not, I honestly know where some of you are coming from. But you're not being fair to Peter Jackson and the art of film making when you demand a literal interpretation of Tolkien's books and preferences in these films.

Let's use Mrs. Maggott's Aragorn comments above as an illustration. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters from the books. But let's be honest and candid here. If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience. Translated to film, I could see Tolkien's Aragorn coming across as aloof, stern, and most importantly, he wouldn't feel "real." From the very beginning, Peter Jackson demanded that the films have a strong sense of realism to them. This was just one of many "How best do you honor the overall work when various aspects are at odds?" questions the Jackson team had to figure out when translating the story to film.

Aragorn doesn't shun his birthright in the films, but he has self-doubts about his heritage and his ability to lead. He is counciled by the woman he loves, the elf daughter of Elrond who has lived for centuries. How is that so wrong? I had serious doubts about Viggo and whether PJ would "do right" by Aragorn before FOTR came out. But Jackson has captured the essence of the character. Is he more humanized than Tolkien's Aragorn? Yes. But I would rather have a more humanized Aragorn who felt real than an attempt to carbon-copy the books that falls flat on its face. Am I the only one who remembers Ralph Bakshi's Aragorn?!?!?!?

These types of issues though go back to the primary point in this thread: People are haggling over specifics and not stepping back and appreciating how well it all comes together and captures the heart and soul of the books.

Wayfarer

04-27-2003, 10:45 AM

You know what amuses me? This is what amuses me:

Black Breathalizer really has no good reason to argue about this. Period.

You see, nobody's ever argued against his liking the films. As they say, there's no accounting for taste.

But BB has arrogantly, foolishly, and unforgivably insisted that Jackson is better than Tolkien, that Jackson has improved Tolkien, and so on and so forth. This is ridiculous- the films still fail on a number of levels, and to press the point gives the strong impression that one is imbued with hubris.

Wayfarer

04-27-2003, 10:58 AM

Jackson has captured the essence of the character. Is he more humanized than Tolkien's Aragorn? Yes. But I would rather have a more humanized Aragorn who felt real than an attempt to carbon-copy the books that falls flat on its face. Am I the only one who remembers Ralph Bakshi's Aragorn?

That, for once, made sense.

I agree. I myself liked Jackson's Aragorn several orders of magnitude better than Bakashi's. Because it was quite a bit better done.

But is that because jackson 'humanized' the character? Not really. No. It's because Viggo Mortensen is a good actor, and can (or could) convey far much more of the character than a silly badly drawn cartoon.

You've read the books, but you might have forgotten that Aragorn /is/ unsure in places. He /does/ have doubts- but for different, and infinitely better reasons than those jackson attempts to palm off.

Have you noticed that one of the places where Tolkien's Aragorn displays the most doubt, directly after Gandalf's death when he is forced to assume the mantle of leadership, is one of the places where Jackson's Aragorn displays none whatsoever? Does that really make sense if what you are saying is true?

No. Because Jackson, though he tried, has failed to humanize Aragorn. Oh, his character is more understandable to people today, but that's Modernization, not humanization. He's turned him into the sort of conflicted protagonist that's expected today, with issues and complexes rather than real considerations that worry him. He has ceased to become a hero who will become king, and become an action-figure with a veneer of trite emotionalism.

That's not to say that he's entirely bad- there were many places in which the part was well scripted and played. But there were others where he departed wildly from the character of Aragorn in the novels.

Ruinel

04-27-2003, 11:13 AM

Dang it! I had all this stuff I wanted to say. But reading all the posts, well... it's already been said. :(

Oh, yeah, about the cartoon. I was warned away from it, so I never watched it. My friend said, "It sucked like an industrial strength vacuum cleaner."

Lizra

04-27-2003, 11:15 AM

I will say that I agree with BB on the bit of "straight from the pages of the book Aragorn" would have been too "Dudley Do-Right
and rigid for me. :D :rolleyes: Same with Boromir as the "corrupted man". I like the humanized version the films offer. (as an alternative, not transformation) Wayfarer is correct ,(IMO) it is all a matter of taste, :) but I am glad for the opportunity "to indulge" ! So are alot of other people, if the $ talks. Hey, he got the rights to the film....que sera, que sera! :eek: :)

I don't think some of you should take BB so seriously! Nibble the worm, but don't swallow the hook! :D ;)

Mrs. Maggott

04-27-2003, 11:28 AM

Tolkien's Aragorn is a marvelously complex character, a man who is at once vulnerable and possessed of a great strength which he has acquired in a life of solitary service to people who treat him with contemptuous disregard (Bree etc.). The scene at Bree where he attempts to gain the hobbits' trust and friendship by virtue of his presence alone (and fails until Butterbur produces Gandalf's letter) is rather tragic in a way. Eventually, by virtue of his own personality and acts of courage he does gain that affection and trust, but it is not an easy thing and in the beginning, he has to be content with a trust garnered from his relationship with the beloved (and trusted) Gandalf. Aragorn - especially in FOTR - is anything but a "cardboard" superhero - the usual argument made by Jackson's apologists as to why Tolkien's character would not "connect" with the audience (and repeated by BB). Even when the remainder of the Company (Legolas and Gimli) await his choice to follow either Frodo or the orcs, he laments that they have picked "a poor chooser".

The sad thing is that the actor Jackson was smart enough to choose - Viggo Mortensen - could have carried off Tolkien's Aragorn perfectly. Indeed, in the beginning - until Arwen interruptus - I thought that he was going to do just that. Unfortunately, Jackson opted for a combination of feminist "mistique" and therapeutic nonsense and produced a weak, vacillating fellow who spent all his time running away. I guess this must "connect" with Jackson's audience - or at least the more neurotic feminists among them! Thank heaven Professor Tolkien was spared that concern. He only had to produce a great story - which he did!

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 11:30 AM

Elf Girl

04-27-2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
That's even necessary. From what I've seen, a number of 'Mooters feel that it was a fine if not perfect adaptation (Lizra, Dunedain, etc.), but I don't have any problem whatsoever with that. What gets annoying is the way BB acts. :p
Yes! I was merely jesting.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Sometimes I do think to myself, "BB, you can't do this. They're all wrong. By rights you shouldnâ€™t even be here."

But I am.

Itâ€™s like in the great LOTR movie board debates, Elf Girl. The ones that really mattered. Full of Purist complaints and narrow-minded thinking they were. And sometimes the enlightened few didnâ€™t want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world end up loving both Tolkien's books and Jackson's movies when there is so many downright stupid things being said about the films?

But in the end, itâ€™s only a passing thing, this Purist shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come in December with The Return of the King. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer.

Those are the debates that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too young to understand why. But I think, Elf Girl, I do understand. I know now. The enlightened few in those debates had lots of chances of going away in frustration only they didnâ€™t. Because they were holding on to something.

What were they holding on to, you may ask?

That this is a very special film trilogy-- and its worth fighting for.
May I ask how that had any relevance to what we were discussing? It's just the old, "Black Breathalizer is right, people who don't agree with him aren't worth talking to." Pointless.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm not ignoring anything - but there's only one of me and so many Purist minds here that need straightening out. :)
It's true that there is only one of you, as opposed to all of us Tolkien (not Jackson) fans.

Don't you realize that I was defending you when I made the post about heroic resolve? It was not sarcastically intended.

Now, on to real debate:

Elf Girl

04-27-2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Of course it's Peter Jackson telling the tale. And he's not rewriting the novels, he's making three films based on Tolkien's story. Believe it or not, I honestly know where some of you are coming from. But you're not being fair to Peter Jackson and the art of film making when you demand a literal interpretation of Tolkien's books and preferences in these films.
We do not demand a literal interpretation. Please do not paste labels on us. Everything else in that paragraph is true, though I would say "loosely based on Tolkien's story."

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Let's use Mrs. Maggott's Aragorn comments above as an illustration. Aragorn has always been one of my favorite characters from the books. But let's be honest and candid here. If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience. Translated to film, I could see Tolkien's Aragorn coming across as aloof, stern, and most importantly, he wouldn't feel "real."
I have nothing to add to Wayfarer's counter to this.
Originally posted by Wayfarer
You've read the books, but you might have forgotten that Aragorn /is/ unsure in places. He /does/ have doubts- but for different, and infinitely better reasons than those jackson attempts to palm off.

Have you noticed that one of the places where Tolkien's Aragorn displays the most doubt, directly after Gandalf's death when he is forced to assume the mantle of leadership, is one of the places where Jackson's Aragorn displays none whatsoever? Does that really make sense if what you are saying is true?
Thank you, Wafarer.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
From the very beginning, Peter Jackson demanded that the films have a strong sense of realism to them. This was just one of many "How best do you honor the overall work when various aspects are at odds?" questions the Jackson team had to figure out when translating the story to film.
The movie Aragorn just doesn't add up. In FotR, this episode portrays him as cold and inhuman:

Aragorn: Legolas, get them up.
Boromir: Give them a moment, for pity's sake!
Aragorn: By nightfall these hills will be swarming with Orcs. We must reach the woods of LothlÃ³rien...
When you contrast those episodes of "humanization" you have helpfully cited, you will find that Aragorn does not feel "real".

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Aragorn doesn't shun his birthright in the films, but he has self-doubts about his heritage and his ability to lead. He is counciled by the woman he loves, the elf daughter of Elrond who has lived for centuries. How is that so wrong? I had serious doubts about Viggo and whether PJ would "do right" by Aragorn before FOTR came out. But Jackson has captured the essence of the character.
Again, best demonstrated by a quote from the movie:
Arwen: Why do you fear the past? You are Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself.You are not bound to his fate...

Aragorn: The same blood flows in my veins; the same weakness!
He may not shun his heritage, but he certainly fears and hates it, if he thinks it makes him weak.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
These types of issues though go back to the primary point in this thread: People are haggling over specifics and not stepping back and appreciating how well it all comes together and captures the heart and soul of the books.
We are debating over whether or not the very fundamentals of Aragorn's character have been changed, and citing specifics to back up our points. I wish you would stop beating a dead horse which was never valid in the first place.

EDIT: Supposed to be directly after Wayfarer's post. Sorry, took a long time typing! ;)

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 11:43 AM

Note: that was supposed to be "not even necessary", not "even necessary". :rolleyes: See title for more info.

Lizra

04-27-2003, 12:58 PM

I'm ready for another farty noise! ;) :rolleyes: :D

Melko Belcha

04-27-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If Jackson had taken the literal approach to the character that some of you book purists have demanded, he wouldn't connect with the audience.
All I can say is that I have many friends who read the book after seeing the movie, mainly because of Aragorn, and now they hate the films because of the changes to the characters. They connected with the character of Aragorn more in the book the the film version, the film version of Aragorn was way too weak is what I keep hearing. Do not assume what people like or connect with, not all people are the same, that to me is the problem PJ made.

And to add, if you are trying to use the term book purists as an insult, then to let you know that I take great pride of being a purist. I will scream it with pride, I am a book purist, IMO it's better then being a PJ sheep.

Black Breathalizer

04-27-2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
And to add, if you are trying to use the term book purists as an insult, then to let you know that I take great pride of being a purist. I will scream it with pride, I am a book purist, IMO it's better then being a PJ sheep.How could being a Purist be an insult?!?!?! It simply means you are...um...well, a Tolkien book purist. I love JRR Tolkien's books but personally I am NOT a Purist...um, (in the immortal words of Jerry Seinfield) not that there's anything wrong with that. It's like saying "I'm in grade school" as opposed to "Hey, dudes, I'm in college." I understand that some of you will never change. I am simply using my Entmoot Doctorate in Advanced Tolkien and Jackson Studies to help some of you to graduate into one of the "Enlightened ones." :)

Black Breathalizer, Ph.D.
A Proud Member of PJ's Sheep

Black Breathalizer

04-27-2003, 03:35 PM

Okay, enough silliness...back on topic.

I'm being told that the characters themselves are a "big theme" and that changes to the characters represent a major deviation from Tolkien. I would agree that for a film to work as a great adaptation of a book, the characters of the film need to be true to their book soulmates. A perfect example of an untrue character from LOTR was the way Ralph Bakshi portrayed Sam. What moron possessed the body of Samwise Gamgee in that sickening film? There's never been a bigger butcher job in cinematic history.

But I see a huge difference between an Aragorn who has aspects of his character highlighted or supressed in different ways in the film from the book and a total personality change. As with everything we've been discussing, this is all subjective, but I certainly see the look and personality of the film Aragorn to be a good representation of the book Aragorn. Are they identical? Nope. But on the other hand, I feel it is dishonest for the critics here to say that PJ's Aragorn is a whimp who bares no resemblance whatsoever to the noble ranger of the books. That's utter hogwash.

If you want to make the characters themselves "a theme" then you need to make the appropriate comparisons. The questions should be "Did PJ's character reflect the personalities of the characters and promote the same or similar messages from the books?" versus "Are PJ's characters identical to the books?"

You Literal Translationists (not to be confused with the insulting slang word: Purists) are driving me nuts. ;) :)

Lizra

04-27-2003, 03:49 PM

Did someone call for a "Bliss Ninny"? No? .... :( too bad ! Oh well. Have fun. ;)

Mrs. Maggott

04-27-2003, 04:52 PM

Frankly, one cannot build up Jackson by defaming Bakshi. Bakshi was a cartoonist who had produced that cultural gem, Fritz the Cat. He was an opportunist who saw a very popular story and wanted to cash in on it.

Jackson, on the other hand, went into the project after the original huge popularity of LOTR had quieted to the point of making it a less commercially tempting commodity. Jackson also raised a great deal of money by promising to remain as faithful as his medium would permit to the book. Everyone knew there would be changes, but no one thought (at least no one that I know of) that Jackson would decide to not only film, but rewrite the story. At least Bakshi with all his opportunism had sufficent respect for Tolkien that he tried to bring the actual work to the screen. His lack of success was unfortunate, but it does not mitigate his intentions. Jackson, on the other hand, failed before the first frame was exposed because his intentions were far less pure.

Black Breathalizer

04-27-2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
At least Bakshi with all his opportunism had sufficent respect for Tolkien that he tried to bring the actual work to the screen. His lack of success was unfortunate, but it does not mitigate his intentions. Jackson, on the other hand, failed before the first frame was exposed because his intentions were far less pure.Are you being serious?!?!?!! Bakshi's LOTR was one of the worst movies in history. After standing in line for the Bakshi's LOTR premiere, I left the movie theatre embarrassed for Tolkien (thank god he was already dead) and totally disgusted at what I'd just seen. If THAT piece of cinematic trash is your example of bringing Tolkien's vision to the big screen, I'll stick with non-purist Peter Jackson thankyouverymuch.

Elf Girl

04-27-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
How could being a Purist be an insult?!?!?! It simply means you are...um...well, a Tolkien book purist. I love JRR Tolkien's books but personally I am NOT a Purist...um, (in the immortal words of Jerry Seinfield) not that there's anything wrong with that. It's like saying "I'm in grade school" as opposed to "Hey, dudes, I'm in college." I understand that some of you will never change. I am simply using my Entmoot Doctorate in Advanced Tolkien and Jackson Studies to help some of you to graduate into one of the "Enlightened ones." :)

Black Breathalizer, Ph.D.
A Proud Member of PJ's Sheep
Hm... I don't think we are using the same definition of "purist". Give us your definition., and we will tell you if you would think we're purists.

Elf Girl

04-27-2003, 06:44 PM

I would also like to say that I agree completely about Bakshi. Trash!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I'm being told that the characters themselves are a "big theme" and that changes to the characters represent a major deviation from Tolkien. I would agree that for a film to work as a great adaptation of a book, the characters of the film need to be true to their book soulmates. A perfect example of an untrue character from LOTR was the way Ralph Bakshi portrayed Sam. What moron possessed the body of Samwise Gamgee in that sickening film? There's never been a bigger butcher job in cinematic history.
Agreed. Also, his body wasn't anything like Samwise Gamgee's.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But I see a huge difference between an Aragorn who has aspects of his character highlighted or supressed in different ways in the film from the book and a total personality change. As with everything we've been discussing, this is all subjective, but I certainly see the look and personality of the film Aragorn to be a good representation of the book Aragorn. Are they identical? Nope. But on the other hand, I feel it is dishonest for the critics here to say that PJ's Aragorn is a whimp who bares no resemblance whatsoever to the noble ranger of the books. That's utter hogwash.
This must be the fifth time you've repeated yourself. Are you going to back yourself up, or maybe even *gasp* answer some of our points?

Heheh... "bares no resemblance"... ;)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If you want to make the characters themselves "a theme" then you need to make the appropriate comparisons. The questions should be "Did PJ's character reflect the personalities of the characters and promote the same or similar messages from the books?" versus "Are PJ's characters identical to the books?"
That is what we have been doing. See my previous two posts.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You Literal Translationists (not to be confused with the insulting slang word: Purists) are driving me nuts. ;) :)
Falsely attacking the person again. I have said: No one is asking for a literal translation.

Crud. Stupid vB code won't make the bold right. Well, it will have to do. :rolleyes:

Mrs. Maggott

04-27-2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Are you being serious?!?!?!! Bakshi's LOTR was one of the worst movies in history. After standing in line for the Bakshi's LOTR premiere, I left the movie theatre embarrassed for Tolkien (thank god he was already dead) and totally disgusted at what I'd just seen. If THAT piece of cinematic trash is your example of bringing Tolkien's vision to the big screen, I'll stick with non-purist Peter Jackson thankyouverymuch.
As usual, you are creating more of my opinion than I presented (very much like Mr. Jackson in a way...). I did not like Bakshi, nor did I say that I did. Furthermore, I only brought Bakshi into the conversation because you did in the first place with the intent of "lifting" Jackson by "trashing" Bakshi. I simply pointed out that that cannot be done. One film has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Jackson fails because he fails - not because Bakshi failed or succeeded. I merely mentioned that Bakshi made a stab at bringing Tolkien - not Bakshi - to the screen, something that appeared to be beyond Jackson.

Bakshi was hardly a "purist", merely an opportunist who believed that he would do better if he stuck with the original. And, by the way, Jackson himself admitted that he did better when he stuck to the original! Too bad he kept forgetting that little fact, especially in the second film!

Finally, you do not strengthen your argument by attributing to those who dispute you beliefs they do not hold and conclusions they have not reached. To read your above post, you would think that I had brought Bakshi into the debate and, furthermore, that I had defended his film. Neither, of course, is the case.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
And, by the way, Jackson himself admitted that he did better when he stuck to the original!

He did? :eek: Could you tell me where you heard it, please? :)

Mrs. Maggott

04-27-2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
He did? :eek: Could you tell me where you heard it, please? :)
He gave a rather long quote about returning to the original story and finding it much better for the film. I remember seeing it on television and it might be one of the interviews that appeared in the EE version of FOTR. Jackson has given so many interviews and especially when the project was approaching its original release date there were lots of them on the cable channels to build up interest in the first film. But he did very much admit that when he "strayed" from the story, he found himself in trouble. Of course, that was in the first film. I guess by the second, he had figured out how to stray and survive! :rolleyes:

Melko Belcha

04-27-2003, 07:46 PM

Somewhere on the EE of FotR PJ says that the original script had many more changes to the story then the finished film ended up having, but he had to keep going back to the original material to make things work. Basically he couldn't change as much as he originaly planned and wanted to change. I would love to see the original script with all the changes, he probably had the Shire located inside the Rammas Echor, or maybe the explanation of why Fangorn Forest is to the North-east when heading west from the Anduin.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-27-2003, 07:53 PM

I remember wondering what it was like originally, when I heard EW talking about that...:eek:

Ruinel

04-27-2003, 08:37 PM

This is a hot thread, so if I missed anyone's point sorry. It was a lot to read. Anyway, on to it, then....

All the arguing is basically pointless. The book and the movie are two different things. There is really no way possible to put every detail of a book into a movie. The book is always better than the movie. I can not think of one single book made into a movie that was better as a movie, not one. In a movie, things have to change in order for the movie to best represent the essence of the book. There is no way that every aspect and ever scene can be carried out on screen. No way!
Yes, character changes are made in order for the basic plot to stay true. So, Book Aragorn is slightly different than Movie Aragorn... woopie. But Viggo M. did a great job. I have the EE FotR and yes, I watched all of the Appendicies (stop looking at me like that), and I recall that Viggo M. was not originally casted for this part. It was a younger actor... which would have been a dissaster!!! So, at the last minute Viggo was put in. I feel that PJ tried his best to keep it all true. But it was a near impossible job. I think he did a good job, nonetheless.

Wayfarer

04-27-2003, 10:23 PM

*ahem*

PJ certainly did not try his best to keep the story true to tolkien'

Had he been attempting such a thing, there would not have been such ridiculous instances as the ford scene or Aragorn's "death". There would not have been pod orcs, Faramir would have been a decent guy, and Frodo would have been smart enough not to go trying to give the ring to a Nazgul.

Period.

Mrs. Maggott

04-28-2003, 04:54 AM

For heaven's sake, let us put to rest the tiresome allegation that Jackson's works "had to be" what they were because of the "difference" between films and books. A great many books have become films in the past and far more successfully than LOTR (the H.P. books are fine examples of a Director attempting to present the author's story and not his own!). But getting back to LOTR: certainly changes were required in the translation from the printed page to the silver screen. Absolutely no "purist" believed that LOTR (especially given its complexities) would make it to film untouched. But there is a difference between the editing and rewriting which had to be done to make the story "work" as film and all of Jackson's pointless peregrinations with Tolkien's characters and plot.

So much of what was done was done simply because in his hubris, Jackson thought that he could tell "the story" better. His efforts in that direction merely went to prove that he didn't understand the story except at the most superficial level - hobbit finds magic ring, hobbit gives magic ring to beloved nephew, good wizard discovers ring is evil....and so forth. Looking at LOTR in such a childish way might tempt one to "fix" things so that they "work better" - and that is basically what Jackson did. Given his own admitted ignorance of the book, he would have been better leaving the story to the story teller and spending his time bringing as much of the original tale to the screen as was possible given the difference in the medium. Of course, in the end that is not what he did - and the films suffer thereby.

Black Breathalizer

04-28-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
So much of what was done was done simply because in his hubris, Jackson thought that he could tell "the story" better.Do you know anything about the making of these movies, Mrs. Maggott? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements. Jackson has said in countless interviews -- and on the EE DVD -- that he didn't want to put "his stuff" into the films; he wanted to present the themes from the books that were important to Tolkien.

In an interview with Ian McKellan, he mentioned that when he arrived on set, he would always see Peter Jackson in his trademark shorts sitting in his director's chair rereading the scenes from the book that they were about to film that day. This doesn't sound to me like a guy who doesn't care about his film's source material. Why would PJ care about the book at this point in the production (the screenplay is their working guide) unless he wanted to make sure he was capturing the author's vision?

Mrs. Maggott

04-28-2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Do you know anything about the making of these movies, Mrs. Maggott? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements. Jackson has said in countless interviews -- and on the EE DVD -- that he didn't want to put "his stuff" into the films; he wanted to present the themes from the books that were important to Tolkien.

In an interview with Ian McKellan, he mentioned that when he arrived on set, he would always see Peter Jackson in his trademark shorts sitting in his director's chair rereading the scenes from the book that they were about to film that day. This doesn't sound to me like a guy who doesn't care about his film's source material. Why would PJ care about the book at this point in the production (the screenplay is their working guide) unless he wanted to make sure he was capturing the author's vision?
Really? And I can tell you about "countless other interviews" some of which I have seen and read (and others of which I have been told of by those whose word I trust) wherein Mr. Jackson said exactly the opposite.

Frankly, BB, you have to accept one of two things: either Jackson was telling the truth in your "countless interviews" and was therefore woefully incompetent (since he failed to tell the story from the virtual "get-go") or he was being less than truthful in the interviews to which you allude. You can't have it both ways - and the proof of that is these two films, the last of which is worse than the first and the first made serious changes in very important characters in the story. You cannot deny the changes made by Jackson. Indeed, you yourself acknowledged them and said that they "tell the story better" at least on film. Therefore, either Jackson meant what he said (at least those time to which you are alluding) or he was simply chock full of wild blueberry muffins!

I think this whole thing can be traced to Jackson's superficial grasp of Tolkien's work. Yes, he understood the basic plot outline, but he had absolutely no comprehension of Tolkien's underlying vision. Jackson simply interpreted the characters and changed to plot to accommodate his more "modern" understanding of what he and his screenwriters thought was Tolkien's "outdated" mythology. And, of course, in doing so, he completely changed the story.

Are there those who enjoy this "new" LOTR? Obviously! Is it equal or superior to the original? In my opinion (and that of others as well), no! Is anyone free to hold another view on the matter? Obviously! But just don't tell me that these films are Tolkien's LOTR because, as they used to say, "'tain't true McGee!"

Ruinel

04-28-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Wayfarer
*ahem*

PJ certainly did not try his best to keep the story true to tolkien'

Had he been attempting such a thing, there would not have been such ridiculous instances as the ford scene or Aragorn's "death". There would not have been pod orcs, Faramir would have been a decent guy, and Frodo would have been smart enough not to go trying to give the ring to a Nazgul.

Period.
Ok, well, I'll admit freely that I was appauled that PJ gave Arwen the ford scene. Very, very, very upset that Faramir was portrayed as this greedy, power hungry (insert word that means 'child without a father').
"Aragorn's death"???? "Frodo tries to give The Ring to a Nazgul???" Huh?
How do you mean pod orcs? They were organized in the books, same as the movie TTT.

Mrs. Maggott

04-28-2003, 11:39 AM

I think the "pod orcs" were the Urak-hai whose birth from the ooze had a certain similarity to the birth of the pod-creatures from the two versions of "The Body Snatchers". Of course, I may be wrong, but there is an English gentleman on another site who is also particularly exercised by Jackson's "orc birthing". :rolleyes:

Ruinel

04-28-2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I think the "pod orcs" were the Urak-hai whose birth from the ooze had a certain similarity to the birth of the pod-creatures from the two versions of "The Body Snatchers". Of course, I may be wrong, but there is an English gentleman on another site who is also particularly exercised by Jackson's "orc birthing". :rolleyes:
Ahh, ok... "pod" orcs. Gottcha. Yeah, I didn't understand where that came from. JRRT said that Orcs multiply the same way the Elves and Men multiply... which means they have ssss... ahem... well, never mind *looks around and checks for admins*. You get the idea.

Elf Girl

04-28-2003, 03:03 PM

*looks sad because BB has ignored her posts*

Black Breathalizer

04-28-2003, 05:20 PM

Sheeesh, the things I do just to keep Elf Girl happy: ;)

Originally posted by Elf Girl
The movie Aragorn just doesn't add up. In FotR, this episode portrays him as cold and inhuman:
Aragorn: Legolas, get them up.
Boromir: Give them a moment, for pity's sake!
Aragorn: By nightfall these hills will be swarming with Orcs. We must reach the woods of LothlÃ³rien...
I guess this is why there is so much disagreement on this thread. You look at the above scene and see a cold, inhuman jerk. I look at the same scene and see a man taking charge and urging the others to get their rears in gear before the sun sets and they are overwhelmed by an army of orcs.

Given the stress of the moment, Aragorn could have lost his patience and told Boromir where he could stick it. Instead he simply stated the urgency of their current situation. I see wisdom and sensitivity there, not coldness or inhuman indifference to their suffering.

Lizra

04-28-2003, 07:03 PM

Yep, there'd be more to blub about if they didn't start moving! :eek:

Gwaimir Windgem

04-28-2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
Ok, well, I'll admit freely that I was appauled that PJ gave Arwen the ford scene. Very, very, very upset that Faramir was portrayed as this greedy, power hungry (insert word that means 'child without a father').
"Aragorn's death"???? "Frodo tries to give The Ring to a Nazgul???" Huh?
How do you mean pod orcs? They were organized in the books, same as the movie TTT.

"Aragorn's death scene" is when he goes over the cliff, everyone thinks he's dead, and then he comes back ("to life"). A kind of "symbolic" (not the right word, but hey, it's me:p) death. In Osgiliath, Frodo stood on a bridge or something face to face with a Nazgul, probably the Witch-king and extended the Ring to him as if offering it.

I see wisdom and sensitivity there, not coldness or inhuman indifference to their suffering.

Except for the sensitivity part, I agree with BB on this one. ( :eek: What is the world coming to? :eek: ) Not really sensitivity it seems to me, but the ability to put aside such things when necessary: sensibility rather than sensitivity.

Mrs. Maggott

04-28-2003, 10:21 PM

I had no problem with Aragorn acting as a leader in the films even afte Moria. I merely wish that Jackson had set up the character so that the audience would expect him to perform that particular function.

However, it must also be remember that in the book, Aragorn does stop and treat both Frodo and Sam's wounds while they are on the way to Lothlorien. He even apologizes for not seeing to their needs sooner. Even as a leader under great duress, Aragorn evinces a warmth and compassion which no doubt Jackson missed the first time he read the book - if in fact he ever read the book (and there is some question about that given some of what has been said in interviews!).

So it appears that Mr. Jackson did not have to make Aragorn into a "wuss" to please his more sensitive audience members. Professor Tolkien had already made the man caring enough for anyone without emotionally castrating him!

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
if in fact he ever read the book (and there is some question about that given some of what has been said in interviews!).

Again, I'd be interested in knowing more. :)

Elf Girl

04-29-2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Sheeesh, the things I do just to keep Elf Girl happy: ;)
Very kind of you. *smiles sickeningly sweet debating smile*

Have I mentioned I love to debate?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I guess this is why there is so much disagreement on this thread. You look at the above scene and see a cold, inhuman jerk. I look at the same scene and see a man taking charge and urging the others to get their rears in gear before the sun sets and they are overwhelmed by an army of orcs.
Calm down. I never said jerk. I do not disagree that Aragorn had every reason to be getting them up and away. However, it seems inhuman that he show no grief himself. He seemed pretty shaken in Moria directly after Gandalf fell. But as he's getting them up outside, there isn't a quiver in his voice. He could be waking up two tired hobbits in Midgewater Marsh!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Given the stress of the moment, Aragorn could have lost his patience and told Boromir where he could stick it.
Hmm, good point. It could have been better if he had, connecting FotR and TTT, making the little outburst with Legolas in Helms Deep seem more in character.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Instead he simply stated the urgency of their current situation. I see wisdom and sensitivity there, not coldness or inhuman indifference to their suffering.
I didn't say "indifference" either. Again: he shows no suffering himself. That is what makes him look inhuman, not the fact that he is trying to get them out.

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 06:58 AM

the question really is why boromir tried to stop frodo from getting to gandalf, did he want to get rid of gandalf??

why gandalf doesnt know the passowrd to Moria? is ti because he doesnt want to go there in the first place??

major plot hole from jacko

Sheeana

04-29-2003, 07:13 AM

Um, he didn't know it in the book either. And that would be because he came from the other direction. Which I believe was the reason in the movie also.

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 07:31 AM

yeah but he eventually figured it out...

int he movie frodo showed him up as foolish, and the audience is left to wonder

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 07:44 AM

Several observations:

In the film, Boromir holds Frodo back for quite obvious reasons: there is nothing that the hobbit could do anyway, and the quest would not be served by him falling into the abyss with the Wizard.

In the book, it is noted that as they leave Moria after Gandalf's fall everyone is weeping, not just Frodo and/or the hobbits. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone would be lying around blubbing, but it certainly does mean that everyone's countenance would have betrayed their grief. Yet also in the book, as the remainder of the Company retreats from the gate, Gimli takes Frodo and Sam aside to look in the Mirrormere (which, of course, wasn't there so that particular scene was out). However inspirational a look into that magical lake might be, the scenario did denote a certain acceptance and ability to go forward with the Quest rather than a group that was so transfixed with grief that they needed to be tongue-lashed into movement.

In the film, Aragorn does seem rather untouched by the calamity and I find this all the more odd because he is the one who wanted to go to Moria while Gandalf held back - exactly the opposite scenario than took place in the book. That alone should have added to his grief but he seemed rather remote and untouched as has been mentioned. It appeared as if he took it as a slight "glitch" in the progress of the journey rather than the fall of their leader and the dashing of all hope of success. He mouths Tolkien's words about "Farewell Gandalf" but one doesn't get the feeling that it is all that hopeless - or at least any more "hopeless" than it was when Gandalf was with them.

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 07:47 AM

look again :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Gandalf was still hanging on when Frodo turned back !!!! before he said "FLy your fools!"

Black Breathalizer

04-29-2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
I do not disagree that Aragorn had every reason to be getting them up and away. However, it seems inhuman that he show no grief himself. He seemed pretty shaken in Moria directly after Gandalf fell. But as he's getting them up outside, there isn't a quiver in his voice. He could be waking up two tired hobbits in Midgewater Marsh!Again, this is about two people watching the same scene and interpreting it two different ways. I see the look in Aragorn's eyes when Gandalf fell and that spoke VOLUMES to me. That one look told the audience (or at least me anyway) of the shock and pain he felt in losing his mentor and the sudden understanding that HE is now in charge. His actions outside Moria only reinforce that feeling. The audience KNOWS that Aragorn is hurting just as bad - if not more - than the others, but he has to set aside his feelings to lead the others on.

In many ways this is a PERFECT example of why Jackson showed Aragorn's human side more. If we hadn't seen Aragorn's self-doubt about the ring in Rivendell, his singing of the Lay of Luthien, and later on, his tears at the death of Boromir, most people might have agreed with Elf Girl and thought he was too cold and inhuman. In many ways, Tolkien's character on film would have significantly increased that perception.

Originally posted by WhackoJacko
the question really is why boromir tried to stop frodo from getting to gandalf, did he want to get rid of gandalf??The bridge had just collapsed. I think it was very prudent for Boromir to hold Frodo back since the rest of the now-unstable bridge might have gone down underneath of him as he ran out to Gandalf.

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by WhackoJacko
look again :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Gandalf was still hanging on when Frodo turned back !!!! before he said "FLy your fools!"
Of course he was still "hanging on" when Frodo turned back. It would have made no sense for the hobbit to run to the Wizard after he had fallen into the abyss!

But Boromir (a seasoned warrior) knew that even if Gandalf could have been pulled up onto what remained of the bridge, it would require a strong man, not a hobbit to do it. Of course, the coils of the balrog's whip still were entwined about the Wizard's legs which meant that any such attempt to pull him back up would be futile since it would require strength enough to pull the balrog with him - and quite aside from not wanting to retrieve the creature, I doubt that anyone there - or all of them together - had that kind of strength.

No, Boromir's restraint of Frodo was a worthy, understandable and intelligent act and certainly does not denote any attempt to separate the Bearer from the Wizard.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by WhackoJacko
int he movie frodo showed him up as foolish, and the audience is left to wonder

This one I tend to agree with. I mean, the world Istar is deriven from "wise" (hence Tolkien's use of the word 'wizard'). The Istari were very wise and knowledgable folk. And yet, Frodo figured it out before Gandalf?:confused:

Black Breathalizer

04-29-2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
No, Boromir's restraint of Frodo was a worthy, understandable and intelligent act and certainly does not denote any attempt to separate the Bearer from the Wizard.Finally, Mrs. Maggott has said something here I actually agree with. :)

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 12:37 PM

Mirrormere was there, they just didn't look into it, at least not on camera. Obviously some things are there for the book fans to supply the details ourselves.

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Finally, Mrs. Maggott has said something here I actually agree with. :)
Ah! I have achieved Nirvana - I guess! ;)

However, doubtless I shall quickly disappoint you again given our diametric views on these films! :rolleyes:

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
This one I tend to agree with. I mean, the world Istar is deriven from "wise" (hence Tolkien's use of the word 'wizard'). The Istari were very wise and knowledgable folk. And yet, Frodo figured it out before Gandalf?:confused:

In drama, you can't have one character doing all the smart stuff and everyone else just shuffling along behind like idiots, so you have to spread the ideas about a bit.

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Really? And I can tell you about "countless other interviews" some of which I have seen and read (and others of which I have been told of by those whose word I trust) wherein Mr. Jackson said exactly the opposite.

Frankly, BB, you have to accept one of two things: either Jackson was telling the truth in your "countless interviews" and was therefore woefully incompetent (since he failed to tell the story from the virtual "get-go") or he was being less than truthful in the interviews to which you allude. You can't have it both ways - and the proof of that is these two films, the last of which is worse than the first and the first made serious changes in very important characters in the story. You cannot deny the changes made by Jackson. Indeed, you yourself acknowledged them and said that they "tell the story better" at least on film. Therefore, either Jackson meant what he said (at least those time to which you are alluding) or he was simply chock full of wild blueberry muffins!

I think this whole thing can be traced to Jackson's superficial grasp of Tolkien's work. Yes, he understood the basic plot outline, but he had absolutely no comprehension of Tolkien's underlying vision. Jackson simply interpreted the characters and changed to plot to accommodate his more "modern" understanding of what he and his screenwriters thought was Tolkien's "outdated" mythology. And, of course, in doing so, he completely changed the story.

Are there those who enjoy this "new" LOTR? Obviously! Is it equal or superior to the original? In my opinion (and that of others as well), no! Is anyone free to hold another view on the matter? Obviously! But just don't tell me that these films are Tolkien's LOTR because, as they used to say, "'tain't true McGee!"

You say he failed to tell the story, but that's an opinion. If he didn't tell the story, it would have failed to interest the audience. Yet you then use this opinion that you have stated as fact to support your next statement that he was lying about reading the books. It is an opinion that he has a superficial grasp, an opinion based only on your other opinion, which is really that he didn't tell the story the way you would have.

You are quick to tell people what they have to accept, but you are slow to accept that it is a difference of taste, and not an absolute fact.

Just because we disagree with BB and particularly dislkie the concept of "improving Tolkien", doesn't mean we can cheat the rules of fair dispute.

Elf Girl

04-29-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Again, this is about two people watching the same scene and interpreting it two different ways. I see the look in Aragorn's eyes when Gandalf fell and that spoke VOLUMES to me. That one look told the audience (or at least me anyway) of the shock and pain he felt in losing his mentor and the sudden understanding that HE is now in charge. His actions outside Moria only reinforce that feeling. The audience KNOWS that Aragorn is hurting just as bad - if not more - than the others, but he has to set aside his feelings to lead the others on.
Again, you contradict yourself. First you say two different people can interpret a scene two different ways, then you say the audience "knows" that Aragorn is hurting just as bad. How do you know that your viewpoint is the majority? Maybe mine is. Most likely, everyone interprets it slightly differently.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In many ways this is a PERFECT example of why Jackson showed Aragorn's human side more. If we hadn't seen Aragorn's self-doubt about the ring in Rivendell, his singing of the Lay of Luthien, and later on, his tears at the death of Boromir, most people might have agreed with Elf Girl and thought he was too cold and inhuman. In many ways, Tolkien's character on film would have significantly increased that perception.
(First I would like to say that we didn't see his singing of the Lay of Leithien in the theatrical release. However that is beside the point and a nitpick.) In the book, we do see him singing the Lay of Leithien and crying upon Boromir's death. Indeed:
He knelt for a while, bent with weeping, still clasping Boromir's hand.
If that isn't "human", I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The bridge had just collapsed. I think it was very prudent for Boromir to hold Frodo back since the rest of the now-unstable bridge might have gone down underneath of him as he ran out to Gandalf.
I agree completely. The quest would certainly fail if a Balrog of Morgoth got hold of the Ring.

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You say he failed to tell the story, but that's an opinion. If he didn't tell the story, it would have failed to interest the audience. Yet you then use this opinion that you have stated as fact to support your next statement that he was lying about reading the books. It is an opinion that he has a superficial grasp, an opinion based only on your other opinion, which is really that he didn't tell the story the way you would have.

You are quick to tell people what they have to accept, but you are slow to accept that it is a difference of taste, and not an absolute fact.

Just because we disagree with BB and particularly dislkie the concept of "improving Tolkien", doesn't mean we can cheat the rules of fair dispute.

That Jackson failed to tell the story is not opinion but fact. He changed the focus of the tale from hobbits to men. He changed Aragorn from a "hidden king" doing deeds of errantry against the day when he could reclaim his throne to a man who rejected his heritage and feared his "blood". He changed Arwen Evenstar into Xena-Evenstar, Elfwarrior princess. He changed Elrond the compassionate and wise counselor into a nasty, cynical fellow who mouthed Saruman's words about "failed Numenor". He changed Merry and Pippin from stouthearted devoted companions willing to risk life and limb for a friend into bumbling sneakthieves swept up into the quest by accident. He changed Frodo from a strong and courageous hobbit into someone who was so weak that he virtually passed out from (or attempted to "pass out" the Ring to) any stray Nazgul. And most of this happened in the first film! It doesn't even take into account (except for the Ring/Nazgul episode) Jackson's "version" of TTT!

I tell no one what they have to accept save only where one is speaking of facts. Yes, you have to accept that one plus one equals two. It isn't a matter of my "opinion" vs. your "opinion", but a matter of black and white as it appears on the printed page. Jackson changed the story no matter how many "familiar scenes" he managed to put in to give veresimilitude to his deviations. The names were the same, but many of the characters were different, something which is easily seen when one character mouths the words that belong to an entirely different character - and Jackson does this more than once (see Elrond above). He keeps the plot relatively true in the first film (with the exception of the "million orc army" and the "stairs of doom" in Moria), but in the second film, he no longer even attempts to do that.

I have not "cheated" or in any way broken the "rules" of fair debate. I have merely pointed out where Jackson failed in this matter. When you change at the most fundamental level many of the main characters in the plot, you have changed the story even if its outward semblance remains familiar. And as always happens in such matters, with each film the audience has been willing to accept an even greater deviation from the original story simply because we have become familiar with Jackson's characters and they no longer bother many film goers. This is called "gradualism"; that is, "getting used to" something by virtue of length of exposure to it. I guarantee, if a Tolkien lover saw TTT first (knowing the story), he would certainly want to know why Jackson had been permitted to use either TTT or LOTR in the title since the film had little to do with either.

Elf Girl

04-29-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson changed the story no matter how many "familiar scenes" he managed to put in to give veresimilitude to his deviations.
Yes, he changed it, but does that mean he failed to tell it? He certainly didn't tell it very well, (IMHO), but it was a movie and it was discernible as Lord of the Rings.

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Yes, he changed it, but does that mean he failed to tell it? He certainly didn't tell it very well, (IMHO), but it was a movie and it was discernible as Lord of the Rings.

That all depends upon how you judge what constitutes "the story". Do you really believe it is no more than a "quest tale"? A "there-and-back-again" story with no more deep and important "message" than a sort of "hobbit finds Ring, hobbit leaves Ring to nephew, kindly Wizard learns Ring is evil" - and so forth? Surely, if the story were no more than that, I doubt seriously it would have achieved the fame, acclaim and almost permanent popularity that it has developed over the years. Tolkien's rather "simple" quest tale is merely the framework upon which is hung the author's comments upon so many different and complicated moral and ethical issues.

Certainly, when younger readers first come upon the tale (and the same thing happens in The Hobbit), they see the most obvious elements. However as time goes on and the book is read again (and again), the great Truths being postulated by Tolkien make themselves known and much of what is hard to understand in the story (why there is a chapter devoted to Scouring of the Shire when it seems to "anti-climactic" for instance) becomes not only understood, but frequently is seen as more important than many other more obvious plot threads.

Jackson gave us the story as someone who was seeing only its most superficial aspects. Therefore, he could see no reason why this or that couldn't be changed; why Arwen couldn't be made more prominent (and martial) and Aragorn less "heroic" - and so forth. But this attitude denotes a serious lack of understanding of the author's vision and meaning of the tale. It is a "comic book" approach to LOTR which really should not surprise us given the "comic book" nature of Jackson's past films.

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 03:54 PM

You have been arguing so long that all your opinions have become incontravertible fact in your head. But they are still only opinions.

It is your opinion that the focus of the story is hobbits. It is the opinion of others that the focus of the story is men. The fourth age, which the war begins, is the age of man. In my opinion it is perfectly valid to see the story from that point of view. I think the story can be written from myriad points of view, each could be valid in its own way.

Aragorn has doubts. Are you saying the Aragorn of the book doesn't have any doubts if it is time for his return?

We've all been over Xenarwen till it's a dead horse. When you think of all the awesome elven women in the Silmarillion, and of Eowyn later in the book, surely Arwen comes off as a sissy. It is my opinion that the girl who stays home sewing while her man is off to war is not particularly interesting. Just think of Luthien who chased Beren down to say we are in this together. And beside, it is my opinion that Xena is hot!

Elven kings in Tolkien's books aren't compassionate! um... in my opinion ... they are more often cold. I never thought of Elrond as compassionate. He hardly even helped, except that he thought fondly of Bilbo. Yes you can meet here, but please move along ... my pretty idyllic dreamworld is getting all mussed up by your farmboys.

Now hold on, it was common for the hobbit boys to raid Farmer Maggot's field. They rarely took much. What do you mean sneak thieves!? Now we both know that the two of them had recruited Sam to spy on Frodo, and isn't that sneaky!? But they were doing it because they were worried for him. As to their bumbling, well Pippin does bumble a few times in the book. And he does she that Pippin has the presence of mind to leaev the brooch, and he sets it up that Pippin (the bumbler) knows just how to get the Ents to fight. So their characters are still heroic, and hopefully we will see the serious side in the next movie.

And you're saying that Frodo didn't turn into a mean-spirited, weak, and bitter hobbit from his experience? Now that's just your opinion, and mine is that he did. The saddest thing is what the Ring does to Frodo.

In your opinion, you stated that many films, and gave Harry Potter as an example, have been more faithfully rendered. Frankly, in my opinion, Harry Potter shouldn't even be mentioned in the same place as Lord of the Rings. The books were written in a time when novels are cinematic to begin with. And secondly, Jackson's movies plumb depths of the human soul that those lightweight bits of fluff don't even know about! And I also am of the opinion that the depths Jackson found were from the LotR books to start with.

So now I am saying that you not only mistake your opinion for fact, but that you have entrenched yourself in a position that you are only interested in defending at any cost, even at the cost of truth. At least that's what it looks like from here.

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 04:12 PM

I am sorry I failed to make myself clear. I did not say that the focus of the LOTR was the hobbits, TOLKIEN said it. Indeed, most of what I brought to you is either quotes from Tolkien himself or from books by those who have delved deeply into his works. These things have absolutely nothing to do with me or my opinions. It is one thing to have a difference of opinon with a third party about these matters - and quite another to have it with the chap who wrote the book.

Frankly, to suggest that Tolkien might not have known what he is talking about regarding his own work suggests to me at least, the same mindset as prompted Mr. Jackson to "rewrite" the story. I suppose it can be happen, but it will always result in a product that is inferior to the original.

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 04:38 PM

No, I do not believe that there is a final authority on anything, not even the author himself. If he were an authority on screenplay writing, or drama in general, then his opinions would carry more weight. But since he practically calls drama a bastard art, even though Aristotle calls it one of the three forms of poetry, he makes himself less an authority on the subject of fiction to drama conversions. I like Tolkien fine, but if he thinks he's better than Shakespeare, he's got another think coming, as the Gaffer would say.

In drama, you have to imagine the story from each character's perspective. In fiction you only have to read the writer's perspective. In fiction a writer can be full of opinions and colorful truisms, but in drama the actors have to use dialogue convincingly to convey those same ideas.

I bet none of the people trashing the screenplay has ever even tried to write one of their own. But they still want to say it has nothing to do with the genres. That would be speaking from a position of not-knowing.

Stop beating me over the head with "Tolkien said so". Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. He didn't even think it was literature. If your opinion is valid you can support it without having to resort to "but Tolkien said" all the time.

Mrs. Maggott

04-29-2003, 04:52 PM

Again, I am sorry, but it doesn't matter if Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. Obviously, what he did write was so good that a lot of people wanted to see this "non-play" brought to the screen.

Jackson raised money and backers by promising to do just that: bring Tolkien's "non-play" to the screen. A great deal of interest was garnered (including in these sites) because of the belief that Jackson was going to at least attempt to bring Tolkien's "non-play" to the screen. But in the end, all we got was Jackson's attempt to fob his amateurish rip-off as a legitimate expression of Tolkien's "non-play". Frankly, if Tolkien's work were so inferior, why should Jackson have even wanted to spend all that time and money attempting to bring it to the screen when he could have given us another of his famous "splatter" films?

Considering that the best dialogue, the best action, the best drama and the greatest moments in these films occurred at those places wherein Jackson stuck as closely as possible to Tolkien's "non-play", I would say that the actors would have had a lot happier interpreting Tolkien than Jackson.

Elf Girl

04-29-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
That all depends upon how you judge what constitutes "the story". Do you really believe it is no more than a "quest tale"? A there-and-back-again" story with no more deep and important "message" than a sort of "hobbit finds Ring, hobbit leaves Ring to nephew, kindly Wizard learns Ring is evil" - and so forth? Surely, if the story were no more than that, I doubt seriously it would have achieved the fame, acclaim and almost permanent popularity that it has developed over the years. Tolkien's rather "simple" quest tale is merely the framework upon which is hung the author's comments upon so many different and complicated moral and ethical issues.
Yes, I think that 'hobbit finds Ring, hobbit leaves Ring to nephew, kindly Wizard learns Ring is evil, and so forth' is 'the story'. However I also think there is more to LotR than the story.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Certainly, when younger readers first come upon the tale (and the same thing happens in The Hobbit), they see the most obvious elements. However as time goes on and the book is read again (and again), the great Truths being postulated by Tolkien make themselves known and much of what is hard to understand in the story (why there is a chapter devoted to Scouring of the Shire when it seems to "anti-climactic" for instance) becomes not only understood, but frequently is seen as more important than many other more obvious plot threads.
Yes, it is true that most readers (not just the young ones, you know!) see first the story, and later on the ideas and opinions and meanings Tolkien has ingeniously threaded in.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Jackson gave us the story as someone who was seeing only its most superficial aspects. Therefore, he could see no reason why this or that couldn't be changed; why Arwen couldn't be made more prominent (and martial) and Aragorn less "heroic" - and so forth. But this attitude denotes a serious lack of understanding of the author's vision and meaning of the tale. It is a "comic book" approach to LOTR which really should not surprise us given the "comic book" nature of Jackson's past films.
That I agree with. However, as I explained above, I see the 'story' as being separate from the deeper aspects of the novel.

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
...But in the end, all we got was Jackson's attempt to fob his amateurish rip-off ...

At least admit that these are opinions. Because when you then go on to use these opinions to support other opinions, it all seems like fanaticism.

Yes, it does matter, I am sorry to inform you, that Tolkien did not know anything about writing drama, and that he spoke ill of Shakespeare, and that he said drama is not literature. As a result, Tolkien is not an authority on drama. Therefore, continually beating Peter Jackson over the head with your Tolkien book is just not in the rules of fair dispute. It's called the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and isn't a fallacy if the authority is valid. But when the supposed authority is not knowledgeable on the subject (even though he be a monumental genius in many other ways), it is a fallacy.

Peter Jackson made the movies because he is a fan, just like us. Most of us diagree with him, just as we disagree with each other, about how to convert it. But it's not true to say he was ripping off Tolkien, or us. In my opinion, everything in both movies so far has been honestly rendered in accordance with his interpretation, together with Phillippa Boyens.

Saying things like "if he ever even READ the books" etc, is just taking cheap shots.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
1)No, I do not believe that there is a final authority on anything, not even the author himself....2)but if he thinks he's better than Shakespeare, he's got another think coming, as the Gaffer would say.
3)Stop beating me over the head with "Tolkien said so". Tolkien never wrote a play in his life. He didn't even think it was literature. If your opinion is valid you can support it without having to resort to "but Tolkien said" all the time...Yes, it does matter, I am sorry to inform you, that Tolkien did not know anything about writing drama, and that he spoke ill of Shakespeare, and that he said drama is not literature
4)If he didn't tell the story, it would have failed to interest the audience.
5)You are quick to tell people what they have to accept, but you are slow to accept that it is a difference of taste, and not an absolute fact.
6)I bet none of the people trashing the screenplay has ever even tried to write one of their own.

1) From what I've heard, wouldn't that be especially the author? I thought that you'd said a few times that the author is the single person who is least capable of telling about his story and the meanings themes etc. therein.
2) Um...isn't this just the same thing: opinion?
3) But what does Tolkien's lack of knowledge in regards to drama have to do with the themes of his book?
4) Not necessarily true. If he told a different story, it could have interested the audience.
5) Um...isn't that exactly what BB always does? :confused:
6) Yourself included?

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 05:57 PM

In my opinion, everything in both movies so far has been honestly rendered in accordance with his interpretation, together with Phillippa Boyens.

I really don't understand that. How can someone "interpret" Glorfindel sending Frodo to the Ford with his horse as Arwen taking him to the Ford? Or how can someone think that when Tolkien said that Faramir aided Frodo, he really meant he kidnapped him? :confused: Surely PJ does not think that Tolkien is so stupid?

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 06:33 PM

1) In my opinion the author's guess at his own themes is important, but I don't think he's the final authority.

2) Sure, it's my opinion that Shakespeare is greater than Tolkien. I hope that doesn't get me banned! ;)

3) What I'm saying is that Tolkien's prejudice against drama has made him a non-authority on the subject of converting fiction to drama. His opinion is useful, but on some matters he lacks the experience to address dramatic issues.

4) She said he failed to tell the story. I think he is succeeding.

5) Yes, they're both guilty of stating their taste and opinions as holy writ.

6) My lame attempt to make an operatic libretto of Beren and Luthien taught me one thing: it is impossible to do it following the fiction writer all the way.

Glorfindel: What would you rather have, a cameo for an obscure hero from another book or expansion of a central character? I know your answer is different from PJ's, but it is a mattter of taste.

Faramir: Yeah, I disagree with him here, too. But it's my guess he wanted to make it clear by showing, not telling, that Gondor was also under attack. Because Theoden just said that Gondor would not aid him. (Never mind that Osgiliath was actually attacked months earlier... grrr...) I mean, I can see his rationale. Can't say I like it...

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 06:55 PM

1) I'm curious: who do you think gets the final authority? The reader?

2) :eek: :eek: :eek: Well, each to his own. :)

3) You didn't answer my question. I was talking about such things as what he wrote without any regard to dramatization of his book, as in the Themes, or the appearance of Orcs.

4) But it stands he could tell a different story, and quite possibly captivate the audience, yes?

5) I'm sorry, I don't think I've ever seen you jump on BB for this. Is it because he's been around longer?

But those are still not interpretations of Tolkien, but rather changes (with the intent of improving upon) of Tolkien. Of course he had reasons; I didn't think he just went through blindfolded, tore out pages, and then rewrote them. ;)

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 07:10 PM

It's obvious that some people think those changes were attempts to improve on Tolkien. I think BB is the only one who ever used that word here actually making that claim. I think in every conversion between a narrated art and an acted art you'll have to change things. I don't agree with those changes either, I hope that's clear.

3) That's a different topic.

4) Given that there must be changes, it stands to reason that the story will be a little different. It's certainly not as different as people have been exagerating!

1) Now we're getting into philosophy and that's way off the point. You know what I will say in my existential angst...

Basically, a writer can't spend his life trashing an entire genre and then people get to use his books to bonk the heads of those who work in that genre. That's just absurd.

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 07:14 PM

I mean, just because I would do it differently doesn't give me the right to go around declaring war on everyone who likes the way it was done.

Let's start a thread about what we would have done differently!

p.s. remind me to jump on BB...

Black Breathalizer

04-29-2003, 08:20 PM

Everything that gets posted here only reinforces my opinion that you Purists here really are caught up in the details. You just can't let go of the little nitpicky things that for some reason upset your personal view of LOTR. As Elfhelm has so eloquently pointed out, screenplays are different creatures than novels. Peter, Fran, and Phillipa tried to capture the spirit of the books while making changes necessary to the drama, pacing, and flow of the films.

Everytime I ask for examples of how PJ's themes differ from the books, I get nitpicky specifics about characterizations or plot deviations deemed necessary for bringing the story to the big screen. If you want to continue to trash these films, that's your right. If you want to say they fail to capture the spirit of the books, you can do that too. But understand that your so-called "truths" only cause most LOTR fans to smile to themselves and say, "uh oh, one of those people."

The real truth is that the world is hailing Peter Jackson's film version of this tale. Each of the first two films has made over 800 million at the box office in their theatrical releases alone. With the DVD sales, the take is in billions of dollars. The critics, many of them huge Tolkien fans, have applauded the way PJ has captured the magic of the books on film. Others in the industry agree: The films have received 18 Academy Award nominations and won 7. And we haven't even gotten to THE BEST of the three films yet!!!!!!!!!

*** Special note - This is the point where some Purist responds with "yeah, so what? Lots of money and Academy Award recognition don't mean diddily squat!" ***

I understand. Really I do. Why spoil your precious "truth" with the cold, bitter taste of reality?

Mark my words, Return of the King will earn over a billion dollars at the boxoffice and will win the Academy Award as Best Picture of the Year. The entire film series will be gobbled up by eager LOTR fans for years and years to come. If the view of you Purists was truly "the Majority" view and not the grumblings of a few whiney LOTR message board geeks (I mean this in the NICEST way ;) :) ), then these things wouldn't be happening. I may be in the minority here, but in your heart of hearts, you all know I'm right about this.

By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book? :)

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 08:21 PM

Of course not. I have no problem with people who thought they were fine adaptations, as I've said before, i.e. Lizra, Dunedain, and a few others. It's BB that gets annoying, with his militaristic attitude about it, and the way he acts like those who don't agree a) don't understand Tolkien b) are too dumb to tell that it is in actuality perfection on screen, or c) which I won't even mention. :p

Consider yourself reminded. ;)

Basically, a writer can't spend his life trashing an entire genre and then people get to use his books to bonk the heads of those who work in that genre. That's just absurd.

In regards to other areas, such as the author's own work, and the story it tells, what's important in it, etc. I disagree.

P. S. He did not "spend his life trashing an entire genre". The fact that he strongly disliked does not mean he bad-mouthed seven days a week.

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Of course he was still "hanging on" when Frodo turned back. It would have made no sense for the hobbit to run to the Wizard after he had fallen into the abyss!

No, Boromir's restraint of Frodo was a worthy, understandable and intelligent act and certainly does not denote any attempt to separate the Bearer from the Wizard.

interestingly, NO attempt to save Gandalf, despite the general feelign that the quest was doommed without him. Cant say i would have you as firend in hour of need Miss Maggott :D :D

Gwaimir Windgem

04-29-2003, 10:56 PM

Whacko, it is the same in the book; once Gandalf has fallen from the bridge, there are no attempts to aid him.

Elfhelm

04-29-2003, 11:36 PM

I'm not a purist, I'm a snob. :)

If the details aren't important, maybe the author should have written a short story! There you go justifying your means with your "same ends" again. The story IS the details, didn't you know?

GW, I wasn't refering to those other areas. However, I do prefer to think for myself.

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
And secondly, Jackson's movies plumb depths of the human soul that those lightweight bits of fluff don't even know about! And I also am of the opinion that the depths Jackson found were from the LotR books to start with.

So now I am saying that you not only mistake your opinion for fact, but that you have entrenched yourself in a position that you are only interested in defending at any cost, even at the cost of truth. At least that's what it looks like from here.

thats the whole point of contention, there isnt any depths in Jakcon's attempt at all, and despite the anti Hollywood blurbs, they have made all the hollywood cliches.

I for one, came away from the movie feeling rather hollow for a 3 hour movie sitting !!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Prime example, Tolkien wrote three contrasting characters for erhmm "dramatisation": frodo, gollum faramir.......the past, the present and the future...what did Jackson give us?? 3 gollums (actually 2, faramir was a confused wreck) And this is in the middle of the second book, doea anyone doubt the outcome of the sotyr? great suspense NOT

for a visual medium and a director aspiring to greatness, Jackson seems to have a lot of voice overs :mad: :rolleyes: so for those who say why dont you write a screenplay, well i say i dont have to coz i paid for that ticket to criticise bad screenplays :D

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
In drama, you have to imagine the story from each character's perspective. In fiction you only have to read the writer's perspective. In fiction a writer can be full of opinions and colorful truisms, but in drama the actors have to use dialogue convincingly to convey those same ideas.

In fiction you only have to read the writer's perspective. In fiction a writer can be full of opinions and colorful truisms,

how untrue can u get??? that my friend is the criteria to judge a fiction author

WhackoJacko

04-29-2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Surely PJ does not think that Tolkien is so stupid?

Nope, Jackson thinks the audience is that stupid...well this one wont buy the TTT DVD, EE or otherwise

WhackoJacko

04-30-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
It's obvious that some people think those changes were attempts to improve on Tolkien. I think BB is the only one who ever used that word here actually making that claim. I think in every conversion between a narrated art and an acted art you'll have to change things. I don't agree with those changes either, I hope that's clear.

i believe Jackson made the same BS in answering web questions on changes to Faramir, that the ring was all conquering and it wouldnt make sense to have faramir (who has never seen the ring) NOT tempted by it.

well it made sense in the book so why not on screen?? Given the fact that Boromir had the ring in his hands already (the one person who wanted it and would use it) and gave it back duh !!!:rolleyes:

Gwaimir Windgem

04-30-2003, 12:15 AM

Oh, didn't you know? Apparently, TTT was Tolkien's brain fart. :p

Elfhelm

04-30-2003, 12:38 AM

That's silly, Aragorn isn't corrupted by it either.

But I guess he's trying to give more persona to the One Ring. I heard him say he was trying to make it a character but it can only act through others. Sounds to me like he's approaching it like a dramatic challenge.

I can't explain the depths I get from these two movies, and I don't think you really want to read it anyway. For months after the first movie I was unable to watch any other movie. Again after the second movie I had the same situation. My expectations for film became very high. I have been moved by the performances of the actors. I have played the two sound tracks over and over. I sing Britten and Bach and barbershop. The singing on the soundtrack, the awesome choral writing, the haunting songs, that's just a small piece of what these renditions do for me. I've always liked Alan Lee. Some of the set are right out of his drawings! I could go on, actually mention some emotional reactions, but if you've never had them, you wouldn't understand.

There are things I don't agree with, and I've mentioned them here in the past, but I am eagerly awaiting the EE DVD and I am ready for RotK. Maybe I should rent Arachnaphobia to get me in the mood for her.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-30-2003, 12:49 AM

Wasn't Arachnaphobia about little spiders? Eight-legged Freaks is big spiders...but that movies was pure crap...:rolleyes:

WhackoJacko

04-30-2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book? :)

i will be right there saying i told ya so " heheh :D

it will be such a let down is u get so hyped up lol....go watch 'the rise and fall of the Roman Empire" the "real" Gladiator and see why modern directors sux swo much dpesite better technology

Gwaimir Windgem

04-30-2003, 12:53 AM

By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book?

I think they're good movies, which can be enjoyed as separate entities. There's no reason for me to boycott it. :p

Wayfarer

04-30-2003, 01:11 AM

I can't explain the depths I get from these two movies, and I don't think you really want to read it anyway. For months after the first movie I was unable to watch any other movie. Again after the second movie I had the same situation. My expectations for film became very high. I have been moved by the performances of the actors. I have played the two sound tracks over and over. I sing Britten and Bach and barbershop. The singing on the soundtrack, the awesome choral writing, the haunting songs, that's just a small piece of what these renditions do for me. I've always liked Alan Lee. Some of the set are right out of his drawings! I could go on, actually mention some emotional reactions, but if you've never had them, you wouldn't understand.

Well now.

I do think that they were bad films. I consider them to be failures of narrative, plot, character, and circumstance. They were bad movies overall. I obviously didn't like them as much as you did.

That said, there were /places/ in the films where I know what you're saying.

Jackson ruined vast swaths of middle earth by making it into psuedomedieval hack fantasy. But in a few places the majesty and grandeur of Tolkien's world really did shine through. And you know... those few places almost make the whole thing worth it.

If only the fools had seen fit to bring Tolkien's LOTR to the screen in whole, rather than in part.

Sheeana

04-30-2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Wasn't Arachnaphobia about little spiders? Eight-legged Freaks is big spiders...but that movies was pure crap...:rolleyes:

Little spiders from New Zealand. :D They were actually avondale spiders (from Avondale :rolleyes: ). Cute little buggers too. :D

Wayfarer

04-30-2003, 08:08 AM

Very Cute. :p I like spiders.

Say, Sheeana- why'd you get a new profile rather than just changing the name?

Black Breathalizer

04-30-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I can't explain the depths I get from these two movies, and I don't think you really want to read it anyway. For months after the first movie I was unable to watch any other movie. Again after the second movie I had the same situation. My expectations for film became very high. I have been moved by the performances of the actors. I have played the two sound tracks over and over. I sing Britten and Bach and barbershop. The singing on the soundtrack, the awesome choral writing, the haunting songs, that's just a small piece of what these renditions do for me. I've always liked Alan Lee. Some of the set are right out of his drawings! I could go on, actually mention some emotional reactions, but if you've never had them, you wouldn't understand.Beautifully said. You've captured the way I feel about the films too.

Last night I watched a "Screen to Film" TV show on the Making of Jaws. The author of the novel, Peter Benchley, who has written both novels and screenplays said the following when asked about the changes that were made in translating his novel to the big screen: The two are very different mediums. Any author who thinks his story can be translated to film exactly as it was written is nuts.

Melko Belcha

04-30-2003, 09:40 AM

You say we keep on bringing up small details like characters, well to me the characters are the #1 thing that makes the story. The characters are who you connect with and who carry you through the story. I would have been more accepting to changes to the book if the characters would have stayed the same. Characters are not a small detail, a small detail is like there are no mountains near the Shire, well in PJ's ME there is, that is a small detail, and not one I care to complain about. But the charaters for me are the most important detail of the story, to change the characters, and to rearange their dialoge is to destroy the entire story.

And LotR is through the eyes of the hobbits, and not because Tolkien said it was, it's because that is the way the story is written. There is no room for a difference of interpretaion when the story is written a certain way. Ever since the begining of writing LotR Tolkien had it through the eyes of the hobbits.

Elvengirl

04-30-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Wayfarer

But in a few places the majesty and grandeur of Tolkien's world really did shine through. And you know... those few places almost make the whole thing worth it.

I feel the same. The TTT was a major dissappointment for me, I was hanging my head throughout most of the movie. But the scenes where the book just comes alive for me and I am seeing Middle Earth or watching Gandalf fight the Balrog or Bibo's party, that is what I love about the movie. Those scenes where I get excited just thinking about them, that make the whole thing worth it. :)

Elf Girl

04-30-2003, 03:19 PM

You never defined "purist". You must be using a differant dictionary, since you seem to think it is an insult.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Everything that gets posted here only reinforces my opinion that you Purists here really are caught up in the details. You just can't let go of the little nitpicky things that for some reason upset your personal view of LOTR. As Elfhelm has so eloquently pointed out, screenplays are different creatures than novels. Peter, Fran, and Phillipa tried to capture the spirit of the books while making changes necessary to the drama, pacing, and flow of the films.

Everytime I ask for examples of how PJ's themes differ from the books, I get nitpicky specifics about characterizations or plot deviations deemed necessary for bringing the story to the big screen. If you want to continue to trash these films, that's your right. If you want to say they fail to capture the spirit of the books, you can do that too. But understand that your so-called "truths" only cause most LOTR fans to smile to themselves and say, "uh oh, one of those people."
There you go again. You must be one of those people. We have put themes to you. You have evaded them. I challenge you to say, straight out, that characterization isn't a theme. Just so you know, there isn't a lot of text on the screen before the movie saying, "In this movie, Aragorn's character is such and such, and Frodo's character is so and so..." The only way to see their character in the movie is to look at specific incidents. If you refuse to actually look at the movie itself, than there is nothing we can do for you.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
This is the point where some Purist responds with "yeah, so what? Lots of money and Academy Award recognition don't mean diddily squat!"

I understand. Really I do. Why spoil your precious "truth" with the cold, bitter taste of reality?
Oh, they certainly don't mean diddily squat. However, Acadamy Award recognition and lots of money have to do with whether it was a good movie, and not whether it captured the themes of Tolkien's vision, which is what we are discussing.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Mark my words, Return of the King will earn over a billion dollars at the boxoffice and will win the Academy Award as Best Picture of the Year. The entire film series will be gobbled up by eager LOTR fans for years and years to come. If the view of you Purists was truly "the Majority" view and not the grumblings of a few whiney LOTR message board geeks (I mean this in the NICEST way ;) :) ), then these things wouldn't be happening. I may be in the minority here, but in your heart of hearts, you all know I'm right about this.
Huh? First you say we're not the majority, then you say you're the minority. And I'll thank you to not put words in our mouths. (Or feelings in our hearts in this case.)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
By the way, how many of you are planning to boycott ROTK since you are so disgusted with its translation from the book? :)
I don't know (or care) if you believe me, but I have been seriously considering just that. I will certainly be waiting a few weeks after it comes out to see what the general opinion on Entmoot is.

RÃan

04-30-2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Wayfarer
... But in a few places the majesty and grandeur of Tolkien's world really did shine through...

There are some MAJOR parts in the film that absolutely make me cringe with embarassment or yell out "No! That's not right at all!", but those places where Tolkien 'shines through' make the movies well worth it, for me. I just basically put my mind in the 'ignore' mode (you know, like when your parents are talking to you ;) :D) during the bad parts, and really, really enjoy the good parts.

Sheeana

04-30-2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Say, Sheeana- why'd you get a new profile rather than just changing the name?

It has something to do with the colour of my hair, and the nature of the beast. :rolleyes:

Wayfarer

04-30-2003, 08:45 PM

The two are very different mediums. Any author who thinks his story can be translated to film exactly as it was written is nuts.

Let me ask you something.

Where do you draw the line at 'nescessary changes'?

You know what? I'm perfectly okay with replacing Glorfindel with Arwen. I really am! I have nothing against the character of Arwen.

What I /do/ have a problem with is this new, expanded Arwen usurping the roles (in the ford scenes) of Four Hobbits, Two Elven Lords, A Ranger and Future King, and a Maian Istari.

Do you see the difference? The character of Glorfindel may not be nescessary. It may be fine to replace him. But to completely butcher that scene, placing the focus on Arwen's sword-brandishing and 'magic' rather than the group efforts of far more important characters than her, and completely... well rape is as suitable an ajective as I can find, the character of Frodo, turning him from a simple hobbit who finds within him the strength to resist both ring and morgul wound, into a simpering, fainting, pathetic... nothing.

Do you see the tiny difference? Do you see how what was actually done might not fit the criteria of 'nescessary modifications'?

The changes that were made were mostly ridiculous. While there were some that were logical and acceptable, such things as the ridiculous side trip to Osgiliath or elves showing up at helms deep add nothing to the story, and are not even remotely close to 'nescessary modifications'. They were not made because of the differences between film and written mediums, they were made because jackson insisted (foolishly) that he could tell the story better than tolkien.

Ruinel

04-30-2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
It has something to do with the colour of my hair, and the nature of the beast. :rolleyes:
:confused: Wow, you lost me there... you are blond, and you're now saying that you are a ewe? Explain please. BTW, Ulmo tossed me back on shore... seems I anoy him also with my babbling.

Originally posted by Wayfarer, the truely insufferable
...The changes that were made were mostly ridiculous. While there were some that were logical and acceptable, such things as the ridiculous side trip to Osgiliath or elves showing up at helms deep add nothing to the story, and are not even remotely close to 'nescessary modifications'. They were not made because of the differences between film and written mediums, they were made because jackson insisted (foolishly) that he could tell the story better than tolkien.
Aren't you being a bit harsh? I agree that most of the changes made the story confusing to readers (ie, birthing of the Orcs, Arwen takes Glorfindel's scene... etc, etc, all your points are good). But do you really think that PJ felt he could tell the story better than Tolkien? And you say he 'insisted'. So, when was this insistence? Was this your interpretation or did he really say this.

Melko Belcha

04-30-2003, 09:51 PM

PJ has said many times in various interviews that he 'has improved Tolkien's work". And he has said that there was many things he disliked about the books and that is whay he made some of the changes he did.

Ruinel

04-30-2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ has said many times in various interviews that he 'has improved Tolkien's work". And he has said that there was many things he disliked about the books and that is whay he made some of the changes he did.
Thanks, I don't keep up with the movie stuff. This is what I wanted to know. That really tweeks me! I didn't know he said those things. How dare he!?!

I'm mainly a book fan, although I own the first movie, saw the second (disappointed though) and will see the third.

Gwaimir Windgem

04-30-2003, 11:17 PM

See above post. :)

Especially this:

I'm mainly a book fan, although I own the first movie, saw the second (disappointed though) and will see the third.

Elf Girl

05-01-2003, 06:41 AM

Agreed completely, Wayfarer. *mutterings about how Glorfindel is not expendable*

And Gwaimir, why are you dimwitted now?

Wayfarer

05-01-2003, 07:00 AM

Why Gwaimir, why?

Lizra

05-01-2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I just basically put my mind in the 'ignore' mode (you know, like when your parents are talking to you ;) :D)

Nah....that's the good stuff! :D 'Ignore mode' is often used when your kids are spouting off their usual confused nonsense. ho ho! ;) grumble...:(

Lizra

05-01-2003, 07:59 AM

I think everyone has their own unique, personal level of tolerance for "changes to the book". BB's is extremely high, Mrs M's...very low. We all have our own little spot where we fit on this 'comfort level' measurement. Bottom line for me, (being quite selfish! :eek: ) is, "did I enjoy the movies"....not, "did they match Tolkien's intentions". FoTR movie I enjoyed very much, TTT I haven't digested yet. Some people simply cannot enjoy the movies because they bring to (their) mind "changes" from the book. I understand, but I'm glad I'm in the group that isn't bothered by this. :D I get two Middle Earth treats to enjoy! :) PJ's stuff beats the hell out of the cartoon offerings! :eek:

Elvengirl

05-01-2003, 10:29 AM

I wonder, would any of you like the movies had you not read the books first? :confused:

Melko Belcha

05-01-2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Elvengirl
I wonder, would any of you like the movies had you not read the books first? :confused:

Fellowship, yes

Towers, no. It was too choppy. None of the characters did I connect with. Some real cheesey camera shots. There was actually stuff in the movie that made me embarresed to even be in the audience.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-01-2003, 11:25 AM

I also, enjoy them, Lizra. :) I think Fellowship was a good movie, TTT a fairish one; I am just rather disapppointed with them as adapatations. As I've said a number of times: Like the movies, don't like the adaptations. :) (That's why I like being a Separatist Purist;))

As to my title, I wanted a change. :p Also, as an aside now I'm liable to be mistaken for a halfwit, as opposed to being halfwitted. But mostly for change. :)

Elfhelm

05-01-2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
PJ has said many times in various interviews that he 'has improved Tolkien's work". And he has said that there was many things he disliked about the books and that is whay he made some of the changes he did.

You know, I think I do a fair job of keeping abreast of things on this topic, and I haven't seen either of these statements. Can you please provide a date and full sentence quote in which he says 1.) that he thinks he has "improved" Tolkiens work and 2.) that he generally "disliked" things in the book (as opposed to found them unfilmable or need to cut and merge because of time constraints). I don't think he has improved anything, myself, and if he disliked Tolkien then why would he waste so many years of his life filming it?

Because so far every such claim (that PJ said these things) has been third party and I'm not convinced that it's not hearsay.

RÃan

05-01-2003, 11:56 AM

Elfhelm, I'll keep my ears open next time I play the commentaries on the FoTR CD - I'm pretty sure I heard PJ (or perhaps Fran or Philippa) say he "improved" it on one of the FoTR commentaries. (I'll sometimes pop the commentaries on when I have a lot of mindless paperwork to do - kind of a nice background - I can hear some interesting stuff, and get a bit of a feeling of Middle Earth, but it doesn't matter if I tune in and out - I don't miss anything important).

Melko Belcha

05-01-2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
You know, I think I do a fair job of keeping abreast of things on this topic, and I haven't seen either of these statements. Can you please provide a date and full sentence quote in which he says 1.) that he thinks he has "improved" Tolkiens work and 2.) that he generally "disliked" things in the book (as opposed to found them unfilmable or need to cut and merge because of time constraints). I don't think he has improved anything, myself, and if he disliked Tolkien then why would he waste so many years of his life filming it?

Because so far every such claim (that PJ said these things) has been third party and I'm not convinced that it's not hearsay.
I would be happy to, but the times I have heard him say it was in interviews on tv, and most of them was before Fellowship was released. PJ does talk about some of his dislikes in Tolkien's work on the DVD, but as of now I can not remember what section. But more then anything my dad and sister keep me up to date on it, neither have read the books, but they refuse to watch the movies because of PJ's attitude of improving Tolkien's work. But if I can find a quote I will dedicate an entire thread to it.

Lizra

05-01-2003, 03:52 PM

Dear Gwaimir, Are these things supposed to be "adaptations" or movies? I just thought they were just movies! :confused: Enlighten me on this "adaptations" business, please! :)

Elfhelm

05-01-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
I would be happy to, but the times I have heard him say it was in interviews on tv, and most of them was before Fellowship was released. PJ does talk about some of his dislikes in Tolkien's work on the DVD, but as of now I can not remember what section. But more then anything my dad and sister keep me up to date on it, neither have read the books, but they refuse to watch the movies because of PJ's attitude of improving Tolkien's work. But if I can find a quote I will dedicate an entire thread to it.

You do realize, of course, that this is practically the definition of hearsay, right?

Elf Girl

05-01-2003, 05:05 PM

I'll enlighten you.

They are movies. They are also adaptations of LotR. You first see if it was a good movie, (i.e. was it enjoyable?) then if it was a good adaptation. (i.e. did it capture Tolkien's vision?)

Wayfarer

05-01-2003, 08:15 PM

Wrong.

When bringing a work such as Tolkien's to the screen, the adaptation is /foremost/. If you only wish to make a good film, then by all means do something original.

Jackson's films are bad adaptations. They fail in bringing tolkien's work to the screen.
The fact that they are also, in many ways, bad movies, only adds to the shame.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-01-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Lizra
Dear Gwaimir, Are these things supposed to be "adaptations" or movies? I just thought they were just movies! :confused: Enlighten me on this "adaptations" business, please! :)

Both, from my understanding. I believe I read where Jackson said in an interview, I think "What we've done is we've brought all of the most important things into the movie, and we've actually made it better." Sorry, Elfhelm, I don't have a link to the interview at the moment, but I'll see if I can find it. :)

Lizra

05-01-2003, 08:30 PM

I guess it's "suit yourself" time again! :rolleyes: ;) (Sorry I asked) :eek: When I read the dictionary, one of the definitions of 'adaptation' that catches my eye is:
2. Anything that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special use or situation.
Sounds like there's some leeway here! I see this glass as half full, others half empty. Que sera, sera!

Oh, I do see your point GW, movie good, adaptation bad. I'll go with movie great, adaptation fair (as in 'fair enough' for me! :D )

Gwaimir Windgem

05-01-2003, 08:45 PM

:)

Re: the quote about PJ improving upon it for Elfhelm, I found the interview here (http://www.greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID=62&pageID=104&). From the interview:

The reality is that The Two Towers is the slightest of the books, I think. We kind of have all the memorable moments of the book in the film and what we've done is to actually enhance and add bits of story that weren't in the book.

Also, another quote I found interesting (on the second page) was He created the Elvish race as his perfect ideal beings. Surely PJ read the Silmarillion? :confused: Elves are hardly perfect.

Wayfarer

05-01-2003, 09:18 PM

Lizra-

Of course there's some leeway. Of course there are changes.

But jackson has gone beyond anything that can be excused as adaptation. He hasn't tried to make changes so that Tolkien's story would come out better on screen, on the contrary, he made many changes that made the film /worse/ than the alternative.

Lizra

05-01-2003, 10:31 PM

I've heard that before! ;) ;) I see where you are coming from, I'm just not as picky as you I guess!

In some cases, his changes wern't too hot, in others they worked well. Bottom line for me, I liked the movies, they aren't perfect, but I really enjoyed them none the less! In fact, they were much better than I thought they would be. I hope RoTK is more like FoTR than TTT. I can't wait to see Vigo/Aragorn fulfill his destiny! ahhhh! (and Gollum fulfill his)

Gwaimir Windgem

05-01-2003, 10:49 PM

I hope so too. :) Given PJ's ahem interest with monsters, Shelob should be quite good. :) I'm interested in the Voice of Saruman.

Thoughts on the Window on the West for the Extended Edition? Do you think they'll have it? Do you think it would fit in with the revised Faramir? Anything related? ;)

Lizra

05-01-2003, 11:21 PM

I don't understand Gwaimir! It was in TTT....Henneth Annun, caves and hideaway. It's been awhile since I saw that movie, what are you hoping to see? Sorry if I'm being dense here! :confused:

Gwaimir Windgem

05-01-2003, 11:43 PM

It was? :confused: I don't remember anything beautiful about the Faramir sequence. Certainly not the Window on the West:

But in front a thin veil of water was hung, so near that Frodo could have put an outstretched arm into it. It faced westward. The level shafts of the setting sun behind beat upon it, and the red light was broken into many flickering beams of ever-changing colour. It was as if they stood at the window of some elven-tower, curtained with threaded jewels of silver and gold, and ruby, sapphire, and amethyst, and kindled with an unconsuming fire.

So beautiful...I feel like I'm about to cry...:o

P. S. I'd be interested in quotes from Rian and Melko, of course. :)

Wayfarer

05-01-2003, 11:55 PM

In some cases, his changes wern't too hot, in others they worked well. Bottom line for me, I liked the movies, they aren't perfect, but I really enjoyed them none the less!

Now see, that's where we dissagree.

I don't like the movies /as movies/. As far as I'm concerned, they're just more of the B-rated trash that jackson has put out all his career. Had it not been for my love of anything eveb remotely tolkien, I would not have gone to see TTT. I might not have even bothered with FOTR. Because they weren't that good.

As for 'some his changes not being hot', I answer- /None/ of his changes were for the better. /Some/ of them were absolutely nauseating, again, not only as changes from the the book but as sequences in the film.

The ford sequence, I may note again, might have been passable- if /arwen/ had been a main character. As it was, it simply served to show the audience that Frodo was a pathetic weakling with no spine and no courage.

Lizra

05-02-2003, 12:05 AM

Aw, that scene where Boromir comes in after arriving at Rivendell, when he first meets Aragorn, picks up the shard of Narsil, cuts himself, hurries off as Aragorn watches, the beautiful murals on the walls, That was wonderful! (IMO)

RÃan

05-02-2003, 01:39 AM

Yes, I liked that scene, too, except the part where Boromir calls Aragorn 'friend' (because they're both enemies of the One Enemy) and Aragorn doesn't respond, except with a rather snobbish look. Perhaps they were trying to add 'tension', as they seem to be trying to add alot.

I don't particularly like them as movies, I like them because the good parts (the parts that remind me of Middle Earth and Tolkien's writings) outweigh the bad parts, at least for me. They may not for others.

I was re-listening to the director's comments today on the FoTR DVD (great to do while knocking off paperwork) and I do understand many of the changes (I only got as far as them meeting Merry and Pippin in the corn field) as far as what will work in a movie and what won't. For example, the sheer amount of names - in the prologue, they didn't mention Narsil (you can see it is the same sword that shows up in the Rivendell scene Lizra mentioned), let alone the name of Gil-Galad, because they said they thought the sheer amount of names and characters already in the movie was on the verge of being overwhelming. I can understand changes like that. But to me, the wimping down of Frodo and Aragorn was a travesty. Frodo's defiance of the Witch King at the Fords of Bruinen was one of the highlights of the book, IMO ("By Elbereth and LÃºthien the Fair," said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, "you shall have neither the Ring nor me!") In PJs movie, he just oozes green gooey stuff and never defies the Ringwraiths.

But I can ignore that, and enjoy the parts that I do like, like I said before. (And Asfaloth, even tho he had the wrong rider, was very pretty! I read a funny bit about Glorfindel back at Rivendell, reading a newspaper and thinking to himself "Ho hum, it's about time to set out to find Frodo," then Arwen zipping by him and grabbing Asfaloth and riding off.)

Lizra

05-02-2003, 07:33 AM

Yeah...when Boromir says "friend", I get all woozy! :) The look on Aragorn's face is strangely pained. I wonder what he's supposed to be conveying there? His (Aragorn's) respect for the history of the shards of Narsil? :confused: That pumped up "poor" Boromir part makes makes my heart skip a few beats! (I know it's not written that way, and I don't care! LOVE IT! ;) ) I sure hope Faramir's character comes off as "improved" as Boromir's after the EE. Do you think Sean Bean is that much more of a fabuloso actor than the Faramir guy? (haven't even bothered to memorize his name! :eek: )

mithrand1r

05-02-2003, 09:22 AM

As movies, I thought they were good, (FOTR more than TTT), but I enjoyed both. As Adaptations I thought the movies could have been better and still stay within the 3hr/movie timeline.
As for the general feel of Middle Earth I think the films succeeded.

I think the movies (upto now) conveyed the following themes from the books well:

Good vs. Evil
Duty and honor
Friendship and loyalty

The following was not so well or clear

Characterization of characters
Things change and do not remain the same

I will need to look for info to back my opinions, but this is a good start of my impressions of the movie conveying Tolkien's LOTR.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

Wayfarer

05-02-2003, 10:48 AM

The following was not so well or clear...Things change and do not remain the same
Ooh, tempting. So tempting. Must... resist. urge. to. snap!

Elfhelm

05-02-2003, 11:25 AM

"enhance" and "improve" are vastly different concepts...

I still see no evidence of this charge that PJ claims to have improve on Tolkien. I think people are using BB's words and putting them in Jackson's mouth.

Melko Belcha

05-02-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
"enhance" and "improve" are vastly different concepts...

I still see no evidence of this charge that PJ claims to have improve on Tolkien. I think people are using BB's words and putting them in Jackson's mouth.

From the Webster's Dictionary

enhance - to make greater, better, etc.; heighten

improve - 1. to make better, 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by culitivation, construction, etc. vi. to make better

Not reall vastly different, they sound pretty similar to me.

Black Breathalizer

05-02-2003, 02:10 PM

PJ has never said he improved Tolkien. The closest he's come is to say he changed things from the books that wouldn't translate as well to film. It was the legendary Black Breathalizer who had the keen insight to publicly observe that aspects of Tolkien's story were improved in PJ's cinematic version. :)

I continue to say Peter Jackson has captured the essence of all of Tolkien's major themes. The two that seem to be brought up more frequently from The Dark Side are: The focus on Hobbits and Capturing the Characters.

A few thoughts:

Capturing the Characters. There is a huge difference between PJ emphasizing different aspects of the same personality versus having totally different people possessing the bodies of our beloved book characters. My observation has been that some of the loudest complainers here fail to grasp the complexities of Tolkien's characters. The ironic thing is that they whine about Peter Jackson when in reality he understands the characters far better than they do.

The focus on Hobbits. I'm hearing a great deal about the the film version's focus on men instead of hobbits, particularly after the release of The Two Towers. I would argue that it is unfair for the book purists to compare the entire book trilogy against only the first two films of PJ's trilogy (which doesn't even cover all of Tolkien's second book.) It is obvious knowing the plot of the last parts of TTT (the ending of books 3 & 4) and the ROTK book that the "hobbit focus" will dramatically increase in film three.

Elfhelm

05-02-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
From the Webster's Dictionary

enhance - to make greater, better, etc.; heighten

improve - 1. to make better, 2. to make (real estate) more valuable by culitivation, construction, etc. vi. to make better

Not reall vastly different, they sound pretty similar to me.

Anything can be distorted. Do I need to show how this was done, or is it obvious to other people, too.

Ruinel

05-02-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
...I believe I read where Jackson said in an interview, I think "What we've done is we've brought all of the most important things into the movie, and we've actually made it better."
He actually said that?!? That he was making The Book better? No, no... no...
http://www.spacespider.net/emo/shakehead ...it can't be... no, no... no... What kind of animal would say such a thing?
http://www.spacespider.net/emo/sad06.gif
This is not right.... I'm so very, very glad that I don't keep up with all this Hollywood crap. I think I would be so disappointed with the world I would jump off a clif.

Elfhelm

05-02-2003, 03:23 PM

When someone says "I believe" and "I think" it doesn't mean they KNOW.

Obviously when he said he enhanced things people wanted to think it meant he thought things were'nt good enough, but that says more about them than about him. Some things have to be enhanced and other things downplayed when converted between media.

Mrs. Maggott

05-02-2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ has never said he improved Tolkien. The closest he's come is to say he changed things from the books that wouldn't translate as well to film. It was the legendary Black Breathalizer who had the keen insight to publicly observe that aspects of Tolkien's story were improved in PJ's cinematic version. :)

I continue to say Peter Jackson has captured the essence of all of Tolkien's major themes. The two that seem to be brought up more frequently from The Dark Side are: The focus on Hobbits and Capturing the Characters.

A few thoughts:

Capturing the Characters. There is a huge difference between PJ emphasizing different aspects of the same personality versus having totally different people possessing the bodies of our beloved book characters. My observation has been that some of the loudest complainers here fail to grasp the complexities of Tolkien's characters. The ironic thing is that they whine about Peter Jackson when in reality he understands the characters far better than they do.
I have absolutely NO problem "grasping the complexities of Tolkien's characters" but I can assure you, that FEW or NONE of those complexities appear in Jackson's characters with the exception of the names. Aragorn, Faramir, Theoden, Elrond, Arwen, Merry and Pippin are all changed in the full meaning of that word. Now, do these characters maintain some manifestations of the books' characters? Of course! But the true characters of these main protagonists are lost in Jackson's "interpretation". To suggest that because they retain a few characteristics in common means that they are in fact the same is to suggest that because they each have two eyes and one head in both book and films really means that they are the same!

Black Breathalizer

05-02-2003, 05:31 PM

I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White.

Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Elfhelm

05-02-2003, 05:39 PM

I'm not complaining, I just would do things differently. I have the same reaction to every production of Shakespeare I've ever seen, of course. It's OK to imagine how you would do it if you had the skill and time and money and access to great actors. Many people here feel they can be more "true to Tolkein" than PJ was. Of course, they are all speaking out of their ... er ... hats because none of them has even a glimmer of real experience.

Ruinel

05-02-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Elfhelm
When someone says "I believe" and "I think" it doesn't mean they KNOW.

Obviously when he said he enhanced things people wanted to think it meant he thought things were'nt good enough, but that says more about them than about him. Some things have to be enhanced and other things downplayed when converted between media.
*relief* So, PJ did not say he had made Tolkien's work better? *sigh* My faith in humanity is strengthened.

Wayfarer

05-02-2003, 06:44 PM

*relief* So, PJ did not say he had made Tolkien's work better? *sigh* My faith in humanity is strengthened.
Jackson may not have said it for sure. Black Breathalizer DID! (http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&highlight=jackson+has+improved+tolkien)

Ruinel

05-02-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Jackson may not have said it for sure. Black Breathalizer DID! (http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&highlight=jackson+has+improved+tolkien)
BB!!! You did NOT!!!! :eek: How dare you mar the Work of Tolkien by saying that anyone could improve on perfection!! A pox on you!!!!

Elf Girl

05-02-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.
Yes, Tolkien's Frodo was terrified. However, the natural resiliance of Hobbits allowed him to bear the splinter of the Morgul-blade for a long time. (Can't be bothered to check how long.) Eleven days, I think. Anyway, it makes you wonder why a Hobbit was allowed to bear the Ring if they are so weak.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.
Tolkien's Aragorn is proud that he is Elendil's heir, not terified by Isildur's 'weak' blood.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.
A Dark-Green Galadriel in a glittery bathingsuit and a high wind that affects no one else.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White.
Can't answer to that, I thought Gandalf was okay in the movies.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.
Show me any of Merry and Pippen's character represented in the movies, except for 'blundering idiots who are still clumsily loyal'.

Wayfarer

05-02-2003, 07:13 PM

BB!!! You did NOT!!!! How dare you mar the Work of Tolkien by saying that anyone could improve on perfection!! A pox on you!!!! He Did (http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&highlight=jackson+has+improved+tolkien) <- Link to the (locked) thread.

Ruinel

05-02-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Wayfarer
He Did (http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5636&highlight=jackson+has+improved+tolkien) <- Link to the (locked) thread.
OMI!! BB!!! You f^$#%*& b@$@%d!!! How dare you!!! Who the h*ll do you think you're talking about!!???? Some dip sh** paperback writer that's here today and a 'has been' tomorrow??!!! This is classic work!!! Do you realize that!?! This is TOLKIEN you little @#%#$#$@$#%^@#$%^#$!#$!%$%^#$^@%^ ! Sonofa....

I can't say more without getting kicked off The Moot... I'll come back when I'm calmer... which might be never the way I feel right now.
#@$%@#$%@#$%!@#$%!@#$%@!!!!

Wayfarer

05-02-2003, 07:44 PM

Coney

05-02-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
OMI!! BB!!! You f^$#%*& b@$@%d!!! How dare you!!! Who the h*ll do you think you're talking about!!???? Some dip sh** paperback writer that's here today and a 'has been' tomorrow??!!! This is classic work!!! Do you realize that!?! This is TOLKIEN you little @#%#$#$@$#%^@#$%^#$!#$!%$%^#$^@%^ ! Sonofa....

I can't say more without getting kicked off The Moot... I'll come back when I'm calmer... which might be never the way I feel right now.
#@$%@#$%@#$%!@#$%!@#$%@!!!!

LT will be proud :)

D'ya see why there is no "serious" film discussion, we got cursed with a BB :rolleyes:

Wayfarer

05-02-2003, 07:52 PM

Fiesty. ];-)

Ruinel

05-02-2003, 07:59 PM

You sonofa... $%$@#$^@$%^!$%$#^@#$^@^!!!!!

:rolleyes: Nope... not cooled down yet....

Edit:
Originally posted by Wayfarer
Fiesty. ];-)
Ooooooohhhhh, yeah.... and untamable.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-02-2003, 09:26 PM

From dictionary.com (dictionary.reference.com) and thesaurus.com (thesaurus.reference.com):

Here is the entry, for further perusal:
Enhance (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=enhance)

Entry: enhance
Function: verb
Definition: improve
Synonyms: add to, adorn, aggrandize, amplify, appreciate, augment, beautify, boom, boost, build up, complement, elevate, embellish, embroider, enlarge, exaggerate, exalt, flesh out, heighten, increase, intensify, lift, magnify, pad, pyramid, raise, reinforce, strengthen, swell, upgrade

Also, they listed enhance as a synonym of improve (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=improve).

When faced with providing a concise definition for "enhance" the word chosen was "improve".

Here is the link to the entry, for further perusal:
Enhance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enhance)
enÂ·hance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hns)
tr.v. enÂ·hanced, enÂ·hancÂ·ing, enÂ·hancÂ·es
To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
To provide with improved, advanced, or sophisticated features: computer software enhanced with cutting-edge functionalities.

Here is the link to the entry, for further perusal:Improve (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=improve)
imÂ·prove ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-prv)
v. imÂ·proved, imÂ·provÂ·ing, imÂ·proves
v. tr.
To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better.
To increase the productivity or value of (land or property).
To put to good use; use profitably.

As I have provided a link for all of my sources, my congratulations to you, if you manage to convincingly accuse me of lying or twisting, hiding, or manipulating the actual definition. :)

Elf Girl

05-02-2003, 09:27 PM

I see Ruinel has been enlightened as to why we all hate BB so much... :rolleyes:

mithrand1r

05-02-2003, 09:37 PM

Elf Girl,

I would not use the word "hate" when refering about BB, although I strongly disagree with many of his views of PJ&co. LOTR movies, among other things. ;)

One area I will give BB credit is his devotion to his point of view, even when it appears at times to be a lost cause.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

Edited to make more sense.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-02-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

But you see, Tolkien's Frodo was able to overcome his fear, and go on to confront the forces of Darkness.

Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Not nearly as badly as PJ's Aragorn. He didn't hide from his heritage, like a coward afraid what he was.

Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

Now, that is just false. I posted before, but BB seems to have ignored it, as he does with an awful lot of our posts. Must be those he has no rebuttal for. :) Maybe he pulled one together, and thus brought it up again?

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad."

To me, this is very, very little like the movie version. It seems to me that this is another example of PJ's habit of "monsterizing" anything possible.

Others complained that Gandalf the Grey wasn't the commanding leader he was in the books and deferred too much to Saruman. They forgot the Gandalf they were remembering was Gandalf the White.

Gandalf I didn't think was that bad, though he didn't seem gruff enough to me. Gandalf the Grey was most certainly gruff. And Gandalf the Grey did seem more authoritative in the book. But I didn't think he was bad, at all. :)

Can the characters from the films be as complex as their book counterparts? Of course not. But are the personalities from the books represented in the film characters? Of course. No credible evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Geez, this is ridiculous...I suppose you're definition of "credible evidence" is that which agrees with you? There has plenty. But is it made of no value or worth because it does not agree with you?

I think this makes the third time I've asked this. Let's see if BB is decent enough to answer: Why do you feel it so damnably necessary that no-one else is allowed to have an opinion different from your own? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that everyone is a little copy of yourself?

Artanis

05-03-2003, 02:44 AM

Please everyone, don't start another flame war :rolleyes: Isn't this supposed to be a discussion? I don't see why BB should not try to argue his POV.

What was Tolkien's vision? I think his idea of Middle-Earth is very well visualised in the movies. The scenery is beautiful and detailed. The historical setting is well told. And the big outlines are there: Death, being enhanced through sacrifice, the power of nature, the importance of having faith, and trust in inner strength.

Some of the characters I have more trouble with though. Merry, Pip and Gimli were all to much of 'comic relief'. I also agree with those who said Aragorn had too much self-doubt about his inheritance and what strength was in his blood. That is, compared to the book, where his self-doubt was about his abilities as a leader of the Fellowship, when the loss of Gandalf lay heavy on him. On the other hand, movie-Aragorn grows from FotR to TTT to be more like book-Aragorn, and that is a good sign. Faramir is of course different from the book, and I don't know how to justify this change.

On the other hand, Boromir was great. His pride was there, and his fatal lust for the Ring, but also his kindness, and his doubts and fear regarding his beloved city. I too loved the scene where he first met Aragorn in Rivendell, and the scene where they speak together in LÃ³rien.

Frodo is also well portrayed. He is appointed to a task that seems to big for him. He is terrified of doing what he knows he must - leave the Fellowship and continue to Mordor alone. His strife with himself as shown in the movie is heartbreaking.

All this is of course only my pov. :)

Sheeana

05-03-2003, 05:20 AM

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 08:37 AM

Sorry about the outburst. But I can't say that BB didn't deserve it. You certainly can't say a thing like that (PJ improved on Tolkien) without some backlash in a 'Tolkien' forum. Sheesh!

Lizra

05-03-2003, 09:24 AM

I really like Theoden in the movies, but I haven't had time to reread and study the difference between Movie Theoden and book Theoden. I am very (yum) attracted to movie Theoden...so somethings up? Or no.....It's quite difficult to carry on about the themes of the movie, without seeing the last installment!

(oh yes, Sheanna......anytime you want to introduce me to your uncle...;) )

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Lizra
I really like Theoden in the movies, but I haven't had time to reread and study the difference between Movie Theoden and book Theoden. I am very (yum) attracted to movie Theoden...so somethings up? Or no.....It's quite difficult to carry on about the themes of the movie, without seeing the last installment!

(oh yes, Sheanna......anytime you want to introduce me to your uncle...;) )

.... eh... this is the old guy King Theoden, right?

(Before any of you post a response: I know who King Theoden is!)

Artanis

05-03-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Ruinel
Sorry about the outburst.In fact, my complaint wasn't directed at you Ruinel. I'm used to your 'expressiveness' and I think it is part of your personal charm (this is not irony, if you should think so :p )

Yes, Theoden was a nice and noble person, both in the movie and in the book.

Black Breathalizer

05-03-2003, 10:17 AM

LOTR CrossFire with GW & BB:

Frodo

BB: I've heard some of you complain that...horror of horrors...their brave Frodo was shown to be...AFRAID!!! Well, Tolkien's Frodo was afraid too.

Gwaimir Windgem: But you see, Tolkien's Frodo was able to overcome his fear, and go on to confront the forces of Darkness.

BB's reply: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Aragorn

BB: Others have whined that...gasp...Aragorn had...SELF-DOUBTS!!! Tolkien's Aragorn had 'um too.

Gwaimir Windgem: Not nearly as badly as PJ's Aragorn. He didn't hide from his heritage, like a coward afraid what he was.

BB's reply: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Galadriel

BB: Still more were distraught to see...oh no...DARK GALADRIEL, the vision of what she would become if she took the ring from Frodo. It's in the book too.

Gwaimir Windgem: Now, that is just false. I posted before, but BB seems to have ignored it, as he does with an awful lot of our posts. Must be those he has no rebuttal for. :) Maybe he pulled one together, and thus brought it up again?

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad."

To me, this is very, very little like the movie version. It seems to me that this is another example of PJ's habit of "monsterizing" anything possible.

BB's reply: To each his own then. I read the same quote and I can see exactly where PJ's inspiration for that scene came from. You personally didn't like it, okay. But you cannot read that quote and say PJ wasn't true to Tolkien. It simply means he wasn't true to YOUR vision for that scene.

Gwaimir Windgem: Why do you feel it so damnably necessary that no-one else is allowed to have an opinion different from your own? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that everyone is a little copy of yourself?

BB's reply: This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. I have no problem with people trashing (also known as Wayfarerizing) the films. But if some of you are going to say things like "the film sucked, PJ trashed Tolkien, blah, blah, blah" I think I have every right to request that you defend those statements. I also have every right to point out that PJ created some inspired moments in the films thus far that improved our appreciation of the story. Yes, I said improved. The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes.

The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics. All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. I'm sorry about that. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong for celebrating these films simply because you don't get it--or refuse to get it.

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Artanis
In fact, my complaint wasn't directed at you Ruinel. I'm used to your 'expressiveness' and I think it is part of your personal charm (this is not irony, if you should think so :p )
Phew! A relief. I looked back on my response, eh, it was, eh, a bit 'extreme' even for me. I got a little, errrr... out of control, when I read what he had written. :rolleyes:
And 'expressiveness'... yes, good word for it. :D
Yes, Theoden was a nice and noble person, both in the movie and in the book.
And old, since he had a grown son. But yes... noble. ;)

Elf Girl

05-03-2003, 11:50 AM

Frodo

BB: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Elf Girl: I think GW was referring to the Ford scene, where Frodo gave in to the terror of the Nazgul and the Ring and passed out so he had to be carried across the ford.

Aragorn

BB: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Elf Girl: First off, it's very unkind of you to claim GW misunderstood a scene. Maybe *gasp* you misunderstood it. Aragorn's 'temptation' for the Ring is shown not to be there in his last meeting with Frodo. ('Can you protect me from yourself' etc.) Perhaps if there had been buildup, showing Aragorn struggling against the Ring, it would have worked.

Galadriel

BB's reply: To each his own then. I read the same quote and I can see exactly where PJ's inspiration for that scene came from. You personally didn't like it, okay. But you cannot read that quote and say PJ wasn't true to Tolkien. It simply means he wasn't true to YOUR vision for that scene.

Elf Girl: A dark green Galadriel in a glittery bathing suit and a high wind is Tolkien's vision for that scene? But if that's your vision, fine. I have no problem with you enjoying that or any scene.

BB: This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. I have no problem with people trashing (also known as Wayfarerizing) the films. But if some of you are going to say things like "the film sucked, PJ trashed Tolkien, blah, blah, blah" I think I have every right to request that you defend those statements. I also have every right to point out that PJ created some inspired moments in the films thus far that improved our appreciation of the story. Yes, I said improved. The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes.

Elf Girl: 'Our' appreciation? 'Our' including me? I don't think so.

And you are telling us to back up our statements? What is the world coming to...

BB: The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics. All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. I'm sorry about that. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong for celebrating these films simply because you don't get it--or refuse to get it.

Elf Girl: Again, please do not create a 'reality' without backing it up. You could at least admit it's only your opinion.

Just out of curiosity, was there any tiny miniscule detail of the films you thought could have been done a tiny bit better?

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
*BB in the sights of Ruinel's crossbow!*
BB's reply: This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. {bla, bla, bla...nonsensical dribble}. Yes, I said improved. The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes. {more nonsensical dribble here}

All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. {BB gets nonsequitur here}
Are you even reading the posts? I didn't say that the movies sucked! I enjoyed them, but separate from the story that was told by JRRT. I said that they have to be viewed and considered separately from the books. The books are the pure form. The movie is some adaptation of some of the story, and can not be compared to the real thing. If you compare the movie to the real story it is a huge disappointment!! HUGE!

It is not a personal version of Tolkien's story! These are changes to the very core of the story which makes the screenplay completely different from the movie.

And I didn't say the movies sucked I said you sucked, because you said that PJ improved... (oh, dammit... I can't even say it... this is too much)... @#$%@#$%!$%!$%@%^%$^!!!
ok, so I'm still angry.... I'll come back another day.

Black Breathalizer

05-03-2003, 02:32 PM

Frodo

BB: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Elf Girl: I think GW was referring to the Ford scene, where Frodo gave in to the terror of the Nazgul and the Ring and passed out so he had to be carried across the ford.

BB's reply: EXACTLY, and THAT is the problem. GW picked out a revised scene he hated from the first third of the first film and proceeded to damn PJ's entire portrayal of the character based on it rather than SEEING HOW JACKSON DEVELOPS THE CHARACTER during the course of the film!!! This is a FILM. Film's have character arcs!!! By the end of the film, Jackson's Frodo IS the book's Frodo, he simply took a professional screenwriter's approach versus a novelist's approach to getting there.

Aragorn

BB: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Elf Girl: First off, it's very unkind of you to claim GW misunderstood a scene. Maybe *gasp* you misunderstood it. Aragorn's 'temptation' for the Ring is shown not to be there in his last meeting with Frodo. ('Can you protect me from yourself' etc.) Perhaps if there had been buildup, showing Aragorn struggling against the Ring, it would have worked.

BB's reply: Huh?!??! What do you mean it wasn't there?!?!?! The "can you protect me from yourself?" IS the temptation of Aragorn. We watch Aragorn stare at the ring...we hear the ring calling out to him...we see him reach out for the ring...and close Frodo's fingers around it. What do you call that?

BB: The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics.

Elf Girl: Again, please do not create a 'reality' without backing it up. You could at least admit it's only your opinion.

BB: Exhibit A: boxofficemojo.com: check out the boxoffice receipts for Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit B: check out rottentomatos.com and check out the reviews of Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit C: Check out how many movie-related items are being sold on the internet. (Maybe this is a red herring though -- all these items could be going unsold, right?) Exhibit D: check out the number of hits the first movie trailer for ROTK gets when it is released on the internet in June or July. Now let's see YOUR reality, Elf Girl. :) :) :)

Elf Girl: Just out of curiosity, was there any tiny miniscule detail of the films you thought could have been done a tiny bit better?

BB: Yep. :)

Gwaimir Windgem

05-03-2003, 02:43 PM

Frodo

BB's reply: And the film Frodo didn't!?!?!? Peter Jackson did an excellent job of showing Frodo overcoming his fear and showing real courage--that was the CENTRAL THEME of the FOTR film's climax.

Followup: The Frodo in Jackson's movie seemed to me at least to be considerably weaker than the Frido in Tolkien's books. The Ford scene is an excellent example of this.

[b]Aragorn

BB's reply: Aragorn didn't hide from his heritage?!?!?!?! So you're telling me the Breefolk and others in the northland knew "Strider" was the heir of Kings? You totally misunderstood the film scene where Aragorn and Arwen talk about his heritage. He is not afraid of who he is, for crying out loud, he was admitting his temptation to the lure of the ring. Arwen fortold that he would face this temptation and defeat it--which he DID in the movie's climax.

Followup: No, I am not telling you that. He hid his heritage, because it made him a prime target for Sauron. That is vastly different from hiding from his heritage. And the biggest problem I had was in the extended edition, at Lorien.

[b]Galadriel

"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad."

To me, this is very, very little like the movie version. It seems to me that this is another example of PJ's habit of "monsterizing" anything possible.

BB's reply: To each his own then. I read the same quote and I can see exactly where PJ's inspiration for that scene came from. You personally didn't like it, okay. But you cannot read that quote and say PJ wasn't true to Tolkien. It simply means he wasn't true to YOUR vision for that scene.

Followup: I didn't see any laughter in that scene. I didn't see anything of the kind. The laughter makes a huge difference in the atmosphere and mood, providing Galadriel a great power in the very face of temptation, whereas in the movie, she was breathing heavily in her tremendous effort to overcome the temptation. The fact that she laughed in the face of temptation gives her a power and authority.

Gwaimir Windgem: Why do you feel it so damnably necessary that no-one else is allowed to have an opinion different from your own? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that everyone is a little copy of yourself?

BB's reply: 1) This is a discussion board and I am presenting my point of view. 2) If it wasn't for me, this LOTR movie board would be filled with "the films sucked" posts from the little clique of purists that visit here. 3) I have no problem with people trashing (also known as Wayfarerizing) the films. 4) But if some of you are going to say things like "the film sucked, PJ trashed Tolkien, blah, blah, blah" I think I have every right to request that you defend those statements. 5) I also have every right to point out that PJ created some inspired moments in the films thus far that improved our appreciation of the story. Yes, I said improved. 6) The simple fact some of you have issues with such an obvious statement speaks volumes.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-03-2003, 02:45 PM

7) The reality is that the movies are good, the movies are an impressive adaptation of a legendary story, the movies are well-written, acted and directed, the movies are highly successful by any standard of measurement, most Tolkien fans adore them, and they are destined to become film classics in the same way the books are literary classics. 8) All your attempts to criticize Peter Jackson and his crew simply reinforces the notion that you didn't get YOUR PERSONAL version of Tolkien's story on screen. 9) I'm sorry about that. 10) But that doesn't mean the rest of us are wrong for celebrating these films simply because you don't get it--or refuse to get it.

1) Actually, you are not. You saying point blank "This is the truth, this is flat out reality. If you don't agree with me, then you don't know Tolkien, etc. etc. etc.".
2) Actually, you know what? The vast, VAST majority of posts which claim that the movies were poor adaptations are generated by your ridiculous proclamations that "Jackson knows Tolkien better than Tolkien knew himself" and so on.
3) All evidence points to the contrary.
4) Firstly, we have not said that "the film sucked" (at least not most of us). The general consensus is that they are enjoyable as films, though not all agree. But some of us feel that as adaptations (two very different roles) they were poor and that it was not well done in that regards. Those of us who feel that way (at least most of us) consider that with a work such a Tolkien's (which I at least hold to be pretty damn close to literary perfection, which naturally generates difference, as you seem to be on the opposite of the spectrum :)).
5) I agree that he did create some inspired moments, but nothing he has done has improved my appreciation of the story, except when comparing the two. I wonder why you use the word "our" all of a sudden. Have you been promoted to royal rank, and are now speaking to lowly peasants? :)
6) If the "statement" you refer to is that you said that he improved Tolkien, then I have no issues with it. If it is that he did improve Tolkien, then I strongly disagree, as I feel that he did not. That is an extremely controversial statement, and to complain about not agreeing with such a statement and licking your boots for discovering it is ridiculous.
7) That is not reality; that is opinion. I do not think they are an impressive adaptation. Does this mean that, simply because I do not believe so, that it is undeniably and irrevocably true? NO!!! It means that this is my OPINION. What divine being do you hold yourself to be, that your opinion is the definition of reality?
8) On the same coin, all your obsequity towards PJ only reinforces the notion that you DID get YOUR PERSONAL version on the screen.
9) Please. :rolleyes: Spare me your falsehood.
10) Of course not. For the umptillionth time, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE LOVING THE MOVIES. Did you get that? Let's try again.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE LOVING THE MOVIES.
What I have a problem with is when people come in acting like Jackson is the Christ and they are the new Baptist, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Jackson is near! If a man sees beauty in the work of Jackson, nod your head off in agreement, idiot! Jackson is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto Perfection, but by Him." What I have a problem with is when you proclaim the supremity of Jackson, say that Tolkien was too stupid to say what he meant to say after [b]eleven years[/i], and say that those who do not agree with you know nothing about Tolkien.

As a side-note, you completely evaded my question, yet again.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-03-2003, 02:48 PM

Exhibit A: boxofficemojo.com: check out the boxoffice receipts for Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit B: check out rottentomatos.com and check out the reviews of Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit C: Check out how many movie-related items are being sold on the internet. (Maybe this is a red herring though -- all these items could be going unsold, right?) Exhibit D: check out the number of hits the first movie trailer for ROTK gets when it is released on the internet in June or July.

That proves ONLY that the films sold, and that they were popular, which I think NO-ONE argued.

Please everyone, don't start another flame war Isn't this supposed to be a discussion? I don't see why BB should not try to argue his POV.

I have absolutely no problem with him arguing his point of view. But when he proclaims his point of view to be Absolute Truth, and states that those who disagree <insert various comment about intelligence or ability to understand anything at all about Tolkien>, that is what I have a problem with. :)

Ruinel

05-03-2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
What I have a problem with is when people come in acting like Jackson is the Christ and they are the new Baptist, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Jackson is near! If a man sees beauty in the work of Jackson, nod your head off in agreement, idiot! Jackson is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh unto Perfection, but by Him." What I have a problem with is when you proclaim the supremity of Jackson, say that Tolkien was too stupid to say what he meant to say after [b]eleven years[/i], and say that those who do not agree with you know nothing about Tolkien.
Go, Gwai!!!!

http://www.spacespider.net/emo/spank.gif

Sheeana

05-03-2003, 03:40 PM

Bleh. This is exactly why it's not even worth bothering arguing with BB AKA Grima. Ah, just chuck him out on the spike, will ya? :p

Black Breathalizer

05-03-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
As a side-note, you completely evaded my question, yet again. Guess you'll have to state it again. I couldn't find it.

A couple of observations about the recent posts:

1. Don't automatically assume I'm addressing you (whoever you are) unless I mention you directly.

2. Don't get my style confused with my message. 99% of the time, I'm writing this stuff with a huge smile on my face. If you get upset with a perceived "holier than thou" attitude on my part, then maybe you can begin to understand how the rest of us who belong to the illiterate, movie-going masses feel when some uppity Tolkien book purist turns up his nose at our beloved films.

3. Believe it or not, I like you Purists and others like GW who have different opinions from me. If I didn't I wouldn't hang around here. Differing opinions are what make these threads interesting to read. I would rather be in a discussion forum with people who challenge me on my POV than to be posting in a boring (although obviously wise and enlightened :)) place where everyone views things the same way I do.

Lizra

05-03-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
.... eh... this is the old guy King Theoden, right?

(Before any of you post a response: I know who King Theoden is!)

The sexy mature guy, yeah! ;)

Lizra

05-03-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
Phew! A relief. I looked back on my response, eh, it was, eh, a bit 'extreme' even for me. I got a little, errrr... out of control, when I read what he had written. :rolleyes:
And 'expressiveness'... yes, good word for it. :D

And old, since he had a grown son. But yes... noble. ;)

Grown children! Big deal! :D Several mooter's have them! That's not old! :) You're just young! ;)

Gwaimir Windgem

05-03-2003, 08:45 PM

The question was: Why do you feel it so important that everyone agrees with you about Jackson's adaptation? I know people who were 100% satisfied with it, and I have no problem with that. Why does it bother you so much that not everyone feels the same way to the point that you have to say something to the effect of "those who disagree about Jackson obviously do not know anything about what the Lord of the Rings was all about."?

Re: Theoden: He was 60-61 when we met him (amazing, from the time Gandalf walks into the Halls of Edoras, it's a mere 23 days until the Ring is destroyed), depending on when he was born. :)

Wayfarer

05-04-2003, 07:05 AM

*ahem*

Frodo:

Actually, Jackson's Films have made a blatent and consistent effort to weaken the character of Frodo.

In The Books:
Frodo spends months, almost a year, planning to leave the Shire, working out the smallest details, hardening his resolve to leave everything behind and make a journey from which he was not sure he would return. He takes his friends along, planning to abandon them in Crickethollow

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo spends perhaps five minutes packing, before he and Sam are literally sent off by Gandalf. There is no planning or resolve, and very little effort on his part.

In The Books:
Again, Frodo had planned out his journy from the shire. He knew where he was going, and how he was going to get there. When a horseman came up the path behind them, he cheerfully suggested that they should get off the road. When the Black Riders begin hounding him he immediately showed initiative by taking them on a 'short cut' cross country.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo was, as previously stated, merely shooed out the door. Rather than take his friends with him, he runs into Merry and Pippen by accident. When a black rider comes along the path, he becomes progressively more panicked until he screams at the others to get off the road. When it becomes clear that the black riders are following him, he is unable to face Merry, who broaches the subject. As they are leaving the shire, he demonstrates no initiative, and needs to be told that they should take the ferry.

In The Books:
Frodo agrees to go into the Old Forest, and sings a song to ward off the gloom. Then, he and sam try to rescue merry and pippin from the Willow, until Bombadil comes along.
After leaving bombadil, and a brief period while frodo takes them back to say goodbye to goldberry, the hobbits become seperated and captured. Nevertheless, Frodo shows enough courage to attack the wight and save his friends, though he'd rather run. Then he calls bombadil and they are rescued.

In Jackson's Films:
Entire Sequence was Cut :mad:

In The Books:
On weathertop, Frodo draws his sword and attacks the Witch-King, uttering the name of Elbereth and turning a blow which would have stricken his heart into one which merely struck his shoulder.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo draws his sword, allright, then drops it and falls on his butt, and then offers the ring to the wraith for a moment before taking it back and getting stabbed in the shoulder for some reason.

In The Books:
Frodo endures the wound for two weeks, and manages to walk most of the way to rivendell under his own power.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is unable to walk and is near death later that same night (or so it is implied).

In The Books:
Glorfindel sets Frodo on his own horse, with orders to flee if they are attacked. Nevertheless, Frodo is hesitent to abandon his friends in danger, so Glorfindel is forced to have the horse flee across the fords on its own. Frodo passes within feet of the nazgul, but manages to reach the ford. Upon crossing, he turns, draws his sword, and defies the assembled nine- "By elbereth and luthien the fair, you shall have neither the ring nor me!" In answer, the witch king renders him mute, breaks his sword, and knocks him from his horse. He lies unconscious and barely sees the nazgul as they are swept away.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is carried, half conscious, by Arwen, who fights through to the fords where she turns, draws her sword, and defies the assembled nine- "if you want him, come and claim him". The witch king replies by trying to cross the fords, while arwen begins chanting a spell. The nazgul continue anyway, and are swept away, but frodo is too busy fainting/trying to die, and Arwen has to use elven magic to revive him.

AND THATS JUST IN BOOK I, PEOPLE!!!

I challenge BlackBreathalizer, no I DEFY him, or ANY OF YOU to answer the following three questions:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

Black Breathalizer

05-04-2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
The question was: Why do you feel it so important that everyone agrees with you about Jackson's adaptation? You mistake the passion I have for my POV with the need to "convert" everyone. I playfully talk about reeducating Purists but my positions and approaches are not much different from many of you with opposing viewpoints. You just notice mine more because you happen to disagree with me.

I still contend that hardline Purists like Wayfarer are ignoring the overall messages of the films and focusing on specific deviations from the film. Can Tolkien films be made with a more macho Frodo at the beginning third of FOTR? Yeah. Can the Old Forest and Tom be put in? You bet. Would that guarantee a successful film OR a successful adaptation? Absolutely not.

Adapting a long story to film is always going to be about a screenwriter/director deciding what ingredients -- and in what amounts -- to put into the stew. If you expect the cook to use ALL of the ingredients in exactly the same quantities, you're being horribly niave and unrealistic. Telling a compelling story through film is very different from telling it in a book.

An example of what I'm trying to say goes back to my earlier discussion with Mrs. Maggot about Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen. MM said it was bogus for Aragorn to watch Frodo and Sam head off to Mordor and not follow them (even though book Aragorn essentially did the same thing.) But there is yet another aspect to that scene that PJ is communicating: the belief in a greater force: God / Fate / Destiny.

One of the underlying themes of Tolkien's books is religion: the power of faith and the belief in God. Sadly, most modern filmmakers have balked at any overtly religious messages in their films. To Peter Jackson's credit, he brought Tolkien's religious themes to his films whatever he felt personally (and I have no idea how he feels.)

PJ examined that section of the book and asked the same questions we've been grappling with: "why the hell did Aragorn leave Frodo and go after Merry & Pippin?" PJ believed Tolkien's own answer to that question for Aragorn was: Frodo's fate was no longer in his hands. Mrs. Maggott and others may disagree with that assessment, but my point is that Peter Jackson's decision was just as grounded in Tolkien as any alternative approach you book purists would have suggested.

Wayfarer

05-04-2003, 09:43 AM

I still contend that hardline Purists like Wayfarer are ignoring the overall messages of the films and focusing on specific deviations from the film.
<soapbox/>

I submit for everyone on this forum: Have I, or have I not, argued above that that (and I quote myself) "Jackson's Films have made a blatent and consistent effort to weaken the character of Frodo."

Now, I ask of you all, Is objecting to this being 'caught up in the details'?
I don't think so. Because when such broad, sweeping, and generalized changes are made, they are obviously more than 'specific instances'.

I must note finally that BB has answered exactly none of my three questions. Is this because he cannot give an answer that will not weaken his stated position? You be the judge but, alas, only he can tell.

With that, I must challenge again:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

Or, in a more general form, of all the changes made:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes weaken or strengthen the story?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme?

I think you will find that, in far to many cases, the answer is a resounding no. And I think you will agree that, when an overwhelming majority of them is unnescessary, harmful, and in violent opposition to tolkien, the films as a whole can be no better.

Artanis

05-04-2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
An example of what I'm trying to say goes back to my earlier discussion with Mrs. Maggot about Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen. MM said it was bogus for Aragorn to watch Frodo and Sam head off to Mordor and not follow them (even though book Aragorn essentially did the same thing.) But there is yet another aspect to that scene that PJ is communicating: the belief in a greater force: God / Fate / Destiny.Wow. You saw religion there? I saw only logical necessity. Frodo needed to continue alone, or else the members of the Fellowship would be destroyed by the temptation to take the Ring. This is what Aragorn realized, both in the movie and in the book, only in the movie he saw it before Frodo went, and in the book it happened afterwards. This opens for one of the most siginificant moments in the movie, when Aragorn denies the Ring and lets Frodo go, fulfilling Arwen's foretelling in Rivendell: "You will face the same evil, and you will defeat it".

Lizra

05-04-2003, 10:50 AM

Being non religious ;) , I (of course) see mostly destiny there. The lines that 'echo' for me (from the film) are Gandalf to Frodo...You were meant to have the ring, and that is encouraging, and ....there are other forces at work besides evil (or what ever he says to that effect, butcher job here! :rolleyes: ) Also Galadriel to Frodo....If you do not find a way, no one will. When Aragron closes Frodo's hand around the ring, I just assume....His destiny has enabled him to rise above "the desire", unlike Isilder and Boromir, (Faramir has 'reluctantly' :eek: fallen in line with Aragorn also!)Aragorn's wisdom enables him to go beyond "normal" Ranger worries, and trust to fate that Frodo was selected and will find a way.....because there are forces other than evil (and hopefully stronger than evil, though this is not apparent to the weak) at work. I have now revealed myself as a plot "Simpleton" :D perhaps, but it works for me!

Black Breathalizer

05-04-2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Artanis
Wow. You saw religion there? I saw only logical necessity. But some people have argued (about both the book and the film versions) that the most logical course of action would have been for Aragorn to follow Frodo. To address this perception, Jackson heightened the lure of the ring to make it easier for a film audience to accept Aragorn's decision. But even then, some posters like Mrs Maggott still haven't accepted it. In a nutshell, their feelings are that the risk of a lone hobbit going off alone was far greater than the risk of Aragorn being seduced by the ring the same way Boromir was. So, from their POV, Aragorn's decision was illogical.

Which brings us to Lizra's examples from the film. Jackson made a point of bringing up God/Destiny/Fate earlier in the movie with some wonderful scenes. So when Aragorn says, "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands," it becomes a very natural continuation of the religious overtones of the film. We are led to believe that Aragorn's decision wasn't just based on logic alone but on a feeling that Frodo going off without him was "meant to be" just as Frodo having the ring was "meant to be."

Artanis

05-04-2003, 12:32 PM

All right, I see your point. The 'religious' tones is of course present in the books and the movies. Still, I think the main reason behind Aragorn's choice was his own temptation of the Ring. It is Frodo's "Can you protect me from yourself?" that makes him realize that Frodo is doing the right thing, and Aragorn's trust (faith if you wish) in divine powers serves only as a comfort and a support of his decision, after it is made. "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands" is to me the consequence of Aragorn's choice to let him go.

Lizra, I don't believe it's destiny that enables Aragorn to resist the Ring, I think it's his bloodline that helps him to recognize evil and resist it, and taking the right decisions. The inheritance from the Elves and from Melian. This is of course not in the movie, but I bring it with me from the books, I can't help it. :D

Lizra

05-04-2003, 01:20 PM

Yes, I guess I'm sure I'm muddling his bloodline and destiny together. :) Of course, "the same blood flows in his veins (Isilder) that flows in mine." (Aragorn) so there must be more than the blood. Same problem with Boromir and Faramir, same blood, different choices. Probably the "good" training they have recieved from Gandalf!

Artanis

05-04-2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Lizra
Yes, I guess I'm sure I'm muddling his bloodline and destiny together. :) Of course, "the same blood flows in his veins (Isilder) that flows in mine." (Aragorn) so there must be more than the blood.Aragorn's friendship with Gandalf as you say, and perhaps the fact that he was brought up in Rivendell. Besides, he had the opportunity to learn from Isildur's mistake.Same problem with Boromir and Faramir, same blood, different choices. This is what Gandalf says about Denethor in the book:He is not as other men of this time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son, Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best.Faramir took interest in the lore of his people, Boromir did not. (Bringing in the book again. I know, I'm irredeemable ;) )

Black Breathalizer

05-04-2003, 02:08 PM

TV Announcer: (whispering) Hello and welcome to CourtTV. We're here in the county courtroom, site of The Trial of Peter Jackson...Wayfarer, the district attorney of Entmoot County is about to question Jackson's superstar defense attorney, Black Breathalizer...let's listen in:

******************

Wayfarer: I submit for everyone on this countroom: Have I, or have I not, argued above that that (and I quote myself) "Jackson's Films have made a blatent and consistent effort to weaken the character of Frodo."

(There are nods of agreement from the courtroom audience as Wayfarer pauses for dramatic effect as he looks into the faces of the jury.)

Wayfarer: Now, I ask of you all, is objecting to this being 'caught up in the details'? I don't think so. Because when such broad, sweeping, and generalized changes are made, they are obviously more than 'specific instances'.

I must note finally that Jackson's defense attorney, BB, has NOT answered my three questions. Is this because he cannot give an answer that will not weaken his stated position? You be the judge but, alas, only he can tell. With that, I must challenge again...

(Wayfarer approaches the witness stand where a bored-looking chap wearing a Ringwraith hood and cloak which partially hide his distinguished features sits twiddling his fingers waiting for Wayfarer to bring his pompous speech to a conclusion.)

Wayfarer: Mr. Breathalizer, are these changes regarding Frodo necessary for the book to work on film?

BB: Necessary? It depends on your definition of the word. There are multiple ways that a screenwriter could have written Frodo's character. It's pure conjecture whether the strict interpretation you preferred would have made the films a better adaptation or as critically successful and popular as Jackson's choices. It's awfully hard to argue with PJ's results. In addition to showing Frodo's courage, Jackson was challenged to create the "everyman" quality of the character from the book. IMHO, he did a great job of generating empathy from the audience.

Wayfarer: Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?

BB: What changes do you mean?

Wayfarer: You know, the changes from the book.

BB: Oh, you mean the specific instances like at Weathertop and the flight to the ford?

Wayfarer: ha ha ha...just answer the question.

BB: No, I do NOT agree that these changes from the book weaken the character of Frodo Baggins. Is Frodo protrayed exactly like the book? No. But let's remember that in addition to creating the everyman quality of Frodo from the books, Jackson was guided by an even higher Tolkien theme: Keeping it REAL.

BB: The reality of the books worked. Would the reality of some of the book's scenes translated to film have worked as well? That's an open debate. If I had been unfamiliar with the book, what would I have been thinking in the audience when little Frodo ran off with that big horse all by himself? Would I have thought, "gee, how brave and courageous he is?" OR would I have thought, "how in the world is he staying on that horse?" "how does he know where the heck he's going?" "how is Frodo able to guide that horse when he's so badly wounded?" "Why are the others allowing a critically wounded Frodo to ride off alone?" Thanks to Jackson's treatment of the character, by the end of the first film, Frodo came off both BELIEVABLE and COURAGEOUS.

Wayfarer: Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

BB: Of course. There are many instances of that to be found in the two (plus one on the way) films. Strider, Galadriel, Eomer, and Treebeard are all examples of that to be seen in the films thus far.

*************

TV Announcer: (breaking in) Wow...another BRILLIANT defense by BB. This reporter was certainly impressed. It looks like an uphill battle for the Purists at this point. And now a word from our sponsor...

Elf Girl

05-04-2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
EXACTLY, and THAT is the problem. GW picked out a revised scene he hated from the first third of the first film and proceeded to damn PJ's entire portrayal of the character based on it rather than SEEING HOW JACKSON DEVELOPS THE CHARACTER during the course of the film!!! This is a FILM. Film's have character arcs!!! By the end of the film, Jackson's Frodo IS the book's Frodo, he simply took a professional screenwriter's approach versus a novelist's approach to getting there.
But how is it necessary to have Frodo be so weak from the start? And why would the Council entrust him with the Ring if he is so weak to the devices of the Enemy? *coughofferingupRingstoNazgulcough*

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Huh?!??! What do you mean it wasn't there?!?!?! The "can you protect me from yourself?" IS the temptation of Aragorn. We watch Aragorn stare at the ring...we hear the ring calling out to him...we see him reach out for the ring...and close Frodo's fingers around it. What do you call that?
I call it part of something that was from hours earlier in the movie and I- not you, now, just me- had completely forgotten about.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Exhibit A: boxofficemojo.com: check out the boxoffice receipts for Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit B: check out rottentomatos.com and check out the reviews of Jackson's FOTR and TTT. Exhibit C: Check out how many movie-related items are being sold on the internet. (Maybe this is a red herring though -- all these items could be going unsold, right?) Exhibit D: check out the number of hits the first movie trailer for ROTK gets when it is released on the internet in June or July. Now let's see YOUR reality, Elf Girl. :) :) :)
Plenty of violent disgusting horror movies sell well. Does that make them 'good'? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I did not enjoy those movies. As for selling well, again, that relates to how well the masses enjoyed them. As for being a good adaptation, what on earth does money have to do with that? Even you must admit that the majority of the audience has not read Tolkien. They enjoy (or do not enjoy) the movies for what they are. Most Tolkien fans adoring them- I don't know. I don't adore them.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Elf Girl: Just out of curiosity, was there any tiny miniscule detail of the films you thought could have been done a tiny bit better?

BB: Yep. :)
*gasp* *jaw drops* I'm shocked. O do, do tell me what.

Elf Girl

05-04-2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
1. Don't automatically assume I'm addressing you (whoever you are) unless I mention you directly.
Will keep in mind.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
2. Don't get my style confused with my message. 99% of the time, I'm writing this stuff with a huge smile on my face. If you get upset with a perceived "holier than thou" attitude on my part, then maybe you can begin to understand how the rest of us who belong to the illiterate, movie-going masses feel when some uppity Tolkien book purist turns up his nose at our beloved films.
If you have a smile on your face, please share it with a smilie face as suggested in the Entmoot rules.

And Eru! Please supply a quote from anyone on this thread beside yourself saying that non-purists are 'illiterate, movie-going masses'.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
3. Believe it or not, I like you Purists and others like GW who have different opinions from me. If I didn't I wouldn't hang around here. Differing opinions are what make these threads interesting to read. I would rather be in a discussion forum with people who challenge me on my POV than to be posting in a boring (although obviously wise and enlightened :)) place where everyone views things the same way I do.
Glad to hear it. Again, please post your definition of 'purist', since you think it's an insult.

Elf Girl

05-04-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You mistake the passion I have for my POV with the need to "convert" everyone. I playfully talk about reeducating Purists but my positions and approaches are not much different from many of you with opposing viewpoints. You just notice mine more because you happen to disagree with me.
If you are being, 'playful', again please use smiley face. Very hard to tell when you talk about some of us as being the scum of the earth or something similar.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I still contend that hardline Purists like Wayfarer are ignoring the overall messages of the films and focusing on specific deviations from the film. Can Tolkien films be made with a more macho Frodo at the beginning third of FOTR? Yeah. Can the Old Forest and Tom be put in? You bet. Would that guarantee a successful film OR a successful adaptation? Absolutely not.
Excuse me. 'Specific deviations'. Tell me a way, beside citing specific incidents, that we can determine a character's character in the movies.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Adapting a long story to film is always going to be about a screenwriter/director deciding what ingredients -- and in what amounts -- to put into the stew. If you expect the cook to use ALL of the ingredients in exactly the same quantities, you're being horribly niave and unrealistic. Telling a compelling story through film is very different from telling it in a book.
Agreed.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
An example of what I'm trying to say goes back to my earlier discussion with Mrs. Maggot about Aragorn's decision at Parth Galen. MM said it was bogus for Aragorn to watch Frodo and Sam head off to Mordor and not follow them (even though book Aragorn essentially did the same thing.) But there is yet another aspect to that scene that PJ is communicating: the belief in a greater force: God / Fate / Destiny.
I'm sorry, but I did not understand that. So Aragorn let Frodo go off alone (he didn't know about Sam) because he thought, 'Well, God will watch over them.'

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
One of the underlying themes of Tolkien's books is religion: the power of faith and the belief in God. Sadly, most modern filmmakers have balked at any overtly religious messages in their films. To Peter Jackson's credit, he brought Tolkien's religious themes to his films whatever he felt personally (and I have no idea how he feels.)
The closest to religion I can see in the books is 'Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, so you were meant to have it. And that is an encougaging thought.' (Not sure if that's quite right, don't have my books on hand.)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
PJ examined that section of the book and asked the same questions we've been grappling with: "why the hell did Aragorn leave Frodo and go after Merry & Pippin?" PJ believed Tolkien's own answer to that question for Aragorn was: Frodo's fate was no longer in his hands. Mrs. Maggott and others may disagree with that assessment, but my point is that Peter Jackson's decision was just as grounded in Tolkien as any alternative approach you book purists would have suggested.
Aha! Finally! PJ believed. Which does not make that the ultimate truth. My answer to that question is 'Cuz he didn't know he was going.'

Elf Girl

05-04-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But some people have argued (about both the book and the film versions) that the most logical course of action would have been for Aragorn to follow Frodo. To address this perception, Jackson heightened the lure of the ring to make it easier for a film audience to accept Aragorn's decision. But even then, some posters like Mrs Maggott still haven't accepted it. In a nutshell, their feelings are that the risk of a lone hobbit going off alone was far greater than the risk of Aragorn being seduced by the ring the same way Boromir was. So, from their POV, Aragorn's decision was illogical.
But again, what's wrong with him not knowing which hobbits are which? I think it's the other way around: PJ wanted Aragorn seduced by the Ring, so he made those episodes to show it.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Which brings us to Lizra's examples from the film. Jackson made a point of bringing up God/Destiny/Fate earlier in the movie with some wonderful scenes. So when Aragorn says, "Frodo's fate is no longer in our hands," it becomes a very natural continuation of the religious overtones of the film. We are led to believe that Aragorn's decision wasn't just based on logic alone but on a feeling that Frodo going off without him was "meant to be" just as Frodo having the ring was "meant to be."
Again, 'I'll let him go off alone, because God will watch over him.'

Elf Girl

05-04-2003, 03:25 PM

And now I come to your latest post, BB. That 'cute' little 'court' thing, where you pasted stupid labels on our beloved insufferable Wayfarer. Shame!

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Necessary? It depends on your definition of the word. There are multiple ways that a screenwriter could have written Frodo's character. It's pure conjecture whether the strict interpretation you preferred would have made the films a better adaptation or as critically successful and popular as Jackson's choices. It's awfully hard to argue with PJ's results. In addition to showing Frodo's courage, Jackson was challenged to create the "everyman" quality of the character from the book. IMHO, he did a great job of generating empathy from the audience.
So. A weak hero getting kicked out the door by a wizard works better then a noble-but-not-sure-of-own-ability one. And the weak one is definitely more likely to be permitted to bear the Ring.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Oh, you mean the specific instances like at Weathertop and the flight to the ford?
Specific instances are the only way to determine what a movie character's overall character is. Just add them up, and you've got it.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
No, I do NOT agree that these changes from the book weaken the character of Frodo Baggins. Is Frodo protrayed exactly like the book? No. But let's remember that in addition to creating the everyman quality of Frodo from the books, Jackson was guided by an even higher Tolkien theme: Keeping it REAL.
Did he need to 'create the everyman quality'? I think the instances from the book portray it rather well. And what instances from the book need to be made more 'real'? Tolkien's characters are pretty well-drawn, don't you think?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The reality of the books worked. Would the reality of some of the book's scenes translated to film have worked as well? That's an open debate.
It is indeed. Thank you for admitting it. However, it is also open debate whether the reality of the books worked.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
If I had been unfamiliar with the book, what would I have been thinking in the audience when little Frodo ran off with that big horse all by himself? Would I have thought, "gee, how brave and courageous he is?" OR would I have thought, "how in the world is he staying on that horse?" "how does he know where the heck he's going?" "how is Frodo able to guide that horse when he's so badly wounded?" "Why are the others allowing a critically wounded Frodo to ride off alone?"
You would have thought 'How in the world is he staying on that horse?' instead of 'Gee, how brave and courageous he is,' for the Ford scene, but you thought, 'Look at how Aragorn trusts the will of God,' as opposed to 'Why the heck is he letting Frodo go off alone?' in that little inserted scene?

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thanks to Jackson's treatment of the character, by the end of the first film, Frodo came off both BELIEVABLE and COURAGEOUS.
Please enlighten me as to how being carried across a river by a hot Xena elf babe is couragous.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer

Wayfarer: Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?

BB: There are many instances of that to be found in the two (plus one on the way) films. Strider, Galadriel, Eomer, and Treebeard are all examples of that to be seen in the films thus far.
So the fact that Frodo does not comply seems odd to me, he being the star.

(Sorry about the bolding, I can't make it go away. I do not mean any special emphasis about it.)

Gwaimir Windgem

05-04-2003, 04:36 PM

I would like to point out that Frodo was not, in fact, an "everyman". He was a very wealthy Hobbit, belonging to an old and respected family, and also quite a scholar and loremaster. How many Hobbits know even a smidgeon of Elvish?

RÃan

05-04-2003, 07:05 PM

(just to throw a little fuel on the fire.... :D)

While doing my paperwork, I popped on the director's commentary, and while I missed some of it (during particularly exciting moments with the checkbook), I really didn't hear PJ talk about improving, just enhancing.

However, I DID get the following from Philippa, during Boromir's death scene (at 1:26:30) - "I think this moment is better than the moment in the book" ..."and I do think it was a failing of Professor Tolkien's" (talking about how the movie, in her opinion, had improved the "emotional content and connection" between Aragorn and Boromir).

*flees the thread*

Lizra

05-04-2003, 07:26 PM

Well....I agree! Boromir's death is better in the movie! Sue me! ;) Why is it such blasphemy to like a scene better. No insult to Tolikien intended! My goodness, he wrote the whole fantastical kit and kaboodle! The ME mythology is more pleasurable than art class, and more complex than chemistry. I think a scene that is better is not a threat! What a big deal! (as my grandmother would say :) )

Black Breathalizer

05-04-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I would like to point out that Frodo was not, in fact, an "everyman". He was a very wealthy Hobbit, belonging to an old and respected family, and also quite a scholar and loremaster. How many Hobbits know even a smidgeon of Elvish?My "everyman" comment refers to the literary term for a character that the readers develop a special empathy for and identity with. We "live the story" through an everyman person.

Many believe that while Frodo was the everyman character in FOTR, the readers begin to identify more with Sam as Frodo becomes increasingly burdened by the ring.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-04-2003, 07:52 PM

I do agree with that (in regards to the book, as Sam didn't really become the "empathee" until ROTK, in my opinion).

Liz: Tisn't blasphemy to think it's better. I just don't. :p ;)

I'm sure Rian posted that in regards to the discussion of whether or not PJ (and Co.) think that they have improved upon Tolkien. :) Which I personally don' think is possible :D and other people I know don't think has been done. :)

RÃan

05-04-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I'm sure Rian posted that in regards to the discussion of whether or not PJ (and Co.) think that they have improved upon Tolkien....
Yes, I did - someone was asking for a referenced quote, so I threw that in for info (and for fun :D )

I really liked that scene in the movie, BTW - it didn't seem out of character for either guy. I thought the book was great, too, in that part. I miss the laments over Boromir, tho.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-04-2003, 08:16 PM

Ditto. :) (in regards to everything, except throwing the quote in there ;))

durin's bane

05-04-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Elvengirl
I pretty much agree with you. I thought FOTR was great.
No PJ did not change the basic plot of the story and I understand that he couldn't put every single part in the movie (Tom Bombadill). I think the scenes that stayed true to the book (or as close as possible) were very well done and did capture Tolkien's vision.

But the changes he did make were not for the better, such as Arwen's flight to the ford, Faramir and Osgiliath, Haldir's death, and Aragorn's cliff scene. They were ridiculous changes that did nothing to enhance the story. They were a waste of time that could have been used to include some of Tolkien's great work. That is what I am disappointed about.

Exactly. I completely agree with you.
If Jackson can find the time to make pointless scenes like that, then he has no excuse to say, "Well, I couldn't make room for Tom Bombadil, etc."

Wayfarer

05-04-2003, 08:36 PM

And now I come to your latest post, BB. That 'cute' little 'court' thing, where you pasted stupid labels on our beloved insufferable Wayfarer. Shame!

Actually. *eyeshift* I thought that whole thing was funny. :D

I'd just like to get out of the way that I have as much sympathy for BB as I do for anybody. We have definite similarities in our *cough* insufferable styles. ;)

But still, I think it clearly illustrates Breathalizers attempts to obfuscate (which is a big word that means 'hide') his lack of a good answer by using cute stuff.

Necessary? It depends on your definition of the word. How... Clintonesque, eh? The fact is that the film would have worked as well or better the way tolkien originally wrote it in many instances. Even jackson has admitted it.

Oh, you mean the specific instances like at Weathertop and the flight to the ford?

If by 'specific instances' you mean 'every time frodo appeared in the films' then yes. ;)

Jackson was guided by an even higher Tolkien theme: Keeping it REAL.

You mean 'keeping it real' by making aragorn, legolas, and gimli invincible killing machines while reducing the main character to a snivelling coward?

Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?
BB: Of course. There are many instances of that to be found in the two (plus one on the way) films. Strider, Galadriel, Eomer, and Treebeard are all examples of that to be seen in the films thus far.

Um... You're an idiot?

That's all I can say to someone who would claim the above characters are suitable replacements for the strength that has been stolen from frodo.

Again and again, BlackBreathalizer, you will make a weak defense and then try to pass it off as something strong. Your tactic is a complete and utter failure.

I liked the films enough to watch them several times over, but the more I do the more uncomfortable I become with them. The fact is that this is another crappy jackson B-movie with a thin veneer of Tolkien glossed over it.

Gwaimir Windgem

05-04-2003, 08:57 PM

I'd just like to get out of the way that I have as much sympathy for BB as I do for anybody

That little, eh? ;)

azalea

05-04-2003, 11:51 PM

Lol, good one, GW!:)

Gwaimir Windgem

05-05-2003, 12:22 AM

No offense to Wayfarer, of course. :) I just couldn't resist...;)

Wayfarer

05-05-2003, 12:41 AM

You do realize the exact same thought crossed my mind when I was writing that, don't you?

Gwaimir Windgem

05-05-2003, 09:03 AM

I figured it would. :D

Melko Belcha

05-05-2003, 10:57 AM

I don't know why I'm putting it in this thread, but oh well.

http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=334

I find it interesting that Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul has been there since the begining. I love where it says, 'There is a hint to this in The Two Towers'. There's more then a hint.

Black Breathalizer

05-05-2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Melko Belcha
I find it interesting that Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul has been there since the begining. I love where it says, 'There is a hint to this in The Two Towers'. There's more then a hint. Just to set the record straight since its been mentioned more than once in this thread: Frodo did not show the ring to the Nazgul in TTT. He was tempted to put on the ring - not show it off -- or worse yet, give it -- to the Nazgul.

What the audience sees is Frodo holding up the ring to put it on since it was still attached to the necklace around his neck.

IronParrot

05-05-2003, 01:59 PM

I'm ridiculously behind in reading this thread, and I don't think I'll ever catch up (let alone respond to all of this), and it seems like this has degenerated into yet another debate of the same points over and over and over... but BB, if you need some help, just blow the Horn of Gondor. ;) Even though I wouldn't stretch some of the finer points quite as far as you're taking them.

Elf Girl

05-05-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Just to set the record straight since its been mentioned more than once in this thread: Frodo did not show the ring to the Nazgul in TTT. He was tempted to put on the ring - not show it off -- or worse yet, give it -- to the Nazgul.
Hold it. That's what you think. I saw Frodo about to give the Ring to the Nazgul. (Little details like the chain notwithstanding. We know it comes off the chain sometimes. ) I'll ask around my school and see what the un-Tolkien-read people thought.

All that work... answering BB's each and every post... and he ignores it. :(

Elf Girl

05-05-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
My "everyman" comment refers to the literary term for a character that the readers develop a special empathy for and identity with. We "live the story" through an everyman person.
Okay.

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Many believe that while Frodo was the everyman character in FOTR, the readers begin to identify more with Sam as Frodo becomes increasingly burdened by the ring.
That seems better for the story. To truly see what Frodo is suffering, we need a little space between him and us. To see how it shows.

Elf Girl

05-05-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Actually. *eyeshift* I thought that whole thing was funny. :D
Shame! ;)

Black Breathalizer

05-05-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Hold it. That's what you think. I saw Frodo about to give the Ring to the Nazgul.

All that work... answering BB's each and every post... and he ignores it. :( Ha, NO ONE could ever ignore you, Elf Girl! :)

But you are dead-wrong about the Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgilith scene. Trust me, I've studied that scene VERY carefully. He is not offering up the ring.

Elf Girl

05-05-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Ha, NO ONE could ever ignore you, Elf Girl! :)
O no! ;)

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
But you are dead-wrong about the Frodo and the Nazgul in Osgilith scene. Trust me, I've studied that scene VERY carefully. He is not offering up the ring.
But PJ did not make the movies for someone who is going to study it very carefully. He made them for someone who will glance at it and say "Oh, Frodo's doing this." And to me, at first glance, it looked like Frodo was offering the Ring to the Nazgul.

Elf Girl

05-05-2003, 08:14 PM

Here (http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots_ttt/ttt_b4c06_scene2.htm) they label one shot "Frodo offering the Ring to a Nazgul". Just thought you might be interested that I am not alone on this.

(Hover your cursor over the closeup of Frodo lifting the Ring on it's chain.)

Elf Girl

05-05-2003, 08:18 PM

O, and I will add one more thing:
Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
...please provide specific examples...
Emphasis mine.

IronParrot

05-05-2003, 09:08 PM

Scrolling down this massive thread, I came across a post by Wayfarer that grabbed my attention because it was in colour. It is worth a response:
I challenge BlackBreathalizer, no I DEFY him, or ANY OF YOU to answer the following three questions:

1) Are these changes nescessary for the book to work on film?
2) Do these changes not severly weaken the character of Frodo Baggins?
3) Do these changes hold with Tolkien's theme, which had Frodo demonstrating that strength and wisdom can be found in unlikely places?
Time for me to step up to the plate here.

In The Books:
Frodo spends months, almost a year, planning to leave the Shire, working out the smallest details, hardening his resolve to leave everything behind and make a journey from which he was not sure he would return. He takes his friends along, planning to abandon them in Crickethollow

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo spends perhaps five minutes packing, before he and Sam are literally sent off by Gandalf. There is no planning or resolve, and very little effort on his part.
1.) The necessity of the change in pace is obvious. In a book, you can push and pull with the pacing all you like. In a film, you need a consistent dramatic rhythm that can furthermore be presented in a visual sense. How would we show Frodo planning everything out, selling Bag End and all that jazz? There obviously isn't enough time to flesh everything out into a scene of its own, and a montage of all his preparations would not only seem cheesy - it would in fact seem even more rushed.

2.) No, this does not weaken Frodo's character at all. Given the urgency of the situation, I would say that Frodo was placed in a particularly difficult situation of having to make a decision quickly. If anything, Frodo's procrastination in the book was weakness on his part. Note that Gandalf instructed him to leave earlier, only those instructions never reached the Shire.

3.) Yes, unless you can demonstrate that this change suddenly makes Frodo a "likely place" for strength and wisdom. Because it is indeed out of his own strength and wisdom that he accepts the responsibility that has been laid upon him, regardless of the fact that Gandalf advises that he does so. Remember, even in the book, Frodo didn't come up with the idea of leaving the Shire all by himself.

In The Books:
Again, Frodo had planned out his journy from the shire. He knew where he was going, and how he was going to get there. When a horseman came up the path behind them, he cheerfully suggested that they should get off the road. When the Black Riders begin hounding him he immediately showed initiative by taking them on a 'short cut' cross country.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo was, as previously stated, merely shooed out the door. Rather than take his friends with him, he runs into Merry and Pippen by accident. When a black rider comes along the path, he becomes progressively more panicked until he screams at the others to get off the road. When it becomes clear that the black riders are following him, he is unable to face Merry, who broaches the subject. As they are leaving the shire, he demonstrates no initiative, and needs to be told that they should take the ferry.
1) Never mind the fact that these two examples are only loosely related, let alone diametrically opposed, but no matter. This is a necessary change because... actually, I don't see that it's changed at all. Because of the simultaneity of Gandalf's ride to Orthanc, his goal was to get to Bree, and nothing more, while in the book, much more is revealed earlier. He also does not need to plan for Crickhollow in between. Therefore, there's no reason why he should have incorporated the ferry in his travel plans, and it's clear that geographically, the Black Rider threw him off. The claim that Frodo demonstrates no initiative is founded only on the point that Merry is the one who suggests the ferry, which doesn't make any sense, as you pointed out one sentence before that Frodo was the one commanding the others to get off the road. Just because Merry employs his knowledge of the area in a time of need doesn't suddenly make Frodo useless. You'll also note, again, that there was a greater sense of urgency involved here; the Black Rider got closer to catching him than in the book, for visual dramatic tension's sake, and that demands immediate and impulsive action.

2) I believe the burden of proof is on you here to demonstrate how Frodo has been significantly weakened. Right now, there's nothing for me to refute.

3) Can strength and wisdom be found in unlikely places in this scenario? Certainly. For example, Merry broaches the subject and suggests the ferry as "the nearest crossing." Expected Frodo to say that, didn't ya?

IronParrot

05-05-2003, 09:08 PM

In The Books:
Frodo agrees to go into the Old Forest, and sings a song to ward off the gloom. Then, he and sam try to rescue merry and pippin from the Willow, until Bombadil comes along.
After leaving bombadil, and a brief period while frodo takes them back to say goodbye to goldberry, the hobbits become seperated and captured. Nevertheless, Frodo shows enough courage to attack the wight and save his friends, though he'd rather run. Then he calls bombadil and they are rescued.

In Jackson's Films:
Entire Sequence was Cut
1) Time, pacing, focus, and every other screenwriting rule in the book.

2) Considering that this is an omission, not a change, it's really not possible to say whether or not it severely weakens Frodo as a character. If you claimed that it was so, then you would be arguing something along the lines of, "if Frodo didn't save his friends in the Downs, he would have been a useless wimp." Bollocks.

3) Yes, courage and wisdom can be found in unlikely places, and the whole Bombadil tangent was a pretty likely place to cut.

In The Books:
On weathertop, Frodo draws his sword and attacks the Witch-King, uttering the name of Elbereth and turning a blow which would have stricken his heart into one which merely struck his shoulder.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo draws his sword, allright, then drops it and falls on his butt, and then offers the ring to the wraith for a moment before taking it back and getting stabbed in the shoulder for some reason.
1) As there is no way in the film to demonstrate their psychological impact without using visuals, it was only natural that fear and intimidation be presented by showing the impact on the victim. It was a visual atmosphere of fear. Furthermore, the Elbereth thing would make no sense, as the encounter with Gildor was excised. And remember, in the book, that was what most threatened the Ringwraiths.

2) This change perhaps doesn't make Frodo weaker as much as it makes the Ringwraiths a more imposing presence, as you'll notice with how they loom over him, almost as if their shadows push him to the ground. Wouldn't want to break the flow of a nice shot like that.

3) Here, strength can still be found in an unlikely place - namely, Sam. Theme remains intact.

In The Books:
Frodo endures the wound for two weeks, and manages to walk most of the way to rivendell under his own power.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is unable to walk and is near death later that same night (or so it is implied).
1) By having the wound affect Frodo to that extent, the sense of urgency is heightened, and the pacing of the film is thereby kept consistent. Furthermore, Frodo's pain can only be described visually, which naturally forces it to be presented more strongly in a visual sense. Remember, this is that one lasting scar that he succumbs to year after year (Shelob aside). That might as well be believable on the screen.

2) I fail to see how making the impact of the Morgul-blade stronger suddenly makes Frodo a significantly weaker character. You're also factually wrong, in that he did not walk most of the way to Rivendell - he spent a good deal of it atop Bill the Pony, as I recall.

3) You'll hate me for saying this, but Arwen was a pretty unlikely place to find strength and hope in this time of need... funny how that one sequence suddenly makes her a warrior princess, and Frodo a useless weakling, eh?

IronParrot

05-05-2003, 09:08 PM

In The Books:
Glorfindel sets Frodo on his own horse, with orders to flee if they are attacked. Nevertheless, Frodo is hesitent to abandon his friends in danger, so Glorfindel is forced to have the horse flee across the fords on its own. Frodo passes within feet of the nazgul, but manages to reach the ford. Upon crossing, he turns, draws his sword, and defies the assembled nine- "By elbereth and luthien the fair, you shall have neither the ring nor me!" In answer, the witch king renders him mute, breaks his sword, and knocks him from his horse. He lies unconscious and barely sees the nazgul as they are swept away.

In Jackson's Films:
Frodo is carried, half conscious, by Arwen, who fights through to the fords where she turns, draws her sword, and defies the assembled nine- "if you want him, come and claim him". The witch king replies by trying to cross the fords, while arwen begins chanting a spell. The nazgul continue anyway, and are swept away, but frodo is too busy fainting/trying to die, and Arwen has to use elven magic to revive him.
1) I've already discussed the Elbereth issue. The other changes - specifically, the degree to which Frodo succumbs to the wound - are merely an extension of what I have already explained above. There's also the whole bit with finding an appropriate place to introduce Arwen in a format where appendices don't exist, which is an overdone discussion of its own. And where in the heck does Arwen use Elven magic to revive him? Remember, her calling upon the Bruinen and everything is no different than Elrond doing the same in the book, and does not reflect on Frodo whatsoever.

2) Again, just because the wound appears to be stronger doesn't make Frodo, as a character, a weaker person. Are we to judge the strength and weakness of characters solely by their resistance to wounds? If that's the case, then please don't even presume to discuss Frodo, as even in the book, he's about as poked and prodded as a central character can be.

3) I have a lot of trouble filling out these #3s, you know, because the cited examples of changes are so irrelevant to how intact the theme of "strength and wisdom in unlikely places" remains. I suppose that holds if you tautologically define "Frodo" as "an unlikely place" - but seeing as how he's arguably the main character and all, Frodo would be one of the first places I'd look.

Perhaps the key line to understanding Frodo as a character, in both the book and the film: "I will take the Ring to Mordor - though I do not know the way." The film in no way absolves Frodo of the same challenges and responsibilities he undertakes throughout the course of the story. You will notice that by the time ROTK rolls around, Frodo breaks down to become exactly the character you claim he isn't supposed to be. And fundamentally, a line has to be drawn between physical strength and courage, and that which belongs to the heart. The cited examples of Frodo crying out "Elbereth" in precarious situations are not the best case for demonstrating Tolkien's theme of courage in unlikely places: instead, that lies in his continued ability to do the right thing - no matter the cost. Watch that scene where Frodo, thinking his part in the tale was over just a few scenes prior, demands to be the Ring-bearer - three times. Is that not courage? Is that not strength? Try claiming that it isn't while maintaining a straight face. You'd have better luck juggling palantir, all seven of'em.